This appeared on my blog over at Science.
Last weekend, Twitter and later the mainstream media exploded with a controversy surrounding an invitation to prominent vaccine scientist Peter Hotez to debate anti-vax charlatan and spoiler presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr on the podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience. There was an immediate rally around Hotez by scientists and celebrities on Twitter and lots of discussion about why this invitation is a classic anti-science setup.
Hucksters like RFK Jr are skilled at flooding the zone with garbage. Kennedy recently told Rogan that Wi-Fi could open the blood-brain barrier and cause cancer. Absurd statements like this are a trap for scientists. A scientist wants to explain how conservation of energy works and why Kennedy’s assertion violates just about every principle there is in chemistry and physics. This approach sets up two huge problems. First, it gives RFK’s garbage equal footing with principles that have been established by centuries of science. The second is that to a lay listener, the scientist just comes off as fitting the stereotype of a nitpicking nerd and RFK looks like a powerful communicator. Hotez debating RFK about vaccines would produce the same result.
I’ve fallen into this trap a few times myself. I went to the Heterodox Academy to be on a panel that also included the conservative pundits Richard Lowry and Batya Ungar-Sargon, who rattled off all kinds of misinformation about COVID-19. Each thing they said would have taken 15 minutes to refute based on the evidence. So, I picked one and did the best I could. (BTW, they were both gracious participants and very cordial in the green room.) But my knowledge of the evidence and burning desire to cite it all was no match for their rhetorical skills.
When scientists refuse these “debates,” the other side gets the opportunity to say that they are turning them down for fear of being challenged. The opposition can claim to be “just asking questions,” even though they don’t care about the answers. But these reactions are preferable to giving them a platform.
The latest kerfuffle is another reminder of something important that science has not solved: There are few figures who are rhetorical matches for merchants of doubt like RFK Jr. Most scientists aren’t prepared to take on his firehose of nonsense. The scientific community desperately needs equally skilled pundits to defend science. There was an effort to draft the political commentator Jon Stewart to debate RFK, but Stewart didn’t seem too enthusiastic. This is an important challenge for the world of science to work on.
In the meantime, we can be gratified at the way scientists and clear thinkers rallied around Hotez, and his poise in the face of all of the online abuse he endured.