Yes, listen to science — but listen carefully

BEHOLD science, the sword and the shield ofprogressivism. Over the course ofthe pandemic (and before that, in debates over climate change, stem cells, etc.), liberals have insisted that we must listen to science and heed the scientists. It was a cornerstone ofpresident-elect Joe Biden’s campaign and a constant refrain ofdonald Trump critics.

Taken literally, I endorse the phrase “listen to science” wholeheartedly. Scientists have important things to say to policymakers and citizens alike — and let’s not forget that in a democracy, voters are policymakers too. A well-informed electorate is a useful check on ill-informed politicians.

The problem, however, is that the people who say “listen to science” tend not to mean it literally but figuratively, and worse, intermittently.

In the aftermath ofgeorge Floyd’s killing in May, massive protests against racism and police brutality erupted across the nation. The point ofthe protests (at least most ofthem) was noble and understandable. But the same champions ofscience suddenly changed their tune about mass gatherings because this was a good cause.

In a pluralistic society, the definition ofa good cause is going to vary. Telling people that they can’t see their dying parents, attend a funeral or make a living because science says it’s too risky but that protesting systemic racism and police brutality is OK is a great way to convince millions ofpeople that “listen to science” is a weaponized political term, not a universal apolitical standard.

Some epidemiologists made things worse by stepping out oftheir lanes.

“We should always evaluate the risks and benefits of efforts to control the virus,” Jennifer Nuzzo, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins, declared on Twitter. “In this moment the public health risks ofnot protesting to demand an end to systemic racism greatly exceed the harms ofthe virus.”

I trust epidemiologists to explain how epidemiology works. But there is no transitive property to their expertise. The opinion that the protests would even come close to eradicating systemic racism and police brutality is just that — an opinion, and a flimsy one at that. Moreover, the opinion ofmedical scientists on such matters has no more authority than that ofplumbers or electricians — and less than that ofmany social scientists or, dare I say it, politicians.

Which brings us to the point. Using the phrase “listen to the science” as a shield for your preferred policies or as an attack on policies you dislike is not only bad faith, it’s a bad idea, because it will undermine the credibility ofscientists and politicians alike.

Now that we’re entering the vaccination chapter of this horrible story, many of the same science worshippers are, in effect, telling the scientists to listen to politics.

In California, there’s an effort to factor “historical injustice” into the vaccination rollout as a form ofreparations. Because indigenous Americans were treated horribly in the past, the argument goes, they should be moved higher on the list ofvaccine recipients.

A similar argument has emerged over whether the elderly — those most likely to die from COVID-19 — should be moved down the list because “older populations are whiter,” as noted by Harald Schmidt, an assistant professor ofmedical ethics and health policy at the University ofpennsylvania.

“Society is structured in a way that enables them to live longer,” Schmidt told The New York Times. “Instead ofgiving additional health benefits to those who already had more ofthem, we can start to level the playing field a bit.”

Scientists are free to make such arguments, but these aren’t scientific arguments. They are political opinions, and they don’t become any more legitimate simply because you wear a lab coat at work. So by all means, listen to the scientists, but listen very carefully, because they might be saying things that aren’t very scientific.