Five Choices (1): The Science vs Research

Part one of Five Choices, a Philosophical Reflection on Scientific Knowledge

Where can we turn in these troubled times for solutions to the difficult problems? When it comes to empirical matters, we have a clear choice. One option is to turn to researchers to conduct investigations, but this takes time. Experiments and studies require planning and execution. While laboratory studies can be completed in mere days, substantial trials take months - years for longitudinal data. Then papers must be written, submitted to journals, peer reviewed (often, alas, under highly manipulative conditions), and even after that the scientific community does not treat a matter as closed. Other researchers and theoreticians will respond to the initial reports and conduct further research, either in support of or in opposition to the conclusions drawn in the original paper. All in all, reaching a firm interpretation of the evidence can take years - in some cases decades. Scientific research is slow.

Fortunately, we have a faster alternative - The Science. The Science works on an entirely different basis, because unlike the meticulous investigations conducted by researchers, the Science is always by definition true. Therefore, if you rely upon The Science instead of research, you are never wrong, and do not have to face the time, effort, or aggravating disagreements that happen whenever researchers strive to reach viable interpretations of the evidence. Once you choose The Science over research, you simply reach a conclusion - either instantaneously, on the basis of prior theory, or rapidly on the basis of the early guesses - and magically your work is done! You have your decision, and far faster and more easily than if you had committed to the painstaking process of assembling the truth via the work of researchers.

Precisely because The Science is never wrong, errors are simply attributed to specific scientists, which is to say, to mere researchers, further increasing the conceptual distance between these two alternative forms of knowledge production. The sciences and their researchers are not only slow and messy, they must be the site of all mistakes, because The Science, by definition, is infallible. That's why it commands such vehement commitment from its advocates: unlike research, The Science is never wrong.

This ideological idol we have built over the site of research practice works so effectively to usurp and undermine scientific work that we can brazenly dismiss all claims contrary to The Science as belonging to "just some scientists". Regrettably, in the last year we have intensified the power of The Science by permitting - nay, insisting! - that everything contrary to The Science must be excluded as dangerous. The Science is threatened by those who disagree with it, because it is necessarily true and therefore beyond challenge. Yet haven't we seen this pattern before, in other institutions that claim authority, and decry contrary viewpoints as blasphemy? The Science seems remarkably similar to precisely that which is claimed to be its opposite...

Next week: Technology vs Science

The opening image is a detail from an encaustic artwork of unknown providence. As ever, no copyright infringement is intended and I will take the image down if asked by the rightful owner of the artwork.

Comments

[Nicholas Lovell]

Oh my goodness, Chris. Where to start?

OK, I'll start by acknowledging that this is clearly a polemic designed to initiate and stimulate debate, so I will proceed on that basis.

Some years ago, researchers (I can't remember which ones) were trying to figure out how leaders made decisions under intense pressure. If I remember rightly, they were thinking about how to help military commanders, but they used firefighting leadership at major fires as a test group.

The researchers' theory was that "crisis leaders" would be remarkably good at evaluating many competing plans; weighing up the pros and cons; comparing them with each other; and finally making a "best" choice.

In reality, it wasn't like this. The leaders would evaluate a plan. If it was low risk, or had acceptable risk, they would take it. If not, they would look for a better plan. Speed was critical so "good enough" was the priority, not best.

I think that the key here is that, in crisis management, we need a plan. It needs to be an available plan with few downsides. It should be driven by the Science. It can then continue to be investigate by researchers over time. But it is critical that it exists now.

I think that your piece is mixing up "a search for truth" with "a search for useful guidance". I fully accept that some people believe that the Science is clear on, for example, masks and won't gainsay it.

I personally believe that wearing masks in crowded places fit several important goals for me: some support from science, little downside, a better plan than no plan while we work out (using research) what is a more accurate and refined plan.

I think this boils down to this:
- At times of crisis, people need a clear plan. They need to trust the leaders and the plan needs to be simple to communicate and understand.
- Because it is a time of crisis, new information might emerge that alters the plan, which undermines point 1.

Nevertheless, I think waiting for research is too long. So we shorthand for the Science. This is generally a benefit. BUT we must be able to use the research to refine it.

And then, in the end, we have the problem that no scientific questions are ever settled. We need to trust experts to balance the competing issues and make their best recommendation.

Where I think we do agree is that a scientist who says they can never be wrong is no scientist. But clarity of plans, ever before the research is in, is critical in the communication of science-driven public policy.

PS I have assumed that a lot of this post relates to your investigations regarding public policy around Covid. If I'm wrong, this reply may make little sense.

[Joaquín Ágreda]

Yes, very few things are more unscientific than The Science.

[Chris]

Joaquín:
"very few things are more unscientific than The Science."
Sad but so true. I had always had my concerns about where this was headed, long before 2020, and I take no pleasure in having seen this in advance.

With unlimited love to you,

Chris.

[Chris]

Dear Nicholas,
I cannot tell you how much I appreciate you wading in here! And yes, as you suppose, this first piece goes for full on polemic in the desperate hope to pull someone in for discussion. Hence my appreciation that you have stepped into the breach! Thank you.

