I was never under the impression
that scientists were good people.
Academics either.
Have you met us?
Social media didn’t reveal moral corruption.
It revealed personality.
And apparently everyone is shocked.
A scientist has funding.
An academic wants attention.
Someone publishes a book and, horror of horrors,
would also quite like to sell the book.
When did being a dissemination opportunist
become a criminal offence?
When did being an asshole
become peer review misconduct?
When did expertise
become sainthood?
You can know more than me
and still be wrong.
I can know less than you
and be right.
You can be brilliant
and vain.
You can be rigorous
and annoying.
You can teach me something useful
and still be someone
I would avoid at a dinner party.
That is allowed.
What worries me more
is this bizarre hunger
to outsource discernment.
Tell me who is good.
Tell me who is bad.
Tell me who I am allowed to listen to.
Tell me whose book I am permitted to buy.
No.
Read the paper.
Check the claim.
Follow the money if you need to.
Ask questions.
But for the love of God,
keep your own brain switched on.
I do not expect scientists
to be morally pure.
Morality is slippery enough
without pretending expertise
can somehow stabilise it.
Measuring authenticity
on moving sand
seems like a fool’s errand.
The scripture can wait
for another day.
I need them legible.
I need the conflicts declared.
I need the methods visible.
I need enough information
to decide for myself.
You can consume someone’s work
without joining their fucking fan club.
That is discernment.
And frankly,
if your entire worldview collapses
because the person explaining dopamine
turned out to be a bit of a dick,
then perhaps the problem
was never the scientist.
Perhaps the problem
was that you were looking for a priest.
