COVID-19 News: “Batteries Not Included”

“Batteries Not Included.” 

We’ve all read these disappointing words on the package of a newly purchased product.  It is especially unsettling when the package contains a toy, and your child or grandchild has just unwrapped it excitedly on Christmas morning.

Friday, I “opened” a different kind of “package”—an article reporting new COVID-19 cases in Ashland County here in Northeast Ohio.  With all due respect to its author(s), I selected this article because it resembles many other articles I could have chosen to illustrate the points I hope to make here. 

Like a toy that comes with “batteries not included,” this Ashland Source article comes without an important “power source”—good journalism.  But there’s also a second “battery” missing— “good science.”  The third “battery” must be supplied by educated readers who can exercise sound critical reasoning.

Good Journalism

I’m not an expert in journalism.  However, I located a list seven qualities of a good news story provided by pivotcomm.com.   A well written story should include good sources (e.g. data from “good science”) and provide the necessary focus and context that enables well-educated readers to reach accurate conclusions.  With these criteria in mind, note that the headline of our “example article” reports the occurrence of 5 new positive results of COVID-19 infection in Ashland Co.  This heading would grab attention and maybe even elicit fear among those who think a second wave of the virus is likely.

The Ashland Source article goes on to explain that 4 of the 5 COVID-19 cases “were exposed to the virus at mass gatherings – a wedding, church service, and auction – where safety precautions were not observed.”  Can you identify at least one “red flag” here?  If so, you may be asking how the 4 individuals could have known the exact place and person responsible for infecting them.  (My record at doing this is dismal.)  And finally, who verified that safety precautions were not observed at each of the events--wedding, worship service, and auction?

In spite of limited information, the article includes a stern reprimand from Heather Reffett, Ashland Co. Health Department (ACHD) Commissioner:  “If safety precautions had been in place…at least four of these new infections could likely have been avoided.”  There is no mention of how individual #5 was infected. 

Clearly, the ACHD is faithfully conducting its civil duty.  But in so doing their message through this article suggests that the citizens of the Ashland area should remain isolated and locked down much as they were in April.  But does the larger context of the pandemic in Ashland Co. support this policy?

The article would have been more helpful if it had informed the readers that the 5 new cases bring the total number of cases in Ashland Co. to 27 as of June 12.  According to the last paragraph of the article, of these 27 cases, 22 have recovered and 5 are still recovering.  Although the article dutifully lists the dates, beginning March 18, when each COVID-19 positive case was reported, it does not mention that there have been no deaths in Ashland Co. to date.  No deaths in Ashland Co!  This statistic is quite striking considering that, according to my research at the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center, neighboring counties ranged from 1 to 61 deaths (average = 21) attributed to COVID-19.  And what about death rates statewide in Ohio?

We would expect the number of COVID-19 cases in Ohio to increase now that increased testing is occurring.  But if the virus is posing a threat to Ohioans sufficient to justify a total lockdown for nearly two months, we would expect to see a significant rise in total deaths in 2020 compared to deaths in previous years.  But, according to Dr. Mary Kate Francis, interim medical director at the Ohio Department of Health, quoted in the Akron Beacon Journal, “Despite the climbing death toll, though, total deaths are up by 1.2%, or 680 people, in 2020 compared to the previous five-year average, according to state mortality data.  It’s “hard to guess as to what could be the case or the cause” for a lack of an overall surge, though several factors have probably contributed, Francis said.

One factor to account for the absence of the predicted increase in deaths this year is the fact that epidemiological models were very misleading.  Based on modeling data, in early April, Gov. DeWine had predicted as many as 60,000 new cases in Ohio per day!  However, at the COVID-19 peak in Ohio, around April 19, less than 1,300 new cases were reported per day.  It is hard to account for this discrepancy (prediction was off by a factor of 46-to-1) based entirely on good public compliance to social distancing that “flattened the curve.”  Here is where we need “good science.”

“Good Science” Needed
I have been particularly interested in how the scientific data on COVID-19 is obtained and interpreted.  See “Pandemic—or Policy without “Good Science?” Our example article from Ashland Source refers to the basic reproduction number (or reproductive ratio, R_o) of a virus.  Please don’t panic here when you see the symbol, R_o. What follows is not beyond your ability to understand if you read slowly and stay with me.

In simply terms, R_o is the number of people that one infected person will infect in a population.  So, if one person develops the infection and passes it on to two others, the R₀ is 2.  The “0,” or naught, indicates a reproductive number (R) for a new virus in a population with zero immunity. Jeffrey K. Aronson, et al. of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine , University of Oxford, explain in more detailed terms that R_o is “the number of cases that are expected to occur on average in a homogeneous population as a result of infection by a single individual, when the population is susceptible at the start of an epidemic, before widespread immunity starts to develop and before any attempt has been made at immunization.”

The article refers to estimates of R_o reported by Ohio Governor Mike DeWine.  According to the governor, “Ohio’s R₀ number was as high as 1.9 in March but as of June 1, it was slightly lower than 1.”  Gov. DeWine has attributed the decrease to the interventions implemented by his administration to “flatten the curve.”  Ohio’s Region 5, which includes Ashland currently has an R₀ of 0.72.

