Who are experts anyway? I think it depends on the audience, because it’s a relative term. But here are some categories I have observed consistently during COVID-19. 1/7

1. “True” experts: scientists in a particular field who would be recognized as experts by others in that *precise* field. 2/7

2. Expert-ish: scientists in a related field who wouldn't be recognized as expert by those in the precise field, but may be mistaken as expert by scientists outside it, even those in similar fields. 3/7

3. Meh-xperts (see what I did there?): scientists in unrelated fields whose expertise can easily be disproven by a pubmed search, but are still seen as expert by some scientists in other fields and by university admin & press/lay audience for some reason (bc shouty). 4/7

4. Outright charlatans: these we can easily discount, and yet sometimes they have sway institutionally and in the press/lay audience because they are well-connected and very shouty. 5/7

We’re all sometimes in category 2 (e.g. I’m not an immunologist but sometimes asked about Ab waning or something. In a room w immunologists I would defer to others, but if it’s e.g. one question for a general-audience podcast I would – w caveats – do my best to answer). 6/7

Expertise is fascinating - a weird mix of social/academic standing + media engagement. I see "trusted" lists of experts in my precise field that to me incl categories 1, 2, and 3, & disproportionately men in categories 2<3<4.

No fix or anything. Just observing.
7/7

Addendum: here I am referring to a very specific kind of expertise claimed or attributed within academic science (e.g. infectious disease modeling). I’m not saying other people have no important insights, or that scientists have any or all the answers...