These days anyone who pays attention to current affairs will find their social media feeds awash with claims and counterclaims. It’s all a bit wearying.

Until recently the hot-button debate might have been for or against a link between abortion and breast cancer, or anthropogenic climate change, or a prenatal disposition towards homosexuality.

At the moment, the topic of the day is more likely to be the COVID-19 pandemic or systemic racism.

For virtually any policy position, someone has a study to support it. Most of us aren’t experts on, say, infectious disease or policing. So how can we make sense of this research? If a story comes from somewhere other than our few trusted sources – be they either suitably politically correct or incorrect – do we tend to discount or dismiss it automatically?

I expect that just the use of the phrase “systemic racism” to identify one topic of study will be greeted with relief by some readers – “Whew, he gets it!” – and with heightened wariness by others: “Uh oh, he’s bowing the knee to cultural Marxism!” Such a polarized environment makes it hard to carry on any kind of thoughtful dialogue.

The moment I appear to endorse or question certain claims on a particular issue, I risk losing the portion of my audience that systematically discounts anyone who appears to be on the wrong side of that issue, even when we’re discussing something else altogether.

An anti-lockdown protest in Toronto. The pandemic touches on fundamental values such as religious freedom and deference to authority. (Michael Swan/The Catholic Register)

So I don’t intend to weigh in on specific controversies today. I hope, in fact, that even readers who may disagree with me on hot-button issues such as the epidemiology of COVID-19 will find some value here in principles that apply more generally to trying to figure out which research is any good.

Working scientists develop a “nose” for what’s believable and what’s not. That may not sound terribly “scientific,” but it’s true. People who study scientists (rather than, say, viruses) call this “tacit knowledge.” Tacit knowledge in science consists of things that insiders have learned to do almost automatically. It’s a lot like riding a bicycle. If you’ve ever tried to teach someone else to ride, you’ll recall it’s hard to explain how to keep your balance. But you do know.

There are so many questions about the coronavirus we can’t answer yet. That’s frustrating, but research on COVID-19 is actually moving phenomenally fast. We have tools that would have been the envy of our grandparents or great-grandparents facing the Spanish flu a century ago, and scientists are working together like never before. A central database called PubMed is currently adding about 200 new research articles about the disease and the virus every day. And that’s not counting the huge amount of information and analysis that scientists are sharing informally. 

Since we can expect a steady flow of new claims about the science of COVID-19 and the virus that causes it, SARS-CoV-2, I offer the following 12 tips on how you can sort through scientific controversies behind some of these claims. I don’t claim my tips will give you the right answer every single time. But they’ll generally point you in the right direction.

Adoration from a distance while churches were closed. Religious liberty is one of the pandemic-related issues we need to debate. (Sheena Devota photo)

1) Expect small steps. Doubt big breakthroughs.

The news cycle thrives on dramatic game-changers. But be cautious when a major breakthrough is announced. And know that anyone who claims to have found the key to understanding this disease is blowing smoke. Even during a global crisis, scientific knowledge moves forward mostly by small steps, not big leaps. The good thing is that those hundreds of daily steps forward really do add up.

2) Look for teamwork.

The problems posed by COVID-19 are enormously complex. No one person understands enough to solve more than a small piece of the puzzle. Each member of a team contributes different skills and perspectives. Before a team publishes anything, its members have already caught and corrected countless mistakes. Mavericks often make foolish errors because they’ve missed out on constructive criticism they could have received by working with well-informed colleagues.

3) Look for humility.

The news media and social media reward an air of confidence. Especially on social media, a lot of self-proclaimed experts are 100 per cent sure they’re right. But people may sound confident just because they overestimate their ability. You’re better off trusting people who recognize the limits of their knowledge. Good researchers are extremely careful not to claim any more than they can back up. They expect fellow scientists to test their claims and reserve judgment until other researchers can get similar results. 

4) Take credentials seriously. 

A person with advanced degrees in a particular field isn’t necessarily correct. But their studies mean they’ve earned a place at the table more than a random person on the internet (although the latter can establish credibility by making a sustained contribution to reasoned debate.)

Research on the coronavirus is moving phenomenally fast, so we can expect a steady flow of new claims about the science of COVID-19 and the virus that causes it, writes Alan Yoshioka. (CNS photo/Sean Elias, via Reuters)

5) Be extra-cautious about claims about treatments. 

Don’t believe anyone who says they’ve already got a proven treatment that the scientific establishment is ignoring. Some of the substances or procedures that sound really promising now will eventually be proven helpful. Lots of others, though, will turn out not to be safe or effective enough once they’re studied thoroughly. Some will just be quietly shelved. It takes a lot of resources to investigate an idea properly, so we simply can’t test everything that might work.

