I found this post excellent. It was sharp, thoughtful, and exactly the kind of behind-the-scenes perspective we need more of. I completely agree with your analysis of the essay and especially appreciated how you exposed the bad-faith framing beneath its polished surface. Please continue sharing these kinds of exchanges. They offer valuable clarity on complicated issues and help reveal the tactics being used to undermine evidence-based science.
This sort of piece is terrific. Especially interesting was ChatGPT's reaction to the original and the reply. Propaganda couched as reasoned argument is by definition pseudoscience and needs to be called out as such.
In my FDA Matters blog (www.fdamatters.com), I looked at "gold standard science" as a policy analyst and former government official rather than a scientist. Same concern as you, Jeremy, but focused on the use of the definition to denigrate foundational science and attack the experts who developed it and the policies built upon it. Vaccines is the obvious immediate example.
"In a recent executive order, gold standard science was defined, enumerating nine characteristics. What seems missing from the administration’s definition of “gold standard science” is an appreciation of the complexity and ambiguity of scientific results. Often, science is (or needs to be) actionable, even if it is not absolute or immutable.
There is, necessarily, a strong situational relativity when you factor in the difficulty, cost, and timeliness of achieving complete certainty. As a result, sometimes gold standard science has to be “what we knew at the time, exercising best judgment, and having surveyed all relevant evidence.”
Over time, new data may [sometimes] refine or refute previously held interpretations of previous studies. Mis-directions from the past are not necessarily blameworthy. They may simply reflect how scientific knowledge evolves."
Interesting, Dr. Faust. This Administration often has me feeling like I've slipped into the world of 1984, where everything is Newspeak. Calling for a gold standard in science is great, except the implication is that science was running amok before.
I don't like the use of ChatGPT as "reinforcement" or validation. It only added words, and seemed like a stunt. I would have liked more of your thoughts on a technologist lecturing scientists. Tech and science have completely different incentive structures and goals.
I would be interested to know what you think of these top-tier journals (NEJM, JAMA, Science) platforming the transgressives as they've been doing. And, please, your thoughts only. 😎
I think using ChatGPT was interesting this time, but should be an occasional feature, not a regular one. We--the audience--should be your external validation, not R2D2 or HAL.
Outstanding essay: a credible and persuasive argument elegantly stated. Completely destroys the credibility of the purported editorial.
Had I known beforehand that Michael Kratsios is a Trump apparatchik, I would have dismissed his writing out of hand. I thank Dr. Faust for taking the time to dig into it and expose the cant fully and irrefutably.
I did, however, suspect the trumpian connection from the start for Kratsios is engaged in a prevent-type defense of Trump’s attempt to use science’s own standards to denigrate. I don’t understand why Science published it.
This was helpful, informative, and a great reminder that we must stay alert to any opportunity we have to keep the light shining on the value of good-faith, apolitical research (for as long as that remains possible…).
I extracted this from a Wikipedia article on the author: "Kratsios is the only science advisor to the president not holding a PhD, and with no specialty in a fundamental science or field of engineering. Kratsios graduated from Princeton University with a B.A. in politics and a certificate in Hellenic studies in 2008." This provides everything I need to know about Kratsios and his lack of credentials. Kratsios is typical of the SMEs that fill Trump's 1st and 2nd Administration. Blindly loyal to a fault; they are all rank amateurs, who offer nothing but their opinions on various topics and subjects, for which they are not recognized to be SMEs.
Yes! More of this sort of thing would be very welcome.
I found this post excellent. It was sharp, thoughtful, and exactly the kind of behind-the-scenes perspective we need more of. I completely agree with your analysis of the essay and especially appreciated how you exposed the bad-faith framing beneath its polished surface. Please continue sharing these kinds of exchanges. They offer valuable clarity on complicated issues and help reveal the tactics being used to undermine evidence-based science.
This was my reply on Bluesky when I saw this opinion, which appeared in the journal Science.
At the time, I didn’t know who he was.
“Definitely misstates the purpose of Trump’s EO. Surely he can’t be so naive!
Of course, the best way to improve science research is to fire many, many research scientists, and significantly reduce grant funds. (Sarcasm)”
This sort of piece is terrific. Especially interesting was ChatGPT's reaction to the original and the reply. Propaganda couched as reasoned argument is by definition pseudoscience and needs to be called out as such.
In my FDA Matters blog (www.fdamatters.com), I looked at "gold standard science" as a policy analyst and former government official rather than a scientist. Same concern as you, Jeremy, but focused on the use of the definition to denigrate foundational science and attack the experts who developed it and the policies built upon it. Vaccines is the obvious immediate example.
"In a recent executive order, gold standard science was defined, enumerating nine characteristics. What seems missing from the administration’s definition of “gold standard science” is an appreciation of the complexity and ambiguity of scientific results. Often, science is (or needs to be) actionable, even if it is not absolute or immutable.
There is, necessarily, a strong situational relativity when you factor in the difficulty, cost, and timeliness of achieving complete certainty. As a result, sometimes gold standard science has to be “what we knew at the time, exercising best judgment, and having surveyed all relevant evidence.”
Over time, new data may [sometimes] refine or refute previously held interpretations of previous studies. Mis-directions from the past are not necessarily blameworthy. They may simply reflect how scientific knowledge evolves."
(full column at: https://www.fdamatters.com/fdamatters/alice-humpty-dumpty-and-the-new-administration)
Interesting, Dr. Faust. This Administration often has me feeling like I've slipped into the world of 1984, where everything is Newspeak. Calling for a gold standard in science is great, except the implication is that science was running amok before.
I don't like the use of ChatGPT as "reinforcement" or validation. It only added words, and seemed like a stunt. I would have liked more of your thoughts on a technologist lecturing scientists. Tech and science have completely different incentive structures and goals.
I would be interested to know what you think of these top-tier journals (NEJM, JAMA, Science) platforming the transgressives as they've been doing. And, please, your thoughts only. 😎
I think using ChatGPT was interesting this time, but should be an occasional feature, not a regular one. We--the audience--should be your external validation, not R2D2 or HAL.
Outstanding essay: a credible and persuasive argument elegantly stated. Completely destroys the credibility of the purported editorial.
Had I known beforehand that Michael Kratsios is a Trump apparatchik, I would have dismissed his writing out of hand. I thank Dr. Faust for taking the time to dig into it and expose the cant fully and irrefutably.
I did, however, suspect the trumpian connection from the start for Kratsios is engaged in a prevent-type defense of Trump’s attempt to use science’s own standards to denigrate. I don’t understand why Science published it.
Congratulations, Dr. Faust, keep going. The world needs more carefully assessing and thoughtfully responding scientists like you!
This was helpful, informative, and a great reminder that we must stay alert to any opportunity we have to keep the light shining on the value of good-faith, apolitical research (for as long as that remains possible…).
Excellent! Please share more of your Inside Medicine communications.
This article says everthing I have been thinking. Thank you
Excellent! July 4th in the ER…Hope it wasn’t a disaster.
Yes. More.
The analysis by ChatGPT was enlightening and a welcome reinforcement of your analysis.
I extracted this from a Wikipedia article on the author: "Kratsios is the only science advisor to the president not holding a PhD, and with no specialty in a fundamental science or field of engineering. Kratsios graduated from Princeton University with a B.A. in politics and a certificate in Hellenic studies in 2008." This provides everything I need to know about Kratsios and his lack of credentials. Kratsios is typical of the SMEs that fill Trump's 1st and 2nd Administration. Blindly loyal to a fault; they are all rank amateurs, who offer nothing but their opinions on various topics and subjects, for which they are not recognized to be SMEs.