By this time, you may realize that, by definition, R_o applies only at the start of viral infection of a population.  In contrast, the  effective reproductive number, is the number of people that can be infected at a given time during the progression of the virus in a given population.
The R_e “changes as the population becomes increasingly immunized, either by individual acquired immunity following infection or by vaccination, and also as people die.”  Gov. DeWine and the ACHD seem to be misusing the R_o value (applies only at the start of viral infection of a population).  As noted in the previous paragraph, where Gov. DeWine reports changes in R_o, in all likelihood he is referring to R_e.

The estimated R_o for COVID-19 (or SARS-CoV-2) is given in the adjacent figure from CEBM.  Note that COVID-19 to date is not significantly more deadly than several prior influenza viruses.  Yet, because we adopted the policy of broad separation and economic lockdown, this pandemic may end up being much more devastating because of economic disruption, deaths from delayed health procedures, suicides, and drug abuse.

We should note that estimates of R_o, are based on complex mathematical modeling which incorporates estimates of susceptibility, infectivity, and rate of removal of individuals by either recovery through acquired immunity or through death.  As I have already stated, considerable variability has occurred among the epidemiological models largely because they are predictive and based on limited data.  Some of the modeling error may be attributed to the unexpected compliance of our culture to social distancing guidelines.  But there is still reason to doubt their accuracy.  George Box, the noted British statistician, has quipped: “Models, of course, are never true, but fortunately it is only necessary that they be useful. For this it is usually needful only that they not be grossly wrong.”  See “Pandemic—or Policy without “Good Science?”

In conclusion, I have noted the importance of good journalism, good science, and an educated population that can think critically to read and analyze articles such as the one from Ashland Source on the topic of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ashland Co., Ohio.  So far in Ashland Co., there have been no deaths and only 27 reported cases as compared to over 5,000 cases and 303 deaths in Cuyahoga Co. (Cleveland).  Obviously, reported cases and deaths vary greatly among different Ohio counties depending on population density.  However, in no case did number of cases and deaths reach those predicted by the models used to justify the total lockdown. Today, a more recent report in Ashland Source hints that the county's low number of cases (28 as of today) and their very well executed Continuity of Operation Plan (COOP).

Nationwide, it remains to be seen whether broad isolation instead of protection of vulnerable individuals was worth the great cost of economic disruption, unemployment, interruption of routine health care, and termination of most social and cultural events, classroom education, and spiritual gatherings. 

It is not uncommon that both toys and news stories come with “batteries not included.” But let us pray that our nation doesn’t suffer from news reporting that is poorly communicated, lacking in “good science,” and even biased to serve dishonest political or economic gain.

More Questions to Consider:
1.  Can you see how important it is that we exercise caution and think critically, especially when the journalism sometimes lacks sufficient accuracy, context, and helpful assistance to critical reasoning on the part its readers. 
2.  Ohio residents, how many COVID-19 cases have currently been recorded for your county.  You can go to various sources such as Akron Beacon Journal.  Here, scroll down to the Ohio map and click on your county for statistics.  Readers from outside Ohio can find similar data at the Coronavirus Resource Center under your state.
3.  How do deaths from COVID-19 compare to other causes of death?  You can look up a listing of DEATHS BY DIFFERENT CAUSES IN YOUR STATE.  Then, observe how the average deaths from each cause for the past few years compares to the deaths in 2020 (adjusted for the fact that we are only about six months into 2020).  Particularly, how do COVID-19 deaths compare to deaths from other influenza viruses?

If We Had Only Known: But Why Didn’t We?

After nearly three months of social distancing and economic shutdowns aimed at preventing the spread of COVID-19, what do we have to show for the policies aimed at preventing the spread of the virus?  Answer:  Tens of millions of Americans out of work, thousands of businesses destroyed, our health care system disrupted, schools and colleges across the land shuttered, and over 40,000 at-risk senior citizens who were exposed to virus infection and caused to die.  The actual virulence of the disease and the number of lives saved by all of this remains unknown.

What a staggering price to pay in order to defeat a virus!  But was all of this really necessary?
According to The Blaze, "A U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report published April 1 cited the ‘potential for presymptomatic transmission’ as a reason for the importance of social distancing, the network said.”  However, there was significant dissension within science and medicine.  Now, heads are wagging and many are regretting not having listened to the dissenters; or, regretting that many dissenting voices of science were marginalized or silenced.

The World Health Organization (WHO), according to CNBC, now claims that asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19 rarely spread the virus!  According to a CNN report yesterday, Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, head of WHO's emerging diseases and zoonosis unit has stated, "We have a number of reports from countries who are doing very detailed contact tracing. They're following asymptomatic cases. They're following contacts. And they're not finding secondary transmission onward.  It's very rare."

Based on an article this morning in BBC News, the Van Kerkhove statements may be a bit too emphatic given the size of the study she referenced.  The article stated that, “While people without symptoms do seem to be capable of infecting others, current evidence still suggests people with symptoms are the highest risk” of transmitting the disease. The article adds that a positive test doesn’t tell us the “viral load” (how much virus in a person’s system).  However, Dr. Van Kerkove still maintains that secondary transmission requires high viral load which are passed mainly through infectious droplets from coughing and sneezing.  She adds, “If we actually followed all of the symptomatic cases, isolated those cases, followed the contacts and quarantined those cases, we would drastically reduce (Parenthetically, she inserted:  I would love to be able to give a proportion of how much transmission we would actually stop.) but it would be a drastic reduction in transmission."

