Scientific trends: Integrity in research, development and delivery
By Charlotte B. Cerminaro
web posted September 23, 2024
The word science is defined as a search for knowledge conducted on objective principles involving systematized observations of and experiments with phenomena, especially materials and functions of the physical universe. It is an organized field of trained endeavor: Unbiased data collection, experiments and research are tools; discovery and innovation are goals. Cutting edge research can lead to discovery but hard science requires many incalculable factors. It is born of a free exchange of ideas - from observant, curious, open minds - cultivated by self-discipline and honesty, without bias, censorship or discrimination. Science is neither a blind, unquestioning belief nor the result of coercion..of any type.
It is a well-known fact that everyone has inherent biases, that no human being is completely objective about anything. And this includes scientists. Ultimately, scientific datasets are only as reliable as those who interpret them and are, generally speaking, more factually responsive before a status quo of public opinion is set in stone.
Thankfully, many of the best scientists know this and take active steps in every phase of their work to ensure that their own biases aren't affecting experimental and research outcomes. However, when significant pressure is applied or incentives offered in exchange for a specific outcome that conflicts with hard data -- it is difficult to get the most direct answers to the questions at hand, or the best solutions for emergent problems.
In most professional journals, researchers who receive financial or academic incentives are considered to have "significant ties" to factors that would likely influence (ie., bias) their findings. Such relevant information is rarely offered to the casual seeker and requires a little more time and persistence.
With larger incentives pushing faster results, it is not surprising that we start to witness increasingly dramatic examples of cutting scientific corners. One memorable and glaring tragedy was the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. The Rogers Commission (specifically, Nobel physicist Richard Feynman) found that a major oversight was the key factor in a booster rocket's ruptured seal. Signs of O-ring damage and design flaws were overlooked in an effort to rush the launch date. Skewing or ignoring the data - the very information vital to safe and effective decision-making – is a dangerous bias, one that will take its toll sooner or later.
In the early weeks of the Covid-19 pandemic there was a virological discovery, an important singular behavior of the novel coronavirus: Most respiratory viruses have an affinity for localized inflammatory receptors on cells lining the respiratory tract, but SARS CoV-2 has an unusual affinity for ACE (angiotensin converting enzyme) receptors. These potent systemic receptor sites line countless blood vessels in the lungs and elsewhere; complementary viral proteins binding to ACE sites can start a severe immunological reaction. Vasodilation, inflammation, interstitial fluid build-up and systemic release of proteins called cytokines are hallmarks of the cascade reaction known as a "cytokine storm".
Respiratory collapse from inflammation and coagulopathy is a predictable outcome. Anti-inflammatory and anticoagulant therapy is the best, most efficient means of saving lives. Healthcare providers on the frontlines discovered this treatment very early in the pandemic but there was widespread top-down resistance in implementing this basic therapy in favor of new and unproven antivirals – specifically, Remdesivir.
Long before vaccines became available, the US government and Gilead Science pharmaceuticals spent billions of dollars rushing Remdesivir through the FDA approval process. ER physicians were pressured to prescribe it, though it quickly proved to be a resounding failure. Following proper trials and research protocols would've revealed its ineffectiveness against SARS CoV-2 long before it was approved for general public use.
In hindsight, there have been numerous overt biases presented as facts via corporate- and government-funded scientists. Surely no one has forgotten Dr. Anthony Fauci's sworn testimony, defending his repeated decisions to quell important new data from dozens of top ranked researchers, stating with utter contempt, "I am science!" Dr. Richard Feynman faced similar hostility within the Rogers Commission toward his own research data while Americans were still in shock, from a tragedy that was undoubtedly preventable.
It would be remiss not to mention Elizabeth Holmes, former CEO of the fraudulent medical device company Theranos. A timely and cautionary tale of the human carnage in the wake of a scientific hoax, not one of the Silicon Valley VC's did their due diligence to research her ideas at the very outset before funding this complete fraud. A professor at Stanford University, Dr. Phyllis Gardner, sounded a clear warning about Ms. Holmes and her ideas but she was ignored. Elizabeth Holmes is now serving 11 years in prison for fraud and physical damages, among other charges.
Hard science is far too vital to be an expedient dueling weapon of the politically elite. Mass media has been complicit in some of these power games as its sole responsibility is to find the truth, not follow the rhetoric. Considering matters of health and safety, Americans would be well-advised to keep an open mind, always, to seek and weigh all information not with bias or contempt, but with a healthy degree of curiosity and skepticism. 
Charlotte B. Cerminaro is a Juilliard-trained classical musician and recording artist. In her free time she enjoys writing and regularly contributes to Enter Stage Right and she attained a Bachelor's Degree in Molecular Biology.
