Dec. 10th, 2020 12:31 pm
The danger of politicized science
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
oakfarmI have in the past mentioned that I, on social media, stopped following several Americans and one Britt because I was disappointed on how they wrote about Covid-19. Was that too rash of me? Perhaps. Were they more right than wrong? Perhaps. But if you want me to explain more, beside petty personal bias, just read the following.
I remember years ago when someone on facebook shared what a musician had said about glyphosate. He, the musician, criticized the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) Committee for Risk Assessment and their decision on glyphosate. Is this a hallmark of politicized science, that public figures, like musicians, think they are the right person to criticize scientists? If it’s politically correct to have one specific opinion about a subject, people will support it, no matter if they are qualified or not. It’s politically correct to dislike a herbicide associated with both Monsanto (a brand name no longer in use) and GMO, therefore a musician can have opinions about the science around it? That’s part of my criticism of mentioned people. If we have a situation where historians or Star Trek actors pretend they are not only experts on pandemic fighting, but experts on fighting a pandemic caused by a new virus, that no one knows anything about, I’m going to assume it’s because of political reasons.
Two, the more disturbing part of the same phenomena - that I haven’t fully understood until now - was that politicizing it in a polarized country means that the other side is evil. The people in question had no intention of listening to the other side. I recently read the article: Facts not fear will end the pandemic by lockdown-sceptic Dr. Jay Bhattacharya. Do you think Jay Bhattacharya is wrong? Fine, as a layman I shouldn’t say this, but yeah, suspect so too. But that doesn’t mean he’s stupid, or that he’s evil. We must still be able to listen to each other. If the other side is just 5% right, why not incorporate those 5% the official policy, instead of pretending that everyone doesn't agree with you is evil? And we will always need people in the public debate that can criticize populistic policy driven by panic, even if you think it was right this time. And it must be ok to point out drawbacks of every policy, even if it’s a policy you think is necessary.
Ps. I wrote “petty personal bias”, the fact I can be an optimist isn’t one of those petty biases. That I hoped this was something we has humanity could solve, without draconian laws and involvement of the monopoly on violence, that’s the kind of biases I have that’s not petty.
I remember years ago when someone on facebook shared what a musician had said about glyphosate. He, the musician, criticized the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) Committee for Risk Assessment and their decision on glyphosate. Is this a hallmark of politicized science, that public figures, like musicians, think they are the right person to criticize scientists? If it’s politically correct to have one specific opinion about a subject, people will support it, no matter if they are qualified or not. It’s politically correct to dislike a herbicide associated with both Monsanto (a brand name no longer in use) and GMO, therefore a musician can have opinions about the science around it? That’s part of my criticism of mentioned people. If we have a situation where historians or Star Trek actors pretend they are not only experts on pandemic fighting, but experts on fighting a pandemic caused by a new virus, that no one knows anything about, I’m going to assume it’s because of political reasons.
Two, the more disturbing part of the same phenomena - that I haven’t fully understood until now - was that politicizing it in a polarized country means that the other side is evil. The people in question had no intention of listening to the other side. I recently read the article: Facts not fear will end the pandemic by lockdown-sceptic Dr. Jay Bhattacharya. Do you think Jay Bhattacharya is wrong? Fine, as a layman I shouldn’t say this, but yeah, suspect so too. But that doesn’t mean he’s stupid, or that he’s evil. We must still be able to listen to each other. If the other side is just 5% right, why not incorporate those 5% the official policy, instead of pretending that everyone doesn't agree with you is evil? And we will always need people in the public debate that can criticize populistic policy driven by panic, even if you think it was right this time. And it must be ok to point out drawbacks of every policy, even if it’s a policy you think is necessary.
Ps. I wrote “petty personal bias”, the fact I can be an optimist isn’t one of those petty biases. That I hoped this was something we has humanity could solve, without draconian laws and involvement of the monopoly on violence, that’s the kind of biases I have that’s not petty.