Why do experts fall from the altar?

You may have heard the latest joke in the market: "After the common people persisted in popularizing science with experts, the experts finally understood: this disease is a self-limiting disease..."

The reason why this is funny is because of the obvious role reversal: the cognition of experts still lags behind that of the public, and the intellectual elite is no longer the enlightener, but the object of enlightenment.

The first thing that disgusts people is the inconsistency of what the experts said: how terrible the virus was said before, but the situation has changed, and now nothing seems to be happening.

Liang Wannian declared in late April this year that Omicron is definitely not a large-scale flu, and the fatality rate is 7 to 8 times that of influenza; (Not even a "lethal rate") Significantly lower.

Academician Zhong Nanshan’s wording is more cautious, but his views have obviously changed: In April, he said that compared with the previous Delta strain, the currently circulating Omicron strain caused milder symptoms and lower mortality rates. It is low, but the transmission power is strong. Once it is released and large-scale transmission occurs, many people will still lose their lives.

This statement seems to be correct now, but at least at the time, it was generally regarded as his disapproval of letting go. A few days ago, however, he declared that the virus had "evolved to the level of a seasonal cold". Just this morning, his latest statement is: Omicron is not terrible, 99% of infected people can fully recover within 7-10 days-now there is no such "but" turning point.

Not only that, he also said that having the virus but being asymptomatic "may not be considered a disease." Academician Li Lanjuan seems to have the same idea. When she accepted the People's Daily Health client, she said, "Asymptomatic infection is not a disease, and asymptomatic infection is not a patient, so there is no need to panic"—and during the Tianjin epidemic in January this year, she was It has been said that Omicron infection "spreads quickly, has strong concealment, and strong penetrating power", and the trend of younger age is obvious. It is necessary to strengthen the protection of young people, "worthy of our high vigilance and response."

Of course, you can also say that the understanding of viruses is constantly being explored and updated. When it first broke out three years ago, some experts initially said that it had "no obvious human-to-human transmission", and it was Zhong Nanshan who first judged and confirmed the existence of "human-to-human transmission" on January 20, 2020. In the past three years, our cognition has changed countless times. It is difficult to expect experts to judge correctly like gods and maintain this correctness all the time.

However, the reason why people ridicule these experts is far from the discussion of opinions in the academic sense, but that they have already learned the corresponding opinions from various channels at the moment when the Internet communication is developed, so when the situation changes, it is important to watch When countless experts came forward and said "this disease is not terrible", there was a simple moral doubt: "Even I know this, you are only saying now, why did you go so early?"

Economist Ma Guangyuan satirized these medical experts as chameleons who adapt to the wind: "I deeply feel that the mutation speed of Chinese experts is much faster than that of viruses!"

Furthermore, people questioned that if the experts didn't know before, then it was stupid; if they knew but didn't tell the truth, then it was bad and made people suffer endlessly. Because of this, there have been many people criticizing these experts (especially Wu Zunyou and Liang Wannian) in recent days and demanding their public apology.

It is worth noting that this change in public opinion is also influenced by social morality and public sentiment. In March this year, someone noticed that Wu Zunyou, the chief epidemiologist of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention who appeared in the media, had black hair and gray hair in two years. This hard-working image once aroused widespread sympathy; On the 1st, he declared that "the sequelae of the new crown cover a wide range, and the symptoms can last for weeks, months or even longer." In just one and a half months, he was overwhelmed by the wave of public opinion that "there are no sequelae".

Academician Zhong Nanshan, who established an authoritative image during the SARS epidemic in 2002, has also stepped down from the altar in the past three years, and one of the big reasons is that people suspect that he has interests and ridicule him as the "cargo king". Li Lanjuan, another academician who became famous at the beginning of the epidemic, has never been able to get rid of the same doubts.

Zhang Wenhong has no interests involved. Although he has been famous in the past two years, how many brands are willing to pay a high price to ask him to speak for him, but he can't avoid it, even if it is already quite soft——There are media friends and me As I said, even if it is rare to invite him to say a few words, as long as he turns his head and walks away as soon as he smells something wrong, there is "nothing to do."

However, he was not uncommonly attacked. In addition to the thesis turmoil, many people ridiculed him as an "Internet celebrity" who can only say some beautiful words, but he did not take the lead, and did not meet the moral perfection requirements of "dedicated". Although his positions and opinions are not so obvious, some people have been attacking him for not doing enough in this regard.

Yesterday, the "Sweet Potato Xiong Lao Liu" who held Fang Fang from the beginning to the end of 2020 sarcastically said on Weibo: "In the past three years, Zhang Wenhong has not supported any place in the epidemic situation across the country. Online consultations in the office.”

Needless to say, Zhang Wenhong is definitely one of the most attacked experts in the past three years, but at least most of the Shanghainese around me still respect him, because what he said, in hindsight, is in line with facts and common sense— — This is already considered a rare quality at the moment.