WHO:  Accountability and Admission of Error
Are you shocked?   Many are not.  If Dr. Van Kerkhove’s assessments are true, then prior suspicions toward the WHO are only being further confirmed.  While some still question how much virus transmission can occur just prior to expression of symptoms, it is looking more and more like the WHO is either incompetent or complicit in an effort to distort the truth.  At very best, it appears that the measures that resulted from WHO and CDC recommendations were much too drastic to be justified by the limited data and associated predictive models.

Although somewhat haltingly, the WHO is basically admitting that the decision to institute social distancing and business shutdowns, supposedly “following the science," was misguided.  If, instead of recommending the widespread social isolation and lock down of all but essential services, health officials had simply recommended tracking, tracing, and isolating symptomatic cases, the COVID-19 pandemic may have had no greater impact than annual influenza viruses that come and go.

If these recent claims of WHO officials are confirmed in the days ahead, history may record the “COVID-19 pandemic” as one of its greatest fiascos.  Of major concern already is not only the disruption of our economy, health care, education, family, social interactions, and worship, but the avoidable deaths of 40,000 of our senior citizens who were left vulnerable and then moved in large numbers into close quarters where COVID-19 infection and death were largely unavoidable.  But I believe we will be adding insult to injury if millions of Americans and billions worldwide do not raise some serious questions that justify a major investigation of exactly who and what led us down this costly and deadly path.  

Important Questions:  Answers Please?
Here are some questions for starters:
1.  What was the origin of the COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) virus?
2.  Why did the Chinese Communists silence several of their prominent scientists?
3.  Why did these Chinese leaders claim the virus was not contagious while they were restricting travel from Wuhan and grabbing up related health care equipment?
4.  Did the Chinese Communist regime conspire with the WHO to control information flow?
5.  Why was doctor-prescribed use of Hydroxychloroquine so strongly opposed by many?
6.  Who are those responsible for decisions that led to the deaths of over 40,000 residents of nursing homes and long-term care facilities, representing 40% of the COVID-19 deaths in the US.
7.  Why have the WHO and CDC now begun to admit to recommending measures that were unprecedented and apparently too drastic? 
8.  In what particular ways did the media fail America and other nations by essentially censoring dissenting voices?  See Hydroxychloroquine: “Good Science” Challenges Politicized Science.
9.  Were there instances in which scientists deliberately acted unethically by withholding data and assessments that might have led to an end of the lockdown much earlier.   See Bring a Speedy End to the Pandemic Shutdown
10.  Is it time for a national discussion to heighten our awareness of how important good journalism and honest reporting by the media is to maintaining our democratic republic?
11.  What changes need to be made to assure that our national leaders receive broader-based, expert scientific and epidemiological input and can make good decisions to protect American people?
12.  How can Christians strengthen their faith in God and sharpen their discernment of the issues of our time, and then position themselves to be able to represent Christ to people mired in confusion, anxiety, depression, addiction, and fear?

With Question #12 in mind, I am finding Luke 21, particularly verses 7-19, very relevant to the events of our day.  While careful study is needed to place the future events Jesus is describing into context, He makes two statements that should be very encouraging (New Living Translation): 
Luke 21: 9 -- And when you hear of wars and insurrections, don’t panic.
Luke 21: 13 -- But this will be your opportunity to tell them about me.

I do not want to pretend to have all of the answers to the COVID-19 pandemic, nor even all of the questions.  I realize that there are many dedicated, honest professionals that were and are involved in some aspect of the pandemic; and, I don’t want to impugn well-meaning, honest people, nor deny the fact that hindsight sometimes prompts great criticism of decisionmakers.  Yet, the questions I have raised are among those that we would do well to answer in the days ahead.

How About You?
Are there particular questions you have about how the pandemic was handled, or about factors that influenced policy to move in such an unwise direction?  How have these events influenced your trust in “science,” the media, our leadership in Washington, and health care professionals?  How has the pandemic influenced your faith in God?

Hydroxychloroquine: “Good Science” Challenges Politicized Science

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), for over 60 years a familiar antimalarial drug, has fast become one of the most popular subjects in daily news surrounding the COVID-19 virus pandemic  allegedly caused by Chinese Communist mismanagement of a lab in Wuhan, China.  Like any drug, the safety and efficacy of HCQ as a treatment for a new disease, ought to be thoroughly investigated.  However, in spite of numerous favorable reports of the life-saving benefit of doctor-prescribed HCQ, many influential people including Dr. Anthony Fauci continue to oppose its use.  Are there legitimate reasons for this opposition to a potentially life-saving drug?   Or are we about to see just how many lives will be lost simply because “good science” is being ignored or silenced by selfish political and economic agendas? 

