It was Dr. Robert Stadler who had once corrected a student: “Free scientific inquiry? The first adjective is redundant.”
This is from p. 178 of my paperback version of Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. When I read it recently, I thought of Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins, head of the National Institutes for Health, plotting to shut up Jay Bhattacharya, Martin Kulldorf, and Sunetra Gupta after they published the Great Barrington Declaration. Here’s a link to the emails. I also thought of Fauci’s “a lot of what you’re seeing as attacks on me quite frankly are attacks on science” line in a 2021 interview. When you criticize a scientist, you might be attacking science but what Fauci didn’t seem even to countenance is that you might actually be criticizing his thinking and wanting him to give more than sound bites to justify his conclusions.
More generally, we are seeing in academia a strong attack on intellectual inquiry. Various people are afraid that they they’ll say the wrong thing and lose even tenured positions. James Sweet, the head of the American Historical Association, apologizes for some thoughtful comments on the 1619 Project, for example.
READER COMMENTS
Vivian Darkbloom
Oct 4 2022 at 10:24am
This isn’t a very good look for Fauci or the US government. However, pushing back against positions you don’t agree with in a coordinated fashion is not nearly as aggregious as trying to silence your opponents completely. That’s what the US government appeared to have done here to Alex Berenson:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/twitter-becomes-a-tool-of-government-censors-alex-berenson-twitter-facebook-ban-covid-misinformation-first-amendment-psaki-murthy-section-230-antitrust-11660732095
This should give some pause to Libertarians who often insist that private actors are always acting privately when it comes to restrictions on free speech and access to social media platforms. You don’t need to share Berenson’s opinions to view this as disturbing.
Vivian Darkbloom
Oct 4 2022 at 10:32am
Berenson only came to my attention recently and because of this case. I also don’t follow Joe Rogan; but, I found Berenson’s discussion of the case and the issues involved very articulate and intelligent. Perhaps that was problem…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ot6-61hZRo
zeke5123
Oct 4 2022 at 11:54am
It is fine to push back. It isn’t okay to do the push back in secret. Also, there seems to be nary a hint (between Fauci and Collins) that maybe profs from Stanford, Oxford, and Harvard shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand? Maybe you get to that conclusion, but it seems like conclusion first, analysis to follow.
Finally, the Alex B. stuff clearly involved the government. The government was making almost Mafioso like threats and the “private” actors complied. Remind me — who are the fascists?
AMW
Oct 4 2022 at 1:52pm
I read all of the emails in the link provided and didn’t see anything remotely like a plot to “shut up” anyone. They are coordinating their response to the GBD, not suppressing the authors.
David Henderson
Oct 4 2022 at 7:17pm
I did overstate. Thank you for that correction.
But notice that Collins said he wanted “a quick and devastating take down of its premises.” Wouldn’t a real scientist have said “what, if anything, is wrong with their premises?”
Jens
Oct 5 2022 at 4:12am
One may also rephrase and expand this criticism a bit: There is no way to request internal mails written to coordinate communication efforts using the Freedom of Information Act from private, non-government actors, even if they are issued in political opinion formation (I could be wrong about this). There are certainly reasons why this is (not) the case, but it also creates an information skew. Another question is whether government officials should take care regarding the specific wording and choice of words in their e-mails that these are eventually not only read by the direct addressees but also by the public; mails considered “internal” are often written in a quite informal and personal way. This might be a problem for the interpretation government officials communication (and therefore for themselves).
Jon Murphy
Oct 4 2022 at 5:30pm
When he first said that, all I could think of was the quote that is attributed to Galielo during his trial for heresy: “I refuse to believe the same God that granted us sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their uses.”
Steven T Yawn
Oct 5 2022 at 3:32pm
Hello. I am a layman who does not share your intellect and who has been completely unaware of the things you have talked about here. I appreciate your insight. I will say that, as a common citizen, I have only witnessed the extreme partisan effort to discredit and demonize Dr Fauci through, primarily, vicious slander, making him the common enemy of a political base thereby subjecting him and his family to vile threats of harm. I had thought that his statement regarding “attacking science” was in response to that. Thank you for the information as it gives me a better understanding of things. I remain “Team Fauci” but do appreciate intelligent discourse.
Thank you.
David Henderson
Oct 7 2022 at 1:16pm
Thank you for your gracious comment. And you’re welcome.
Knut P. Heen
Oct 7 2022 at 10:57am
Karl Marx: “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.”
Most (if not all) scientific advances are reinterpretations of the world we live in. Marx’s attitude is an attack on science and we see it everywhere today. “The debate is settled, it is time to act” is the mantra whether it is Covid, climate, or anything else.
“Covid-19 will kill millions” is a falsifiable statement. Attacking this statement (by trying to falsify it) is science. Ioannidis did that and they tried to cancel him. That is an attack on science.
“Covid-19 will kill millions, therefore we should stop having social interactions” is a political statement. Attacking this statement is an attack on poor logic, not an attack on science.
Comments are closed.