Heroes vs. Villains in Science
We need more clarity about who is really trying to save the day
Motives matter, and dramaturgy can provide a useful framework — there are heroes and villains, protagonists and antagonists. When it comes to science, Lysenko was a villain and antagonist, Salk was a hero and a protagonist.
We’ve had such a long streak of reliable protagonists in science that the release of a cabal of villains to attack the scientific establishment has caught us off-guard — potentially because our recklessness around publishing policies and practices helped spawn them, and admitting our errors would mean admitting folly.
Perhaps that’s better than the possible alternative . . .
A recent episode of the great Science Vs. podcast moved this contrast between villains and heroes front and center, telling the tale of our current villainous cast members — the MAHA group and their acolytes — who have sought to exploit others in various ways while true science heroes — researchers, patient and family advocates — have worked to fend them off as part of their efforts to help others.
The topic was autism, and the question was: “Why has there been a large and consistent increase in autism diagnoses over the past 25 years?”
For anyone tracking autism even peripherally and in an honest manner for the past 20-30 years, the answer came as no surprise.
But the villains are not honest. The MAHA narrative is that the rise in autism diagnoses is due to some vague and corrupt plot by pharmaceutical companies, vaccine manufacturers, the processed food industry, and various giant polluters. The result of this conspiracy? They get rich while our kids get autism.
While the science doesn’t back up their narrative, they are villains — and being villains, they are pushing it hard from their various lairs under their putative volcanoes.