Read on Twitter
Public health is a wide-ranging discipline, which has been defined as "the science and art of preventing disease”, prolonging life and improving quality of life through organized efforts and informed choices of society, organizations, communities and individuals.
1/
1/
Public Health is most probably the discipline of science that materially improves the lives of the most people around the world, striving to use evidence, expertise, and insight from all disciplines to improve the health and wellbeing of the population as a whole.
2/
2/
The UK, and Liverpool in particular, has a long history of pioneering Public Health research and programmes, many of which have materially & significantly improved the lives of people in local communities & around the world. https://www.ljmu.ac.uk/about-us/news/features/liverpool-key-to-improvements-in-health-care
Sadly, while modern-Science has largely used strong ethical principles and robust frameworks to understand more about the world & improve society, Science has also been misused throughout history.
Sometimes this has been for genuine evil and with truly terrible consequences.
Sometimes this has been for genuine evil and with truly terrible consequences.
Given the complex and somewhat troubled history of scientific research, & the scientific method itself, the term 'Human Guinea Pig Experiments' carries a lot of weight and has wide-ranging and serious implications. https://twitter.com/Zubhaque/status/1388198386344632327?s=20
I don't really think I need to go into the details of why that is, although we can see examples from Nuremberg trial, or from many mental institutions throughout 19/20th century for what 'human guinea-pig experimentation' really is. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/339107
It is not a term that should, in my opinion, be bandied around lightly.
If making such claims, it would be reasonable to assume accusors know who the investigators actually are, what and how they are actually studying, & what channels they have gone through.
If making such claims, it would be reasonable to assume accusors know who the investigators actually are, what and how they are actually studying, & what channels they have gone through.
From original&subsequent tweets, this doesn't seem to be the case, where it became clear those making or defending the allegations did not actually have any particular knowledge of details of study - Assumptions around whom is responsible & basics of study design were incorrect.
In a country with freedom of expression & scientific thought, it is the right of @Zubhaque to make whatever allegation she deems fit, esp if there is a genuine case of 'human guinea-pig experimentation.'
It is @GabrielScally @chrischirp right to defend these allegations.
It is @GabrielScally @chrischirp right to defend these allegations.
But if scientists genuinely think there is 'human guinea-pig experimentation' carried out on the people of L'pool & are willing to publicly implicate PIs as being responsible for this, they have a duty to immediately report this via official channels, & not just via some Tweets.
Misinformed allegations of unethical Public Health practice were also bandied around during the initial community testing pilot.
A lot of this was via Twitter, some via letters to participants, and really not much through official channels or directly to researchers involved.
A lot of this was via Twitter, some via letters to participants, and really not much through official channels or directly to researchers involved.
These actually had an impact on the results of the community testing pilot.
https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/media/livacuk/coronavirus/Liverpool,Community,Testing,Pilot,Interim,Evaluation.pdf
https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/media/livacuk/coronavirus/Liverpool,Community,Testing,Pilot,Interim,Evaluation.pdf
Qualitative evidence shows these misinformed allegations & the general furore of misinformation around testing was actually a key reason for lower than desired test uptake, which likely led to sustained higher community prevalence, particularly in the most deprived areas.
Given how bad the following epidemic wave the UK experienced was, it follows that this decreased uptake and sustained higher prevalence resulted in some hospitalizations & deaths which could otherwise have been prevented by this pilot evaluation.
Why am I saying this? Because this goes to show what scientists say on Twitter, or in the media, does actually matter.
How we do PH, science, and science communication does actually matter.
Allegations you make against colleagues or fellow human beings do actually matter.
How we do PH, science, and science communication does actually matter.
Allegations you make against colleagues or fellow human beings do actually matter.
Such serious allegations of malpractice should only be made after careful consideration of the context and evidence, and if you are confident enough to stand by them when scrutinised.
If one genuinely thinks 'human guinea pig experiments' are being undertaken on the population of a city in UK, that does need to be raised immediately to the PI directly, as well as to other senior officials & academics in this country - it's an *extremely* serious allegation.
If not, then please just find better and less sensationalist language to use.
It is perfectly fine to have ethical concerns, these are very complex issues and require careful consideration, & criticism & challenge is fundamental to good science.
It is perfectly fine to have ethical concerns, these are very complex issues and require careful consideration, & criticism & challenge is fundamental to good science.
But when claims are from people who have made little effort to understand what is actually going on here, these claims are, imo, unsubstantiated.
Ergo, accusations of 'human guinea pig experiments' against esteemed colleagues who shoulder ultimate responsibility are unacceptable.
Ergo, accusations of 'human guinea pig experiments' against esteemed colleagues who shoulder ultimate responsibility are unacceptable.
I also think this leads into a wider issue where it now seems any disagreement between scientists, or diffs in styles/approaches/values, seems to result in public accusations of malpractice, rather than simply sci disagreement/diff interpretations of complex & limited evidence.
It would also be good to consider that in reality, the Local universities and local Public health probably have a better idea for what is best for the people they serve than those who haven't been involved in the local response, who sit behind a screen complaining.
Science twitter has turned into a toxic place recently, unfortunately, myself included, but I did not think it would stoop to the point where such serious allegations were made & then defended about pilot studies with so many esteemed investigators/scientists involved.
These investigators are simply looking to use the scientific tools available to us to improve the health & wellbeing of the communities they serve.
This is true public health in action, and has already resulted in extremely valuable findings. https://twitter.com/ScienceShared/status/1388475903014014982?s=20
This is true public health in action, and has already resulted in extremely valuable findings. https://twitter.com/ScienceShared/status/1388475903014014982?s=20
I would hope now that it is clearer that these allegations were misinformed and unsubstantiated, that these allegations are retracted or, at least if not, then I guess I would hope they are made via the appropriate channels which their seriousness requires.
End.
End.
I guess one last thing, as some people seem to think points I raise are invalid due to me being 'anonymous.'
I am not anonymous, my identity can be quite easily found from my pinned tweet.
I am not anonymous, my identity can be quite easily found from my pinned tweet.
For full transparency, I am not directly involved in these pilot events, but have co-authored work with Prof Buchan who is leading the evaluation, and am in fairly regular correspondence with him and others involved.
I also hope that I have not overstepped the mark and amplified this issue more than the team at Liverpool would want, but I thought about it all day and decided something needed to be said, given the seriousness of the allegations made.
Probably also worth mentioning that while I would now call Prof Buchan and some other correspondents my colleagues, what I tweet out are my solely my own views which others may or may not agree with or support, and may not feel quite as strongly as I do on this issue.
And I would also have preferred to not do this in public but I received no response from a private message I sent asking for tweet to be reconsidered. Given the allegations are public, and grave, I think public response and defence are reasonable.
