The Sound of Silence
"On reading," by Simon Wain-Hobson, is a weekly discussion of scientific papers and news articles around gain of function research in virology.
Since January 2024, Dr. Wain-Hobson has written weekly essays for Biosafety Now discussing risky research in virology. You can read his entire series here.
On reading Openness in science is key to keeping public trust, by Mark Yarborough, Nature 2014; 515:301
This is what Nature calls a World View, A personal take on events. They are found in the front part of the journal before the hard science. They are widely read by science administrators and people in government circles. According to Yarborough, a professor of ethics at the University of California, Davis, the public still trusts science even though it is fragile.
Given how much scientists depend on public goodwill and the funding that flows from it, I am always surprised by how much scientists take the public’s trust for granted. They can - and should - do more to protect and nurture it. Yep. But science has become a business where competition, aka bringing in research money, trumps everything else.
Of course, this runs into the reality sandwich from time to time, the result being as you’d expect. Trust in science is often discussed only in response to some scandal or controversy, such as misconduct. This is unfortunate. Such a focus on bad behaviour, equating concerns about trust with misconduct, can make scientists unwilling to discuss the issue because they feel personally criticized. As a result, they ignore or even resist calls (such as this one) to promote and improve the overall trustworthiness of research.
Yarborough piles it on, Too often, scientists do not consider the need for improvements because they are content with their faith that science self-corrects. This is a bad idea. Science’s ability to weed out incorrect findings is overstated. On reading’s humble opinion is that self-governance only works when the stakes are low. When the stakes are high it invariably fails unless there is a courageous, well-known figure who can galvanize discussion. Such people are rare.
We learn that the financial and reputational stakes are now much higher. Very true. One of the consequences, however, is that discussion is stifled. People pack so much into their talks, go overtime so that the chairperson wraps up the session saying they can discuss questions over coffee. And if ever a speaker is exposed by a keen question the discussion can quickly turn sour. Finished the clashing of minds.
Then the unusual surfaces. Scientists need to articulate better what makes their work deserving of the public’s trust in the first place. Most scientists see themselves as deserving, period, although lip service will be paid in public. Few do anything about it. Furthermore, competition is so stiff, anything else diverts. The outcome is clear.
I hope that we can agree that research should satisfy three basic expectations: publications can consistently be relied on to inform subsequent enquiry; research is of sufficient social value to justify the expenditures that support it; and research is conducted in accordance with widely shared ethical norms. Agreed on the first. Re the second, how many biologists think about the social value of their work? Years ago, Nobel Peace prize laureate Joseph Rotblat thought not enough (Nuclear parallels). As to ethical norms, the competition is so stiff…
Then the rock hits. We cannot expect people to call attention to problems when it is not safe for them to do so. At present, it is unsafe in too many research settings. Those who question the status quo can be ostracized and labelled as troublemakers. So true, but then life has always been unsafe for the messenger. The DURC/GOF controversy was one example where virologists and science administrators didn’t want to acknowledge the obvious, despite admitting that the claims of Fouchier and Kawaoka were dubious from the outset. (Chilled virology)
Then there’s the COVID-19 lab leak origin heresy which, over time has morphed into a credible hypothesis, although always falling short of being respectable because the establishment didn’t, and still doesn’t, want to admit it. The invective hurled in scientific articles was amazing, the more so as they have been shipwrecked now the hypothesis is considered credible. As everyone knows a hypothesis is just that, until it’s proven. Many still have difficulty admitting it as a hypothesis which is not scientific, but onwards.
To make them safer, institution leaders must be prepared to hear unwelcome news and hold their nerve over bad publicity. And they must convince staff that their desire to improve is sincere. This is easier said than done, but the alternative is silence and stifled progress. In the maelstrom of immediacy following some bad news, the reflex is to baton down, protect the institute come what may, and ride out the storm. Aka damage control. And if this involves lack of cooperation or ambiguity, so be it. After all research institutes have donors and sponsors who, we are told, will be scared off by bad news.
Endless words could be added here. It comes down to the fact that doing science is tough. Scientists are up against the unknown which is, invariably, hellishly complex. And it can take years. Problem solving by experimentation is very much about screwing up and redesigning the experiment which then delivers. In science zigzags, or to put it a little more poetically, the long and winding roads, vastly outnumber straight lines.
Errors will be made. The short term may well be embarrassing, painful occasionally, but in the medium to long term, science and along with it the scientific enterprise will be the better for it.
The alternative is silence and stifled progress. To pick up on Yarborough’s reference to the present unsafe climate, this short sentence can be rephrased as ‘whistle blowers will be shafted while those who think differently will be pushed aside’.
Scientists now have in their brief public trust (this essay), humanity (Nuclear parallels), and do no harm (Do no harm 1 & 2) in addition to their cutting edge research upon which they are judged. This is a heavy burden for young scientists.
Yet it is precisely these hot topic issues where scientists must engage with the public. The reality is that most scientists show a disinclination to engage with civil society (A rough sanding).
The older scientists must be cajoled into taking this on aided and abetted by science administrators. The latter are not at the coal face and so are enablers. They must not cut out the scientists. Humility is needed – indeed incumbent on scientists - otherwise the scientific enterprise will suffer. This is particularly important as for at least 25 years flights from reason take off in our day as frequently as planes from O’Hare.
Aside
Mark Yarborough spoke at the Volkswagen Foundation meeting on Gain of Function research in December 2014. His talk can be found at
 | A guest post by
|