Free Speech Dissent in Science Matters: E.A.R.N.E.S.T. Principles Offer a Creed

It's time to change the tolerance for profit-center driven biases in science. Forever.

In a world increasingly polarized by misinformation and disinformation designed to protect profit-driven agendas, the integrity of scientific discourse stands at a crossroads: Either it will survive as a bastion of rationality and truth, or it will fall into the hands of those who will abuse it as a tool to manipulate masses. Even this stronghold is under threat as manipulated societal pressures and corporate interests sometimes oppose the pursuit of unbiased scientific inquiry[1].

The Pillars of Scientific Inquiry

Science is built on a foundation of rigorous methods, objective interpretation, and peer-reviewed validation. These pillars ensure that scientific advancements are based on empirical evidence and logical reasoning, rather than mere conjecture or popular opinion. In years gone by, differences of opinion about published studies led to fruitful scientific discourse. This often included the publication of letters to editors, which, when published by journals, would allow authors of papers, or others, to weigh in with their perspectives or point to data that sheds light on issues.

That era, sadly, has fallen away. Retractions, for example, over merely speculative possibilities of issues of studies - by anonymous readers - have eroded much of the studies important to public health. From a scientific standpoint, the goal of profit centers to have papers “discredited” because they harm one or another certain narrative is an invalid goal, and anyone involved in such actions has left science and has become a propagandist.

The Weaponization of Retraction

Retractions serve as a corrective mechanism in science, but n be weaponized to suppress dissenting voices. Corporations, for instance, have been known to exert undue influence on scientific journals to retract papers that highlight the risks of their products. This not only erases potentially groundbreaking research but also erodes public trust in science.

Authors should be given the opportunity to know their accusers and to have the opportunity to, in public, defend their positions. Ethical authors will retract their own papers if a truly egregious error has been identified. Or publish Errata. Or Corrigenda. Or withdraw their paper.

Retraction is not the only solution. Editors and publishers should only retract in cases of outright demonstrated fraud - and they should never retract over mere differences of opinion or differences in interpretation of a study’s results. These are the foundational principles of objective science publishing, an agency I have facilitated serving on editorial boards and as editor-in-chief on journals for over 20 years.

The Inhumane Phenomenon of "Wakefielding"

(Dear Reader: If you stop reading this article as result of this section, you are a victim of propaganda over science, a living case study of why this article is necessary.)

The term "Wakefielding" refers to attempts to discredit scientists who publish findings that go against the prevailing consensus. The term is derived from the experience of Dr. Andrew Wakefield, whose publication on the potential link between a unique gastrointestinal disorder and children with autism led to a decades-long public flogging by unscrupulous actors bent on making sure that no one studied any ill effects of vaccines - except vaccine manufacturers. (For the skeptical, an accurate account of the Wakefielding of Andy Wakefield, see A Thorough Analysis of the Case Against Dr. Andrew Wakefield by Mary Holland, JD.)

This phenomenon polarizes both the scientific community and the public, creating an "us vs. them" mentality that is detrimental to open discourse. Current wide-spread mistrust in the various HHS agencies, for example, was hard-won by diligent efforts by US HHS, FDA, and CDC to consistently and reliably mislead the public during COVID-19 starting with the very definition of a “case”, and following thereafter with biases in reporting [2,3], and ultimately with systematic biases in studies and reports consistent with the narrative of promoting the perception of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and safety, and tortured messaging on public health issues, which continues to this very day.

The Logical Fallacy and Intellectual Poverty of Ad Hominem Attacks

Ad hominem attacks target the character of the individual rather than the content of their argument. These attacks not only discredit individuals but also create a hostile environment that discourages young scientists from entering the field. It also stifles freedom of thought - preventing individual scientists and society from learning what could prove to be critical factors in any field of inquiry - temporarily, for sure, as future generations will undoubtedly discover that which the prevailing narrative of today would prefer to have left unknown.

The Role of Free Speech in Science

The Westminster Declaration[4] and Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)[4] both affirm the importance of free speech in democratic societies.

From the Westminster Declaration:

“There also exists a clear and robust international protection for free speech. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)[11] was drafted in 1948 in response to atrocities committed during World War II. Article 19 of the UDHR states, 'Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.' While there may be a need for governments to regulate some aspects of social media, such as age limits, these regulations should never infringe on the human right to freedom of expression. 

As is made clear by Article 19, the corollary of the right to free speech is the right to information. In a democracy, no one has a monopoly over what is considered to be true. Rather, truth must be discovered through dialogue and debate – and we cannot discover truth without allowing for the possibility of error. 

