Jacob, I always enjoy your articles. In this one, you basically say that choices have consequences and some of those may be bad for some. No argument here. But to a former practicing scientist, science manager, science-based policy manager, college professor and ENGO policy manager, you seem to be arguing for science hegemony. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I've seen enough bad science (actually mostly "scientific" opinion not derived from the rigors of a true science process), science that ultimately reversed previous scientific conclusions and outright fraud to endorse science hegemony. Science done right is wonderful but done wrong it can bring on a nightmare. During COVID-19 political hegemony masqueraded as science in not focussing largely on the most vulnerable as known by science, destroying inter-personal relationships through excessive isolation as known by science, by destroying families, people and small businesses as known by anyone awake and, perhaps the most heinous, by setting schooling our children back significantly as measured by science. I much prefer the policy of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Hi, Bill. Thank you for taking the time to read and respond—and for sharing your experience across science, policy, and education. I genuinely appreciate your perspective.
To clarify, I don’t believe I was arguing for science hegemony in this piece. My aim wasn’t to suggest that science should override ethics, lived experience, or democratic deliberation. Rather, I was trying to point to something more basic and moral: that our choices—especially in the public health sphere—can affect other people, and that we have a responsibility to care about those consequences.
I absolutely agree that science can go wrong—through bias, premature consensus, political misuse, or even outright fraud. But I don’t think the failures of science negate the need for science done well, and for good to science to inform policy decisions, especially when it comes to protecting vulnerable populations. The pandemic exposed both the strengths and the weaknesses of our systems. We should be honest about both.
Ultimately, my call was for a return to collective responsibility—a recognition that autonomy doesn’t mean isolation from the consequences our actions have on others. That belief doesn’t require blind trust in science; it requires empathy.
Thank you again for engaging so thoughtfully, Bill. Appreciate you being here and contributing!
Jacob, I always enjoy your articles. In this one, you basically say that choices have consequences and some of those may be bad for some. No argument here. But to a former practicing scientist, science manager, science-based policy manager, college professor and ENGO policy manager, you seem to be arguing for science hegemony. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I've seen enough bad science (actually mostly "scientific" opinion not derived from the rigors of a true science process), science that ultimately reversed previous scientific conclusions and outright fraud to endorse science hegemony. Science done right is wonderful but done wrong it can bring on a nightmare. During COVID-19 political hegemony masqueraded as science in not focussing largely on the most vulnerable as known by science, destroying inter-personal relationships through excessive isolation as known by science, by destroying families, people and small businesses as known by anyone awake and, perhaps the most heinous, by setting schooling our children back significantly as measured by science. I much prefer the policy of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Hi, Bill. Thank you for taking the time to read and respond—and for sharing your experience across science, policy, and education. I genuinely appreciate your perspective.
To clarify, I don’t believe I was arguing for science hegemony in this piece. My aim wasn’t to suggest that science should override ethics, lived experience, or democratic deliberation. Rather, I was trying to point to something more basic and moral: that our choices—especially in the public health sphere—can affect other people, and that we have a responsibility to care about those consequences.
I absolutely agree that science can go wrong—through bias, premature consensus, political misuse, or even outright fraud. But I don’t think the failures of science negate the need for science done well, and for good to science to inform policy decisions, especially when it comes to protecting vulnerable populations. The pandemic exposed both the strengths and the weaknesses of our systems. We should be honest about both.
Ultimately, my call was for a return to collective responsibility—a recognition that autonomy doesn’t mean isolation from the consequences our actions have on others. That belief doesn’t require blind trust in science; it requires empathy.
Thank you again for engaging so thoughtfully, Bill. Appreciate you being here and contributing!
Jacob, thanks for the excellent reply. We are in full agreement on your intended point.