Cultivate a mindset that values scientific truth above hierarchical authority. Seek out and support scientific environments where open dissent and rigorous debate are encouraged, rather than obedience to established figures.
Demand transparency from scientific and public health authorities. Prioritize information that honestly articulates what is known and unknown, treating the public as informed partners rather than subjects to be managed, which builds trust.
Expect and advocate for the scientific community to openly acknowledge mistakes and engage in self-correction. This transparency is vital for rebuilding public trust and ensuring more effective responses to future health crises.
Critically assess public health recommendations, especially if they appear illogical or lack clear scientific grounding. Recognize that messaging not rooted in robust evidence can erode trust and potentially lead to suboptimal personal health decisions.
Approach vaccine decisions with an evidence-based mindset, carefully weighing benefits and harms through rigorous data, including randomized studies. Avoid moralizing vaccine choices, acknowledging that suitability can vary based on individual circumstances and scientific nuance.
Maintain a healthy skepticism towards published biomedical literature, as much of it may not be reliably true due to inherent scientific challenges and current incentive structures. Seek out findings that have been independently replicated for greater confidence.
Understand that supporting early career scientists and bold, high-risk research is crucial for transformative discoveries. Advocate for funding models that reduce the pressure for incremental work and sharp penalties for failure, fostering innovation.
Recognize the critical importance of replication studies and meta-analyses in verifying scientific findings. Support initiatives that make assessing the truth and reliability of scientific literature a respected and funded endeavor.
Be aware that the NIH will launch a new journal specifically for publishing replication studies and negative results. Use this resource to easily search for and evaluate the robustness of scientific claims.
Understand that the NIH is shifting incentives to reward pro-social scientific behaviors, such as open data sharing, cooperation in replication efforts, and publishing negative results. This aims to foster a culture prioritizing truth and reliability over mere publication volume or influence.
Be aware of the new NIH initiative to broadly investigate the etiology of autism, including basic science, epidemiology, and environmental factors, without predetermined hypotheses. This open-minded approach seeks to provide comprehensive answers for affected families.
Advocate for and support the geographic and intellectual dispersion of scientific funding and institutions. This strategy helps to combat groupthink by encouraging diverse perspectives and fostering richer scientific discourse.
Inform yourself about how American taxpayers disproportionately fund global drug research and development through higher domestic drug prices. This understanding can empower you to engage in discussions about equitable R&D burden sharing.
Note that the FDA now requires COVID booster shots to demonstrate clinical efficacy (preventing COVID, deaths, hospitalizations) in humans for approval, a higher standard than antibody production alone. This informs expectations for future vaccine evaluations.
Starting July, take advantage of the new policy allowing free public access to all NIH-funded scientific papers. This enables direct access to research findings that American taxpayers have already supported.
Cultivate an appreciation for scientific progress that emerges from robust and sometimes argumentative discourse. Understand that such open debate, when focused on truth, is essential for advancing knowledge.