Trust science but not scientists

Questions over the origins of the COVID virus shows the need to scrutinize claims made by scientists.

Courtesy: Upslash

Until May 2021, I trusted scientists blindly. More specifically, I trusted the consensus viewpoint of the scientists blindly. If a claim is published by reputed research journal or backed by consortium of scientists, I would trust it. However, it took one article questioning the origins of COVID-19 that made me question my assumptions. But before I delve into the reasons for my newfound skepticism with scientists, let me set the context.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, scientists across the globe have been warning against a pandemic outbreak. Infections with pandemic potential were considered a major risk and improved coordination between countries was recommended to prevent the spread in future (McClosky 2014). The World Health Organization (WHO) in 2018 listed ‘Disease X’ which represented the “knowledge that a serious international epidemic could be caused by a pathogen currently unknown to cause human disease”, and aimed to promote cross-cutting R&D to prepare for this eventuality. Even tech billionaire Bill Gates gave a prescient TED talk where he warned that the world is not ready to face a pandemic. All of them signaled that pandemic is not a question of "if but when." I trusted scientists. 

When I heard of an epidemic outbreak in Wuhan that causes pneumonia-like symptoms, I feared the worst: Could this wipe out humanity? How dangerous is this virus? What should we do to protect ourselves? How is it different from previous viruses? I had a million questions and paid close attention to statements made by the scientists. I trusted scientists. 

In the midst of the pandemic, scientists provided detailed information on how transmission occurs and the origins of the pandemic. Viruses jump every day from one species to another. COVID-19, scientists said, is a type of zoonotic transmission. The virus originated from bats and jumped to humans via an intermediary. During Sars-CoV, civets were the intermediary; during MERS, camels were the intermediary; and for COVID-19, perhaps pangolins or other wild animals from the Wuhan wet market might be the intermediary. Since scientists claimed that humans in close proximity to wild animals increase the risk of zoonotic transmission, it seemed obvious that the virus originated from Wuhan wet market. I trusted scientists. 

Around that time, then US President Donald Trump publicly started questioning the origins of the COVID-19 and even suggested that the virus leaked from a lab in Wuhan. Since Donald Trump is a divisive figure, the mainstream media ridiculed his allegations. (To be fair, Donald Trump is known to make outlandish remarks). Any scientists questioning the origins of the COVID-19 were dubbed as conspiracy theorists by the mainstream media. I ignored Trump and the right-wing media’s rhetoric. I trusted scientists.

On February 18th 2020, a statement was released in The Lancet by a group of 27 scientists unequivocally declaring that COVID-19 had natural origins. It stated: We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin…[and] overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife. After reading this statement, I was convinced (not that I needed more convincing) that anybody questioning the origins was peddling conspiracy theories. Further, the signatories claimed no conflict of interest. I trusted scientists. 

For more than a year, several scientists questioned the origins of the COVID-19. But they were derided, belittled, or brushed aside as conspiracy theorists by the media, tech industries, and people on one side of the political spectrum (unfortunately, even I was one of them). I trusted (mainstream) scientists.

More than a year later, my world came crashing down in May 2021. I watched a video of Shekhar Gupta summarizing Nicholas Wade’s article on Bulletin for Atomic Scientists which raised questions on the origins of COVID-19. As I was watching this video, I remember thinking whether Nicholas Wade or Bulletin for Atomic Scientists were credible sources. Although I wasn’t convinced regarding the lab-leak theory, a doubt was placed in my head. I slowly started questioning scientists.

As I started reading more on COVID-19 lab theory and things started becoming murkier (or clearer). Yuri Deigin, a Canadian biotech entrepreneur, wrote a  16,000-word essay in April 2020 providing one of the first detailed arguments that the COVID-19 virus could have escaped from a Chinese lab. In Jun 2020, Bret Weinstein, evolutionary biologist, claimed on Joe Rogen’s podcast that COVID-19 may have leaked from a lab. For some time, several prominent writers and scientists had been raising questions here, here, and here. I realized one side of the argument had been systematically silenced. I started questioning scientists. 

