Relying on Science Over Belief in Pandemic Decision-Making
Written on
Understanding the Role of Science in Crisis Management
In light of the recent discussions surrounding decision-making during this unprecedented time, it appears that sensational headlines are inadvertently fueling anti-science sentiments similar to those seen in the anti-vaccination movement. Notably, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany recently stated that “Science will not stand in the way of reopening the schools.” Such comments cast doubt on the scientific community at a time when researchers are diligently working to develop solutions to combat SARS-CoV-2. Rather than speculate on McEnany's intentions, it’s essential to address the troubling disregard for science’s vital role in informed decision-making.
As a seasoned researcher in nuclear medicine, I recognize that there is no one-size-fits-all solution for managing the Covid-19 crisis. The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 caught the world off guard, prompting countries to act swiftly based on their immediate capabilities. The question of reopening educational institutions is both delicate and complex. Current data regarding SARS-CoV-2's transmissibility and its varied impacts based on demographics are still being analyzed. Consequently, health organizations and government entities must make crucial, evidence-based decisions grounded in this evolving information. Comprehensive evaluations are necessary to guide these choices effectively.
A scientific approach fundamentally relies on empirical data. Decision-making rooted in scientific principles necessitates consensus. In essence, scientific findings must demonstrate reproducibility across various testing methods and undergo peer review to establish agreement. This intricate process can be time-consuming, but it ultimately serves the greater good.
The Importance of Informed Disagreement
Navigating decisions is challenging even in "normal" circumstances, and it becomes even more daunting during a pandemic, where rapid responses are crucial. Policymakers bear the responsibility of safeguarding lives, which means that whatever course of action they choose will inevitably displease some individuals. This dissent can be healthy; constructive debate among differing viewpoints often leads to better outcomes. This is the essence of democratic discourse. However, informed disagreement requires that participants present rational arguments to support their views.
Basing a stance on a sensational video, a headline, or anecdotal evidence from acquaintances is insufficient for forming a rational argument. Too frequently, when we jump to conclusions driven by instinct or belief, we overlook the larger context and critical nuances. While belief can inspire hope and motivation, decisions that significantly affect public welfare must not stem solely from individual convictions. This is where science becomes indispensable.
Science offers a means to validate or refute beliefs through a consensus of data. Scientists engage with questions stemming from their observations or convictions, designing experiments to gather pertinent data and scrutinizing it to address these inquiries. When a conclusion is supported through multiple methodologies and replicated by various organizations, it is said to have achieved consensus. This outcome may then be regarded as scientific truth within that specific context. However, it is essential to recognize that this truth is not absolute; many unknown variables can influence it, leading to different outcomes in varying situations.
For example, individual genetic profiles can significantly affect treatment efficacy. Certain therapies may be effective for some individuals but not for others, and this distinction can only be discerned over time. Similarly, in decision-making, the "best" choice may shift based on particular circumstances.
The ongoing response to the Covid-19 pandemic relies on information collected from hospitals and medical facilities worldwide. Data regarding age, gender, ethnicity, and medical history are compiled from patients and integrated into mathematical models to forecast outcomes. Many of these models have historical roots, dating back decades or even centuries, such as Daniel Bernoulli’s early work on smallpox in 1766. While previous epidemics have provided valuable insights, the current pandemic presents numerous uncertainties. Governments typically assemble task forces of experts who possess specialized knowledge in areas that the general public may lack. These experts can provide reasoned conclusions aimed at educating non-experts. While their assessments may carry caution, only retrospective studies will ultimately clarify their accuracy.
Decisions must be informed by scientific facts. Disregarding science in the decision-making process can lead to a foundationless system and potential abuses of authority. It also perpetuates the erroneous belief that “my ignorance is as good as your knowledge,” as Isaac Asimov wisely noted. While final decisions rest with governments, science plays an essential role in crafting evidence-based policies that decision-makers should weigh alongside socioeconomic considerations.
In contrast to McEnany's assertion, science should indeed guide educated decisions. It is crucial that we leverage scientific knowledge to inform our choices.