Hasty science runs the risk of eroding public trust

Antibody tests were supposed to play a critical role in restarting our economy, until a slew of scientists and public health officials began questioning their reliability.

This almost seems like déjà vu from a month ago, when the public was told that masks were not necessary, only until the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (and soon after the Public Health Agency of Canada) reverted course and encouraged the use of face coverings.

How could a discipline that prides itself on precision and accuracy relay such seemingly paradoxical messages? As student scientists who work with biological systems in the lab, this comes as no surprise. We see contradicting evidence everyday: whether it’s in conferences, peer-reviewed articles or our own experiments.

These contradictory disputes are often worked slowly behind the scenes — away from the eye of the public — as researchers pen articles in journals to debate different hypotheses, present different experimental techniques and bicker furiously until a consensus is reached within the community.

With COVID-19 research, the “behind the scene” messiness is displayed in full force to the public. The public’s engagement in science has never been higher. But it has also created different silos where people expound their version of scientific truth — look no further than the U.S. president and his allies in the media, who heavily touted the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 based on a promising laboratory study.

The messiness is only amplified by the plethora of COVID-19-related scientific preprints — first drafts of research — that have been flooding the public without going through the exhaustive peer-review process. This process, which traditionally takes months, usually involves experts in the particular field to find flaws in the experimental design or poke holes in the conclusion. Without these safeguards, research can easily be taken out of context and would only sow more confusion.

While it’s tempting to demonstrate science’s certainty in a pandemic, scientists must admit that this is far from the truth. We need to emphasize that science cannot be neatly contained in a single answer — a single research study may give us a small part of the puzzle, but even that’s not certain.

Finally, we should shift the conversation from flaunting science’s speed and efficiency to a call for patience. This doesn’t mean that scientists should refrain from publishing research; instead, authors must clearly communicate the shortcomings of their research and properly outline the uncertainties and unanswered questions that still lingers ahead.

The importance of scientific research and expertise is clearer than ever. But if we fail to be transparent about the uncertainties and messiness of the scientific process, we could risk a collapse in the public trust of science that will haunt us in the present and future crises.