As lab leak theory gained momentum after May 2021, tech companies, mainstream media and new agencies suddenly changed their stance. Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that researchers at Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) fell sick with COVID-19 like symptoms in November 2019, shortly before the confirmed outbreak. In the last week of May 2021, Facebook stopped removing posts that suggested that COVID-19 was man-made. Media organisations started retroactively editing their article like Washington Post’s headline on Senator Tom Cotton’s article. The open letter by 27 scientists published by The Lancet came under scrutiny since scientists had claimed they had no conflict of interest. However, evidence pointed otherwise. Under fire, The Lancet invited the 27 authors of the letter to re-evaluate their competing interests. Surprise, surprise! The person who orchestrated the open letter in 2020, Peter Daszak, had competing interests which was published as an addendum in Lancet later. I started doubting scientists. 

There is no smoke without fire. This sudden shift in the stance required a few scientists, investigative journalists, and citizen journalists who spent months trying to get to the bottom of the issue. It is important to give credence to both sides of the argument before concluding. However, scientists used the mainstream media and tech platforms to successfully thwart their work by hailing themselves as the ‘guardians of truth’ while branding everyone else as conspiracists. I started doubting scientists further.

As I write this article, I have started re-evaluating my opinion on everything I have heard from the scientists recently. In the past, scientists were guilty of p-hacking, where researchers cherry-pick positive results; overseen experiments that might be unethical; culpable to funder bias, where they publish reports favourable to their donors; and even conducted experiments that could wipe humanity from earth (gain-of-function research). I don't blindly trust scientists.

This is not a call of arms against scientists. It is a word of caution. Scientists have made great contributions to humanity. But they are also humans. They also succumb to greed just like politicians. Readers should remain vigilant. I trust science but scrutinize scientists.

(This post is republished from my Substack post on Jul 5th 2021)

Vaccine Mandate: Choice between individual freedom & greater good for society

Issues like vaccine mandate, abortion rights showcases the hypocrisy of liberals and conservatives since the underlying issues is the same: individual freedom vs greater good of society.

Source: Shutterstock

While waiting at a traffic signal I saw a woman holding a poster, “My body, my choice.” My initial reaction was confusion. What is the issue she is standing for? Was she supporting abortion rights or against the vaccine mandate? However, I chuckled at the irony of the situation.

This phrase ‘My body, my choice’ has been used by both liberals and conservatives for two disparate issues like abortion rights and vaccine mandate respectively. However, at its core, the issue remains the same — does the state have the right to impede individual freedom under the behest of the ‘greater good’?

Let us look at the similarity between both the issues from the perspective of the individual and the state.

Abortion Rights

Abortion rights: Individual’s case for abortion rights

Abortion rights is a highly polarizing topic in political and social circles. Supporters of abortion rights argue based on individual freedom. Every woman has the right to decide the future of her pregnancy, whatever may the reasons or circumstances. Since the costs (financial, health, etc) of having a child is predominantly on the woman, the choice to bear a child should be hers only and not on the state.

Abortion rights: State’s (potential) case against abortion rights

In 1980, China Communist Party (CCP) mandated the infamous ‘One Child Policy’ where the government limited one child per family. At that time, it was considered a prescient policy as there were growing fears of famines due to overpopulation albeit without much evidence. However, China is now concerned with the aging population and shrinking working class thanks to the policy. In May 2021, CCP changed to a ‘three-child policy’ to combat rapid depopulation in the country.

Although the evidence of population growth on the economy is tenuous, partly because it is difficult to isolate the impact of population on growth, many economists believe that an aging society is not good for the economy. However, what is not controversial is the impact of economic growth on the lives of people. It leads to better social outcomes like lower maternal mortality rate, higher income, access to basic amenities like water, food, and shelter.Consequently, one can make the case that depopulation is going to harm society in the long run.

Thus, from the state’s perspective, it is in the interest of society for women to have more children. In other words, the state should mandate women not to abort their pregnancy for the ‘greater good’ of society. 

Vaccine Rights

As surprising as it sounds, the state mandating vaccine on its citizens is similar to abortion rights for women. Let me make this argument using the same lens as before — individual and state’s perspective.

Individual’s case for vaccine freedom

Every individual has the right for making choices for themselves. If they believe that vaccine is not good for them in the long run, it is their prerogative to refuse the vaccine, whatever be the reason or circumstance. There is hardly anyone who denies the rights of the individuals is impeded by mandating vaccines for everyone.

The key question is then: what means does the state employ to achieve its end?

