I am unable to say where or how the COVID-19 virus first appeared in the world. I abhor the attacks on Asian people that are carried out by uninformed and bigoted people who transform the scientific discussion over COVID into excuses to target the people of Asian descent. However, I am concerned that voices with good intentions, such as that of The Baltimore Sun (“Setting it straight on Redfield, racism, and the origins of COVID-19,” March 9), play a role in the anti-science rhetoric that is so prevalent in today’s society, even though this was most likely not their intention. This is particularly disappointing given that the editorial in question was an admirable attempt to amend a previous stance, which it acknowledged as being partially incorrect. Despite this, there is still a significant issue.
The only way scientific facts can be proven with any degree of confidence is via experimentation. They are never demonstrated to be “conclusive” beyond any question that could possibly exist. It is possible that in the future, either via new discoveries or new methods, we will find that what we currently assume to be true was incorrect. The history of science is a chronicle of concepts that were formerly thought to be true but have since been disproven or transformed as a result of fresh data. The editorial in the Sun continues to promote the idea that scientific data is either “definitive,” worthless, or even worse by continuing to condemn Robert Redfield for speaking about the origins of COVID-19 “with no conclusive information.”
Anti-scientific groups and industries, such as those that dispute the existence of climate change, the tobacco industry, and polluters of all types, among others, depend on the absence of “conclusive” data to justify their refusal to alter their practises. There is always the possibility of gathering further information. That is not a valid reason to ignore the most compelling facts and go against the general opinion of the scientific community.
In addition, sincere scientific judgements that are based on information that is not entirely “conclusive” should not be immediately interpreted as being biassed, racist, or intentionally detrimental in any other way. Because of their training and experience, scientists who carefully evaluate the data, which are inherently unreliable, should not be regarded to be responsible for the spread of evil. They ought to be evaluated in light of the precision of the facts on which they rely as well as the cogency of the reasoning that they present. If their arguments are flawed on these grounds, then it is fair game to level significant criticism at them. On the other hand, as Al Gore pointed out, scientific realities are not always “convenient.” The demeaning of science and the individuals who speak for it occurs when scientists are criticised for revealing difficult truths.
The Sun emphasises that it seeks “responsible dialogue and analysis based on facts.” This significant aim may be advanced by giving a realistic perspective of science, including its capabilities and limits, and by refraining from combining these variables with social concerns, regardless of how delicate they may be.