So-called “good science” has been a frequent subject of my blog writing in Oikonomia (Greek = “household management; or, stewardship”).  To me, “good science” is an inquiry into the workings of the “household of creation” by those who recognize the necessity of and abide by a faith-based ethical foundation for their pursuit of truth [See “The Conscience of Science: Part 1 Ethics & Accountability.”]  A faith-based ethic enables the scientist to see that his or her pursuit of truth is good stewardship of his or her God-given intellectual gifts.  Scientists who view their science as a stewardship are more likely to contribute in ways that promote the flourishing of God’s creation.  In so doing, they bring benefit to all mankind.  Above all, “good science” ought to be guided by honesty in its inquiry and in reporting of conclusions.

We can only hope that current debate over the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) will be governed by “good science” and later remembered by the thousands of lives it saved.  Therefore, I am encouraged by an article authored by Dr. Harvey Risch, a Yale epidemiologist, published May 27 in the Journal of Epidemiology.  In it, Dr. Risch refutes an earlier article published in The Lancet which had caused the World Health Organization to halt trials of HCQ as a treatment for COVID-19 infections.  Dr. Risch’s critique is a classic lesson in careful scientific analysis of published results.  It also illustrates the importance of peer review in verifying scientific methodology and correct application of results.  I encourage you to read the article.

In order to provide context for this stage of the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Risch estimates that over 1.6 million Americans have been infected and up to 10 to 50-fold larger numbers of people carry antibodies to the virus.  In spite of “flattening the curve” through mask-wearing, social distancing, etc., Dr. Risch believes that over time

…very large numbers of people in the US may eventually get the infection.  The great majority of infected people are at low risk for progression or will manifest the infection asymptomatically. For the rest, outpatient treatment is required that prevents disease progression and hospitalization.  Exposures will occur as isolation policies are lifted and people begin to mix, even with various degrees of public isolation such as mask usage and physical separation still in place.

Dr. Risch also recognizes that, while we are averaging an estimated 10,000 COVID-19 deaths per week in the US, we are facing a greater risk of deaths due to policies that have created an unsustainable economic and social condition with over 36 million Americans out of work and disruptions in many essential services necessary to maintain our physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being.  He concludes: “We are rapidly reaching a breaking point in the ability to maintain the status quo; states have begun the process of lifting their restrictions, and we thus need to evaluate what evidence we do have for promising outpatient treatments.” 

Dr. Risch’s COVID-19 treatment recommendation may be summarized as follows (emphasis mine):

… the key to returning society toward normal functioning and to preventing huge loss of life, especially among older individuals, people with comorbidities, African Americans and Hispanics and Latinos, is a safe, effective and proactive outpatient treatment that prevents hospitalization in the first place.

Based on Dr. Risch’s analysis of the results of numerous treatments in which COVID-19 patients were given HCQ in combination with the antibiotic azithromycin (i.e. HCQ+AZ), his recommendation is as follows (emphasis mine):

HCQ+AZ has been directly studied in actual early high-risk outpatient use with all of its temporal considerations and found empirically to have sufficient epidemiologic evidence for its effective and safe employment that way, and that requiring delay of such general use until availability of additional RCT (randomized controlled trial) evidence is untenable because of the ongoing and projected continuing mortality. No studies of Covid-19 outpatient HCQ+AZ use have shown higher mortality with such use than without, cardiac arrhythmias included, thus there is no empirical downside to this combined medication use.

The strong support for the use of HCQ+AZ from Dr. Risch was accompanied by two other endorsements of its therapeutic value.  Last week, President Trump announced that he has been using a prescription of HCQ, demonstrating that he is willing to put his health on the line to support his belief in the safety and efficacy of HCQ.  Then, this week, Breitbart reported that HCQ will be administered by Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) to as many as 10,000 health workers representing up to 20 hospitals as part of a clinical trial.

In conclusion, the debate continues between those who favor and those who oppose the use of hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin (HCQ+AZ) for early treatment of high-risk COVID-19 patients.  However, the May 27 publication of Dr. Harvey Risch’s thorough analysis as summarized here ought to make the prescription of these drugs the centerpiece of our COVID-19 treatment strategy.  

It remains to be seen which voices will have the most influence on policy makers and medical health professionals--the voices of "good science" or the voices of those with political agendas that seem to care little about either “following the science” or protecting individual lives.   Meanwhile, I am siding with the voice of “good science” and can only hope HCQ+AZ will be available to me in the event that I am infected with COVID-19 and require medical intervention.  

The Conscience of Science: Part 3 Why March for Science?

Kaytlin Goodwin receives 2017 SFIS award from
Dr. Dennis Flentge, Chair of Dept. of Science and Math

One of the key issues facing the scientific community today is not a lack of knowledge, but rather a lack of communication between scientists and the general population. Although I am only an undergraduate, I have already experienced the frustration of trying to relate exciting scientific information to friends and family who do not understand basic biological processes and the jargon or importance of certain natural phenomena. Research scientists regularly face similar challenges. Although their work has vital implications for both the environment and human well-being, the general public often does not understand the importance of practices that are essential for the health of the environment.  
     – Kaytlin Goodwin, Cedarville University
        Science and Faith Integration Scholarship recipient (2017)

As I write this article, scientists and supporters of science are gathering by the thousands on the Mall in Washington, DC as part of today’s March for Science.   Many of these marchers and those who are likewise participating in one of 500 marches worldwide on this Earth Day are committed to the March for Science Pledge which lists ways supporters can advance science and science-based policies.  

