Peter Hotez, a vaccine scientist from Baylor College of Medicine, has been receiving a stream of hate mail. Much of it is unhinged, paranoid and threatening. He is not alone — other prominent figures in public health have gotten hateful messages and death threats, especially since the beginning of the pandemic.
He describes the abuse in his new book, The Deadly Rise of Anti-science — A Scientist’s Warning. And he argues that an estimated 200,000 people in the US who died from COVID-19 probably would have survived if they had not refused to get free, easily accessible vaccines.
He is right about that, but throwing around the “anti-science” label is not helping bridge any divides. Take any scientific issue that involves political choices, from public health to climate change: All sides claim to be basing their concerns in science.
For example, further into the book, Hotez applies that anti-science label to people who opposed other mitigations like extended school and business closures and mask mandates. That is too bad. Reasonable people can argue against the tradeoffs required by some of these non-pharmaceutical interventions.
The US lost more people to this virus than most other developed countries where such restrictions and mandates were looser — suggesting much of what we asked people to do did not help. What we learn from our mistakes could help us continue to fight this still-circulating disease and do better with the next public health crisis.
When I spoke to Hotez on the phone, he said one of the main messages he wants to convey is that much anti-vaccine rhetoric was not “just random junk on the internet,” but part of a coordinated, politically motivated effort — the thrust of which was that they will first force you to get vaccines, then they will take away your guns and Bibles, and that conservative politicians and media outlets encouraged irrational paranoia about the vaccines.
The effect of that was deadly — as seen in statistics showing significantly more deaths in the least vaccinated states once the vaccines became widely available. However, there is no movement that calls itself “anti-science.” There are movements where people openly proclaim themselves anti-nuclear or anti-GMO or anti-abortion, but the term “anti-science” is an insult. It is the kind of label used to cast aspersions on enemies and deride them as stupid.
And much of what the public heard from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the news media or their local governments was not scientific information but commands — do not go to the beach, stay six feet from other people, wear a mask every time you leave your house.
In response to Hotez’s argument, risk communication expert Peter Sandman said he appreciates his concern over those 200,000 tragic deaths. However, he thinks public health carries some of the blame for fumbling public trust.
“The natural impulse of public health professionals to blame their critics for the public’s increased mistrust isn’t just mistaken,” he said. “It is self-defeating. It keeps public health people from assessing what they said and did during the pandemic that aroused that mistrust, apologizing for these misstatements and misbehaviors, and figuring out how to do better going forward.”
There is a political component to the divide over vaccines, he agreed, but he also listed a number of ways public health efforts alienated conservatives: Delaying the vaccine approval until after election day, deferring to teachers’ unions on keeping kids out of school, and “prioritizing health over all other values … especially over freedom, which public health officials widely denigrated as a value not even worth considering.”
Baruch Fischhoff, a Carnegie Melon University social scientist specializing in risk communication, said he sees a snowballing communication problem. People in public health communicated poorly, then they blamed the audience, he said. “Then these dedicated scientists and health officials become disrespectful and aggressive,” which further alienates parts of the public.
Fischhoff was on a 2020 National Academies of Sciences Medicine and Engineering committee and his contribution was to find ways to communicate facts and uncertainties — science — in a way that is comprehensible and accessible. “Then you trust people to make their own decisions.”
He said that public health officials were not transparent about their goals or the evidence. That is still a problem, especially with the ongoing booster campaigns. Is the goal to reduce transmission? Is the goal to protect against death? What is the evidence that a broad, annual booster campaign will achieve those goals? It is hard to get clear answers.
“There’s no place to go to get facts and be treated as an adult,” Fischhoff said. “People are stuck having to choose who to trust — and they all claim to be using science.”
So do the extreme hate mailers on the other side. Doctors and scientists with moderate views have told me they have gotten paranoid messages and even death threats from people who wanted longer lockdowns, permanent mask mandates and mandatory booster shots.
Scientists should not have to rely on blind trust; they can offer a logical, evidence-based argument for their claims. They have to express uncertainty, because that is part of science, but honesty about what you do not yet know can help build trust over the long term. And despite the wonders of modern science, infectious disease is going to remain a very long-term problem. So please, let’s retire the term “anti-science.” It is not persuading anyone on the other side.
F.D. Flam is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering science. She is host of the Follow the Science podcast. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
RSS