I was very lucky as a kid, because I had family who had studied physics and chemistry. So I learned about science from people who had a real interest in it, they explained to me how nature is comprised of these strange and universal forces, like energy and matter. How things had rules and principles which defined the world we live in. I was blessed, because I did not have to rely on science media.
Some science media is of course very good, for instance I, like anyone I imagine, enjoy the ones who publish cool experiments and interesting chemical reactions. I like Carl Sagan’s Cosmos, and one of my favorite pieces of television is of course A Glorious Accident.
But a lot of what has become science media I find will often dumb things down, and even patronise their audiences. It also refuses to speak to its audience, especially those with scientific illiteracy, on their own terms.
For instance: Medicine has a great ethical crisis. In the US, medical establishments are driving people into debt using abusive patents and predatory insurance. In Europe, hospitals are falling apart and specialist services are crumbling as governments introduce harrowing budget cuts and fire doctors.
This is a real problem, and it is precisely because of this that we now have a movement to end vaccination. I’m not a doctor or a medical researcher. I find those things interesting, I like reading about them, but there is a lot I will never know. This is true for most people. Most people, on some level, have a faith based relationship with medical science.
They don’t know how the medication works, they cannot draw up the formula for its molecular structure or explain its chemical interactions with the body, but they trust the doctor, the hospital, and the pharmaceutical company to know what they’re doing.
So what does science media do? These celebrities and influencers with some kind of career or past in science? They turn them into cheap targets of mockery and elitism, they behave as if this entire thing happened in a vacuum, as if people one day just woke up in the morning and didn’t trust medical ethics for no apparent reason.
People are not stupid, and that’s the problem. People think critically and intuitively, and they examine the information at their disposal. So when that information is more about the workings on a pharmaceutical company and less about the workings of a vaccine, then if such an industry discredits itself, it proceeds to discredit the vaccine too.
This cannot be resolved through simplistic rationalism, or dismissal. It cannot be resolved by pretending as if the underlying problem does not exist. It can only be resolved by gaining the public’s trust.
Yes, there are of course opportunists. In fact the anti-vaccine movement began with a fraudulent lawsuit, and has been fueled by Hollywood personalities looking to make a quick buck. But they did not create this lack of trust, they simply took advantage of it.
And there is also a lot of obfuscation about scientific discussion. For instance look at spike protein vaccines, and regular inoculations. I am always to some extent skeptical of new technologies, because I know that there are investment firms, marketing teams, political lobbyists and similar people who frequently make promises they cannot keep.
Look for instance at all the gadgetry being pitched to solve global warming in an effort to get building contracts from various cities. Civil engineers even have a term for it: Gadgetbahns. From Elon Musk’s ridiculous tunnel systems, to the Monorail in the Simpsons, it’s a scam as old as time. And why? Because efficient technologies are not very profitable. They cost very little to build, very little to maintain, and very little to manage. So you need really big and elaborate and stupid infrastructure for contracts to be worth anything.
That’s why we have deluded James Bond villains proposing special car tunnels in order to sell people more cars because the Bond villain in question owns a car company. A trolley or a bus system or a railroad simply won’t cut it, because they benefit people rather than shareholders.
Anyhow, that’s why I am skeptical of new technologies. I generally avoid press statements and wait for what the academics have to say once the dust settles. So I am a bit skeptical of the motives behind the spike protein vaccine.
And more often than not, this approach proves correct.
That’s not to say spike protein is a disqualified technology, but it clearly needs further testing and examination.
But in the vocabulary of science media, there is no spike protein or conventional inoculation, there is only vaccines, and you’re either in support of vaccines or in opposition to them.
But if it was that simple, then we’d make our own vaccines. We’d buy them at the supermarket. We’d have vaccine tutorials on Youtube. Truth is that vaccines are developed and made by medical researchers and engineers who dedicate their entire lives to understanding this science. Truth is that these people are beholden to institutional interests which may or may not represent public welfare or even their own expertise.
A similar example is GMOs and Genetic Engineering, two very distinct terms. But they are constantly conflated. Farmers have genetically modified crops for centuries, yes, but they did it using a very different technology.
And they certainly never produced crops in such a way as to even patent the pollen they produce, and demand people pay fees for how these crops pollenated with other crops. The model of genetic engineering as it exists today is exploitative and self serving, and it does not prioritise public welfare or good agriculture. But science media manipulatively says “We’ve had GMOs for thousands of years stupid! Shut up and sit down! And now a word from our sponsors.”
Scientists need a scientifically literate population to represent their interests, because universities have boards of trustees, grant committees, corporate sponsors and business interests. Pharmaceutical companies have lobbies, spokespeople, public relations firms, and similar means to manipulate the outcome and application of science.
A good example of this is the AIDS crisis, a situation in which scientists and their institutions were very much at odds with eachother. Another is the crack epidemic. Scientists from Latin America and the US had warned about the crack epidemic since the 1970s, and how the best recourse was to educate the public about it, but instead they were suppressed.
And the media is rarely on their side either, because the media has advertising. A good example of this is SpaceX, which frequently uses science media not to purport science or public intrigue, but to garner investors and brand awareness.
There is sadly no shortcut to books, academic papers and direct sources from real scientists. Not paid celebrity scientists who are meant to draw people in for adverts and public relations, but real scientists. The people who risk their jobs every day by studying and publishing findings that are inconvenient to their bosses and benefactors.
This is why a lot of researchers and scientists have tenure, because suppression, retribution and censorship of science used to be very commonplace prior to this. It is not the exception, but the rule. And now as scientists are at the mercy of a corporate filter, we must do our part to back them up and study their findings directly without any middlemen.
