>I think there is a lot more nuance than people admit. Lets take an example of we have a deadly disease spreading through the population (much more deadly than covid) . Let's say a scientist finds out that the disease is primarily (exclusively) spread by red haired people. Should they just publish the finding?
Yes, they should.
>A better way is likely to quietly talk to the authorities first.
OK - talk to the authorities first, and then publish the results.
>Another example could be that there is some disease that is entirely harmless but 100% infectious and deadly to some group (e.g. Black people). Now should that research just be released into the public?
Yes, it should.
>I admit these are somewhat hypothetical scenarios, but you said the truth should always come up,. I just give counterexamples.
You didn't give counter-examples. You gave examples of times where the information should be shared with the public and then asserted that it shouldn't for .. I don't know what reason.
Here's a pragmatic reason for sharing truthful information with the public: If you want the population to trust public health officials, public health officials need to trust the public with the truth.
I don’t think a lot of scientists and health officials realize that their work is two sided. ESP if you’re working with public health the other side is who you view as the unwashed masses. You don’t get to make commandments
Maintaining trust with the public is the most important thing to do, and the best way to do that is transparency.
All the games about if we “should tell people xyz” needs to end if these institutions want to rebuild their credibility with the broader public.
The cdc is at least being retrospective but it seems like nature has gone the opposite way and are institutionally entrenching this idea that the public can’t be trusted with the truth.
Yes, they should.
>A better way is likely to quietly talk to the authorities first.
OK - talk to the authorities first, and then publish the results.
>Another example could be that there is some disease that is entirely harmless but 100% infectious and deadly to some group (e.g. Black people). Now should that research just be released into the public?
Yes, it should.
>I admit these are somewhat hypothetical scenarios, but you said the truth should always come up,. I just give counterexamples.
You didn't give counter-examples. You gave examples of times where the information should be shared with the public and then asserted that it shouldn't for .. I don't know what reason.
Here's a pragmatic reason for sharing truthful information with the public: If you want the population to trust public health officials, public health officials need to trust the public with the truth.