Is this piece mainly about public policy on SARS-CoV2? Yes, this one is. The Five Choices serial as a whole has wider targets, but it is operating in this context throughout, I suppose. But it is only during the last year that intelligent well-educated people have been telling me I'm mistaken because I'm listening to "just some scientists" while The Science says something else. I expect I don't need to tell you that in an authentic scientific debate, the discussion is about the existing evidence and how to interpret that. Such discussions are now not permitted in any major public forum. What a disaster! But we'll get to that in time...

"In reality, it wasn't like this. The leaders would evaluate a plan. If it was low risk, or had acceptable risk, they would take it. If not, they would look for a better plan. Speed was critical so 'good enough' was the priority, not best."

Aye, although crisis leadership studies operate slightly differently from the situation on the ground in national political leadership. In a national political crisis, politicians are obligated by the panic of their voting public to take action whether or not taking action is the right thing to do. If the best plan on the merits was to take no action, politicians would need to have backbone and integrity to stand up and tell people that the best thing to do was not to act (and even then, the voters might well punish them for it... our system does not encourage effective leadership in that regard). Taking action always wins out over not taking action once the electorate are sufficiently agitated about a topic. "Ducking this issue calls for real leadership" as Mayor Quimby says on The Simpsons.

"I think that the key here is that, in crisis management, we need a plan. It needs to be an available plan with few downsides. It should be driven by the Science. It can then continue to be investigate by researchers over time. But it is critical that it exists now."

Absolutely! And of course, we had a plan for just this kind of situation already written up. It was based upon the scientific knowledge at the time that it was drawn up, and so was credible in its own terms. But it was a plan that the voters didn't like... it was a plan that essentially meant letting old people die of epidemic respiratory infections. I'd be quite happy to say that this wasn't a great plan, but it was based upon the scientific evidence at the time it was drawn up...

The people - unsurprisingly! - did not like this plan, even though in a cost-benefit analysis (what an ugly concept...) this was a plan with much "better" outcomes than the plan we went with, which would have failed any cost-benefit analysis imaginable - not that any was ever performed. (Some are being performed now... it's not pretty.)

So we went for a terrible plan, a plan based on the news from China that lockdowns were effective. It's still not clear if the Chinese reports were accurate or honest. I would certainly not condemn anyone for thinking that the Chinese government stage-managed their information in this regard. But that put the ideas into the minds of some people that lockdowns were the answer. So Italy gave it a go. And once any nation outside of the China had tried it, suddenly politicians were in a terrible bind - because now not locking down would be a huge political risk (especially, but not only, if the Chinese data was correct that lockdowns were effective). So one by one, every European nation except Sweden locked down.

And then something amazing happened. Some of the most educated and well-informed experts on epidemics spoke up and said that this was not a clever plan, and that since the people most at risk were the elderly and those with comorbidities, a focussed protection plan would be safer and more effective. (They didn't say that it would also have been vastly cheaper, but this is also true about that plan).

At this point in my reading of the literature (I'm about 300 hours in), I can say with some confidence that focussed protection was a good plan, the best anyone proposed - far better than the original plan of letting the elderly die, and enormously superior to creating the conditions for worsening the pandemic, as all long-term lockdowns did. (I won't go into the evidence for that here, as it gets complex and touches upon issues such as cross reactive immunity, but even if we just look at how depression doubles all cause mortality and the troubling issue of immunity debt, long-term lockdowns don't look clever).

This plan for focussed protection (the Great Barrington Declaration) was absolutely savaged. I don't even have a good explanation for why it was savaged, as it was in fact the first time anything sensible had been suggested since the start of the entire debacle. But it was and still is treated as insanity, rather than the most scientifically grounded proposal anyone presented. The best explanation I have for the failure for this plan to be taken seriously is the one that this piece offers: people had chosen The Science over the research.

"I think that your piece is mixing up 'a search for truth' with 'a search for useful guidance'. I fully accept that some people believe that the Science is clear on, for example, masks and won't gainsay it."
This is an interesting criticism - I'm uncertain if its correct. I definitely agree with you that trying to put together useful guidance means operating under conditions of uncertainty. Under such conditions, the data and the interpretations don't align. You end up acting on incomplete data, on best-guesses. I accept this as inevitable.

But you suggest a second step where new information is incorporated into our plans. And that's not what happened - quite the opposite in fact! Rather, people took up positions based on early best guesses and then called those guesses The Science. They adopted these guesses as political axioms. From that point, these entrenchments prevented research from being conducted - or at least, reported - and destroyed the conditions by which research operates. That is a recipe for disaster, a disaster we are currently living through.

"I personally believe that wearing masks in crowded places fit several important goals for me: some support from science, little downside, a better plan than no plan while we work out (using research) what is a more accurate and refined plan."

I have great respect for people who wear face masks because they believe it is helping and believe that the harms are negligible. I don't think either claim is accurate, but it is easy to see why people would take up on those positions - in part because on this topic the data up to 2019 was consistently vague, and therefore there was no settled position to work from.

