Trust in science
"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 A plan to restore trust in science from a ‘fringe epidemiologist’, an interview of NIH Director, Jay Bhattacharya by Ross Douthat in the New York Times, January 29, 2026. Part of the podcast can be found here.
Whether it was dangerous GOF research or COVID origins we’ve seen the life science establishment knuckle down and dismiss questioning out of hand. Some even advocated censoring of the questioners (Censoring virology). Stopping scientists asking questions is like asking them to stop breathing. Let that sink in.
The message coming from the new man at the top of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is, unfortunately, unusual. Finished the sure, can do, we know what we’re doing overconfidence that is anathema to research. Indeed, overconfidence in any area where data driven decisions are needed can be dangerous (Just two minutes).
Re COVID we’re shoved quickly onto the other foot by I guess I was naïve before the pandemic. I would tell my students: “Don’t join Twitter” — it was Twitter back then. “Just publish your papers in scientific journals. That’s how you make a big difference in the world.” I thought public health had the best interest of the working class, the poor, in mind. And the Covid era shattered my illusions on all of those fronts. In particular, what happened in March of 2020 represented a fundamental break that public health authorities had with the public.
To paraphrase, I thought science too had the best interest of the working class, the poor, in mind. It should have but science has become so competitive and aggressive, scientists have no time for anything else. Oops, back up; they have time but use it to forward their academic careers. And nobody up top cares.
Re COVID we’re told that But what you’re not allowed to do is assume that the thing you’re doing is going to work. Right? ... So you close the schools. You know for certain that you’re going to harm a generation of children. That’s a certainty. …There’s a hundred uncertainties. You still have to do that kind of honest calculation, and you have to convey that deep uncertainty to the public at large.
These days many scientists don’t like saying they’re not sure or don’t know seeing it as a sign of weakness, when it is a sign of maturity. Everything must be sure, can do, leave it with us. Yet, um, er, methinks we still don’t have an efficient TB vaccine some 148 years after its discovery.
Through an early study on blood antibodies to the COVID virus, Dr. Bhattacharya realized that it is a disease that’s obviously spread much more widely than people realized despite…I thought that would’ve changed our approach, but that didn’t happen. Instead, I faced, essentially, attacks on my character, an attempt to destroy my career, questions about the integrity of my work that were completely spurious.
Readers, this is a common reflex. It’s a variant of shoot the messenger and a classic in infectious diseases. In the early days of a new infection, only people with disease are spotted. It takes a little time to develop blood tests to realize that they may constitute a few percent of the total, which in fact is good news. Perhaps some saw this as a down grade, a lack of respect given their struggles to help struggling patients, when it showed the virus was less dangerous than initially thought. It also showed that the virus had spread far more widely than the powers that be had any inkling off, so that too might have been unwelcome.
Whatever, ad hominem attacks have no place in science which is data driven. As is usually the case, such attacks tell you far more about the utterer than their target.
At the N.I.H., the former head of the N.I.H. [Dr. Francis Collins] wrote an email to Tony Fauci in October 2020 calling me a “fringe epidemiologist” …What was needed was an honest scientific debate. …But instead, the ethos of public health was that just having the debate at all was a dangerous thing. …That’s, if you want to ask me — you started with what went wrong — that is the fundamental thing that went wrong.
Debate was a dangerous thing for it meant that past decisions might have to be reviewed, or worse changed! In numerous countries, those in charge failed to morph decisions to keep up with new developments coming in from all over the world. 2+2=5. In general, those at the top don’t like being questioned. The problem is that questioning and experimentation are the two most important arrows in the quiver of any scientist.
Bhattacharya goes on with more candor. All of public health found itself in that position. They’re facing an uncertain threat. There’s no real science yet about it. It’s a brand-new disease. The entirety of society is looking at them, saying: “What should we do about this? What’s the wise, right thing to do about this?” And you don’t know the answer.
