The Integrity of Science
There is need for more science in politics and less politics in science. - Sir Richard John Roberts, Molecular Biologist and 1993 Nobel laureate
While humans have been learning since the first person discovered that flint makes a good knife, and many cultures have added to our understanding of the natural world and mathematics, modern science is a recent invention. One can debate the exact starting point: Francis Bacon, Sir Isaac Newton, or the explosion of advances in the 1700s as the Industrial Revolution began.
Regardless of where you draw that line, science has been the source of much of our prosperity. Antibiotics, chemical fertilizers, the electrical grid, and the device on which you are reading this are examples of the benefits of science which we largely take for granted.
While I am optimistic about the future of humanity we do have many challenges in front of us: climate change, loss of biodiversity, a youth mental health crisis, drug addiction, and future pandemics all require evidence-based solutions. However politicians, no matter how well meaning, are hostages of the electorate. Those that try to impose unpopular policies get replaced by those more in tune with the public mood. Even if supported by the best available evidence, if the majority doesn't support a policy and accept the trade offs involved it is unlikely to be successful in the long term. However, recent years have seen the integrity of science being jeopardized, which can only have a negative impact on our future.
Science, medicine, academia and research institutions are intertwined. Here I use all these terms but at some points for simplicity will generically talk about 'science'. Some examples used come from outside Canada as science is a global undertaking and ideas cross borders.
The Credibility of Science
I've come to hate the phrase "trust/follow the science" which became politicized during the pandemic. Scientific discoveries are not immutable revealed truth. Science is a system for learning, the core of which is the scientific method. As well science is a social process involving debate, peer review, and disconfirmation of results. Ideally ideas based on evidence which bears scrutiny come to be accepted.
At best science tells us what will happen under certain conditions. But it does not dictate what should be done as a result. Decisions made within societies are not science but rather politics - the total complex of relations between people living in society.
The story of science is not a straight line of successful discoveries. Ideas we now know are valid have been ignored in the past and politics has infected scientific thinking with devastating results. In recent years advice regarding trans fats, food allergies, and the effects of violent video games have all fundamentally changed based on new evidence.
Neither the process of science nor scientists are infallible. Scientists have got it wrong in the past (often based on the best but limited information of the day), and this has raised doubts for some regarding the trustworthiness of science as a discipline. In some ways science may be a victim of its own success. It is easier to be skeptical of vaccination when you've never had to worry about your child contracting polio, or to reject genetically modified crops when your local grocery store is well stocked.
The experience of the COVID pandemic does not appear to have improved Canadians' trust in science which was already declining in 2019. Concerningly the 2023 Confederation of Tomorrow Survey "Confidence in Leaders" found that only 34% of respondents had "A lot" of confidence in scientists and another 41% had "Some". That is down from a 2020 PEW report that found the equivalent numbers in Canada to be 45% and 37% respectively.
The PEW report found that only 35% of Canadians on the right trusted scientists "A lot" compared to 74% of those on the left. However those politically in the centre were only marginally higher in trust than those on the right; based on the graphic 39% perhaps (?). While political polarization and the internet have likely played a part, I believe that skepticism is being made worse by the poor choices of many scientists and academics. If we want future political decisions to be evidence-based, politicians and citizens must have faith in the people providing the evidence. And if the public doesn't trust the advice provided by the scientific establishment, acceptance of those political decisions will be negatively impacted.
The Right & The Left
When asked who is more phobic about science (Conservatives or Liberals), social psychologist Jonathan Haidt responded "If you know what a group holds sacred, you see where they go crazy."
The extreme right's areas of science denial are, I think, well known. The Creationist rejection of evolution and geology is not new. And then there is faith healing, belief in exorcism, etc. However these views don't hold influence outside of niche communities. In the USA there are periodic cases of "Creation Science" being pushed as an alternative to the Theory of Evolution and established cosmology; but not with any real success as far as I've noticed. In Canada the influence is even less. I'm sure there are people who want such ideas in the education system. But I can't think of a case in which these ideas were taken seriously.
