Navigating Scientific Debates: The Frustration of Adhering to Rules
Written on
Chapter 1: The Challenge of Professional Discourse
In the realm of scientific discussions, straying from established norms can lead to ridicule. As a public health professional, I would face backlash if I employed the same rhetorical and logical fallacies often seen in online debates.
Recently, a friend shared a screenshot of their "stop the bleed" training, which is now mandatory for new high school teachers. This training focuses on controlling bleeding from injuries resulting from stabbings and gun violence. My friend expressed their discontent about needing such training, highlighting the unsettling reality that the safety of students is not guaranteed. They argued that reducing gun availability would create a safer environment for children.
Chapter 2: Counterarguments and Reactions
Almost instantly, someone responded to my friend's post by asserting that guns are merely tools and that if someone is determined to harm others, they will find alternative means. “Should we ban cars too? They cause fatalities,” the commenter argued, while citing instances of stabbing attacks in Japan, where strict gun control is enforced. They claimed, “The bad guy would just use a knife.”
But can a knife inflict 23 injuries in a single incident, like the tragic shooting in El Paso, Texas?
When I pointed out that studies indicate a direct correlation between easy access to firearms and increased rates of gun-related injuries and deaths, the commenter escalated the conversation by sending me a threatening private message. He challenged me to a fight, questioning my courage for opposing his views.
Imagine if I retaliated in kind. “A public health expert threatens random individuals online over discussions about gun control.”
It's absurd!
Chapter 3: The Frustration of Misinformation
Then there are the vaccine skeptics. They perpetuate falsehoods and respond to corrections with slanderous accusations of corruption. Some have even resorted to dramatic protests, like throwing menstrual blood at lawmakers they oppose. (Yes, that actually happened.) Others engage in character assassination by targeting individuals’ employers or involving law enforcement unnecessarily.
What if I resorted to such tactics to advocate for one of the most effective public health strategies in history?
No, my friends, I must adhere to a professional code of conduct. It requires me to remain respectful, factual, and composed—even when tempted to be sarcastic. If I stray from this path, I risk facing consequences, while those who spread falsehoods often go unpunished.
Consequently, I must persist in countering the unreasonable and irrational arguments presented by some individuals, filtering through the web of misinformation. I must navigate these challenges without losing my composure.
No pressure, right?
(Rant concluded.)
René F. Najera, MPH, DrPH, is a public health doctor and epidemiologist, as well as an amateur photographer and fitness enthusiast. You can find him engaged in epidemiology at a local health department in Virginia, enjoying tacos at a local taquería, teaching at a northern Virginia university, or instructing at a leading school of public health. All views expressed in this post are those of Dr. Najera and do not necessarily reflect the perspectives of his employers, family, or acquaintances.