Related to the advancement of science, recently Abby and I were privileged to attend Academic Honor’s Chapel at Cedarville University where Kaytlin Goodwin, a senior Environmental Science major was awarded this year’s Science and Faith Integration Scholarship (SFIS).  The above quote from the integration paper which Kaytlin submitted as part of her application for the SFIS captures some of the concerns held by some of today’s Marchers for Science.  The concerns expressed by Kaytlin and at least some of the Marchers stem from a long history.

American culture has been closely aligned and influenced by the growth of science and technology since the European colonization of the Western hemisphere in the 17^th century. Today, most Americans would be unable to survive without the fruits of the natural sciences--the clean air, potable water, food, health services, transportation, and air conditioning.  Therefore, it is for good reason that Americans tend to be supportive of the sciences.

March for Science--and a march for your favorite cause?

March for Science participants aim to encourage respect for science and to encourage funding of research on issues such as global climate change, energy supply, information technology, and vaccinations.  These issues continue to be highly controversial on the political stage of an increasingly divided America.  Supporters of science who are concerned about one or more of these issues are urging scientists to use their professional prestige to take a more active role in educating and influencing policy makers and the general public.  But, is it appropriate for scientists to lend their reputations to political rallies?

Instead of joining the March for Science I am reading and thinking about the nature of science and the proper role of scientists in political organizations and rallies.  In this article, Part 3 of my “Conscience of Science” series, I want to share some of the considerations and cautions that a scientist or member of the public at large should entertain before joining the March for Science, or other political movements.  When one considers joining in pubic demonstrations in support of science or science-related issues (with some unrelated issues often included), it is essential to understand (1) the nature of science, (2) science in today’s news and entertainment media, (3) the responsibility of scientists in public education, and (4) the importance of the ethical conscience in science.

1.  The Nature of Science
We will assume that most supporters of the March for Science have at least a secondary school understanding of the nature of science.  Do you remember having to memorize a definition of science?  Most definitions include two parts, one that emphasizes the method of science, and the other, the management and communication of scientific information.  Science is a method—a systematic study of something—e.g. the natural world, living organisms, humans, human behavior, and so on.  Each field of science has a name (e.g. natural sciences, biology, psychology, theological sciences) and each has its own methodology or variation of the scientific method. 

When the scientific method is employed, the scientist obtains data that can be analyzed and used to determine the validity of a hypothesis. Repeated experimental testing contributes to the development of a systematic body of knowledge that results in the support for a scientific theory.  Theories provide the basis for understanding the scientific field in question and for continued scientific research.

Defining science is much easier than proper conduct of the process of science.  For example, scientists often find it difficult to gather data without perturbing the natural system being studied. Scientists must also avoid falling victim to error or bias.  Often the resultant theories attempt to account for abstract and complex phenomena that are difficult for the average person to comprehend.  Many of us find it difficult to comprehend the nature of a subatomic particle; or conceive of how matter becomes energy at the speed of light; or understand how scientists determine the temperature of planet Earth and use this data in complex models to predict climate trends. 

Although it is challenging to develop a scientific understanding of complex natural phenomena, it is even more challenging to communicate the resultant theories to students, policy makers, or laypeople.  Numerous studies have examined the growing influence of the internet, cable news, and the entertainment media on scientific literacy and opinions about certain hot button science-related issues like those listed above. 

2.  Science in Today’s News and Entertainment Media
According to a 2016 review entitled Americans' Attitudes about Science and Technology: The Social Context for Public Communication, commissioned by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), …despite intensive efforts at public education, science literacy has remained relatively stable for several decades.  The review cites a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center which used an index of 12 questions to measure basic scientific literacy and understanding of science as a process.  Out of the 12 questions, the mean score among respondents was 7.9.  Twenty-seven percent of respondents answered 8 or 9 out of 12 questions correctly, while 26% answered 10 or 11 correctly, and only 6% received perfect scores.  Respondents with college degrees answered 9 or more correctly, and those without degrees, 8 or fewer (Pew, 2015).

Although science literacy in America is low, it does not stifle interest in science-related news.  A National Science Board (NSB) survey in 2012 reported that the percentage of American respondents interested in news about medical discoveries was 60%, new scientific discoveries, 40%, and new inventions, 43%.  These percentages were comparable to those interested in local school issues (50%) and economic and business conditions (43%).  However, only 16% of Americans said they “very closely” followed news about science and technology, as compared to those who “very closely” follow weather (52%), sports (26%), local government (21%), and political news (17%) (NSB 2014).  Could it be that the increasing trend of Americans using social media as their favored news source has diminished our tendency to follow any topic “very closely?”

According to Brossard (2013), …with the rapid adoption of Facebook, Twitter, and smart phones, the nature of science-related news consumption among the public is changing, becoming more social, participatory, and incidental.  As of 2015, two-thirds of American adults say they use Facebook and 41 percent say they get news via the platform. 

