Who Qualifies as an “Expert” And How Can We Decide Who Is Trustworthy?
Discerning a real expert from a charlatan is crucial during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.
This article is part of the magazine, "The Future of Science In America: The Election Issue," co-published by LeapsMag, the Aspen Institute Science & Society Program, and GOOD.
Expertise is a slippery concept. Who has it, who claims it, and who attributes or yields it to whom is a culturally specific, sociological process. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we have witnessed a remarkable emergence of legitimate and not-so-legitimate scientists publicly claiming or being attributed to have academic expertise in precisely my field: infectious disease epidemiology. From any vantage point, it is clear that charlatans abound out there, garnering TV coverage and hundreds of thousands of Twitter followers based on loud opinions despite flimsy credentials. What is more interesting as an insider is the gradient of expertise beyond these obvious fakers.
A person's expertise is not a fixed attribute; it is a hierarchical trait defined relative to others. Despite my protestations, I am the go-to expert on every aspect of the pandemic to my family. To a reporter, I might do my best to answer a question about the immune response to SARS-CoV-2, noting that I'm not an immunologist. Among other academic scientists, my expertise is more well-defined as a subfield of epidemiology, and within that as a particular area within infectious disease epidemiology. There's a fractal quality to it; as you zoom in on a particular subject, a differentiation of expertise emerges among scientists who, from farther out, appear to be interchangeable.
We all have our scientific domain and are less knowledgeable outside it, of course, and we are often asked to comment on a broad range of topics. But many scientists without a track record in the field have become favorites among university administrators, senior faculty in unrelated fields, policymakers, and science journalists, using institutional prestige or social connections to promote themselves. This phenomenon leads to a distorted representation of science—and of academic scientists—in the public realm.
Trustworthy experts will direct you to others in their field who know more about particular topics, and will tend to be honest about what is and what isn't "in their lane."
Predictably, white male voices have been disproportionately amplified, and men are certainly over-represented in the category of those who use their connections to inappropriately claim expertise. Generally speaking, we are missing women, racial minorities, and global perspectives. This is not only important because it misrepresents who scientists are and reinforces outdated stereotypes that place white men in the Global North at the top of a credibility hierarchy. It also matters because it can promote bad science, and it passes over scientists who can lend nuance to the scientific discourse and give global perspectives on this quintessentially global crisis.
Also at work, in my opinion, are two biases within academia: the conflation of institutional prestige with individual expertise, and the bizarre hierarchy among scientists that attributes greater credibility to those in quantitative fields like physics. Regardless of mathematical expertise or institutional affiliation, lack of experience working with epidemiological data can lead to over-confidence in the deceptively simple mathematical models that we use to understand epidemics, as well as the inappropriate use of uncertain data to inform them. Prominent and vocal scientists from different quantitative fields have misapplied the methods of infectious disease epidemiology during the COVID-19 pandemic so far, creating enormous confusion among policymakers and the public. Early forecasts that predicted the epidemic would be over by now, for example, led to a sense that epidemiological models were all unreliable.
Meanwhile, legitimate scientific uncertainties and differences of opinion, as well as fundamentally different epidemic dynamics arising in diverse global contexts and in different demographic groups, appear in the press as an indistinguishable part of this general chaos. This leads many people to question whether the field has anything worthwhile to contribute, and muddies the facts about COVID-19 policies for reducing transmission that most experts agree on, like wearing masks and avoiding large indoor gatherings.
So how do we distinguish an expert from a charlatan? I believe a willingness to say "I don't know" and to openly describe uncertainties, nuances, and limitations of science are all good signs. Thoughtful engagement with questions and new ideas is also an indication of expertise, as opposed to arrogant bluster or a bullish insistence on a particular policy strategy regardless of context (which is almost always an attempt to hide a lack of depth of understanding). Trustworthy experts will direct you to others in their field who know more about particular topics, and will tend to be honest about what is and what isn't "in their lane." For example, some expertise is quite specific to a given subfield: epidemiologists who study non-infectious conditions or nutrition, for example, use different methods from those of infectious disease experts, because they generally don't need to account for the exponential growth that is inherent to a contagion process.
Academic scientists have a specific, technical contribution to make in containing the COVID-19 pandemic and in communicating research findings as they emerge. But the liminal space between scientists and the public is subject to the same undercurrents of sexism, racism, and opportunism that society and the academy have always suffered from. Although none of the proxies for expertise described above are fool-proof, they are at least indicative of integrity and humility—two traits the world is in dire need of at this moment in history.
[Editor's Note: To read other articles in this special magazine issue, visit the beautifully designed e-reader version.]
Podcast: Should Scientific Controversies Be Silenced?
The recent Joe Rogan/Spotify controversy prompts the consideration of tough questions about expertise, trust, gatekeepers, and dissent.
The "Making Sense of Science" podcast features interviews with leading medical and scientific experts about the latest developments and the big ethical and societal questions they raise. This monthly podcast is hosted by journalist Kira Peikoff, founding editor of the award-winning science outlet Leaps.org.
The recent Joe Rogan/Spotify backlash over the misinformation presented in his recent episode on the Covid-19 vaccines raises some difficult and important bioethical questions for society: How can people know which experts to trust? What should big tech gatekeepers do about false claims promoted on their platforms? How should the scientific establishment respond to heterodox viewpoints from experts who disagree with the consensus? When is silencing of dissent merited, and when is it problematic? Journalist Kira Peikoff asks infectious disease physician and pandemic scholar Dr. Amesh Adalja to weigh in.
Dr. Amesh Adalja, Senior Scholar, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and an infectious disease physician
Listen to the Episode
Kira Peikoff was the editor-in-chief of Leaps.org from 2017 to 2021. As a journalist, her work has appeared in The New York Times, Newsweek, Nautilus, Popular Mechanics, The New York Academy of Sciences, and other outlets. She is also the author of four suspense novels that explore controversial issues arising from scientific innovation: Living Proof, No Time to Die, Die Again Tomorrow, and Mother Knows Best. Peikoff holds a B.A. in Journalism from New York University and an M.S. in Bioethics from Columbia University. She lives in New Jersey with her husband and two young sons. Follow her on Twitter @KiraPeikoff.
Scientists Are Studying How to Help Dogs Have Longer Lives, in a Bid to Further Our Own
Feeding dogs only once a day is showing health benefits in a large study, scientists report.
The sad eyes. The wagging tail. The frustrated whine. The excited bark. Dogs know how to get their owners to fork over the food more often.
The extra calories dogs get from feeding patterns now used by many Americans may not be good for them from a health and longevity viewpoint. In research from a large study called the Dog Aging Project, canines fed once a day had better scores on cognition tests and lower odds of developing diseases of organs throughout the body: intestinal tract, mouth and teeth, bones and joints, kidneys and bladder, and liver and pancreas.
Fewer than 1 in 10 dog owners fed their furry friends once daily, while nearly three fourths provided two daily meals.
“Most veterinarians have been led to believe that feeding dogs twice a day is optimal, but this is a relatively new idea that has developed over the past few decades with little supportive evidence from a health standpoint,” said Matt Kaeberlein, PhD, Co-Director of the Dog Aging Project, a professor of pathology and Director of the Healthy Aging and Longevity Research Institute at the University of Washington. Kaeberlein studies basic mechanisms of aging to find ways of extending the healthspan, the number of years of life lived free of disease. It’s not enough to extend the lifespan unless declines in biological function and risks of age-related diseases are also studied, he believes, hence the healthspan.
The Dog Aging Project is studying tens of thousands of dogs living with their owners in the real world, not a biology laboratory. The feeding study is the first of several reports now coming from the project based on owners’ annual reports of demographics, physical activity, environment, dog behavior, diet, medications and supplements, and health status. It has been posted on bioRxiv as it goes through peer review.
“All available evidence suggests that most biological mechanisms of aging in dogs will be conserved in humans. It just happens much faster in dogs.”
