Doing whatever it takes to get ahead

Pete Buttigieg just did it; Do scientists do it too?

Recently Pete Buttigieg, a loyal Democrat, went on Bill Maher to argue that, contrary to growing concerns about his cognitive decline, Joe Biden remained fit for office and is a great president. That was Friday. Sunday, Biden dropped out of the race.

In the same interview Pete said JD Vance was once anti-Trump and now has become a Trump kiss-up. He argued that he knew lots of guys like JD, people willing to say or do whatever it takes to get ahead.

To me, the obvious irony was that Pete was on TV doing whatever it takes to be a loyal Democrat, including lying about the fitness of the president. He was precisely guilty of what he accused JD Vance of doing.

Ultimately, all politicians are *lying* to secure their power and votes. That’s why people don’t put much stock in politicians. But what about scientists?

Do they do whatever it takes? Should they?

Good scientists do NOT do whatever it takes to get ahead, and good scientists never distort conclusions or results to please a political party or get ahead. Sadly, there few of them. Probably most scientists in leadership positions are closer to politicians than pure, impartial actors.

Anthony Fauci to me is a prime example. He is a clever political actor. He continually signals that he is a loyal democrat, and supported bizarre policies like school closure and masking young kids. These policies were used in the 2020 election to campaign against Trump. Recently he was on TV doing the same thing Pete did— defending Biden’s mental health.

Ashish Jha is another example. He was a Harvard professor who gave quotes to media outlets praising the Biden COVID policy (often immediately after it was issued). It was revealed that he was one of several scientists who received private memos from the White House. In other words, he was coordinating with the White House while pretending to be independent. He was rewarded for that with COVID Czar position.

During his tenure, he lied repeatedly about the need for boosters in young people. Europe was not giving boosters to toddlers, but Ashish pushed this to Americans, even those who had already had COVID. He did so without randomized data, and without asking FDA to compel the companies to generate randomized data. Ashish was also dishonest about the efficacy of paxlovid.

The problem is not restricted to COVID-19. Recently the FDA held a hearing to decide if minimal residual disease (a new endpoint) should be used to approve more drugs in myeloma. Many doctors who receive payments from the pharmaceutical industry— often hundreds of thousands of dollars for decades— spoke to support the approval, despite data clearly showing that MRD negativity does not predict gains in survival. Loyalty to the pharmaceutical industry is the best thing for one’s oncology career.

Ultimately, I know very few scientists who I think don’t display the trait that Pete Buttigieg himself displayed— saying things that are false, probably false, or you don’t believe— in order to get ahead. I doubt Pete thought Biden’s mental health was fit for purpose, but he went on TV and said it was. Ashish knew that there was no randomized to support Paxlovid for the indications he pushed it for. These myeloma doctors know that their career would be hindered if they opposed new endpoints or asked for trials to measure survival or quality of life. Scientists will say anything to get ahead.

Only a tiny handful have principles.