What Ever Happened to the Concept of the Absent-Minded Professor?
The ongoing attack on expert scientific advice.
The phrase “absent-minded professor” is commonly used to describe academics who are so engrossed in their work that they neglect to keep track of what is going on in the world around them. The stereotype that professors can get so obsessed with their research that they pay little attention to anything else is not considered an insult in academic circles but is seen as a badge of honor.
Scientists strive to use logic and the scientific method to form testable hypotheses in order to unravel the mysteries of the universe for the benefit of all. Scientists are also aware that everyone sees the world differently and so go to great lengths to eliminate as much bias from their work as possible through the use of blinded and double-blinded studies, stringent statistical analysis, peer review, and multiple layers of science-based and ethical oversight.
There was a time in the not-so-distant past when the public generally accepted the work and word of scientific experts, glad that there were untainted voices guiding them as they made the many complex choices that modern society throws at us.
Members of the scientific community used to rarely get involved in policy and politics. When they did it was usually to try and set the record straight when conspiracy theories, politics, greed, or religious dogma threaten to undermine important interventions or inflict biased beliefs on society as a whole.
Examples include debunking eugenics, pushing back against global climate change denial, countering anti-vaxxers, and quashing rumors and conspiracy theories surrounding pandemics. Indeed, there is a school of thought that scientists are too aloof and disconnected from politics and policy.
In the past, this aloofness was countered by elected officials hiring scientific advisors, but this practice has become corrupted by the rise of pseudo-scientists who ingratiate themselves with policymakers and their patrons by lending a sheen of legitimacy to their pre-conceived and self-serving beliefs.
Recently this attack on unbiased facts has gotten worse as elected officials have begun attacking the legitimacy and motives of true scientific experts in an attempt to gain political advantage.
This brings me to Dr. Anthony Stephen Fauci. As an academic oncology researcher, I’ve met Tony Fauci on numerous occasions as he is one of the world’s leading experts on HIV-AIDS, a disease that involves a lot of the same research paths as chronic inflammatory diseases and cancers. Dr. Fauci is anything but absent-minded, but he is the consummate professional scientist and researcher.
This is not surprising, as almost everyone involved in serious biomedical research is equally professional. We see it as part of our job to provide data to policymakers so that they can make informed decisions. My specialty is cutaneous melanoma and I am always telling my patients to avoid excess sun exposure, to avoid tanning, and to use sunblocks whenever sun exposure is unavoidable.
What I do not do is demand beach closures or try and shut down tanning salons. Policymakers have taken my and other experts' advice and changed zoning laws to require public parks and beaches to include shaded areas and I have done PSAs advocating sun-safe practices, but it is still up to the public and their government representatives to enact laws.
This brings me to the surreal encounter between Dr. Fauci and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) in April of this year. In numerous past encounters, Rep. Jordan has hounded Dr. Fauci about everything from social distancing, mass protests, mask-wearing, restricting social gatherings, and many other topics.
However, this recent encounter was noteworthy for Dr. Fauci finally getting tired of Rep. Jordan’s grandstanding antics and hitting back. Rep. Jordan was attempting to pin Dr. Fauci down to specific timelines and infection rates to know when the American people can get “their First Amendment freedoms back.”
Now, Dr. Fauci is a scientist, not a professional orator, but the gist of his answer was that he was not providing his opinion, he was providing facts. These facts were based on the work of a multitude of researchers at the CDC and other institutions and represent the best picture of the state of the pandemic at this time.
These facts also predict the probable outcomes of different levels of intervention implemented now and in the future. Armed with these facts, it was up to elected officials like Rep. Jordan to decide what to do, not the scientific community. Dr. Fauci has taken no one’s rights away. Officials of the Trump and Biden administrations, Congress, and the leadership of States and municipalities are responsible for those policies and are the only ones who can make changes to them.
These are grim times. The world faces future pandemics, the consequences of global climate change, the rise of authoritarians, and many other crises. This is exactly the wrong time to lose the input of scientific experts just as policies and programs are being debated that will likely affect the course of human existence.
We must go back to trusting unbiased professionals and combat the spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories propagated by those seeking personal gain, political power, and the expansion of autocracy.
More articles like this from James Goydos, MD:
About James Goydos, M.D.
James Goydos is an expert in melanoma research and specialist in surgical oncology with an M.D. from Rutgers University. With over 20 years of experience as a Professor, Surgeon, and Clinical Trial Lead, he is a leading expert in his field.
Subscribe to James Goydos’ newsletter. Follow me on Good Men Project, Loop, Medium, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, Medika Life, Doximity, Github, Kaggle, Vocal, LinkedIn, Pinterest, and Twitter!
