Follow. The. Science.
As the government seems to think us incapable of thinking beyond three word slogans, this little mantra has been devised and projected on to our collective psyche. And why not? Shouldn’t we, the general public do just that and follow the science? After all, not many of us are experts in pandemics, viruses or mRNA, so shouldn’t we listen to those who are?
Since the 19th Century, science and the scientific method have taken the Earth by storm. Our intellectual world has been transformed by an immense expansion of knowledge, ranging from the most microscopic particles of matter to the vastness of an ever-expanding universe. Most of its power though, comes from its practical applications and its’ technologies and products have touched the lives of each and every one of us. In short its influence is greater than that of any other system of thought in human history. How could we not want to follow that?
Unfortunately however, maybe it’s not as simple as all that. Whilst one of the central dogmas of science is its objectivity, can we really extrapolate it from the political and economic institutions from where it came? A well conducted science experiment can itself answer many a question but who is it who is asking the question in the first place? Who is funding it? What other questions are not being asked because no one wants to pay for those answers? Our universities, colleges and scientific institutions clearly have to be paid for by someone and that someone is often an industry that has its own agenda, mainly that of seeking a profit.
Another problem that has been highlighted in the past few years is whose science do we follow? Which science do we even get to hear about? To say something like ‘follow the science’ is at its best, naïve. Our government for example, follows the advice of its own SAGE committee to respond to the covid situation. This is a group of scientists, statisticians, psychologists and sociologists that shape how we respond to the pandemic. But who chose these people in the first place? Who pays them? What other interests do they have? Can we even begin to separate science from politics and economics?
Science by its very nature is never settled and scientists are by nature very cautious. The usual way of doing things is that someone will form a hypothesis and everyone else can debate it and critique it until some kind of understanding is, albeit sometimes temporarily, reached. Unfortunately this methodology has recently been thrown out of the window and any form of debate is being actively shut down.
Let us take the much maligned Dr. Robert Malone as an example. Dr Malone is an American virologist and immunologist and is credited with inventing the mRNA vaccine technology. You would be right in thinking that here is a man who would have a lot to say about the pandemic and indeed he does. However he has recently been kicked off of Twitter and YouTube because he dared to contradict the narrative that these vaccines are anything but perfectly safe. Now I don’t profess to know much about these vaccines and how they work but I’m sure that the man who helped to create them certainly knows a lot more than most of us. Shouldn’t he be allowed at least a seat at the debating table? It’s notable that it isn’t even the governments that are censoring him but the big tech companies and this maybe shows us where the true power lies. You can check this bias yourselves by Googling ‘Robert Malone’ and then try searching him via an independent search engine such as duck duck go. Better still you can listen directly to what he has to say, as his recently deleted interview with Joe Rogan is still available on Spotify. Who am I to say if he is right or wrong and who are any of us to say that his voice shouldn’t be heard. This is not how science should be done. Science is there to be challenged. Research the science. Debate the science. Question the science. Just. Don’t. Follow.