As a med student, you have to learn to say, “I don’t know.” You have to learn to say that. It’s not an easy instinct. And public health failed at that, at large. So they looked to leaders, like Tony Fauci and others, to guide them on what to say in that setting. And those leaders also failed at that.
A pandemic due to a novel virus is the nightmare scenario for public health people. Add to this the ‘can do, leave it to the experts’ hubris, and you understand how easy it was for things to go wrong.
Moving on, the present NIH Director comes out with I want reform of the public health authorities so that they become worthy of trust.
I’ve pointed to, I think it was a Pew poll in 2024 that said 25 percent of Americans don’t believe that scientists have the best interest of the public at heart. One in four. And then people will come back to me — scientists — and say, “Well, look, 75 percent trust us.”
That’s too low a bar, Ross. It needs to be 100 percent. It’s not politics, where if I get 50 plus one, I’ve succeeded. If only 75 percent of the public thinks that the work that the N.I.H. does benefits them, it’s an utter failure.
Goodness, he puts the bar very high which is good. I’d put it at 90% for in today’s world you can’t win ’em all. Seriously though, it’s good that 75% still trust science given the GOF and COVID debacles.
Meanwhile, many at the coal face, aka academics, keep a CV between themselves and the world. Virologists are never short for talking up their research on this or that virus that could lead to novel therapeutics or vaccines.
Much of what is called basic research is curiosity about the virus, a molecular version of know thy enemy. Endless examples have shown how the scientific meanders in one field cross over into a totally unexpected area. But rarely novel therapies or vaccines result. Academics that cofound start-ups are often pilloried by their academic colleagues as cracking up, wanting to make some money, when the truth is that most academics would be lost in biotech.
Speaking of vaccines Dr. Bhattacharya comes out with the obvious for someone coming from public health: For instance, I’ve very, very clearly and straightforwardly said and recommended that parents vaccinate their kids for M.M.R., for polio, for D.P.T. — diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus. I very clearly and cleanly said that I think that the evidence is strong, and you should do that for the vast majority of kids — probably all kids.
Do read the Bhattacharya interview, for it is not possible to convey the unusual narrative by way of a few quotes.
Let’s transition to the past. Arguments of authority, from on high, from cheerleaders or influencers have no place in science. It’s the quality of the data, the strength of an experiment, its reproducibility and its ability to open doors that advance science. The errors of bucking this obvious trend were tackled in part in the previous essay (Two plus two). Worth the detour, if you’ll allow an opinion.
That said, concrete examples as opposed to generalities are always useful. Dr. Peter Duesberg was a vocal critic of HIV causes AIDS. His views were sidelined until his impact on the then President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, came to the fore. President Mbeki withheld governmental support for tackling HIV/AIDS leading to one of the highest seropositivity rates in the world.
A handful of activists and scientists, including On reading bandied together and crafted the Durban Declaration which gave the scientific reasons why HIV caused AIDS. Scientists, clinicians and epidemiologists wrote the text which was published in 2000 in Nature. There were over 5000 signatories all with MD or PhD level qualifications.
In 2008, independent estimates by public health experts attributed over 300,000 preventable South African AIDS deaths and nearly 200,000 new HIV infections to government policies based on the AIDS denialist assertions criticised by the Durban Declaration.
Many virologists from the NIH wanted to get on board and asked us if Tony had signed up, Tony being Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. As he hadn’t most held off. And so it was until the eve of publication in Nature when Dr. Fauci signed on. On reading phoned Nature’s London office and got his name added to the list in the nick of time.
This anecdote highlights two related points. First, an influential administrator should have no impact on the scientific beliefs of a researcher in their institute. Second, even though NIH researchers are civil servants in a pyramidal structure, they must be granted freedom to speak out on their science and the implications thereof without going through a ponderous chain of command. It must be understood that their opinions, ramblings even, do not engage their employer. A totally different situation pertains to civil servants in the State or Defense Departments for example.
The point is that questioning is the essence of good science. You can’t have one without the other. You can’t have government scientists cut off from the rest.