Some states are providing incentives like cash to citizens to get vaccinated. Other states have employed stricter practices like banning unvaccinated people from accessing public spaces like theaters and restaurants. In extreme cases, states have suspended employees who refused the vaccine. Specifically, France suspended 3,000 health workers without pay for refusing the Covid vaccine; around 9,000 New York City municipal workers were put on unpaid leave for refusing to comply with a Covid-19 vaccine; Singapore will no longer pay the Covid-19 medical bills for people “unvaccinated by choice.”

State’s case for vaccine mandate

The state (and liberals) support such practices such draconian measures for the following reasons:

1. Individual benefits: Since the vaccine reduces the likelihood of severe hospitalization and deaths, it is in the best interest of the individual to take the vaccine, whether they agree with it or not.
2. Societal benefits: It is for the ‘greater good’ of the society to mandate vaccination for the following reasons:
1. If everyone is vaccinated, the pandemic will be over and we all can go back to our pre-COVID days of walking to public spaces without masks.
2. Vaccination reduces the possibility of mutations of newer variants. Unvaccinated people risk extending the pandemic by becoming hosts to newer variants of concern.
3. Unvaccinated people threaten countless immunocompromised and other vulnerable populations.
4. Since unvaccinated are more likely to be hospitalized with severe complications, it might overwhelm the health care systems.
   

Conservatives’ defense against vaccine mandate: Individual benefits

Pronouncing that vaccine mandate is for your good is like saying to a pregnant woman that having a child is good for you, whether they agree or not. Just like a woman has the right to abort their child for some reason, an individual has the right to refuse the vaccine. The costs (they would argue benefits) are going to be borne by the individual.

Further, no one knows the long-term effects of the recently developed mRNA vaccine. However, no vaccine comes without side effects. There are cases of mysterious clotting disorder among vaccinated population. The numbers are not alarming but if people are scared for some reason, increase awareness instead of employing state coercion.

Conservatives defense against vaccine mandate: Societal benefits

The argument of ‘greater good’ for society requires deeper scrutiny. First, Israel was one of the first countries to vaccinate its entire population by early 2021 and yet as we enter 2022, it has undeclared lockdown. Everyone getting vaccinated is not going eradicate the virus as it can mutate while the immunity from the vaccine dips over time.

Second, there is limited evidence that the virus mutates to a deadlier variant in unvaccinated with a higher probability compared to vaccinated individuals. However, if this is truly a concern, the states (high-income states) should shift their focus to Africa instead where only 9% of people in the continent have been fully vaccinated. Remember, the Omicron variant was first detected in South Africa.

Third, the argument that unvaccinated people are a threat to society is blown out of proportion. Research shows that vaccinated people are just as likely to transmit the virus as unvaccinated people. Should we ban vaccinated people as well to protect the vulnerable population?

The fourth point, I concede, is a valid argument. Unvaccinated people can overwhelm the healthcare system if the cases rise rapidly and pose health risks to medical professionals. Does this justify the state to take draconian measures such as heavy penalties, suspension from work or barring them from public spaces?

Instead, the state can take measures with a specific sunrise and sunset clause — if daily new cases are greater than x, the state is allowed to take restrictive measures for unvaccinated people. However, once the daily new cases are below x, these restrictions would be eased for everyone including the unvaccinated people.

Two questions on abortion rights

Imagine it is 2050 and we find conclusive evidence that having fewer childbirths adversely affects the economy. Further, there is evidence that conceiving children makes a mother happier in the short term.

1. Would you support revoking the abortion rights for women as it is in their and society’s best interest to conceive a child (despite their reservations on long-term impact)?
1. If yes, would you support the withdrawal of abortion rights against women? Worse, mandate women to have at least 2-3 children?
2. If not, is that because you believe individual rights trump the ‘greater good’ argument?
   

Similar questions on vaccine mandate

It is 2021 and we find conclusive evidence that unvaccinated people negatively affects the economy. Further, we have evidence that getting vaccines is better in the short term. 

1. Would you support mandating vaccines for everyone as it is in their and society’s best interest to get vaccinated (despite their reservations on long-term impact)?
1. If yes, would you support the vaccine mandate for everyone?
2. If not, is that because you believe individual rights trump the ‘greater good’ argument?
   

If you agree with the lady’s banner ‘My body, my choice’, then it should not matter whether it is in favor of abortion rights or against the vaccine mandate. She believes the individual choice is superior to state coercion on both the issues: abortion or vaccine rights. You may agree with her or not. But if this is right, that is right. If this is wrong, then that is also wrong.

