THE age of information has brought with it, the age of disinformation. It appears truth has never been under this much existential threat. The Covid-19 pandemic has brought this regrettable phenomenon into renewed focus. Recently, we have been inundated with statistics, data and numbers related to the aforementioned public health crisis and it has become increasingly difficult to trust information coming from social media with its plethora of dubious sources. In the pre-internet era, we relied on expected repositories of truth; the courts, science, government bureau of statistics, traditional media such as newspapers, radio and television and more. We have also relied on our leaders to be the flag-bearers of the facts but in some global circumstances, we have been sadly disappointed. With the aforementioned in mind, it is certainly an opportune time to reflect and discourse on loyalty, science, truth and leadership in a global crisis.

LEADERSHIP DURING A CRISIS

On December 31, 2019, The People’s Republic of China alerted the World Health Organisation about strange pneumonia in Wuhan. On January 1, 2020, health experts identified this virus and ascribed its now dreaded name, COVID-19. By February, world Chieftains in all capitals began scrambling to grapple with the worst public health crisis since the Spanish Flu in 1918. The people of those various nations were stuck with the captains they elected at their previous elections and some have painfully learned that elections can have fatal consequences. Bad or poor leadership can have a bearing on life or death. Some denied the potency of the virus. The anti-science posture that we see vis-à-vis climate change reared its ugly head. Some autocrats are using this opportunity to consolidate wretched power. In Hungary, Viktor Mihály Orbán has used this pandemic to consolidate power. In the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte instructed his security forces to shoot citizens who violate curfews. In the United States, the President discussed the internal usage of disinfectants to fight the virus at a White House press briefing. Thankfully, good leadership has prevailed in countries such as New Zealand, Barbados and Germany. What reasonable conclusions can we draw thus far? It is clear, the character of the leader does change during a crisis, it becomes more implacable. Be that as it may, where do scientists who are most needed during a pandemic feature in all of this?

SCIENCE V POLITICS IN THESE COVID-19 TIMES
The relationship between science and politics has proven, in most cases, to be an uneasy one. There has always been a penchant to disregard scientific evidence when it does not suit a political objective, even when lives are at risk. Since the outbreak of this pandemic, this relationship has been placed under the spotlight. In the process, some world leaders are proving to be prudent by listening to the scientists and technical minds and others, due to sheer political desperation, have chosen to repudiate tried and tested scientific theories. This symbiotic relationship and often time an adversarial connection is presently being negatively exemplified by the political developments at the highest level of the US Government concerning the fight against COVID-19.World viewers have been glued to their television sets to watch the daily press briefings of the White House Taskforce on COVID-19, in a desperate need for the best expert advice on this virus. On the face of it, an instructive subplot of science versus politics has emerged. Science is represented in the form of Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., NIAID Director and politics is uniquely represented by the President of the United States of America, Donald J. Trump. On one hand, Covid-19 has obliterated the US economy, going from record employment to a five-week total of 25 million unemployment claims (MSNBC), wiping out the 695,000 set in 1982. This has placed the crux on which the US President’s popularity and chances of reelection are based, in serious jeopardy and any scientific fact that does not serve the interest of a resuscitated booming economy, is being met with disdain. Despite this Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads, the experts have stuck to the data, facts and science under the watch of a hovering President with an executioner-like presence over them on a daily basis.

BENDING DATA AND SCIENCE TO THE WILL OF THE MAXIM LEADER
Repressive leaders hate bad news, they insist on feel-good public announcements that induce hope in their subdued populations. Given that posture, one can imagine the difficulty being faced by scientists and technical persons who are mandated to submit advice based on scientific data in countries such as Iran, China or North Korea. Even in open societies, data and science-based advice have to be rendered while striking a delicate balance between sticking to the loyalty of the Hippocratic Oath and appeasing the leader. The Committee on Human Rights (CHR) with members from the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine has undertaken the cases of 287 scientists, engineers, and health professionals, who have been incarcerated for political reasons. It is absolutely non-negotiable, your data and findings must bend to the will of the maxim leader. Where there is absolute conformity with the wishes and the demands of the totalitarian head, it is often a case of the ‘mad scientists’. This has been well documented by Simon Igs in his book, ‘Stalin and the Mad Scientists’. In his work, Igs describes the likes of LLya Ivanov, who wanted to cross breathe humans and chimpanzees; Alexander Bogdanov who believed in mixing human blood with Martians to extend life spans; Trofim Lysenko, Stalin’s poster-boy, who believed plants sacrifice themselves for their strongest neighbor and was given the job of reforesting European Russia and Alexander Alexandrovich Bogdanov who never studied science or subjected himself to peer review but became the Head of the Scientific Institute of Blood Transfusion. When this religious loyalty meets data and science during a crisis, it is an extremely dangerous business.

During a crisis, science must remain loyal to science and always speak the truth and leaders must accept scientific and evidence-based advice.