Certainty as the great enemy of tolerance, part 1 of 2

Are we sure about that?

As the days post-election turn into weeks and months, there is much that is emerging that is alarming for health. There is also much that is speculative, with little clarity about the real implications of particular proposed actions by the new, emerging, federal administration. Trying to heed my own words, I am refraining from over-investing in comment or dispositive certainty about any of this, aiming to keep an open mind, and to think carefully about how I can be most effective, towards hope. If anyone is interested in comment on the more acute contemporary swirl, I offer thoughts on LinkedIN, and a brief note to our internal Boston University School of Public Health community is here.

Read more here.

Embed Block

Add an embed URL or code. Learn more

The Power of Culture

What causes a change in scientific interest? A new theory can produce a paradigm shift. Funders from the public sector have great influence in driving research teams down particular tracks. Researchers are sometimes also influenced by what has commercial potential. One other driver of scientific interest, much less discussed, is culture itself. We can think of two important examples, one related to brain science, the other related to reproductive health, where culture shifted and with it shifted the focus of science.

Read more here.

Challenging the Challenges to Science

The 2024 election has made clear that public health will need to continue its outreach, its defense of important health values, and its ongoing commitment to translating science fairly, humbly, and without partisanship. Not only engaging in conversations, but also trying to influence them is now, more than ever, part of our mission. Given this, we are re-sharing a recent essay on combatting misinformation and restoring trust in science.

In his 1997 book “The Art of the Comeback,” then future President Donald J. Trump said that asbestos was “100% safe” and “got a bad rap.” The science on asbestos as a risk factor for a broad range of cancers has long been settled, with little meaningful dispute about the product’s harms. But Trump’s book, which was a bestseller, had reach, and was part of an effort to sow doubt about a product that seemed to have inconvenienced his efforts in construction projects. 

Read more here.

The Political Uses of Science

During the COVID-19 pandemic it often seemed as though science was at the heart of every public discussion. Public argument flared about the science behind novel vaccines, masking recommendations, and decisions around school closures. Much of this discussion was entirely reasonable debate about still contended and new science. But some of it was fueled by political actors, aiming to advance particular political—and heavily partisan—agendas. Science tries to identify truths about our natural and social world. Politics aim to advance a vision of the world informed by a particular ideology that often looks to whatever means are available, including science, to advance its own ends. 

Read more here.

Elitism and Science | Observing Science

Science is carried out by experts. More than a century ago, the rise of German universities as forerunners of the modern research university created a model whereby certification—usually in the form of a doctorate—creates a class of working scientists. This approach suggests that the work of science is being carried out by the meritorious few, a class that anyone, through hard work, can join and contribute to.  

But, as is often the case, merit is not exactly what it seems at first glance. In the past 50 years, the proportion of U.S. PhD students who have a parent with a post-graduate degree has tripled. For most fields, more than half of PhD students have parents with post-graduate degrees, and fewer than a fifth have parents without a four-year degree. When one recognizes that fewer than 40% of Americans have a four-year college degree, it becomes clear that the work of science continues to be carried out by a very select slice of the population.

Read more here.

Three directions to push forward The Healthiest Goldfish conversation

Reflections on a transition.

In my last essay, I shared some reflections on the themes of these essays over the past year or so, looking back while also looking ahead to the next evolution of the conversation about health. Since then, I have had several readers reach out to me to ask if I was sunsetting The Healthiest Goldfish as a result of that note. Far from it. What I was doing in the last note was looking back on a cycle of essays, to pave the way for a new cycle of ideas. So, I thought today I would do something a bit more self-reflective, thinking though some ideas that have been percolating in my head for some time, and outlining the key areas I am hoping to focus on in my writing in this space in the coming year. As the health conversation has evolved, I have continually asked myself how these essays should also evolve, to do the most good in the moment, not simply reacting to events and ideas that emerge but playing a role in shaping them, nudging them in a more positive direction, ever closer to our goal of health. This means asking now: what role should The Healthiest Goldfish play in the months and years to come? What kinds of conversations should we engage in to create a better world in this moment? 

Read more here.

Protecting Government Scientists | Observing Science

RGovernment scientists shape, implement, adjudicate, and enforce public policies of every stripe. Any data-based issue that might require government to act—from gun control to tobacco use to the opioid crisis to the safety of vaccinations to climate change—is a point at which, to some, government could infringe upon business or personal liberty. Disputants turn to rejecting factual evidence on these problems as a way to undermine government action.

Read more here.

Thinking about health tomorrow | The Healthiest Goldfish

Concluding a cycle of essays, reflecting on the ideas they surfaced about building the future of health.

Over the past year or so, these essays have tried to articulate a new practical philosophy of health for this moment, engaging with topics of consequence for how we conceptualize health, towards better understanding what we think about when we think about health. In this sense, they represent a cycle, just as past writings in The Healthiest Goldfish have been a cycle, most recently with the essays which informed my last book, Within Reason. These reflections on shaping a new practical philosophy of health were meant to be useful, to help inform conversations towards building stronger foundations for our pursuit of health going forward. Having engaged with this theme for a while now, it seems a good time to review some of the ideas that have emerged over the course of this writing. I do so today with an eye towards concluding this cycle of essays, as I think about evolving my Goldfish writing and thinking, in a period of personal reflection and reassessment.

Read more here