I have encountered some strong opinions in Finland on “who should express an opinion” on  #COVID19. Science works best when a diversity of thought can flourish. No person/agency is beyond criticism. Data/evidence are key, its unwise to simply take somebody’s word for something /1

I strongly agree epidemiology should be left to the specialists. Yet, if an official/agency communicates information that is clearly inaccurate, *this is an issue of scientific integrity that affects us all*. Public understanding of science is central to defeating  #COVID19 /2

In many countries, a variety of scientists provide valuable perspectives on issues beyond their exact domain of expertise - because they are highly effective communicators. Such proactivity should be welcomed, not derided by malignant complainers who choose to remain passive /3

Interesting cultural differences have also emerged. In a recent expression of concern letter signed by >50 research professionals, I know several who did not sign - because they “felt it was wrong” to critique the government. This is surprising & concerning to me in Finland. 4/n

Debate & discourse is a normal part of a well-functioning democracy. Scientists are generally well-meaning, passionate people. Critique (despite mode of delivery) is rarely ever personal - in my experience. It often comes from those who seek to effect meaningful improvements 5/n

I don't know any self-respecting scientist who is not concerned by lapses in integrity and messaging. Integrity is not the domain of a single discipline - excellence in science matters more than ever. Decision makers are not an exception to this. No authority is "unrivalled" 6/n

In any case, if you have made it this far - hope you have a great Sunday. I just wanted to provide some context. Happy Mothers Day to all celebrating this! /end