6) Expect good scientists to come up with different answers to the same question.

Disagreement is normal. In science there’s a lot of batting around of ideas and trying to reconcile all the data available. A sharp difference between two teams’ answers doesn’t mean either team is incompetent or corrupt. It means they’re dealing with complex phenomena that they’re still trying to understand.

7) Expect good scientists to change their minds sometimes.

Changing one’s mind is normal. If scientists are doing their job properly, they’ll learn things they hadn’t known before. And circumstances change too. So give people the benefit of the doubt if things they’ve said at different times don’t seem to match. 

8) Don’t rush to judgment – one way or the other – about answers and theories outside the mainstream.

Scientists tend to build upon their colleagues’ work. Sometimes that can mean good ideas that clash with a widely accepted theory don’t get a fair hearing. So it’s generally valuable to the scientific enterprise to have a few people saying, “Hey, wait a minute.” At the very least, challenges can provoke scientists to explain things more clearly. But to lean automatically towards the “alternative” claim doesn’t show truly independent thinking. It’s more a sign of alienation from the institutions of civil society.

9) Set aside research that’s just wrong. 

When a publication has clearly violated the standards of good science, it makes it harder to discuss issues constructively. Persons have a right to free speech, but no one is obliged to pay attention to claims based on logical fallacies. 

10) Look at the science on its own terms.

Various forms of influence do shape scientific practice, even when scientists are working honestly. But if politics is your automatic explanation for scientific claims that sit uneasily with you, think again. Within their limits, the methods of science do basically produce reliable knowledge about the world. Those methods aren’t perfect, of course. But they do make it harder for scientists to reach biased conclusions. So, to the best of your ability, look at the science on its own terms first. When you’re trying to figure out what to believe, pay as little attention as you can to which “side” a claim apparently serves, and you probably won’t go too far wrong.

The first 10 tips come mostly from my professional training and experience. The last two are a little different, coming much more from personal reflection.

11) Learn to live with not knowing the answers.

Wait for the dust to settle. Radical claims aren’t very likely to pan out, so you can save yourself some trouble by waiting at least a few days to study them yourself. By that time, other people who understand the technical details will have had a chance to weigh in. 

Anti-lockdown protesters in Vancouver. “Arguments can make us feel more in control for a little while, but they don’t get rid of the basic reasons we might feel frustrated and anxious right now.” (GoToVan/Flickr)

12) Learn to live with believing that some other people are wrong.

Between the disease and the lockdowns, there are a lot of problems we can’t do much about. Arguments can make us feel more in control for a little while, but they don’t get rid of the basic reasons we might feel frustrated and anxious right now. 

Suppose a friend or relative of mine has share a link to something I think is wrong. Badly wrong, dangerously wrong. 

Before I jump into the fray, I hope I’ll think about why. I’m feeling angry. Perhaps fearful too. And helpless. That’s all real enough. But what are the thoughts that go with my urge to argue?

In the heat of the moment, it feels to me as if our disagreement about the science really matters because lives are at stake! Truth is at stake!

But the person I disagree with may well experience the stakes as equally high.

So let me pause to test my thoughts. (Let’s assume that neither of us holds public office or is doing front-line research.)

Will lots of people either live or die depending on what the two of us personally come to believe about the linked story? Suddenly the idea begins to look a bit  ... ridiculous. 

As the COVID-19 pandemic drags on, it strains our usual ways of handling information about a crisis, as Ed Yong pointed out in his essay Why the Coronavirus Is So Confusing.

At least as important as getting the science right, then, is not losing your marbles in the process. The sad reality is that until the end of time there will always be Someone Wrong On The Internet. Maybe even Someone Wrong In The Next Room. That’s just our fallen human condition.

The pandemic touches on fundamental values such as respect for the common good, the sacredness of human life, religious freedom and our hunger for the sacraments, impartiality in the application of laws and regulations, deference to rightly constituted authority, our need for community, and especially our longing for companionship at the end of life. We’re not all going to agree on how best to resolve the issues, but somehow we have to live together.

In his great encyclical on the relationship between faith and reason, St. John Paul II reminds us that reason “needs to be sustained in all its searching by trusting dialogue and sincere friendship” (Fides et Ratio, 33). 

As we consider the evidence guiding how we and others respond to the pandemic or other crises, may we judge well which claims are worthy of our confidence.

Alan Yoshioka is a medical editor and writer whose PhD thesis looked at another example of scientific research into an urgent public health problem: the investigation in the 1940s of the new antibiotic streptomycin as a treatment for tuberculosis.