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.
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
RSS