Opinion – Pedro Hallal: Science is no place for fans

by

One of the most fundamental premises of science is that questions are as important as answers. In other words, science lives on challenges and uncertainties, not on absolutes and certainties. Challenging current knowledge is a fundamental presupposition for the advancement of science. Exactly for this reason, science is not a place for fans and, definitely, science is not a place for the accommodated.

From the beginning of the pandemic, every time a relevant scientific question arises, people start to disseminate answers, often hasty and based on ideological premises. Every time a scientist expresses his opinion, an avalanche of comments immediately comes, most of them trying to qualify or disqualify the messenger, without any concern for the message. For example, every time I voiced my opinion about lockdowns and the ineffectiveness of the infamous early treatment, I was immediately attacked by a digital militia. Attacks are usually against me, not the ideas I express.

But the interesting thing is that this behavior is not exclusive to deniers. On the contrary, as a reactive mechanism, many people who put themselves in the position of anti-denialism have more recently adopted this same modus operandi. In the same week, those who applaud you can boo you, if your opinion does not suit your convictions and certainties (I repeat: often hasty and based on ideological premises).

With the arrival of the omicron variant, once again the questions are as important as the answers:

1. Is the omicron variant more transmissible than “earlier versions” of the virus?

2. Is the omicron variant more aggressive than “earlier versions” of the virus?

3. Do existing vaccines protect against the omicron variant?

Brazil and the world need scientists (and not fans) to obtain these answers.

Since the discovery of the new variant, scientists have been looking for answers, quite quickly, to such questions. There are still more doubts than certainties, which is absolutely understandable for such a recent variant. What is not understandable is the amount of hate speech about each scientific opinion issued in that period.

Some colleagues vigorously share preliminary studies showing that omicron appears to be more transmissible than previous versions of the virus, but accuse those who share the (also preliminary) studies of suggesting that the new variant may not be more aggressive than previous versions of the virus. virus.

When a scientist dares to suggest that the effectiveness of existing vaccines may not be as high against the new variant, the researcher is accused of attacking the immunizers. Now, all available studies on the delta variant showed that the vaccines had their effectiveness reduced for the delta, compared to previous versions of the virus. Our role is to recognize this and work to improve immunizations, not attack the scientists who have identified this lesser effectiveness.

Safe doses of common sense and tranquility are needed for science to continue to play its role during the pandemic. Dealing with the virus and the deniers is complicated enough. We don’t have to face the fans either.

.

You May Also Like

Recommended for you