There are areas where anti- and pseudo-science has gained a footing in society at large. During the pandemic there was a significant amount of denial of infection and mortality rates, vaccination, etc. While the media happily painted this as a right-wing phenomenon, I saw it as a mix of right, left and liberation ideologies. I doubt many devotees of homeopathy and crystal healing lean right politically. Now these are views that have a degree of mainstream influence. Consider that the global homeopathic industry was worth USD 12.35 billion in 2023 and is forecast to grow significantly in the next decade.
And, as discussed by Haidt in the interview linked above, the left often rejects science when it touches their hot button topics such as sex, gender, and race. As the progressive left has a great deal of influence in our institutions, these are views that currently have significant impact on our society as well as the scientific and medical fields.
Ideological Capture
In their 2018 book The Coddling of the American Mind, Haidt and coauthor Greg Lukianoff describe the shift in American universities starting in the late 1990s; I expect the trend was the same in Canada. As professors from the World War II generation retired they were replaced by Baby Boomers. Academia has always leaned left, but in the twentieth century the left/right ratio was generally between 2:1 and 3:1; sufficient to maintain ideological diversity. The new generation of professors was much less diverse politically and by 2011 the ratio was 5:1 overall; and by 2016 generally above 10:1 in the humanities and social sciences. Economics and the STEM1 fields were affected but not as dramatically. This resulted in a collectivist mentality within departments in which the debate, peer review, and disconfirmation of results critical to academia, and particularly to science, declined for politized topics.
As social justice has permeated from the humanities into the STEM fields it has become clear that science has a left-wing ideology problem. This seems to be a feature of the West and is particularly notable in Canada and the rest of the anglosphere. This hazards both the ability of the scientific establishment to address issues via open inquiry, and its credibility with the general public.
Ideologically Motivated Science
The most prominent example has been in the realm of sex and gender. It has become common in some fields to claim that human sex is a spectrum; often this involves conflating sex with gender. Frequently people with Disorders of Sexual Development (DSD)2 are used to substantiate this argument, however this is akin to arguing that humans are not bipedal because some are born without functioning legs. Another approach is to invoke different sex 'models' from across the Animal Kingdom. But the conclusion doesn't follow3; just because evolution has developed many successful approaches - to just about every aspect of survival and reproduction - doesn't mean every species demonstrates this variability. Humans are a sexually reproducing and sexually dimorphic species. To argue that human sex is a spectrum is simply to destroy one's credibility (outside the circle of devoted believers).
How to a respond to and accommodate people with gender dysphoria is a matter of debate in society. There is a scientific aspect to this (Why does this condition occur? What treatments are effective in relieving mental suffering? How safe are chemical or surgical interventions?). In the past many Western European countries pursued approaches based on affirmation and transition. Recently however many have changed their policies in light of the lack of evidence supporting such approaches and concerns regarding long term harms to those treated. This year the Cass Review commissioned by NHS England raised serious concerns about gender identity services being provided to children and young people resulting in a move away from the “gender affirming care” model. However, rather than being informed by the evidence, the Canadian Medical Association rejects any limitations on such approaches.
In 2020, during pandemic restrictions on freedom of movement, over 1,000 health professionals signed a letter endorsing Black Lives Matter protests because they "…wanted to present a narrative that prioritizes opposition to racism as vital to the public health, …" and to "…call attention to the pervasive lethal force of white supremacy, …”. Any objective observer would question the logic of arguing for restrictions on access to work, essential daily tasks, recreational activities, and other protests, but give a blessing to these particular mass protests.
In 2025 Toronto Metropolitan University (née Ryerson) will open a new medical school. This October it was reported that 75% of the seats will be reserved for “equity-deserving” groups. This is not the only case of such an approach to medical training in Canada. We can't say for certain how capable those admitted to a program based on their identity will be when they graduate. No doubt some will do well. But to drop the bar on merit in favour of quotas raises obvious concerns about the ability of students to succeed in the program and the quality of doctor that will result. After the Premier of Ontario objected TMU backed down on this quota system, but what form TMU's DEI policy will take next hasn't yet been revealed.