Censorship in the name of 'preserving democracy' inverts what should be a bottom-up system of representation into a top-down system of ideological control. This censorship is ultimately counter-productive: it sows mistrust, encourages radicalization, and de-legitimizes the democratic process.”

In science, these freedoms are essential for fostering an environment where ideas can be openly debated and scrutinized.

The Impact on Young Scientists

The weaponization of retractions and the phenomenon of "Wakefielding" can have a chilling effect on young scientists. They may hesitate to publish groundbreaking research for fear of professional retribution. This dampening effect stifles innovation and hampers scientific progress.

The E.A.R.N.E.S.T. Principles

The purpose of science is learning. To learn about reality, we must conduct objective science in earnest. It is quite a stroke of luck that E.A.R.N.E.S.T. also stands for Ethical, Accountable, Rigorous, Nonpartisan, Evidence-based, Skeptical, and Transparent. These principles serve as a guide for how science should be conducted and communicated, especially in the face of challenges like weaponized retractions and "Wakefielding."

E.A.R.N.E.S.T. Principles in Detail:

• Ethical: Prioritize the well-being of society over profit. Ethical considerations should guide not just the conduct of research but also its application and dissemination. Knowledge for the sake of knowing is, in the end, priceless.

• Accountable: Researchers and institutions must be accountable for their findings and be willing to correct the record when new evidence comes to light. They should be given every opportunity to take action to themselves to defend against accusations of error, fraud, or deception, and they should engage via rational discourse in earnest to find the truth of the matter in question.

• Rigorous: Rigor in methodology and peer review ensures that findings are reliable and reproducible, thereby building public trust in science. Entire courses are taught on how to conduct research in an unbiased manner. Warning: Adherence to a particular method does not guarantee its rigor. Challenges to methods of analysis to measure reproducibility and generalizability are helpful.

• Nonpartisan: Science should be as free as possible from political or corporate influence, ensuring that findings are driven by evidence rather than political agenda. That said, when engaging with power brokers, scientists must be willing - and able - to speak truth to power.

• Evidence-based: Conclusions from a study should derive logically from and with consistency to the results of the study. Similarly, decisions, policies, and public communication should be based on the best available evidence, critically evaluated, and openly debated.

• Skeptical: A healthy dose of skepticism encourages scientists to question prevailing theories and challenge the status quo, fostering innovation and discovery. Science is, after all, for asking questions.

• Transparent: Transparency in data, methodology, and funding sources is essential for credibility and public trust.

While these principles are straightforward, implementing them in a world driven by profit and political agendas is complex. However, the long-term societal benefits of adhering to these principles far outweigh the short-term gains of biased, profit-driven science.

By integrating the E.A.R.N.E.S.T. principles into our calls to action, we can offer a nuanced yet practical roadmap for reversing the current biases in scientific inquiry. This not only serves the scientific community but also strengthens the democratic foundations upon which free speech and earnest dissent are built.

Abiding by the creed of E.A.R.N.E.S.T. scientific inquiry can serve as a countermeasure to the current biased approach that often serves profit centers rather than the pursuit of truth. By adhering to these principles—committing to a creed to remain Ethical, Accountable, Rigorous, Nonpartisan, Evidence-based, Skeptical, and Transparent—at all costs - scientists, journals, and institutions can create a culture that values ethical conduct, accountability, and transparency.

The stifling of dissenting voices is not just an academic issue; it is a societal one, with implications for democracy and human rights. By standing up for free speech and earnest dissent, and by adhering to the E.A.R.N.E.S.T. principles, we safeguard the future of scientific inquiry and strengthen the democratic foundations upon which free speech is built.

For those interested in delving deeper into the intricacies of scientific studies, the course "How to Read and Interpret a Scientific Study" offers invaluable insights into study design, research ethics, and best practices so the public is better able to get into the practice of evaluating studies on their merits, not on what designated authorities and information centers tell them to think.

References

[1]: Lazer, D., Baum, M., Benkler, Y., et al. (2018). The science of fake news.(https://oa.mg/work/10.1126/science.aao2998)

[2]: 2019 federal law may have authorized fake COVID-19 statistics, data. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/2019-law-may-have-authorized-fake-statistics-data-just-before-covid-19/

[3] Ealy, H. et al. 2020. COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Retrospective. Science, Public Health Policy & the Law 2:4-22. [Link]

[4]: Westminster Declaration. [Link](https://westminsterdeclaration.org/)

[5]:Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations (https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights)