Science: knowledge gained through observation, experimentation and/or systematized study. If someone claims to have a strong opinion or to have made a decision, and I am working to persuade or influence them to reconsider, and there is consensus science to support my position, the first question I should ask is, “Do you trust the consensus science?” And I should be prepared to cite that science. If the respondent answers “no I do not trust the science,” a tempting follow-up question is Why not? But I believe, 9 times out of 10, to ask why not will immediately result in defensiveness and confrontation. Perhaps instead of why not, I should ask “if the science is bad, not to be trusted, are there alternatives?” But truthfully I believe that 7 or 8 times out of 10, after this question, the individual will also exit this route or simply shut down unable to answer. Those few who are able to coherently explain their stance should be respectfully heard but unless they present an alternative relevant science, we have likely come to another roadblock. I do not know of a consistently successful way to convince or move someone who does not trust mainstream science, and whose only alternative is to wait and hope. I am not an expert in anything except not being an expert. The best I can do to be well-informed is to listen to the experienced scientists, verify their qualifications, and make a decision based on their expertise. Access to Google and a speaking platform does not make one an expert.

So then how do I respond if the individual I am working to convince trusts the science. In this case they are affirming their acceptance of the results or conclusions as facts or truths, yet still refusing to abide, and my efforts to influence will have to take a more circuitous route where we can take our time to discuss goodness, harm, justice, autonomy and/or other concepts relevant to the decision. Instead of facts or truths, I must work to persuade with argument.

Science is the expressway where logical argument is the scenic route.

I work within a health care system associated with a major state university. Recently I learned that I have co-workers who have chosen to not be vaccinated, though it is required in our workplace. They are claiming religious exemption. So though my written thought this week has been prompted by the controversy surrounding the COVID vaccine, it is as applicable to other (often) politicized controversies including climate change, implicit bias, gun control, overpopulated prisons, excessive force by police, the inequitable costs of opportunity including housing and education, and the ever-increasing wealth gap; to name a few. Portrayed as Science vs. Religion, or Facts vs. Feelings, or Logic vs. Belief, or Experts vs. Politicians, or Progress vs. Tradition, or Empathy vs. Power, or Survival vs. Extinction, it is the same argument. And I believe unless a large majority comes around to see the necessity of facts over feelings very soon, too late will have arrived.

I am back where I began. How can logic move entrenched belief? I suppose I could begin with any inconsistencies in an individual’s position. For example, regarding my co-workers, if they were to answer “no I do not trust the science” I believe this would provide a logical opening to explore why a religious exemption is being claimed if the science is the issue. And if an individual responds that it is due to the use of fetal cells associated with the COVID vaccine, (this being the most common reason to ask for a religious exemption), this in turn should lead to an investigation into the individual’s use of other common products that also utilize fetal cells; (products including Tylenol, Pepto Bismol, Aspirin, Tums, Lipitor, Senokot, Motrin, Ibuprofen, Maalox, Simvastatin, Ex-Lax, Zocor, Zostavax, Tylenol Cold & Flu, Benadryl, Sudafed, Albuterol, Preparation H, Enbrel, MMR Vaccine, Acetaminophen, Claritin, Zoloft, Suphedrine, Prilosec OTC, Azithromycin, Varilrix, Havrix, and even some artificial flavorings in food). And even if the individual answers that they do trust the science, they should be asked to sign a verification of their past and continued avoidance of all of these products; (there is at least one health system in this country that requires this). Regarding other controversial politicized issues, I could resource the fact that (for example) coffee and beer prices are increasing due to climate change showing it is a problem impacting daily life today and not just a problem for future generations. And I could cite statistics on gun ownership, prison populations, implicit bias, and on and on, showing the harmful societal impact. But will it move the demographic of biased, gun-owning, coffee-drinking, aspirin-antacid-taking beer drinkers? Probably not. Full disclosure: except for the gun-owning, I am part of that demographic; though I work very hard to be aware of my biases and I constantly question my beliefs. And, I do not claim to be a converted evangelical Christian and I have not donated to Bob’s church of the scattered flock in order to obtain a confirmation of religious belief signed by Bob; (the actual pastor is Jackson Lahmeyer, he is in Oklahoma, and I don’t know the name of his church, but this is a real thing).

This week I requested an accommodation based on the proximity of an unvaccinated co-worker and a personal underlying medical condition; coronary artery disease. I presented my request as a two-part concern:

1. The immediate circumstance created by a specific co-worker who volunteered her unvaccinated status, and
2. Reassurance that any exemptions granted are being investigated to ensure sincerity and monitored closely to ensure compliance.

Concern #1 is pretty narrow and straightforward. I believe we will find a resolution for this. Concern #2 though is a much larger issue that ultimately pits an individual's right to privacy (HIPAA) against the much broader responsibility of workplace and worker safety (OSHA) as it impacts all employees. To responsibly lessen the probability of exposure and to allay my fears, I believe both concerns must be addressed by my employer. OSHA, charged with workplace safety, is currently preparing an emergency temporary standard (ETS) regarding COVID that portrays it as a grave danger, yet so far I have a very strong impression that my employer is reluctant to address concern #2. I would argue that my right to life (and even health and well-being) should be prioritized over an individual's right to privacy, but as shown by the fact that the unvaccinated status of my neighbors was volunteered by a neighbor, I have no reason to believe that my employer cares more about me than they do about political correctness; it appears they never intended to inform me of the potential danger. This is most disturbing.

A few summary questions and comments:

1. How can my employer ensure workplace safety if there is not an awareness of the danger and if there is not a system in place to monitor non-compliance? And if (in my workplace) there is an awareness and a system, shouldn’t it have kicked in before I found out from my co-worker? There is either no awareness and no system, or it is not working.
2. Why would individuals who refuse the vaccination want to keep it a secret? Whether it is a religious stance, a political stance, or a personal belief, shouldn’t the individual want to publicly substantiate their position?
3. If you denounce mainstream / consensus science regarding any controversial, politicized issue, are you also willing to denounce mainstream / consensus science everywhere it touches your life?
4. On the other hand, if you do have a sincere religious or personal belief, are you willing to put in the effort necessary to live up to the high expectations of that belief? This effort would not only include consistency in actions and behavior, but also serious, thoughtful consideration, study and analysis of opposing opinions, reasonable alternatives, and ethical principles surrounding any questions or controversy.

This feels like a lot of consideration to again find myself where I began; to determine that as long as we require diplomacy and tact, science and facts and logic and experts and progress and empathy will continue to be thwarted by religion and feelings and belief and politicians and tradition and power. And survival will be trumped by blunder-headed noise. By respectfully standing by and continuing to give in to compromise, the door remains open for too late. I am (and we all should be) sad and angry and afraid. I am also (meaning we all are) unseen, unheard, inconsequential. This is far bigger than a vaccine; this is everything; but we have to start somewhere, so this week I requested an accommodation.