Again, according to the AAAS review (2016), in recent decades …political leaders, activists, and the news media have increasingly packaged almost every major policy debate in terms of clearly defined ideological differences.   Republican and Democrat parties have become brand names, each standing for a distinct set of conservative or liberal positions.  This labeling strategy has apparently contributed to the growing ideological divide between the two major parties as reflected on issues such as sanctity of human life and climate change.  The divide is enhanced and sustained by cable news networks which cover science related topics with a decided conservative (e.g. Fox News) or liberal (e.g. CNN and MSNBC) slant.

According to Tom Nichols, author of The Death of Expertise, who was interviewed on PBS NewsHour, …many Americans have become insufferable know-it-alls, locked in constant conflict with each other, while knowing almost nothing about the subject they are debating. There’s a lot of blame to go around for all of this. The smartphones and tablets that we carry around all day that we think can answer anything are only part of the problem. The American educational system, from grade school to graduate school, encourages students to think of themselves and their views as special.  An A is now a common grade.

3.  The Responsibility of Scientists
In our society characterized by low science literacy, yet blessed with multiple sources of science news and the opinions of many political ideologues, the role of scientists and science educators becomes very important.  Scientists who step beyond their laboratory to address policy makers and the public are taking on at least two additional responsibilities.  First, they must objectively and clearly communicate the content of their findings and implications to policy makers and the public.  Second, they must convey the challenging nature of science as a process--one which is easily threatened by unintended bias and often deliberate “spin” by adherents to conservative or liberal ideologues.

Although sound scientific theories are supported by strong statistical probabilities, scientists must continually emphasize to the layperson that there is no such thing as “settled science.”  It follows that modern science and culture should greatly value and pursue good science, a claim that I have made in a previous article, Conscience of Science: Part 2 Do Museums Make Us Muse?  I have defined good science as the dynamic, self-correcting pursuit of truth that tries to avoid error caused by experimental bias, personal bias, or political influence.

International Prototype Kilogram (IPK)
housed in Sèvres, France

To briefly underscore that science is tentative and not “settled,” let’s consider one aspect of the natural sciences that has been “settled”--the standards of weights and measure. While science may argue about the precise speed of light in meters per second, there should be no argument about the precise length of 1 standard meter.  Because the precise units of distance, mass, temperature, etc. are considered universally “settled,” uncertainties attributable to error in quantitative measurement are minimized as long as measuring devices and statistical sampling are employed properly.  It follows that more attention can then be directed at the hypothesis-testing part of science which is not “settled” because hypotheses can never be “proven.”  Scientific claims are accepted only so long as another experiment does not falsify supporting data.

Because of the complexity of the sciences, the great influence of science upon the American economy and culture, and the controversial nature of our contemporary political arena, it is no surprise that not all scientists accept a role as advocates in the public arena.  This notion brings us to the ethical consideration, the last of my four considerations in deciding whether or not one should join in the March for Science.

4.   The Ethical Conscience of Science
Science must shape policy.  Science is universal.  Science brings out the best in us.  With an informed, optimistic view of the future together, we can (Dare I say it?) SAVE THE WORLD! 
These are the words of Bill Nye, host of the PBS children’s science show, Bill Nye the Science Guy.  Nye spoke this morning at the March for Science gathering in Washington, DC. 

Bill Nye, the Science Guy:  "...we can save the world"

I sharply disagree with Mr. Nye.  Science without ethics would more nearly destroy the world than save it!   Science and technology have given us sharp tools, firearms, atomic energy, and drugs.  Where technology has sought to apply these tools for destructive means, millions have died.

 As I have pointed out in Part 1 of this series, “good science” is conscientious about being objective, cautious, humble, and unbiased in a culture that can easily bring bias and elicit unethical behavior.  In short, “good science” has a conscience ((Latin, conscientia = “knowledge of right and wrong within oneself”).  David Resnick, author of The Ethics of Science: AnIntroduction (Routledge), lists as the first three principles of scientific ethics: honesty, carefulness, and openness.

Is it ethical for scientists to utilize their professional status to support a specific policy or political initiative?  For example, should climatologists agree to an invitation to add their name to a list of signatories in support of limiting human-caused climate change?  John Kotcher and colleagues at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia attempted to address this question with a randomized survey of 1,235 Americans. Most respondents did not rate a fictitious climate scientist as less credible after hearing the scientist advocate for specific public policies.  The researchers concluded that climate scientists who wish to engage in certain forms of advocacy have considerable latitude to do so without risking harm to their credibility or the credibility of the scientific community.

Robert Lackey, a former senior biologist with the US Environmental Protection Agency, now in ecological policy and natural resource management at Oregon State University, disagrees with Kotcher :  If your day job is science and your night job is policy advocacy, why would I trust your day job?  Having worked in the environmental sciences for 50 years, Lackey has seen a steady erosion of the credibility of scientists. Lackey agrees that scientists have an important role in objectively informing the public of the facts, but the scientist who advocates for a given policy threatens to take public policy from the hands of the people.  He adds, You have to be careful here, because you end up in a debate over a technocracy versus a democracy.