Reading between the lines, I'm going to hazard a guess that you haven't done much reading on this topic outside of newspapers, which is fine but probably doesn't give you much of an understanding of the research ambiguities. This topic is far more complex than anyone seems to be willing to admit. I wrote about this aspect in depth before, and I link it here without expectation but just so that I don't seem to be ducking the point:
https://onlyagame.typepad.com/only_a_game/2021/02/a-case-study-in-pseudoscience.html
...you will find an update in the comments which summarises where we actually are in the research on face masks now, which has changed considerably over the last year, unlike our policies on community masking, which remain blissfully immunised from evidence.

Brief summary: the support from research up to 2019 was weak and contradictory (cloth masks in Vietnam increased influenza spread next to control in health care workers, although that's the only study on this). The downsides were under studied and are small yet significant - especially in the young or the elderly; data from Germany (who like the United States masked children as young as 2) contradicts claims of little downsides, but even then we are still missing strong evidence, which is unlikely to come at this time owing to the inevitability that anyone performing research to demonstrate harms with community masking is ostracised and treated as suspect by their very decision to conduct the research, because The Science tells us that it is effective (despite it not being at all clear that it is) and harmless (despite it already being quite clear that it is not).

Also, community masking was not a better plan than no plan. In fact, based on what the research now suggests, community masking was a worse plan than the previous guidance, which was based on limiting contact time. That advice, which we overwrote with face masks, might actually have saved lives, which I think I can say with some confidence now is not true of community masking, which outside of N99 masks in clinical settings (and possibly N95s in clinical settings; that's less clear) have saved no lives at all. However, I admit that sticking to the original guidance might have made "essential workers" reluctant to get on a bus or a train for more than 30 minutes... I sincerely hope that this factor had no bearing on us taking this regrettable fork in the road.

Community masking is only a small part of the disaster, but it too is a disaster in terms of choosing The Science over research, and the moment we're doing that there's no possibility of getting back to scientific investigation of the issues.

"I think this boils down to this:
- At times of crisis, people need a clear plan. They need to trust the leaders and the plan needs to be simple to communicate and understand.
- Because it is a time of crisis, new information might emerge that alters the plan, which undermines point 1.
Nevertheless, I think waiting for research is too long. So we shorthand for the Science. This is generally a benefit. BUT we must be able to use the research to refine it."

I agree with what you say here. But the problem is that by adopting the early best guesses as The Science (and not, as you sensibly suggest, a provisional plan) the populace at large destroyed the conditions whereby new information could emerge to alter the plan. And I think this is because people on the whole fundamentally do not understand how scientific processes operate, and the craving for certainty rapidly devolves into idolatry. Worse, politicians dare not change the plan no matter how much they pledge their sacred commitment to "Follow The Science" (again I say: idolatry). Even those that do have that understanding of scientific process, like you, can easily lose sight of the ambiguities of live research topics once the newspapers opt to stop reporting on them. (But we'll get on to that point in a few weeks time in this serial...)

"And then, in the end, we have the problem that no scientific questions are ever settled. We need to trust experts to balance the competing issues and make their best recommendation."

I agree! If only we had done as you say. What we did instead was render by fiat the government-selected experts presumptively correct, and then exclude all other experts from the discussion. That's not scientific process. That looks suspiciously like authoritarianism, maybe even totalitarianism. But nobody could honestly claim that it was good scientific practice to exclude dissent from the process. And yet, incredibly, that is precisely what we did.

"Where I think we do agree is that a scientist who says they can never be wrong is no scientist. But clarity of plans, ever before the research is in, is critical in the communication of science-driven public policy."

Again, I agree! I think you have your head on straight as to the framework for thinking about this, Nicholas. But I suspect you have only read about these topics in the newspapers, and as such have probably not been exposed to the full range of scientific thinking on any of these issues, which has by varying degrees been ignored, vilified, and even censored. We live at a time whereby it is not permitted to report research that contradicts what has already been chosen (The Science). Such a situation is toxic to research.

As a small case in point, the DANMASK-19 study was rejected by three major journals - not because the methodology was weak (it wasn't, it's the strongest investigation into community masking ever conducted). It was rejected because it contradicted the course of action we had already chosen: community masking. It was rejected because we politicised scientific topics (which is what the caricature 'The Science' in this piece really means - scientific work distorted by political commitment and polarised by political partisanship) and so made it far harder to investigate the true state of affairs, and next to impossible to report it.

It is this disaster, and all the others that grow out of it, that has me so distressed. We have basically thrown scientific process in the bin and replaced it with a bronze idol of The Science instead. Shame on us all for falling so low. That's the first disaster in this serial, and there are four more coming (part two goes up tomorrow).

Thank you so much for this thoughtful comment. You raise so many good points here, and I cannot tell you what it means to me that you were willing to discuss this with me. Most people have given up on discourse at this point. That's another disaster, and it is not one that I can accept although it is, of course, ultimately beyond my control. What I cannot do is remain silent while we make mistakes in areas of grotesque harm (like long-term lockdowns), nor even in areas with small but significant harms (like community masking).

I try with every fibre of my being to work for the good of all. That may not be sane, but it is what I do. It has just become very difficult to do so.

With great respect, and gratitude,

Chris.