COVID

Nature — the most prestigious science journal in the world — has editorialized in favor of requiring scientists to register with governments as a condition of participation in the sector. Here’s the context. South Africa has legislation pending that would require scientists to register with a government body or face significant legal consequences. Nature applauds the authoritarian idea. From the editorial (my emphasis): What do engineers, environmental-health officers and health-care workers have in common? These occupations can, in some instances, be practised only by people who have registered with a relevant professional body. This typically requires candidates to pass qualifying exams and adhere to a code of practice that includes sanctions for violations. The process is intended to create the highest standards of quality, Read More ›

I once respected Anthony Fauci. But, during the Covid pandemic, I believe his power and the astonishing international celebrity generated by a fawning media went to his head. Worse, his hubris brought great disrepute on public health institutions and harmed the nation and its people.

But mainstream bioethicists — mostly political progressives who deploy their supposed authority as experts to push mostly left-wing health and political causes — see Fauci as one of their own. With the doctor now in some hot legal water, and his reputation visibly tarnished by recent disclosures from his diary and text messages, prominent bioethicists have published an open letter telling us to leave Fauci alone. From the “Open Letter of Support for Anthony Fauci from the Bioethics Community,” published in Bioethics Today (emphasis within the text):

As individuals concerned with ethics in science, medicine, and public health, we wish to express our dismay at the approach taken by Senate leaders to pursue an unwarranted, ill-advised, and frankly bizarre vendetta against a scientist, Dr. Anthony Fauci, rather than making a sincere effort to learn from the painful experiences of the pandemic to improve national preparedness. No human is perfect, but Dr. Fauci deserves appreciation for his decades of service to American science, and he deserves respect for taking on the difficult work of advising federal policy makers during the worst plague of this century. We condemn the decision to hold him legally in contempt of Congress as the outcome of a staged public persecution, and we fear the future implications of politically and legally targeting scientists who advise the government.

Hardly a “persecution,” and Fauci’s status as a “scientist” is irrelevant.

One would have thought that bioethicists and technocrats would learn from the COVID debacle that coerced public health policies can easily become exploding cigars when misapplied, and indeed, ultimately harm the very community cohesion these autocrats claim to champion. But no. A new article in the prestigious Journal of Medical Ethics urges that we prepare now for more mandates to prevent epidemics due to AMRs (for antimicrobial resistance, such as bacteria evolving, rendering antibiotics less effective) and to fight climate change.

The authors identify various means of persuading the public to comply with favored public health policies. The first is simple suasion, or “normative compliance.”

From “Making the Public Protect Public Health: The Ethics of Promoting Collective Action in Emergencies” (citations omitted):

Normative compliance and moral involvement/commitment: This strategy is to convince people of the importance of assuming responsibility and acting accordingly. When congruent, the commitment of lower-level actors to comply is high. Participants with moral involvement/commitment are loyal to the aims and internalise the goals of the governing authority.

David Morens was formerly a senior adviser to Anthony Fauci when he was the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). Morens also co-authored several science papers with the former director. One of these argued hubristically in Cell that the U.N. and the World Health Organization should be empowered to “rebuild the structure of human existence” toward the end of preventing future pandemics. Imagine the bureaucratic possibilities! Back in 2024, Morens was suspected of avoiding FOIA requests around the funding of gain-of-function research that might have led to Covid. Soon thereafter, Fauci distanced himself from his former colleague in congressional testimony, stating that while Morens had helped with some science papers, he wasn’t really an adviser Read More ›

In a post-COVID world, families are asking harder questions about vaccines and those questions deserve serious, ethical answers. In this episode of Bioethics Babe, I’m joined by Jay Richards, Vice President of Social and Domestic Policy and the William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow in American Principles and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation, where he also chairs the Restoring American Wellness initiative. He is also a senior fellow at Discovery Institute. We explore how families can think clearly and ethically about vaccines after COVID. This conversation covers informed consent, risk-benefit analysis, parental responsibility, the updated CDC childhood immunization schedule, and the growing crisis of trust in public health institutions. This episode is for parents, healthcare professionals, policymakers, and anyone Read More ›

The public-health intelligentsia and bioethics movement are determined to become the primary policy decision makers internationally. For example, back in 2020—at the height of COVID—Anthony Fauci wrote that the UN and WHO should be empowered to “rebuild the infrastructure of human existence.” You don’t get much more expansive than that. In the years since, others among that ilk have pounded the same drum furthered by an international agreement known as “One Health” (without US involvement) establishing an international bureaucracy aiming “to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems.” Toward that end, writing in The Lancet, a gaggle of international technocrats and academics reject the WHO’s current definition of human health as “a state of complete physical, Read More ›

Yesterday was “Stand Up for Science 2025” day, which featured rallies around the country to “defend science as a public good and pillar of social, political, and economic progress.” But that isn’t what it was really all about. From the “Stand Up for Science” website’s listed policy goals: 1. End Censorship and Political Interference in Science Science thrives on open inquiry and evidence-based decision-making. We demand: An end to government censorship: Prohibit all forms of political censorship in scientific research, including restrictions on the topics of scientific research that are eligible for federal funding… A commitment to freedom of scientific expression: Protect scientists’ rights to communicate their findings freely, without fear of retaliation or suppression. Well, that’s ironically rich. Former NIH head Francis Collins spoke (and sang) at Read More ›

The push to impose rule by “scientific consensus” continues apace — even as the American people clearly rejected that view in the last election (thanks in no small part to how the public health consensus blew the Covid response). But the science powers that be refuse to learn. In fact, they appear to be doubling down. Now, Ethan Siegel, an astrophysicist and award-winning science writer, advocates for criminally and civilly punishing violators of the “scientific consensus.”

First, Siegel defines what he means by “scientific consensus.” From, “4 Key Steps to Transform the USA Back into a Scientific Nation:”

Only in the presence of decisive evidence can consensus be achieved. Consensus is not “the end goal” of science, but rather a starting point for future advances: the foundation of what is not just known, but is widely accepted for good reason, at present. Consensus is, to be blunt, what the overwhelming majority of professionals have concluded is already strongly established by the existing evidence so far.

But conformity of belief does not make it right. The supposed scientific consensus can be more ideology than science. Take eugenics. For decades in the early 20th century, the scientific consensus supported dividing human beings into the “fit” and “unfit.” That consensus became so motivating that many states passed laws requiring involuntary sterilizations, a pernicious policy supported by an 8-1 decision in the Supreme Court, with Buck v Bell (1927) becoming one of history’s great injustices.

President Trump has withdrawn the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO) because of its Covid failings, allegations of being soft on China, and the disproportionate share of funding borne by the United States. There is even more wrong in how WHO leaders have wielded their influence. In recent years, the organization has not just been about promoting public-health internationally, but also in using its clout to impose woke cultural agendas on the world — including areas that have traditional moral values — and in seeking to construct an international technocracy. Item: WHO sought to force a radical abortion regime on the world by allowing abortion through the ninth month and curtailing the right of conscience by doctors to Read More ›

The public health sector has been roiled by controversy and political turmoil in the last few years, what with the COVID pandemic, the fight over vaccine mandates, and questions about politicization of the sector. Beyond that, viruses make the news like never before. So, Wesley turned to an expert in both fields to learn more about virology, the government’s response Read More ›