The Collision of Science and Politics
How the "Lab Leak" debate highlights the weird turn science has taken away from scientific principles.
Over a year ago, the very idea of bringing up the “Lab Leak Hypothesis” would put you at the fringe of society, and of course lead you to be associated with Donald Trump. Not only was this an unspoken rule of society, but was even further enforced within the scientific community. You weren’t scientific if you even entertained the idea of the HYPOTHESIS, you were merely a conspiracy theorist.
Yet we come up for air today, and the hypothesis seems to be gaining some traction. While I believe the rapid development and deployment of the COVID-19 vaccine was a scientific marvel, the conversation, or lack thereof, surrounding the possibility
of this virus escaping from a lab represents a dangerous trend science has been embracing. You either believe the proclamations of the “scientific community”, or you will suffer the consequences. You’ll be labeled delusional, a conspiracy theorist, never attain tenure, or maybe even lose your job. You are forced to fall in line. Just “Believe Science”.
If this new interest in further investigating the Lab Leak hypothesis seems like a part of the logical scientific process, I’d encourage you to strongly analyze how we got here. To be clear, I’m not familiar with many people claiming the absolute validity of this theory. The problem can be summarized in the fact that in the W.H.O.’s March paper concerning the origins of the virus, the prospect of the virus originating in a lab was talked about in just 1.3% of the pages in the paper. From an objective view, this hypothesis has simply never seen it’s fair day in court.
But science has recently decided in many cases, for better or worse, to stray from objectivity. The hypothesis didn’t need to be investigated because of who wanted to investigate it. I believe this is the result of science sticking its foot in the political realm. Should citizens be taking scientific advice from Donald Trump? I hope they wouldn’t. I also didn’t care to know that the New England Journal of Medicine wanted to “render judgement” on Donald Trump in the 2020 election. I can’t view the endorsement of ANY political candidate as a step in the right direction for science.
If you had no problem with their paper, or even saw it as a positive, I’m sure you would feel differently if they endorsed President Trump. The point is not that the Trump administration handled the early days of the pandemic well. They weren’t on point all the time. Rather, the point is that science has opened up a genie box that all scientists will have to reckon with one day. Those in control now can suppress the investigation of a valid hypothesis or endorse whomever they like. It does not move science forward, and the cards being played now will one day be played against the current dealer, and it still won’t be right.
This isn’t to say that scientists should “stay in their lane”. But past precedent served a purpose and preserved the professionalism, integrity, and aims of science as a whole. The Shopify CEO, Tobias Lütke, sent an email to his company in August that I wish the hypothetical “CEO” of Science would send to scientists around the world. In the email he addresses why “ us-vs-them divisiveness, and zero sum thinking" is a "threat"" and talks about the notion that the company is not a family, its a team. Science is not a family. Science is very much a team, working against some of the most potent and frightening opponents imaginable. The inner-working of the scientific community are becoming less like teams and more like families by the day. Research Labs and universities are plastered in virtue signaling about how they treat members and what they believe in, far cries from their missions or the valuable research going on inside.
The point is not to be cold or not address the various examples of inequality that exist within society. But teams, like those in professional sports or the Military, are glaring examples of how TEAMS focused on a mission break down barriers like race and gender. Not through signs or seminars.
This won’t be the last example of how the politicalization of science sets science back. The constant “us vs them” narrative wins no one over, and derails the goals of either party. Take the vaccine debate. Listen closely enough and you’ll here grumbling that someone must be a Republican if they haven’t been vaccinated, or that another person is a Democrat because they always wear their mask. “Believe Science” and all the accompanying yard signs are not about the very thing they claim to be about.
As Elizabeth Bruenig, An Atlantic Journalist, wrote in a recent tweet, “‘Believing in Science’ was always an expression of a moral tendency rather than a straight forward acceptance of the latest findings of various scientific authorities”.
Maybe those unvaccinated people don’t blatantly trust authority or have genuine concern about the way vaccines are championed. Sure, as one of my previous articles points out, the short term safety data on vaccines is impeccable. But there’s no valid long-term studies on the safety of the vaccine. Thus, for many its a valid belief to not get vaccinated. Yet its almost impossible to have an adult conversation about the topic, even with “scientists”. The “Believe Science” crowd fails to take into account many other methods of judgement. Most anti-vaxxers I have met are unpersuaded by the hysterical headlines because the statistical likelihood of tragedy is small enough not to outweigh the other rubrics (scientific, moral, cultural, etc.) they use in their decision not to submit themselves to the jab.
One of the great virtues of science has long been the ability to be wrong. It wasn’t the end of the world nor the end of your career. It seems we’ve entered a time where you either fall in line or you’re wrong. No discourse, no alternates, only conformity. Not only is throwing that metaphorical boomerang dangerous to others, but it will come back to bite the very people who currently champion it.
As I pursue a career in Science, I hope its marked by the humility to know when I’m wrong, adjust accordingly, and remain true to the early principles of “Science”. I want to be doubted, corrected, and humbled. Looking back on history, those who were most willing to go against the grain changed the world.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2029812
https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-suspension-entry-immigrants-nonimmigrants-persons-pose-risk-transmitting-2019-novel-coronavirus/
https://www.crisismagazine.com/2020/believe-science-you-first
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/13/science/virus-origins-lab-leak-scientists.html