| The author raises some very good points about the dangers of science in the public sphere, particularly how scientific debates can be co-opted by pundits and cause social media outrage. However, I simply can't read the article without recognizing the context of its author: John P. Ioannidis. For those who don't know, Ioannidis was widely criticized early in the pandemic for his studies on the effects of lockdowns [1]. This essay seems, in part, a response to that criticism. But contrary to his writing, 1. He was widely criticized for his work by peer scientists [2], not just the public, not just for the rigour of his work, but also for his personal conduct. 2. He made the choice to share his ideas on Fox news, essentially entering the public debate himself [3], and willingly exposing himself to public scrutiny 3. His work has not been censored. It remains in major scientific journals and is highly-cited! He quotes "organized skepticism" like he just read Merton the night before, acting like it has somehow vanished during the pandemic, and yet his actual scientific work remains firmly within the scholarly discourse, its the public scrutiny that he doesn't like. So I am not sure exactly what his point is. The "science" seems to be working as well as it ever did, with a wide variety of research and viewpoints being published. Public controversy reaching scientists is its own issue and one that I'm sympathetic towards, but I feel that Ioannidis is a poor spokesperson for this issue, and his personal grievances bleed into his writing. [1] https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-a... [2] https://twitter.com/mlipsitch/status/1263296963627356161?lan... [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2020/12/16/john-ioan... |