Wu Fan, the leader of the expert group of the Shanghai Epidemic Prevention and Control Leading Group, was insulted a lot in March for insisting that "Shanghai cannot be closed." Highlight the particularity and sense of superiority of Shanghai. But at that time, the virus was not spreading so fast, and the toxicity was weak when the temperature rose in the spring. If it was released at that time, the epidemic may have passed by now. She was silent for a long time, accepting these scolding words calmly, and said to her friends: You should write down these scolding words for yourself as a souvenir. She said that she believes in science, because science can stand the test of practice.

Another impressive expert is Zhu Weiping, Director of the Infectious Disease Prevention and Control Department of the Shanghai Pudong Center for Disease Control and Prevention. In early April, when she responded to a call from a citizen, she unabashedly revealed the truth about the epidemic at the time, saying that she did not Worried about making this recording public. For a while, many people said that it was her courage that saved face for Shanghainese.

Scholar Zhou Lian said a few days ago that when the epidemic is over, we should "remember those experts who told the truth, and especially those whose conscience was eaten by dogs"—this may be in line with the moral intuition of many people: Are experts trustworthy? , It depends on whether they have conscience and courage to tell the truth. However, is that the only question?

It is necessary to point out that in the early stage of the epidemic, due to the unclear understanding of the virus, there will be many disputes even among experts. Even if there are some opinions that seem incorrect in hindsight, that is normal. During the Spanish flu pandemic, Victor C. Vaughan, dean of the University of Michigan Medical School, said that in the face of a changing situation, "Stop advocating the great achievements of medical schools, and humbly admit that in this situation our ignorance".

At the beginning of the outbreak of the epidemic in 2020, the "Elephant Association" published an article, judging from the research on infectious diseases, coping strategies and medical resources in the United States, it believed that the United States had no problem in responding to the new crown epidemic. As a result, the epidemic broke out in the United States soon, and the article was insulted overwhelmingly. The author, who is a returnee doctor of medicine, was also scolded for doubting his life. It is so.

I'm certainly not an expert, but I've experienced this feeling. In the spring of 2020, I once said on Douban that prevention and control based on ensuring social mobility as in the UK actually requires a higher level of governance. It didn't take long for the UK to be regarded as a typical example of "bad show". There was a lot of abuse under my broadcast. I would have read every reply carefully, but I really didn't dare to watch it in those few days.

This means that in China's public opinion environment, even if an expert can stick to his coherent and correct propositions, he is very likely to be under tremendous mental pressure, and this is undoubtedly not easy to do. As a friend told me recently:

Hey, think of us ordinary citizens being so aggrieved, and how frustrated the professionals who pushed this direction felt at that time—of course, it also highlights the preciousness of tenacity, and we must always be full of enthusiasm and expectation for life.

In other words, it seems that the only thing that can support experts to persevere and tell the truth is their inner moral strength. However, it should be said that the more important qualities are intellectual independence and professional ethics, and the two support each other - because those who insist that "I am a doctor and I will tell the truth" are more independent from All aspects of the pressure, to express their own views.

There are not many people who can do this, because it is really not that difficult. Zhang Xiaochun, a doctor at Zhongnan Hospital who changed the diagnostic criteria for COVID-19 at the beginning of 2020, stood up and said at the time, "Don't be superstitious about nucleic acid testing," but it turned out that she couldn't stay in her original unit and had to leave Guangzhou. Not only that, her parents were also infected at the time, and she was asked to find a relationship to give her dad oxygen in the hospital, but they couldn't find a bed at all. In the end, the two elders had great opinions on her. She once said: "The epidemic is over, and my family is also scattered. gone."

It is not a requirement for ordinary people to expect people to speak the truth with their own moral courage, but to face such a terrible loss. After Dr. Zhu Weiping told the truth about the epidemic in Shanghai, some bigwigs in the medical industry stated at that time, "If Dr. Zhu loses his job, I will welcome you here at any time." Of course, Dr. Zhu later said, "I still need to continue working." However, The support of this social network is extremely important.

This also shows the background of our current society: people have extremely high moral expectations for experts, but neither professional ethics nor social networks have been fully developed. At the same time, the public opinion space is still far from being tolerant of diverse and heterogeneous voices. Under such circumstances, adhering to the independence of professional opinions has become a rare moral quality.

Conversely, the reason why people have strong ethical expectations of experts is that in our society, they provide a rare sense of trust: experts play the role of authority in their field, and we cede trust to them , I just have to do it myself. Now, however, the word of authority can no longer be trusted, because people instinctively realize that what comes from the mouth of an expert also often has a purpose, trying to guide you.

I know that there are many people who are vigilant against such public opinion trends, worried that this kind of questioning of experts may not only be a manifestation of social conscience, but may also lead to anti-intellectual populism at any time. I don't know what the next direction is, in the best case, after people find that they can't trust authority, they will turn to self-reliance and realize the importance of independent thinking-I would say that the independence of experts Sex and individual independence may complement each other, because only a society composed of independent individuals will respect the independence of experts.