Hastening to conclude this article while it is still Earth Day, I believe I have at least begun to make the case that the role of the scientist is better served by doing what scientists can do best:  striving to conduct his or her research while being honest, objective, careful, and humble; then, publishing conclusions in an objective, clear manner through print and digital platforms that are suited to others with expertise in decision making and formulation of policy. 

Knowing that there are up and coming Christian scholars in science like Kaytlin Goodwin, I have confidence in a future for the sciences when influenced by individuals with godly wisdom and integrity.  As a young advocate for both environmental stewardship and the importance of improved communication between scientists and laypeople, Kaytlin offers a positive way forward as applied to her field, the environmental sciences when she writes, If scientists and environmental educators can find ways to effectively communicate the relevance and importance of environmental issues, lasting change will be possible.  As Christians, we are especially responsible to teach others about the God-given value of the environment.

References:
I realize that this subject undertaken here is beyond the scope of this article and extends beyond my expertise.  However, I hope we have raised some worthwhile points for consideration and provided some references for further reading.

Brossard, D. (2013). New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 (Supplement 3), 14096-- 14101.

Nisbet, Matthew C., et al. "Americans' attitudes about science and technology: The social context for public communication." Commissioned Review (2016). To read, click HERE

National Science Board (2014). Science and Engineering Indicators 2014. Arlington VA: National Science Foundation.

Pew Research Center (2015).  A Look at What the Public Knows and Does Not Know About Science. Washington, DC.

“Will a March Help Science?”  The Scientist (Feb. 2, 2017)

The Conscience of Science: Part 2 Do Museums Make Us Muse?

"Overall, the nation has a big problem,” says Dr. Brian Alters, president of the National Center for Science Education.  Dr. Alters is concerned that approximately 50% of Americans polled still believe evolution does not occur.  What’s more, nearly half of college students reject evolution or consider it “just a theory.”  These data stun many other evolutionary biologists who have invested their lives for decades in classroom teaching, curriculum revision, and teacher training built upon a naturalistic evolution foundation.  Yet they seem to have failed to convince students and their teachers that life on Earth originated and evolved as a result of time, gene mutations, and natural selection over billions of years.

A museum display of the supposed evolution of humans.

How could it be so difficult to convince science teachers and their students to believe what seems logical to most scientists?  Could it be that many students (and science teachers) are turned off by a classroom that pressures them to change their whole outlook on human origin?  This notion is plausible considering that most students of science have had at least one teacher who inspired them by presenting science as an invitation to inquiry and wonder about the natural world.  Would such students sense something unnatural about a science classroom that aims to “indoctrinate” learners into a naturalistic, evolution way of viewing the world?  Could it be that indoctrination in science is “poison” to both good educational pedagogy and the process of science itself?

After 50 years in science education and research, I am persuaded that a major purpose of what I call good science is to invite students to observe God’s creation, experience wonder in response to its grandeur, think critically as they formulate important scientific questions about the natural world, and participate as researchers in a logical method of scientific inquiry to find answers to the questions.   In this second part of my series on “The Conscience of Science,” we will consider the role of natural history museums in promoting scientific understanding and the pursuit of knowledge of the natural world.  Specifically, we’ll ask, “Do natural history museums motivate visitors to join in the “process of science” by welcoming critical analyses of what are believed to be valid theories of science while inviting participation in the discovery of what is not known?”  In other words, “Do museums cause visitors to muse—i.e. to wonder, to ponder, or to think reflectively?” Or, “Are museums more like dark, musty temples filled with images underwritten with captions that insult visitors by declaring notions about human origins which they should accept without questioning?”

I still remember my first visit as a junior higher to a natural history museum, the Cleveland Museum of Natural History.  When I saw the reconstructions of prehistoric animals, fossils, and geologic timelines, I stood in awe of the vast scientific knowledge of the natural world.  Of course, I didn’t question the authority of science to make judgments about the fossil record, or the age of the Earth, or how the first humans originated.  After all, who was I as a young student of science and history to question the scientific claims etched in stone within this giant “temple of knowledge?”

Wikipedia defines museum as is “an institution that cares for (conserves) a collection of artifacts and other objects of artistic, cultural, historical, or scientific importance and makes them available for public viewing through exhibits that may be permanent or temporary.”  Natural history museums that aim to accomplish these functions can elicit wonder about how life on Earth originated and diversified. However, most museums of natural history present a view of life’s origin that assumes an ancient Earth and a Darwinian timeline of human evolution from ape-like ancestors.  But, how do museums communicate this message?

Do similar anatomy and DNA mean a common ancestor?

The arrangement of displays of fossils and reconstructions of plants and animals in most museums are situated in a configuration that teaches a Darwinian interpretation of life’s origin and diversification.  However, the extent to which these museum presentations line up with good science varies greatly from museum to museum.  A recent article by Marvin Olasky in WORLD Magazine, entitled “A Tale of Two Museums,” compares two national museums with respect to how they convey what is known about life’s origin.

