There’s a serious danger in trading one form of corruption for another under the guise of “truth-telling.” Vinay Prasad’s appeal to many lies not just in his critique of institutional failures—some of which, like the revolving door between FDA and industry, are legitimate concerns—but in the way his platform is increasingly propped up by figures like RFK Jr., who fundamentally reject the scientific method.
We should not lose sight of the fact that there's a difference between criticizing science and misunderstanding it. Too often now, we see dangerous conflations and fallacies pushed into the mainstream: treating genetic disorders as synonymous with hereditary ones, equating correlation with causation, or engaging in circular reasoning masked as contrarian insight. These are not hallmarks of scientific skepticism—they’re signs of scientific illiteracy.
The answer to systemic problems like industry influence isn’t to replace evidence-based review with populist pseudoscience. What we need is structural reform: a Division of Scientific Review, for instance—an independent body that can critically appraise studies, examine conflicts of interest, and provide transparent guidance. A checks-and-balances model rooted in methodological rigor, not personalities.
Medical advancements like CAR T therapy didn’t emerge from a vacuum; they were products of the very system now being vilified wholesale. Yes, that system needs fixing. But discrediting it entirely in favor of influencers who can’t distinguish between causation and coincidence is not reform—it’s regression.
In a country where only about 20% of the population is scientifically literate, this kind of substitution is more dangerous than people realize. RFK Jr. doesn’t just tap into public discontent—he exploits it, offering the illusion of truth without any of the accountability that real science demands.
Let’s stop romanticizing lone voices and start building robust, depersonalized institutions of scientific integrity.
Yesssss!
There’s a serious danger in trading one form of corruption for another under the guise of “truth-telling.” Vinay Prasad’s appeal to many lies not just in his critique of institutional failures—some of which, like the revolving door between FDA and industry, are legitimate concerns—but in the way his platform is increasingly propped up by figures like RFK Jr., who fundamentally reject the scientific method.
We should not lose sight of the fact that there's a difference between criticizing science and misunderstanding it. Too often now, we see dangerous conflations and fallacies pushed into the mainstream: treating genetic disorders as synonymous with hereditary ones, equating correlation with causation, or engaging in circular reasoning masked as contrarian insight. These are not hallmarks of scientific skepticism—they’re signs of scientific illiteracy.
The answer to systemic problems like industry influence isn’t to replace evidence-based review with populist pseudoscience. What we need is structural reform: a Division of Scientific Review, for instance—an independent body that can critically appraise studies, examine conflicts of interest, and provide transparent guidance. A checks-and-balances model rooted in methodological rigor, not personalities.
Medical advancements like CAR T therapy didn’t emerge from a vacuum; they were products of the very system now being vilified wholesale. Yes, that system needs fixing. But discrediting it entirely in favor of influencers who can’t distinguish between causation and coincidence is not reform—it’s regression.
In a country where only about 20% of the population is scientifically literate, this kind of substitution is more dangerous than people realize. RFK Jr. doesn’t just tap into public discontent—he exploits it, offering the illusion of truth without any of the accountability that real science demands.
Let’s stop romanticizing lone voices and start building robust, depersonalized institutions of scientific integrity.