Manifesto: In Defence of a Fallible Science

Covid-19 put more pressure on scientists than ever before. The speed at which the corona virus struck forced virologists and researchers from related disciplines to take on a visible public role at a time when the scientific knowledge about this new infectious disease was limited. They captured the pandemic in numbers, but were also asked questions about unknown aspects of the affliction or about the future course of the epidemic, which they couldn’t possibly answer with the swiftness expected of them. In addition, they were not only advising politicians behind the scenes but were also asked to clarify the policy measures that were taken, in the media. In the process, the boundaries between science and politics sometimes became blurred. Scientists were also faced with the limits of their own expertise. For example, the analysis of the corona epidemic as a medical and social problem required a multidisciplinary approach in which, for instance, the importance of the role of (motivational) psychologists was only recognized late and not without difficulty. At the same time, the virus also exposed the boundaries of science, of measuring, counting, and analysing, while demonstrating that thorough research required time. The loss of life and the experiences of the lockdown were after all widely accompanied with feelings of deprivation, discomfort, and loneliness— feelings that not only needed

to be ‘measured’ but also to be shared, processed, and articulated. More so, in such times the need for art and culture became apparent, but this sector was ignored during the first stage of the crisis. How does the general public see all this? The Science Barometer 2020 showed that among the general public trust in science has increased since the beginning of the corona crisis, if only slightly. No doubt the successful development of vaccines will further strengthen this trust. Many people regard the corona vaccines, and rightly so, as an outstanding accomplishment of biomedical science, building on decades of research. At the same time, this trust is fragile. More than a few people have questions about the safety of the vaccines that were developed in such short time. All sorts of conspiracy theories are circulating on social media. Advancing scientific insights are sometimes seen as contradictory. Moreover, the role of pharmaceutical companies in the production and distribution of vaccines clouds the ideal image of a disinterested practising of science for the common good, as economic motives also enter the picture. What lessons are to be learnt by young scientists from this ‘stress test’ for science? The Young Academy aspires to start the post-corona era with a plea for a widely supported, ‘fallible’ science. It defends science as a community of (fallible) people seeking truthful knowledge, a well-functioning community that—precisely because its results are subject to continual critical revision— is our best guarantee for reliable knowledge. At the same time, science operates through mechanisms that we can and must continuously question and improve, while allowing it to function at its own pace.

Debate is an innate aspect of science. Even more so: debate is a necessity of life for science. After all, reliable knowledge is only produced thanks to critically debating and evaluating the results of research. However, this need for debate and continuous reflection is not always easy to understand for the general public and this is partly due to how this aspect is presented in the media—or rather, is not. On the one hand, the media— having to operate within a commercial logic—sometimes opt for a ‘false balance’ with regard to issues about which there is broad consensus within the scientific community by also providing a platform for dissenting opinions or the sensational claims of individuals. This neglects the healthy, mutual criticism among equal discussion partners. On the other hand, in public space research is often presented as—ever newer— ‘facts’, ‘numbers’, and ‘curves’. This sheds insufficient light on the fact that these are ‘only’ representations of the collected data, the interpretation of which is open to debate. Can these scientific ‘facts’ provide answers to, for example, the doubts about vaccination against corona or the misinformation contained in conspiracy theories? Up to a point, they can. However, in her book Why Trust Science? the American historian of science Naomi Oreskes states that piling on facts to refute anti-scientific claims may be counterproductive. After all, those who spread misinformation operate upon the premise that accepted scientific knowledge can most definitely be contested, also publicly. Those who counter this with more facts or defend

facts as being facts, conform to that premise, says Oreskes. It is therefore better to change the framing of the debate itself. This can be achieved, for example, by exposing the motives— economic, cultural, or other— behind the argumentation. Or by better explaining how science works and why we can reasonably trust science. The latter approach starts with an inconvenient truth: the process by which we arrive at scientific knowledge is rather ‘messy’, as it requires constant debate and revision. After all, science is practised by people and therefore it is fallible. The road from an idea, via study or experiment and checks to publication and, in some cases, clinical application is extremely complex. Frequently, different scientists arrive at different interpretations of results. They have their doubts, dismiss elements, correct hypotheses, set up a new study, and so on. In exceptional cases, ethical or deontological rules are violated in the process, but in the main are respected. In addition, in reviewing scientific articles and projects numerous criteria and preferences are at play. But there is also good news: in general, scientific knowledge has proven to be reliable in the long term. It is precisely thanks to the continuous critical questioning of each other’s ideas that scientists ‘as well as is humanly possible’ manage to guarantee and safeguard the quality of science. In order to arrive at valid knowledge, science relies on the collaboration with and review by peers (i.e., other scientists with relevant expertise). This mechanism may at times falter but it has proven its merit more than ever in the fight against Covid-19. As in other societal domains, the pandemic has shown that the importance of collaboration, also in science, can hardly be overestimated. Without fear of exaggerating, we may state that science has outdone itself by developing a vaccine in record time, also thanks to the simultaneous roll-out of the various research stages and related checks. Contrary to previous health crises and in dealing with other global problems, since the beginning of this crisis scientists all over the world, significantly and in the spirit of open science, have shared their data and observations disinterestedly, across institutional and national borders. Yet, at the same time, we regret the lack of such transparency by governments and Big Pharma regarding the global pricing, distribution, and (uneven) accessibility of vaccines.

The Covid-19 epidemic was a stress test for both society and science. The Young Academy wishes to act on the insights gathered thus far. Now that the post-corona era will hopefully dawn soon, we young scientists want to fully engage in strengthening an open scientific community. On the one hand, for us this means adopting an open attitude internally, in how scientists interact with each other and enter into dialogues across disciplinary boundaries. On the other hand, we also aim for more openness towards all those who have a stake in scientific research, feel engaged with it, and/or are keenly interested in it. In this we stress the importance of various insights contributing to the solution of complex societal issues. An open interdisciplinary dialogue allows for bringing together perspectives from different branches of science. The result is more than just the sum of these perspectives. But interdisciplinarity goes further, beyond the boundaries of professionalized science. To be sure, science defines the methodology by which to arrive at reliable knowledge. But at the same time, society requires a broader view of the issues people are struggling with. We have that experience in the Young Academy too: as an interdisciplinary meeting place it is not only populated by scientists but by artists too. Real innovation, especially in the post-corona era, requires combining the knowledge, observations, and input from both scientific and nonscientific disciplines. This creative dynamic can only be realized in full if knowledge is freely accessible. The Young Academy therefore wholeheartedly supports a robust ‘open science’ policy, by which preferably not just publications appear in ‘open access’. The data on which these publications are based should be shared generously as well, and making them available should be appreciated without taking anything away from the continued importance of interpreting research results. Today, more than ever, science concerns everyone. Citizens keep a close track of scientific developments through the media. Some even contribute to large-scale projects as ‘citizen scientists’. Being stakeholders, patients have a clear interest in the outcome of medical research. Politicians, policymakers, and actors from industry conduct a dialogue with scientists in determining the research agenda. We conclude with a call to make all of these actors more aware of the process that all scientific research goes through, including the methodological difficulties involved, the time it takes, and the unsolved questions that inevitably remain. Being aware of a fallible—and precisely therefore reliable—science represents to us a guarantee for the successful functioning of science in the society of the future.