An apology and an elephant!
Shahed Iqbal
Executive Director and Head, Molecular Epidemiology, Clinical Data Science-Real World Evidence @ Gilead
It is time to address the elephant in the room. There is something called 'poor science', and it is out there. This has been exposed quite emphatically during this pandemic. Between the hundreds of papers published within a short span, between thousands of opinion pieces, and numerous ‘scientific’ models, it can be fairly assumed without going into the details that many of them lacked scientific rigor to say the least. The result was absurd ranges in estimates of morbidity and mortality, contradictory explanations, and confusing public health recommendations. Due to the ‘hodgepodge’ and ‘mishmash’ of responses, it will be hard to gauge which interventions or measures worked during this initial wave of pandemic. That bears more bad news for identifying efficient and effective future measures as one thing is clear that we are in this for the long haul, at least till an efficacious vaccine is in the market. The immediate impact of all this is being felt in the visible erosion of public trust in science. Long term impact will linger far and beyond this pandemic and might make many public health programs more challenging, as if they are not challenging enough now.
Yes, science was rushed. Science was politicized. Science was under pressure to deliver a lot without all the resources. Science was held prisoner of a system and most of all was scrutinized through the lens of ignorance. But these are not enough to exonerate completely the scientific community of their responsibilities. World’s top public health authorities (WHO, CDC) and top experts failed to voice uniform and consistent messages to reassure and guide the public. In many instances it seemed they caved under public and political pressure. On top of that, every day there came (still coming) flurry of new ‘scientific information’. Misinformation spread faster than the virus itself. The ‘best of science’ and the ‘worst of science’ had the same reach — thanks to the internet and social media. But who is to blame? Those who vouched for accuracy without validating their models, those who sacrificed scientific integrity for sensational news, and those who donned a public health expert cap for fifteen minutes of fame -- should we ask them for an explanation? Should anyone be held accountable? Lives of millions were affected.
There will always be politics, the media, there will always be public perceptions. But we as a scientific community has failed miserably to control the narrative so far and that has a lot to do with how we have or ‘have not’ come together during this crisis. As we await thousands or many more deaths, the question is, have we learned any lesson?
As a former public health professional, a member of the scientific community, why do I feel I owe an apology to the public and the victims of this pandemic?
Global Health enthusiast | Postdoctoral Researcher | Medical doctor
4 年Donning a public health expert cap... what an accurate expression. Loved every bit of this piece.
Patient-Centric Drug Development | Real World Evidence | APAC focussed
4 年Is it better to be wrong and rushed than not try/model/publish at all? Isnt it a part of the scientific process - to be proven wrong? I don't think science should be certain or right all the time - But it should be held to scrutiny and challenged and retracted constantly. That's a feature not a big! Does it confuse? Yes. Can it lead to bad policy? Yes, unfortunately. But in the long run, there is more good than bad, don't you think?
Perinatal health - Reproductive justice - Health Equity - Quality improvement - Implementation science
4 年There is so much to unpack as to WHY this happened. There are many apologies to go around, and many more to come, sadly and predictively. Thanks for speaking out.