Dr. Olasky compared the National Museum of Natural History in Washington, DC (NMNH, also called “the Smithsonian”) with the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in New York City.   According to AECOM and the Themed Entertainment Association’s annual report on the world's most visited attractions, the NMNH and the AMNH are ranked 3^rd and 12^th among the world’s most visited museums.  These two museums boast a combined annual attendance by over 12 million visitors.  The popularity of such museums with their expansive collections, imposing displays, and scientific-philosophical storyline enables them to convey an authoritative if not dogmatic message about the origin of life to their visitors, especially to impressionable children somewhat like I was as a junior higher.

I encourage you to read the Olasky article referenced above.  You can also take a virtual tour of AMNH. Here, I will highlight examples from the Olasky article to illustrate how the two museums differ in the way in which they explain life’s origin through historical science.  Historical science aims to understand the significance of an object or process as affected by one event or a series of past events called "causal histories."  Usually, causal histories must be reconstructed from inferences.  The approach of historical science resembles forensic science because in both sciences, no one was there to observe the causal events—i.e. what caused the fossils.  Or, in forensics, who committed the crime?

Evolutionary view of human origins at the Smithsonian Museum

Olasky recounts how the Smithsonian welcomes visitors to travel “Evolution Trail” of the museum which leads from simple aquatic forms of life all the way “up” to the “Mammal Family Reunion.” Here visitors are invited to “come meet your relatives” in the “Human Family Tree.”  Olasky expresses the theme of the Smithsonian as follows:

Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology.  There is no scientific controversy about whether evolution occurred or whether it explains the history of life on earth.

Olasky notes correctly that this sweeping claim is false.  On the contrary, more than 800 Ph.D. scientists have signed onto the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism (see www.DissentfromDarwin.org).  Olasky notes that even the famed evolutionary biologist, Ernst Mayr, acknowledged “a large, ‘unbridged gap’ between humanlike species in the fossil record and our supposed apelike australopithecine ancestors.” Although he died in a decade ago, Mayr’s somewhat tentative and skeptical tone is reflected in museum captions like the following:

Not having any fossils that can serve as missing links, we have to fall back on the time-honored method of historical science, the construction of a historical narrative.

Although this statement at the Smithsonian admits to the absence of “transitional fossil forms,” the museum dismisses the fact that the “construction of a historical narrative” (i.e filling missing gaps) involves much of what Olasky rightly terms “speculation and storytelling.”  Filling gaps with little or no fossil evidence has given historical science, and the natural sciences in general, a bad name. 

Here, we should note that historical science is also involved in the risky business of predicting future global climate trends by piecing together the past history of global climate and constructing models that project future climate trends.  Because of the uncertainty and risk involved in reconstructing the past and predicting future trends, the claims of historical science about both evolution and global climate trends must be subjected to ongoing scientific testing.

In view of the gaps and uncertainties that exist in the fossil record, how can natural history museums serve their visitors in a manner that is consistent with good science? Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language defines science as “Systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied.”  Recall that by using the term, good science, I want to emphasize the “quality” of the science.  In our context of “musing about museums” and the message they convey about the origin of life, readers of Olasky’s article will find that the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in New York City offers its visitors at least two marks of good science as follows:

1) Good science affirms that well accepted science knowledge is durable, but must always be open to revision and even rejection when new evidence consistently emerges.  The AMNH supports good science, when it admits the need to correct errors in prior scientific claims.  For example, according to Olasky, the AMNH admits that Pterosaurs (“flying reptiles”), once thought to be mammals related to bats, are now believed to be archosaurs, more closely aligned with crocodiles.  The “take home message” from this humble admission is that science is a process of ongoing inquiry, subject to error, and in need of occasional correction.   As such, good science is not a stale and boring activity that smells like a preserved museum specimen, but rather an invitation to wonder and excitement in pursuit of truth about the natural world.

"Good Science" caption at National Museum of Natural History

2) Good science acknowledges that certain questions about the natural world may be difficult or impossible to answer.  Unfortunately, many brilliant, motivated scientists find it difficult to admit that there are limits to what we can know about prehistoric life forms.  Refreshingly, Olasky found some evidence that the AMNH admits to the limits of science.  For example, one statement admits,

We cannot be sure how pachycephalosaurs used their skull caps, because theories about the behavior of extinct animals cannot be tested. 

Commendably, in regard to whether carnosaurs were hunters or scavengers, another AMNH caption states that, because of

…fossil bones that are often incomplete, or that have been distorted… We may never have all the evidence needed to support these ideas.

There you have it.  It seems clear that Dr. Olasky’s “A Tale of Two Museums” presents two visions of the science of human origins as presented in major museums of natural history.   We have learned that a museum can represent the spirit and approach of good science.  Or, it can present a distorted and dogmatic version of science through overstated conclusions that lack solid support from the fossil record.  Instead of becoming more convinced of the support for Darwinian and neo-Darwinian evolution of life, visitors may leave with a sense that they have been manipulated or insulted.  Most sadly, such approaches diminish the wonder of science as an invitation to inquiry about the natural world, or creation.

In my next article on “The Conscience of Science” we will consider in more detail the difference between good science and what I will call “incredible science” with respect to how the science addresses evidences for human origin.  Hopefully, we can identify specific reasons why about half of Americans surveyed have persisted in rejecting the claim that humans evolved from non-human primates and ultimately, from ancient life forms.