The most abused phrase of 2020 “Follow the science”

Every time I hear this phrase I wince… why?

Politics and medicine make for a volatile mix. History has revealed that when leaders of medicine endorse one political party, one leader or one ideology humanity is potentially placed at risk. Previous thought leaders in medicine have published articles and treatise which have been weaponized to support nefarious acts of medical malice. Most famously associated with Nazi Germany but we don't have to look much further back than the Bosnia's and Rwanda conflict of the late 20th Century to witness “scientifically” justified atrocious act from physicians. The words in our journals are trusted and for better or worse are highly influential on governmental and international policy decisions as well as public opinion. In the last six months two highly respected medical journals published articles that failed to meet the rigors of the peer review process. This resulted in a turbulent wave of intolerance including pausing of clinical trials and justifications for social media censorships. Following a critical challenge to the sloppy data the articles were retracted, but the impact on the conventional wisdoms of the public was done. And they are not the only ones over 1600 articles this year from medical journals have been retracted (1). Most recently, what many consider the world’s most prestigious medical journal and its editors published an editorial proclaiming their political preference.(2) This article received a lot of attention in the lay press and has been utilized in the political theater as an endorsement from the scientific community at large. While each is entitled to an opinion and maybe history will prove one way right, all scientist must admit that in medicine there is a long tradition of change in thought. In fact, it is more the rule than the exception. It is one of the reasons medical reviewers hedge conclusions, strike down bias language and highlight limitations in studies. It is also customary for an invited commentary to accompany controversial scientific publications offering the less than discerning readers an alternative point of view. This judicious philosophy of reason and temperance has boded well for medicine and human rights. It is a philosophy that places an individual’s health over their politics. And it promotes a mission to aid those regardless of another’s station in life or position in space. Perhaps it would be best if medical journals refrained from politics. And if it is felt necessary to opine for a greater good than an invited alternative point of view may provide added context for all those to consider. Medical journals have served as a sacred organ of science for generations let us keep it that way.

1.     https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/the-top-retractions-of-2020-68284

2.     The Editors, Dying in a Leadership Vacuum,.N Engl J Med 2020; 383:1479-1480