David Marra: In defense of science

I am a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Florida. Science is my lifeblood and my passion. I live, breathe and think about scientific methods and data analytics.

As I continue to learn about the infinite complexity of the universe, science has brought me closer to God. Thus, I have become disheartened at the public’s increasing distrust for science, especially in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In recent months, the integrity of science has been thrust into the forefront of conversation as the scientific process unfolds in a rapid fashion before our eyes. The complexities of recent scientific endeavors are now distilled to a single headline or tweet for the public to digest and render opinions.

Unfortunately, in the rapidly evolving landscape of COVID-19, the scientific process has been rapidly accelerated. What typically takes years now takes place in months or weeks. It is no surprise that mistakes are made, which is broadcasted and amplified for all the world to see.

What is overlooked, however, is the self-regulating and corrective process that occurs behind the scenes. As such, I believe it is important to shed light onto the scientific process for the general public.

Science is inherently imperfect. Scientists rely on a body of literature to create and test hypotheses. However, in many fields of science, especially the social sciences, there are no “absolutes.” Therefore, we use statistical analyses to make inferences from small samples, that we hope will generalize to a larger population.

Since no sample can truly represent a full population, statistical inferences can lead to inaccurate findings (also called Type I and Type II errors). Luckily, science has a way of self-correcting and self-regulating when these errors occur.

This process begins with peer-review. To have a scientific paper published, 2-4 experts within the field will review the submitted piece.

As a reviewer, I read the paper with a critical eye, first to identify methodological flaws, inappropriate analyses, or incorrect conclusions that would preclude the paper from meeting sufficient scientific quality to warrant publication; through my critiques, I attempt to help the author find ways in which they can improve their work to overcome these flaws.

Once a paper is published, however, it is still beholden to scientific scrutiny. In the cases of controversial publications, other experts are invited by the journal to provide responses.

Controversial and sensational studies tend to receive extra scrutiny. When a study is found that it cannot stand up to further scientific scrutiny, it may be redacted.

For example, a recent study published in The Lancet that investigated the mortality rate of hydroxychloroquine was retracted at the request of the authors who could not confirm the accuracy of their data, which came from secondary sources. Luckily, redaction is fairly rare, with about 2 out of every 10,000 scientific papers redacted.

Another way of self-regulating is through study replication. For example, Dr. Amy Cuddy, a social scientist, gave a Ted Talk in 2012 that became one of the most viewed Ted Talk in history (58 million views). Cuddy discussed her sensational findings that power posing (standing like Superman), can affect your confidence and even your hormonal levels.

This sparked a host of subsequent studies, not all of which yielded the same results. As such, Cuddy has acknowledged that there is not enough evidence to support power posing as a means to alter body chemistry but maintains — from the available evidence — that it can improve confidence and other emotions.

Unfortunately, this process — not only of scientific discovery, but self-correction — usually takes years. Once scientists receive grants to fund their studies, it generally takes several years to get the study running, collect data, analyze the data, and write it up for presentation and publication. For instance, it once took me four years to get a single paper published (though this is not the norm).

In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the scientific process has been accelerated for COVID-related studies. That is not to say that these studies have less scientific merit or are less accurate. That means it is the job of the broader scientific community to continue to regulate the field, and critically evaluate and scrutinize our findings.

Unlike politics, science is not based in emotion but on methodological rigor. The scientific process has means of self-regulation and self-correction. So, trust in science and continue supporting the work that the incredible doctors and researchers, around the world, are working on to help curb the COVID-19 pandemic.

David Marra, PhD, is a neuropsychology fellow at UF.