“The Dog Aging Project is one of the most exciting in the longevity space,” said David A. Sinclair, professor in the Department of Genetics and co-director of the Paul F. Glenn Center for Biology of Aging Research at Harvard Medical School. “Not only is it important to help our companions live longer and healthier, but because they are like people and share the same environment and many of the lifestyles as their owners, they are the perfect model for human longevity interventions.”
The epigenetic clock — and specifically changes in gene expression resulting from methylation of cytosine and guanine in the DNA — provides the critical connection between aging in dogs and people. “All available evidence suggests that most biological mechanisms of aging in dogs will be conserved in humans,” Kaeberlein said. “It just happens much faster in dogs.” These methylation changes, called the “methylomes,” have been associated with rates of aging in dogs, humans, and also mice.
In a 2020 study young dogs matched with young adults and aged dogs matched with older adults showed the greatest similarities in methylomes. In the Cell Systems report, Tina Wang of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues wrote that the methylome “can be used to quantitatively translate the age-related physiology experienced by one organism (i.e., a model species like dog) to the age at which physiology in a second organism is most similar (i.e., a second model or humans).” This allows rates of aging in one species to be mapped onto aging in another species, providing “a compelling tool in the quest to understand aging and identify interventions for maximizing healthy lifespan.”
In the Dog Aging Project study, 8% of 24,238 owners fed their dogs once daily, the same as the percentage of owners serving three daily meals. Twice-daily feedings were most common (73%), and just over 1 in 10 owners (11%) “free fed” their dogs by just filling up the bowl whenever it was empty — most likely Rover’s favorite option.
“The notion of breakfast, lunch, and dinner for people in the United States is not based on large studies that compared three meals a day to two meals a day, or to four, “ said Kate E. Creevy, chief veterinary officer with the Dog Aging Project and associate professor at Texas A&M University. “It’s more about what we are accustomed to. Similarly, there are not large population studies comparing outcomes of dogs fed once, twice, or three times a day.”
“We do not recommend that people change their dogs’ diets based on this report,” Creevy emphasized. “It’s important to understand the difference between research that finds associations versus research that finds cause and effect.”
To establish cause and effect, the Dog Aging Project will follow their cohort over many years. Then, Creevy said, “We will be able to determine whether the associations we have found with feeding frequency are causes, or effects, or neither.”
While not yet actionable, the feeding findings fit with biology across a variety of animals, Kaeberlein said, including indicators that better health translates into longer healthspans. He said that caloric restriction and perhaps time-restricted eating or intermittent fasting — all ways that some human diets are structured — can have a positive impact on the biology of aging by allowing the gastrointestinal tract to have time each day to rest and repair itself, just as sleep benefits the brain through rest.
Timing of meals is also related to the concept of ketogenesis, Kaeberlein explained. Without access to glucose, animals switch over to a ketogenic state in which back-up systems produce energy through metabolic pathways that generate ketones. Mice go into this state very quickly, after a few hours or an overnight fast, while people shift to ketogenesis more slowly, from a few hours to up to 36 hours for people on typical Western diets, Kaeberlein said.
Dogs are different. They take at least two days to shift to ketogenesis, suggesting they have evolved to need fewer meals that are spaced out rather than the multiple daily meals plus snacks that people prefer.
As this relates to longevity, Kaeberlein said that a couple of studies show that mice who are fed a ketogenic diet have longer lifespans (years of life regardless of health). “For us, the next step is to analyze the composition of the dogs’ diets or the relationship of multiple daily feedings with obesity,” he said. “Maybe not being obese is related to better health.”
To learn more, the Dog Aging Project needs dogs — lots of dogs! Kaeberlein wants at least 100,000 dogs, including small dogs, large dogs, dogs of all ages. Puppies are needed for the researchers to follow across their lifespan. The project has an excellent website where owners can volunteer to participate.
Nutritional strategies are often not built around sound scientific principles, Kaeberlein said. In human nutrition, people have tried all kinds of diets over the years, including some that were completely wrong. Kaeberlein and his colleagues in the Dog Aging Project want to change that, at least for people’s canine companions, and hopefully, as a result, give dogs added years of healthy life and provide clues for human nutrition.
After that, maybe they can do something about those sad eyes and the frustrated whine.