by The label “lockdown skeptic” was once a badge of shame used to denounce anyone who questioned punitive Covid restrictions as a heartless mum killer.
What a difference four years makes.
Now the majority of scientists believe that more attention should be paid to the true cost of greening, with only half thinking that the action was always justified.
Perhaps this is the benefit of hindsight. But it is clear that few people were brave enough to put their heads above the parapet at the time for fear of harming their livelihoods.
It’s not how science should work and we need more gumption from our best minds. But it is a striking illustration of how activism and dogma have replaced thoughtful thought in the very institutions that should be the champions of free speech
Universities – which have gone alarmingly to the Left in the last few decades – are so much in the group mind that even the most liberal academics struggle to be heard within such a noisy echo chamber.
Politically driven
Covid was a good example. Much of the pro-green narrative was dominated by a small group of scientists who effectively organized themselves into a political movement that sought to influence policy.
Independent Sage, a group of mostly left-wing academics who regularly called for continued restrictions, was formed with the help of The Citizens, a group founded by Carole Cadwalladr, a Guardian and Observer journalist and activist.
The group, which allowed the BBC and Sky News an unconscionable amount of airtime, confused the public, with many believing they were hearing from real Sage scientists.
All normal decision-making processes went out the window, replaced by emotional hyperbole that affected cost-benefit calculations put in place to ensure that taxpayers’ money was well spent on health interventions.
As early as 2020, Professor Carl Heneghan, from Oxford University, warned that a lockdown would bankrupt the country and leave a disastrous health legacy.
It roughly estimates, based on the £400 billion UK Covid expenditure, that more than 13 million lives would need to be saved through measures to protect the eye water costs.
Professor Neil Ferguson, from Imperial College, predicted that 500,000 deaths could occur only if politicians took no action at all, and many scientists thought that figure was unlikely.
“In pandemics, decision-making is too often done from behind a computer and heavily influenced by modelling,” said Professor Heneghan.
“The Corona Virus Act empowered some panicked individuals. They were aided and abetted by scientists and their advisers, who were too quick to propose more severe restrictions without any evidence to guide their actions.”
Whether this will make a difference in the future remains to be seen. Faced with a similar threat, many may choose the path of least resistance.
Scale fallout
Jason Oke, a senior statistician at Oxford University, told me: “If you did this survey in mid-2020, I think you would have seen different answers. I would hypothesize that many people did not expect the scale of the deficits from the lock.”
But the lack of willingness to talk about “hot potato” issues is also visible in the polling results that deal with the origins of Covid.
A cabal of vocal scientists on social media continue to assert that a consensus on the issue has now been reached with academia completely behind zoonotic origins. Many journalists refute this view without considering whether it is accurate.
Our polling results show a much more nuanced picture with more than a quarter believing that the coronavirus is leaking from a laboratory in China. Only 37 percent of scientists are certain that a laboratory leak did not occur, and the same number have an opinion only one way or the other.
Put another way, of those who had an opinion, 59 percent are “Team Zonosis,” and 41 percent are “Team Lab Leak.” The overwhelming consensus is hard to believe.
The same divisive story is evident when considering gain-of-function experiments – work that amplifies the intelligence of viruses and bacteria. Many virologists working in this field will tell you that the science is critical and that concerns about escaped pathogens are overblown.
Our findings show that while a third of scientists believe such work is vital to preventing a dangerous zoonotic outbreak, the same number believe it could trigger a future pandemic.
This difference of opinion is healthy but it is largely happening behind the scenes as the public is led to believe that a general agreement has been reached on the matter.
It is a similar picture to the series about sex and gender. Of those who expressed an opinion, almost two-thirds said that sex was binary, although influential academics such as Professor Alice Roberts believe that such ideas are “necessary” and “bad science”.
Of course, it’s worrying that almost a third don’t, but I’d hazard a guess that most of those people don’t work in the biological sciences.
Overall this survey gave me cause for hope. My advice to scientists? Be brave, stand up. You have more people on your side than you realize.