PS: To reassure the readers, I am doubly-vaccinated (and about to get a booster shot as I write this), believe in human-caused climate change and trust science (but not always scientists).

Reflections of an English butler

 Kazuo Ishiguro’s The Remains of the Day is a moving story imbued with absurdity and laughter.

Kazuo Ishiguro, Vikram Seth, Murakami, for me have one thing in common — I have heard their names but never actually got on to read their books. So when I saw Ishiguro’s book, “The Remains of the Day’’, on my friend’s bookshelf I immediately borrowed it. I had no idea about Ishiguro’s writing style — should I expect humour, thriller or drama. The backside of the book provided as much information as my prior knowledge — an ageing butler embarks on holiday while reflecting on his past.

The first 20 pages of the book felt slow for my taste. It is exactly the opposite of an article, which aims to start with a hook to capture the audience’s attention. However, the book meandered in all directions before arriving at the destination, around 20 pages too late in the author’s opinion.

The story follows the leisurely holiday of an ageing butler, Stevens, who embarks on a motoring trip across the English countryside at the insistence of his American employer. As Stevens starts his trip, memories from the past start engulfing his thoughts. He ponders over his interactions with his previous employer, his strictly professional relationship with the housekeeper Miss Kenton and his father, and most importantly, his idea of an exemplary butler.

Stevens sole purpose was to provide perfect service to his landlord and perform his duties as the butler to the best of his ability. This meant serving his landlord and his guest even as his father was suffering from severe illness or carrying out tasks instructed by his landlord without any questions, even if they might be considered unethical and immoral.

The dispassionate attitude of Stevens was unsettling sometimes. At these times, I missed (and my favourite butler) good old Jeeves. Stevens was no Jeeves in humour but his thoughts and actions were so ridiculous that I couldn’t stop laughing. For example, Stevens notices that his new American landlord likes to banter. Upon realizing his ineptitude at banter, he promptly starts listening to a radio programme called ‘Twice a Week or More’ to improve his witticism and practices it on unwitting strangers during his trip. His poor attempts at banter and resolution to try harder makes up for his failure at least for the reader.

The story explores relationships between different societies of people — butler and landlord, landlord’s friends. Since a part of the story is set at the backdrop of WW1 and WW2, it presents viewpoints of aristocrats, especially English, who were sympathetic to Hitler’s ideology. Further, the book captures the tension between Stevens and Miss Keaton — while attracted to one another at a personal level, their professional arrangement makes it hard for their love to blossom. It reminded me of Faiz’s sher, “Kuch Ishq kiya, Kuch Kaam Kiya / Loved at bit, worked a bit.” Stevens, a professional butler, would agree only with the latter.

As I read the book further, I felt slowly drawn towards Stevens and his reflections. After some time, I couldn’t stop reading the book. The book felt like a composition by an accomplished classical musician. At first, one doesn’t want to listen to it but once you start listening, it is impossible to stop it. Ishiguro’s writing is the same — it is evocative, reflective, humorous and beautiful.

If you are like me who always wanted to read Ishiguro in the past, The Remains of the Day is a great start.

 

Too many Aurelianos!

Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s magnum opus, One Hundred Years of Solitude, is a difficult but an worthwhile adventure filled with magical realism. 

I first heard about Gabriel Garcia Marquez (GGM) in 2014 when my friend wrote a post about him after his passing on Facebook. I was surprised at my ignorance about GGM and Latin literature in general. I decided to read his magnum opus, One Hundred Years of Solitude (OHYS). When I started reading the book, however, confusing names and convoluted timelines made it difficult to get past a couple of chapters. When I conveyed my predicament to my friend, she suggested the only way to conquer the book is by drawing a family tree.

Several years later, I would celebrate the easing of the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions by taking strolls across the streets of Berkeley. While walking, I came across OHYS lying on the sidewalk. My old inkling was rekindled and decided to give the book another try. Before reading the book, however, I heeded my friend’s advice by drawing the family tree of Buendias and embarked on an adventure.

