In recent years, particularly since the onset of the pandemic, the phrase "following science" has become a prominent mantra among political leaders. For instance, UK First Secretary of State Dominic Raab emphasized this in April 2020, while President Biden echoed the sentiment during his campaign in October 2020. This phrase is often employed by politicians globally, as it allows them to deflect responsibility for pandemic-related decisions, especially in dire situations where outcomes are tragic.

Interestingly, in the United States, this inclination towards scientism appears more pronounced among left-leaning individuals. Notably, prior to the pandemic, there was a time when Republicans showed greater support for vaccinations against diseases like measles, mumps, and rubella. However, by mid-2020, trust in scientific guidance among Republicans plummeted, creating a significant divide in vaccine acceptance between Democrats and Republicans.

While adhering to scientific advice has generally led to positive public health outcomes, such as the dramatic reduction in death rates due to COVID-19 vaccination, there are inherent challenges. The problems can be categorized into three main areas: 1) the reluctance of scientists to admit errors, 2) the confusion stemming from a lack of scientific consensus, and 3) the overstepping of scientific boundaries into moral territory.

A major concern arises when scientists deliver incorrect information. For those who pride themselves on rational thinking and evidence-based conclusions, a failure in scientific accuracy can severely undermine credibility. A notable example of this was the initial global stance against mask usage for the public. Early in 2020, health authorities downplayed masks, claiming they could be ineffective or even harmful, only to later revise this position as understanding of the virus evolved.

Critics argue that such guidance was based on the limited information available at the time, but it is clear that some officials, like Dr. Fauci, were aware of the potential for asymptomatic transmission early on. The inconsistency in messaging, particularly from figures like U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams, who discouraged mask use while also asserting their necessity for healthcare workers, fostered skepticism toward health authorities.

Mistakes are not exclusive to mask policies; there were also misjudgments regarding travel restrictions, where early dismissals of their effectiveness were proven incorrect. While these measures were not foolproof, they played a crucial role in delaying the spread of the virus in certain regions.

Furthermore, the exaggerated portrayal of vaccine efficacy has led to public disillusionment. President Biden's claim that vaccines provided 100% protection against COVID-19 misrepresented the actual effectiveness, contributing to a perception that the vaccination campaign was misleading.

Additionally, the initial belief that surface transmission was a major concern led to excessive focus on sanitization, diverting resources from more effective measures like improving ventilation and social distancing protocols.

These errors in scientific communication can undermine public trust in health officials and foster resistance to recommended health measures. Scientists need to embrace uncertainty and acknowledge past mistakes, while politicians should refrain from overstating scientific conclusions.

Another challenge arises from the rush to establish scientific consensus when none exists. As some anti-vaccine groups have pointed out, there are still many unknowns regarding COVID-19 and vaccine efficacy. Mandating vaccination without clear evidence of its protective effect on others raises ethical questions.

Moreover, there is no uniform understanding of immunity among those who have recovered from COVID-19, leading to inconsistent policies across different regions. This lack of clarity complicates public health strategies and can result in arbitrary regulations based on selective interpretations of scientific data.

Finally, the tendency to defer moral decisions to scientific experts can lead to problematic governance. Political leaders must balance public health considerations with economic and social implications. While scientific modeling can guide policy, it should not dictate it without regard for broader societal impacts.

In essence, "following the science" can sometimes serve as a shield against criticism rather than a genuine commitment to informed decision-making. To navigate future public health crises more effectively, it is crucial for both scientists and politicians to embrace transparency, humility, and a recognition of the limitations of current knowledge. By doing so, they may foster greater public trust and ultimately save lives.