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.>>
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.>>