The Decline of Scientific Objectivity During the Pandemic.

Abstract

Science is objective. Analysis is rational. Not everyone wants to be objective and rational. If so, then scientific research is not a good career choice for them. Objectivity and rational analysis are difficult to achieve. We always must be on guard against biases in the work of the papers we review but also in our own research. Biases creep into the framing of research questions and the selection of variables. Where editors see often see bias is in the interpretation of findings. Authors sometimes choose to study a topic because they believe A influences B, their data does not support the hypothesis, but their conclusion proceeds to say A should be changed for the benefit of B. This is not good research practice. The COVID-19 Pandemic has, understandably, generated a lot of fear and panic. Researchers should be able to set aside those emotions so that they can rationally analyze the risks, harms and benefits of different diseases and health services. Understandably, many people will be driven by their emotions. This includes patients and those who care about them: their families, parents, teachers, and front-line health care workers. These people need and deserve objective analysis of health care data. They may not care about the results of objective analysis when in a crisis. Their instincts will be to insist that risks should be reduced to zero regardless of the cost. Unfortunately, we live in a universe where resources are not infinite. Furthermore, reducing one harm can have unexpected adverse consequences in terms of damage to health, education, social structures, mental health, personal liberty and civil rights. Unfortunately, a mantra came into popular use that asserted only one set of conclusions was scientific and other perspectives were not “based on science.” This is not how science works. Scientists always disagree about the interpretation of scientific data. Objective analysis, replication by independent investigators, the passage of time can eventually lead to the emergence of a consensus about the interpretation of scientific data. Decrying those who disagreed as ignorant and unscientific during the epidemic was in itself not scientific, but instead an exercise in political correctness. Conclusions charged ahead of the data and policies were based on those conclusions. Political correctness is a powerful force, even in science. Articles assuming that the benefits of masks and mandates exceeded the harms were easily published and those testing the evidence girding up the Group-Think had few outlets. This happened despite conflicting guidance from public health authorities. Should we wear 2 masks instead of one? Is mask wearing effective or only if you have one of the better masks? Was closing down in-person classes of benefit to children or did the harms exceed the reduction in risk? Were public school teachers justified in refusing to enter the classroom, despite the social and educational damage done to their students? Was the shuttering of businesses effective in altering the spread of virus? Would universal vaccination and mask-use really prevent the mutation of the virus? The last goal seems clearly unachievable to me. This journal has sought to be open-minded about COVID-19 research and even to give voice to investigators who challenged the standard perspective. I see an immediate need for objective studies retrospectively testing the benefits and harms of public health guidance during the pandemic. The 50 states and the various nations each crafted their own policies, with varying degrees of success. As researchers, we have a responsibility to analyze the data and learn from the mistakes made in the hope that more rational and more effective policies can be adopted in the future.