Touting one’s trust science has also become a political act, although science itself works through organized skepticism. A couple of years ago I wrote a six-part series about the nature of science and truth, interviewing scientists, philosophers and historians, and examined the way scientific methods were developed to stem the tide of bias. In healthy fields of inquiry, scientists wait till results are independently replicated before they’re trusted. That way biases can get ironed out in the long run — at least to the extent that science can bring us what historians call reliable knowledge.

The one positive aspect of equating policy to following the science is that it gives policy makers the license to “flip flop,” which shouldn’t be seen as a bad thing. If studies show ventilation cuts Covid transmission but deep cleaning offers no measurable help, then policy should incorporate that. When science is informing policy, changes in the evidence warrant changes in the rules.

In science, it’s the researchers who can’t let go of a hypothesis who end up espousing bad science. That’s part of the reason I think the phrase is a pretty good title for a podcast — because science is dynamic and there’s a lot to keep following.