In 2023 the American Medial Association adopted a new policy on the use of Body Mass Index. The press release identifies valid shortfalls in BMI as a diagnostic tool and recommends the use of other measures. So far, so good. But it bases its argument on BMI's "problematic history" and "…issues with using BMI as a measurement due to its historical harm, its use for racist exclusion…". Genuflecting against racism adds nothing to a serious critique of the use of BMI. And, while BMI is not perfect, it is still an easy to use measure for individuals. Like any tool it must be used with due understanding of its limitations. But, as obesity is epidemic in both the USA and Canada, we should want to promote easy to use (if imperfect) tools for individuals. The CBC duly picked up this story. The best part for me was when the man declares that he doesn't "feel overweight". I feel therefore I am! The AMA's position seems very much in line with the Canadian Public Health community which is currently obsessed with anti-colonialism.
As of March 2024 there have been 47,162 apparent opioid toxicity deaths in Canada since 2016. As deaths have continued largely unabated and more communities have been impacted, there have been increasing questions about harm reduction as the focus of effort. Many people are starting to challenge the wisdom of approaches such as "safer supply" and decriminalization, and are objecting to the dismissal of their concerns over crime and open drug use in their communities by advocates of harm reduction policies. How a society chooses to address this crisis is a political decision about how society should function. However, the study of the effectiveness of strategies should based on evidence.
Sadly, as harm reduction strategies have been called into question, this has moved from a scientific debate to an ideological one within the addictions community. In 2021 a review of publications advocating “safer supply" was commissioned by Alberta’s Ministry of Health. It concluded that the available evidence did not support this approach. The B.C. Centre on Substance Use, which had declined to participate in the study, quickly issued a letter to the media attacking it. In 2023 a group of academics published an article in the Canadian Journal of Public Health which described another Alberta study on Supervised Consumption Sites as a "pseudoscientific panel review". There is nothing wrong with debating the merits of different studies. But currently those advocating for harm reduction appear to be trying to quash resistance instead of debate the reliability of the evidence. Those suffering from the effects of substance abuse deserve better.
In January 2020 it was proposed that the SARS-CoV-2 virus could have been unintentionally leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (The Lab Leak Hypothesis). In March The Lancet published a letter from 27 scientists condemning the idea as a conspiracy theory. A year later an investigation by the World Health Organization (report March 2021) concluded that such a leak was "extremely unlikely". However between the summers of 2021 and 2022 the WHO's position changed and it urged a deeper investigation into the possibility of a laboratory leak. From my own sampling of news and commentary in 2020 it was clear that a number of scientists considered the Lab Leak a credible hypothesis but risked their careers if they argued the point. For those interested, an extensive (long read) discussion of these events (from a 2023 perspective) is available here.
It is not my intention to claim that the Lab Leak Hypothesis is true or false; I have neither the knowledge nor access to information necessary to make that determination. But it seems very clear to me that this was science following politics. The WHO may have simply been scared of offending China. But within the US and much of the West, Donald Trump mentioned the idea (as did other right-wing voices) and it became radioactive. However, when Joe Biden became POTUS in January 2021 and stated that a lab leak was worth considering, it suddenly became acceptable to consider.
In addition to the examples above, there is no shortage of less impactful oddities in the mindset of the scientific establishment. Examples include the decision to rename monkeypox (now mpox), the gypsy moth, and various species of bird as well as various inclusive language guidelines. Unfortunately these obsessions make academics and scientists (and by extension science) appear unserious and irrelevant to the average person.
Unfortunately as our institutions have been captured by social justice ideology, it has become dangerous for those seeking the truth to challenge accepted narratives. People with such diverse political views as Jordan Peterson, Steven Pinker, John McWhorter, Michael Shermer, and Lawrence Krauss have all raised concerns about cancel culture and self censorship in academia and science.
The Impact on Society
People are consumers of medical and scientific knowledge. We all accept, ignore, or reject scientific claims and medical advice for a variety of reasons. I'm lucky to have a family doctor and to be very happy with his approach. But over my life I've seen many doctors who were - to be polite - not stellar examples of their profession. Ultimately we live with the consequences of medical advice and we are our own best advocate. It is wise therefore to be an informed consumer.
However skepticism can easily become self defeating. I'm sure we've all encountered the "I've done my research" crowd. A crucial requirement to avoid reflexive skepticism is a degree of humility. This does not come easily to most as it requires that we doubt ourselves. We need to appreciate what we don't know and accept that reading a few webpages or a - often cherry picked - study doesn't enable one to make informed decisions.
