So much awful could have been avoided if there were more bidirectional communication between academics and the general public. Increased isolationism between these two groups means policy uninformed by the best possible evidence and disregards academics as relevant stakeholders as well. - ThreadSky

enirenberg.bsky.social • 27 days ago

So much awful could have been avoided if there were more bidirectional communication between academics and the general public. Increased isolationism between these two groups means policy uninformed by the best possible evidence and disregards academics as relevant stakeholders as well.

Reposted from Alastair McAlpine, MD

Couldn’t disagree more.

Medicine and the real world are inextricably intertwined. To advocate for our patients is to engage beyond simple academia.

Essentially, this article argues we should remain detached in our ivory towers. THAT is what causes decreased trust.

Comments

mpiwo.bsky.social•27 days ago

Ah, yes, the old "don't look at us" argument, let someone else bear the brunt of activism

We are doctors. And that is all

We are lawyers, teachers, drivers, scientists, etc. And that is all

adamjkucharski.bsky.social•27 days ago

I agree that communicating with wider audiences importance, especially around evidence that is/should be informing policy. But I’d also agree that when it comes to things like vaccine mandates, there isn’t a single consensus ‘scientific’ policy - and scientists shouldn’t suggest there is.

enirenberg.bsky.social•27 days ago

Right but that’s a bit lateral to the point. Questions of policy are matters of the data as well as stakeholder values. I believe that there should be bidirectional exchange between stakeholders on these matters, but, we currently have bills on parts of the US utterly untethered from data e.g.,…

enirenberg.bsky.social•27 days ago

We have bills being heard that are attempting to classify mRNA vaccines and/or mRNA technology in general as weapons of mass destruction. Whatever the values involved here, I don’t think anyone could dispute that this is utterly untethered from the data.

adamjkucharski.bsky.social•27 days ago

Was just referencing the example in the screenshot, which is an area for potential overreach I think. But agree that currently we face many reality-denying policies, rather than just policy that acknowledges underlying reality then decides based on values/resources/priorities etc.

holympus.bsky.social•27 days ago

don't people approach the question of whether vaccine mandates improve vaccination rates and reduce burden of vaccine-preventable disease with science? and doesn't the scientific consensus overwhelmingly favor them?

adamjkucharski.bsky.social•27 days ago

There’s evidence that mandates can boost vaccine coverage in the short term (especially during outbreaks), but they don’t address the deeper issue of public trust – and they can backfire. That’s why mandates vary so much: should the flu vaccine be mandatory, for example?

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply