How science sometimes lets us down - and where thought leadership can help

I recently bought a physical (yes – printed, paper) magazine to read over the holidays. It felt a little bit quaint but was a lovely and glossy experience. In it, I came across an article about depression.

It started innocently enough; talking about the link between low serotonin levels and major depressive disorder (MDD). So far, so good – or is it? I was interested personally because I’ve suffered from MDD myself and remain on high-alert, stowing strategies that I come across in the hopes of warding off any backwards slide. Yet, I quickly became interested professionally as the article began to veer towards the territory of inaccurate information and the consequences this has.

The article outlined a 2022 study, conducted by a team at University College London and published in a respected scientific journal, that found that low serotonin was not a cause of depression. Wait, what?! Wasn’t that the whole foundation of what we know about the condition, and the rationale for why we treat it with the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) that so many rely on.

According to the article I was reading, this paper – and all the chaos, other articles, and tweets that it spawned – created more controversy than any neuroscience paper had done in memory.

Science was my example of ‘better’

In my book ‘Better – a more authentic path for the reluctant thought leader’ I include scientists as a positive example of better thinking a few times. To me, they represent a profession committed to finding the truth, to disproving their own hypotheses as they close the gaps in our knowledge. Because science is an inherently forward-thinking field, their sandpit is all the things that are unknown. So, far from stumbling around in the dark, scientists have a systematic plan for isolating what they know and holding lightly what they don’t as they increase our understanding of the world.

Yet here, this approach went wrong. Why?

Scientific papers fall into a couple of camps. Most are primary articles that present the results of experiments. Then there are review articles, where the authors draw together the results of multiple primary articles and make meaning of those. But there’s also a third type – called a systematic umbrella review – which is intended to summarise everything already out there, including existing primary and review articles, about the topic at hand. The paper that sent the world reeling was this third type. A legitimate approach to progressing science but, as any of us know, a leaky umbrella isn’t an awful lot of help.

I’ve long been making the case that when we don’t put our great thinking out into the world, we all miss out on the best outcomes. But it’s not only a case of missing out. There’s no way of knowing how many people abruptly stopped taking their selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) as a result of the article – which could have contributed to either dire consequences, or severe withdrawal symptoms. Here’s an example of where not engaging in the best thinking and conversations caused harm. ??

In my book, I argue that in order to do better thinking, write better content, engage in better conversations, pursue better impact and create better outcomes we need to:

-????????????? Treat complex issues as though they are complex

-????????????? Outline what we don’t know or are less certain about

-????????????? Collaborate – including other perspectives and views

-????????????? And allow our thinking to evolve and improve as we come to know more over time.

?

Here’s where those four qualities went missing – and how they would have helped.

When it comes to complexity…

Our brains are extremely complex organisms and while some things are known about them and how they work, there’s a lot that remains unknown. We’re still in the early days of neuroscience discoveries. Scientists know this and many struggled, when this article was released, to watch science be misrepresented. Yet, even when the science is accurate, the primary objective for the media is to capture your attention and your click. The most startling story does this best. When clicks are the goal, simplification is somewhat inevitable and tends to trump scientific accuracy. We need to trust that people can follow and bring together multiple strands of an argument instead of jumping to over-simplified conclusions.

?

When it comes to uncertainty…

As well as highlighting again how complex anything to do with the brain is, a critique of the controversial ‘serotonin is not the cause’ article by a team of 35 researchers across 14 institutions pointed to the mixed evidence that exists for low serotonin in MDD. None of this was a surprise to those familiar with the scientific literature; they know there’s not super-obvious evidence that serotonin was the problem. However, that critique found that several studies that do show evidence for low serotonin in depression were inexplicably left out. We need to be presenting the full picture – showing the entire range of evidence and the arguments for and against if we’re to make a robust case. It’s OK – and in fact, wise – to show what has been proven, alongside what you’re less sure about or where questions still exist.

?

When it comes to collaboration…

Scientists have very few channels via which they can message the public. Their findings tend to be published in paywalled journals full of jargon. A division exists between science – the serious stuff happening in labs – and ‘pop science’, which tends to be dumbed down for easy consumption. The science is important, but we need to improve the accessibility of it. Here’s where one of the most significant opportunities for improvement exists. For starters, we could see more scientists engaging in thought leadership – either writing books that allow them to interpret science for a more general audience without dumbing it down, or using public media channels to create a dialogue. There’s also an opportunity for scientists and journalists to work better together – leveraging each other’s strengths: the scientists’ deep subject matter expertise and knowledge of the facts, and the journalists’ skill in framing and building stories. If we combine these skillsets, with a commitment to doing justice to the truth of the information, we’ll see better information shared. ?

?

When it comes to evolving and improving…

Most theories or discoveries are not the final word on a topic; there’s always more to learn. So, let’s stop presenting learnings as though they’re unmoveable facts; we will just keep ending up being surprised when we encounter a new conclusion. Currently scientists tend to be careful that the evidence is fully there before discussing things, in order not to mislead the public. This prudence has some merit, but most lines of inquiry never really reach the end of their road. We need to allow findings to be part of a continuing conversation and exploration. We need to find a balance between sharing what we are learning, without needing to have all the pieces figured out just yet. This practice of iteration and embracing two-way conversations about complex issues is at the heart of thought leadership.?

At Intelligent Ink, we’re on a mission to help people express and expand their thought leadership impact through books. The results for authors and leaders isn’t just commercial success – it’s also about driving societal curiosity and fuelling big-picture change. It’s about contributing to the greater, and better-informed good of us all. This is why I continue to feel so strongly about helping people do their best thinking and make it accessible – it’s an incredible way to contribute something and make a positive dent in the world.

This year, our focus is on providing our awesome international community of thought leaders with more opportunities to collaborate and challenge one another. That’s why we’re launching our brand-new, ultra-accessible group – The Intelligent Think Tank – for practising thought leaders, visionaries and authors. If you’re wanting to surround yourself with people who are constantly asking why, it might just be the place for you. Check it out here: https://intelligentink.systeme.io/intelligentthinktank-join