In order to be an informed consumer while avoiding the pitfalls of rampant skepticism requires both an understanding of our own limitations, and that scientific and medical institutions be perceived as trustworthy. But the ideological capture of these institutions risks destroying that trust.
Few people read scientific publications. But websites, the news media, and social media all distribute stories often titled "new research finds…". Typically these are selected based on the catchy headline or how well they fit with the reporting agency's worldview rather than their actual contribution to the body of knowledge on a subject. To be an informed consumer there are several questions one should ask (regardless of whether or not you like the findings of the study). What you should not need to ask is - are the people that did the study politically on the left or the right? Sadly, I believe we are at the point where this is often a reasonable question.
There will always be hard core skeptics be they religiously inspired, extreme libertarians, devotees of “alternative medicine”, or lost to the Naturalistic Fallacy4. Such people are likely unreachable. But if a significant portion of the population doubts the credibility of our scientific institutions that will jeopardize broad acceptance of valid, evidence-based solutions to the problems which face us.
A Return to Credibility
Can science in Canada recover its credibility? I see four players involved which complicates things: scientists (as a group), academics, government, and the public.
We don't know how many scientists embrace ideology over objectivity. But some are willing to speak out and they indicate many more are self censoring. As science is at heart an evidence based field, I'm hopeful the pendulum will swing back. Bad ideas get rejected over time but sometimes it takes a generation.
However, as long as future scientists are being taught in institutions which prioritize social justice over truth, the recovery of science will be retarded. Academic culture must return to one that embraces open inquiry and the debate of ideas. I think it likely that the recovery will start in STEM due to the empirical nature of the hard sciences. Professors need to shake free of the Diversity, Equity & Inclusion industry; but this could take decades until much of the current generation retires.
We should not want politicians to get directly involved in academia or science. I personally don't want a politician of any stripe deciding what are good or bad areas for study or debate in these institutions. However, our politicians can step in to counter ideological capture and group think. A lot of this falls to Provincial governments which are responsible for education, although the Federal government does have influence due to its funding of universities.
I'd like to see mandates around free speech and academic freedom so that those who question social justice orthodoxy can do so.
Within academia deplatforming, harassment and railroading (by the institution or students) should not be tolerated.
We need an end to DEI as a criterion for hiring of academics and researchers, and mandatory statements of ideological alignment should be banned.
Professional associations need to be limited to policing the professional conduct of their members and not their social opinions or political positions.
Demanding more scientific literacy to be taught in schools is easy to say; and I'm all for it. But that is a long-term solution and I'm skeptical about the the feasibility given how captured K-12 education is by the same ideology. Thus parents need to educate themselves and their children regarding critical thinking and scientific literacy. There are resources from old school libraries to online subscription sites such as The Great Courses Plus, Brilliant etc which include such topics.
Conclusion
Not all changes in the culture of science in the last 30 years have been negative. We've seen an increased focus on womens' health (as opposed to generic models based primarily on studies involving men) as well as increased awareness of the value of race-based data and socio-economic status in medicine. To the degree that these are questions (Is there a difference between X and Y?) and not a starting assumption (Y must be oppressed!) that is all to the good. But, while this shift has had benefits, ideology is now frequently prioritized over evidence.
Decisions about what a society does is the realm of politics even if informed by scientific study. We need to make a clear distinction - often missing during the pandemic - between conclusions based on evidence (science) and what do as a result (politics). Politicians should not be allowed to hide behind scientists and medical professionals to avoid challenge. And when scientists and doctors function as activists this should be called out. Responsible journalism has a role to play here.
In summary I suspect we are stuck with a scientific establishment which often prioritizes ideology over the pursuit of truth for the next 20 years. This doesn't mean correcting it can't start now; it has to or it won't change and may become worse. But for the culture in the bureaucracies to reset will take years as ideologues are pushed to the fringes and the true believers retire.
This absolutely does not mean that we should ignore science. Rather that people need to critically assess information presented, consider the source and the potential biases involved, and make a distinction between science and politics when debating issues.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my thoughts on the subject. I hope you found them useful.
Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics
Also called Differences of Sexual Development or Intersex
Non-sequitur - a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement