A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

I wrote this as a letter to the editor of the New Yorker. They apparently don't want it. Their loss is your gain.

In his May 19 article in the New Yorker, Daniel Immerwahr says, “Citing evidence, ignoring appeals to authority, reserving judgment, demanding more research—these are potentially exhausting traits in a conversational partner, but they’re also marks of a scientific mind.”

I have been a scientist and worked with academic scientists for my entire career, and only one of these traits (citing evidence) applies. Verbs like “ignore,” “reserve,” and “demand” are not apt descriptors of any scientist I know.

Scientists conduct research in order to analyze current judgements and improve the authoritative set of knowledge with testable evidence.

Photo by National Cancer Institute on Unsplash

The verbs Immerwahr uses are, however, an apt description of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and our current societal obsession of anyone who “does their own research.” And let me remind you, Kennedy is not a scientist. Him leading Health and Human Services is like calling in a doctor with no military background as Secretary of Defense.

Kennedy and his grifter colleagues stand on science denialism and in the same breath tell you that their type of science is the one you should believe. Their method of research tends to focus on internet searches and conspiracy theories. Anything that refutes their worldview gets conveniently ignored.

Their type of science does not involve a world-wide effort to conduct clinical trials, to pour over data, to question statistics and fill in gaps.

It is easy to demand more research; it is another thing entirely to conduct the research, to put it in the context of the centuries of evidence this research stands on, to put it into context, to have the pressure of an entire world bearing down on you to make decisions based on that research.

It is also easy, in retrospect, for anyone point to the moments during the pandemic and subsequent response that could-have-should-have been done differently. Especially when pointing to a pandemic that no one had ever seen the likes of before. A pandemic that grew on cracks in our systems, including systems to implement public health interventions in a uniform, decisive way so they wouldn’t have to drag on forever.

Kennedy was not on the front lines of making decisions on a moment’s notice. He was not weighing the pros and cons of the medical impact and societal impact and economic impact and psychological impact. For him, or anyone, to now crow “I told you so” is not based in any way on science. It is based on having a worldview so engrained based on fear and recalcitrance to change that they will find any reason to throw stones.

Finally, Immerwahr writes, “Rather than being “anti-science,” Kennedy seems enchanted by it.”If this were the case, Kennedy wouldn’t be dismantling the NIH and NSF with a wrecking ball. He wouldn’t be spouting opinions as facts. He wouldn’t be terminating grants that study diabetes if he really wanted to make America healthy again.

The only explanation for this is that his worldview isn’t based on science. Him saying he believes in science is an attempt at covering up his fear and bias and slide through a flock in sheep’s clothing.

In fact, the very reality that our vernacular includes the phrase, “I believe in science,” indicates how far we’ve fallen. As Neil deGrasse Tyson said, “The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” For those of us in any field of science right now, we are doing what we can to hold that truth in the light, no matter how many politicians and grifters try to snuff it out.