It must be accepted that most government scientists wherever they are don’t speak on behalf of their government but are struggling to get as close to the ‘truth’ as possible, even though that is a loaded word. The struggle involves thought, experimentation and discussion. More often than not it’s a long and winding road and can take years. When administrative complexities enter basic science bigly, their effect is to hinder science making it less productive and as night follows day, more expensive.
There will always be politics in science. Science administrators should work to keep it at bay.
Politicians, please understand that if you want efficient science leading to new technologies subtending national economic growth, try not to make things harder for the scientists. We’re up against questions that have been asked for the first time. Often, we haven’t the foggiest idea. That said, experience shows that we do get answers to these questions, albeit not as fast as we, or the public would like, particularly where there’s disease and suffering.
Conclusions
• Nobody today doubts that HIV causes AIDS.
• Scientists must use their brains and not delegate thinking which can be damn hard. AI and other computer analyses support but cannot replace wondering, the most powerful force in discovery. 2+2=22.
• Allow government scientists to speak their mind. It is by far and away the best for everyone concerned, especially the taxpayers.
Aside
Nature subsequently published a critique of the Durban Declaration from Dr. Duesberg and his allies, which provoked a satirical quip from On reading. Reduced antiretroviral therapy in Sub-Saharan Africa, which is on the cards today, will be accompanied by an increase in deaths from AIDS. As sure as 2+2=4.
This witnessing you provide here is incredibly authentic Prof Wain-Hobson.
Thank you so much for sharing these insights!
It must have been extraordinarily difficult for you in the early stage of COVID outbreak knowing the difficulties involved with novel virus outbreak first hand with HIV and then seeing the way COVID origin has been handled since the dismissal of correct Dual Use research of Concern protocols?
<< That said, concrete examples as opposed to generalities are always useful. Dr. Peter Duesberg was a vocal critic of HIV causes AIDS. His views were sidelined until his impact on the then President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, came to the fore. President Mbeki withheld governmental support for tackling HIV/AIDS leading to one of the highest seropositivity rates in the world.
A handful of activists and scientists, including On reading bandied together and crafted the Durban Declaration which gave the scientific reasons why HIV caused AIDS. Scientists, clinicians and epidemiologists wrote the text which was published in 2000 in Nature. There were over 5000 signatories all with MD or PhD level qualifications.
In 2008, independent estimates by public health experts attributed over 300,000 preventable South African AIDS deaths and nearly 200,000 new HIV infections to government policies based on the AIDS denialist assertions criticised by the Durban Declaration.
Many virologists from the NIH wanted to get on board and asked us if Tony had signed up, Tony being Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. As he hadn’t most held off. And so it was until the eve of publication in Nature when Dr. Fauci signed on. On reading phoned Nature’s London office and got his name added to the list in the nick of time.
This anecdote highlights two related points. First, an influential administrator should have no impact on the scientific beliefs of a researcher in their institute. Second, even though NIH researchers are civil servants in a pyramidal structure, they must be granted freedom to speak out on their science and the implications thereof without going through a ponderous chain of command. It must be understood that their opinions, ramblings even, do not engage their employer. A totally different situation pertains to civil servants in the State or Defense Departments for example.
The point is that questioning is the essence of good science. You can’t have one without the other. You can’t have government scientists cut off from the rest.
It must be accepted that most government scientists wherever they are don’t speak on behalf of their government but are struggling to get as close to the ‘truth’ as possible, even though that is a loaded word. The struggle involves thought, experimentation and discussion. More often than not it’s a long and winding road and can take years. When administrative complexities enter basic science bigly, their effect is to hinder science making it less productive and as night follows day, more expensive.
There will always be politics in science. Science administrators should work to keep it at bay.
Politicians, please understand that if you want efficient science leading to new technologies subtending national economic growth, try not to make things harder for the scientists. We’re up against questions that have been asked for the first time. Often, we haven’t the foggiest idea. That said, experience shows that we do get answers to these questions, albeit not as fast as we, or the public would like, particularly where there’s disease and suffering.>>