But why start with the family tree? Because OHYS is a 400-page novel tracing seven generations of the Buendia family filled with five Arcadios, three Remedios, and more Aurielianos than I could count (actually, 22). The names become so repetitive that one character promises to name her child anything but Aurieliano or Remedios (only to name the child Aurieliano later). Initially, the repeated names became a nuisance as I spent half of the time looking back at the family tree before identifying the character and their relationship with others. Over time, however, I realized that the same character names were indicative of similar characteristics, with many repeating the actions and mistakes as their previous namesakes. Some were intensely boisterous and impulsive while others quiet and pensive. Yet, one characteristic connected them all — solitude.

Family tree of Buendia

The story is based in Macondo, an isolated city of mirrors founded by José Arcadio Buendía, which is initially cut off from the world. It was established with utopian principles but over time, greed and selfishness creep into the characters resulting in their destruction. This results in characters becoming increasingly solitary and unable to truly love anyone apart from themselves. There are rich sentences capturing this theme like, “He really had been through death, but he had returned because he could not bear the solitude” or “Lost in the solitude of his immense power, he began to lose direction” or “The secret of a good old age is simply an honorable pact with solitude.”

As Salman Rushdie remembers a joke told by his friend, “I have a feeling that writers in Latin America can’t use the word solitude anymore, because they worry that people might think it is a reference to Gabo [Gabriel Garcia Marquaez’s nickname]. And I am afraid,” he added, “soon we will not be able to use the phrase one hundred years either.”

While I read this a work of fiction, the book had references to historical events in Columbia which I later learnt. The war of ideology in the story closely resembles the war between Conservatives and Liberals between 1899 to 1902, and the massacre which killed three thousand protestors in the book resembles the ‘Banana Massacre’ of 1928 in Columbia.

If navigating one hundred Aurelianos wasn’t sufficient, the genre didn’t make it any easier. The book falls into the genre of magical realism (a genre the author of this article detested until now). The world of Macondo is filled with supernatural things that are considered normal. A character is swarmed with yellow butterflies around him; a beautiful girl ascends to heaven while folding white sheets; characters return from the dead as ghosts; the rain falls in Macondo for four years, eleven months, and two days. On the other hand, science and technology are considered a pariah and idiosyncratic. When the father states that the earth is round like an orange, his wife admonishes him for putting gypsy ideas into the heads of the children. While I faced challenges initially, once I delved deeper into the world of Macondo, I was able to accept absurdity as normal, quotidian events just like any other Macondoian but not without an involuntary chuckle.

The story follows the cyclical nature of life with future generations of Buendia committing similar mistakes as their previous generations. As one matriarch let out a deep laugh with resignation after Aureliano confesses incestuous sentiments about his cousin and states:

“There was no mystery in the heart of a Buendia that was impenetrable for her because a century of cards and experience had taught her that the history of the family was a machine with unavoidable repetitions, a turning wheel that would have gone on spilling into eternity were it not for the progressive and irremediable wearing of the axle.” This felt like a microcosm of the world where people and world leaders keep repeating the same mistakes committed by the previous generations even when the consequences of these actions in the past were terrible.

My favourite part of the book is the profoundly rich sentences that lit my eyes on almost every other page, which should be credited to GGM and also the translator, Gregory Rabassa. Some of my favourite lines include:

1. The first and one of the iconic lines in English literature:“Many years later, as he faced the firing squad, Colonel Aureliano Buendia was to remember that distant afternoon when his father took him to discover ice.”

2. Or when one of them realizes the futility of utopia: “Upset by two nostalgias facing each other like two mirrors, he lost his marvelous sense of unreality and he ended up recommending to all of them that they leave Macondo, that they forget everything he had taught them about the world and the human heart, that they shit on Horace, and that wherever they might be they always remember that the past was a lie, that memory has no return, that every spring gone by could never be recovered, and that the wildest and most tenacious love was an ephemeral truth in the end.”

3. The race was condemned from the beginning: “Before reaching the final line, however, he had already understood that he would never leave that room, for it was foreseen that the city of mirrors (or mirages) would be wiped out by the wind and exiled from the memory of men at the precise moment when Aureliano Babilonia would finish deciphering the parchments, and that everything written on them was unrepeatable since time immemorial and forever more, because races condemned to one hundred years of solitude did not have a second opportunity on earth.”

Imitation is greatest form of flattery. In the end, let me summarize the book to my readers as follows: Many years later, when he read this summary, Ashwin Mb was to remember that distant afternoon when he picked the book to discover a masterpiece.