It's hard to overstate how poor this take is.<p>> [1.] researchers must learn to identify authors of research, and their relationships with industry and with non-profit groups that have specialized agendas.<p>So research is not allowed to be respected by scientists if done with underlying business interests?<p>> [2.] scientists should consider what kinds of argument the data and conclusions serve.<p>So you should intentionally bias your results if they don't fit the narrative you wanted?<p>> [3.] scientists can consistently highlight correct information and avoid serving as inadvertent amplifiers of flawed information<p>This gets to the core of the problem. It assumes scientists know the truth and the 'correct' studies.<p>In my experience, my friends with unwise and problematic takes on Covid are almost 100% in the camp that scientists are trying to do the very things this article says they should do!<p>What we need is scientists who have backbone, who have an unwaivering unaltering desire to get to the truth at all costs. Anything less is both not scientific and not someone you should trust. You won't get the clear answers you want from this individual though.
The underlying problem is that everyone is familiar with the primitives of ordinary, day-to-day doubt: honesty, conflicting interests, status. We all practice it every day as part of our evolutionary programming, and some of us even like to watch the odd soap opera to keep scratching that itch.<p>Almost nobody really spends much time with that other kind of doubt, epistemological skepticism. Theories, hypotheses, observations. Dense articles, years of reading.<p>So what happens when someone brings up climate change, or covid, or anything else? You can be sure they look at the former. They want to know who said what, and they want to know the interests behind it. Is this or that person a liar? What motivations might they have?
"Second, scientists should consider what kinds of argument the data and conclusions serve. How might these shape public opinion? What policy decisions might they affect?"<p>Peachy.
I noticed that the people who were spamming HN about Ivermectin didn't care if the article was positive or negative. They just wanted to "get the party started" with a discussion.<p>It's central to anti-vax discourse to find some small detail and amplify it to something big, then repeat the process with another detail again and again.<p>It reminds me of the web site "The Motley Fool" that would post an article such as "Should you buy AAPL?" that would always hem and haw and come to no real conclusion. Perhaps the reader felt they were being diligent by considering so much contradictory information.
>Suppose [a person] had a basket full of apples and, being worried that some of the apples were rotten, wanted to take out the rotten ones to prevent the rot spreading. How would he proceed? Would he not begin by tipping the whole lot out of the basket? And would not the next step be to cast his eye over each apple in turn, and pick up and put back in the basket only those he saw to be sound, leaving the others?
-Descartes<p>Science is done by clearly and logically addressing doubt. Sweeping doubt under the rug and showing prejudice in which evidence is presented is antithetical to the impetus of science (a disimpassioned search for unwavering truth). I'm surprised this is published in nature.<p>Edit: tried to format the quote, didn't work.
Said another way, don't get nerd snipped by people who are trying to weaponize your professional scepticism for ulterior motives.<p>This means that most of the time when dealing with adversaries you have to go against your usual scientific instincts, assume your position is correct, and reframe the conversation at a higher level about power, money, etc. Controlling where attention goes in these conversations is critical.<p>Refusing to engage adversaries at the technical level seems wrong, but is the only way to defend against the fact that science operates by default at a level of doubt that the normal population simply cannot sustain without being driven to apathy (which is the objective of the adversaries).
This letter reads similarly to the Lancet correspondence "Science, not speculation, is essential to determine how SARS-CoV-2 reached humans"<p><a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01419-7/fulltext" rel="nofollow">https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...</a><p>"The field of agnotology (the study of deliberate spreading of confusion) shows how ignorance and doubt can be purposefully manufactured." Tomori suggests that untruth is asymmetric between corporate and government interests.
>This has a key role in whether individual decisions are cast as a matter of ‘freedom’ versus ‘solidarity’, and regulations as restriction or protection.<p>A scientist with this type of filter is foremost an activist.
Related discussion <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29065806" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29065806</a>