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.]
Edible Silverware Is the Next Big Thing in Sustainable Eating
A new edible spoon is durable enough for mass market assembly and is already alleviating consumer waste.
Sure, you may bring a reusable straw when you go out to eat. But what about digesting your silverware at the restaurant? The future is already here.
Edible cutlery feels like a natural progression post-reusable straw.
Air New Zealand just added the new edible coffee cup Twiice into their in-flight service. Made from vanilla, wheat flower, sugar, egg and vanilla essence, the Twiice cups will be standard issue for the international airline.
On the ground, the new, award-winning startup IncrEDIBLESpoon has shipped more than a quarter million edible scoopers. The spoons are all-natural, vegan, and made from wheat, oat, corn, chickpea and barley.
The technological breakthrough is in creating tasty, mass-market material durable enough for delivery in an assembly line environment like airplane service, as well as stable enough to hold a hot cup of coffee or a freezing scoop of ice cream. Twiice cups can last several hours after hot coffee is added, while IncrEDIBLESpoon cutlery holds up to 45 minutes.
"We already caught the interest of a couple major ice cream chains," says Dinesh Tadepalli, co-founder of the IncrEDIBLESpoon parent company Planeteer. "If all goes well, one of them will test out our spoons at their scoop shop early this year."
Next Up
Edible cutlery feels like a natural progression post-reusable straw. And more is already on the menu.
The coffee cup company Twiice is already planning on expanding. Co-founder Jamie Cashmore says other serving items are coming later this year.
IncrEDIBLESpoon is also getting into more utensils. "We plan to mass produce the complete set by year's end: Edible straws, edible forks and edible coffee stirrers," Tadepalli says.
Most notably, Twiice's partner Air New Zealand sees the coffee cup as just a start to other sustainable solutions. The airline estimates it currently serves eight million cups of coffee annually. It's even suggesting customers bring their own reusable cup to the plane – though that isn't as ergonomic nor as attractive as eating everything you are served.
Open Questions
Making everything edible has a few challenges. First is cultural acceptance: With respect to current success, changing eating habits will require going beyond eco-focused and curious eaters.
Second, it's unclear if the short-term economics will add up in favor of airline carriers and other companies. Like alternative fuel, organizations will be more likely to adopt new science when it doesn't require a retrofitting or expensive change to their current business model – even if it does create long-term benefits.
The changes will likely be lopsided, influencing cultures at different times. Airplanes are a great start, as passengers are a captive audience interested in removing waste as soon as possible.
"Imagine eating a black pepper spoon after your soup or a chocolate spoon after your ice cream?"
We can expect edible cutlery to make an easier impact with certain cultures or foods. For instance, injera, the spongy Ethiopian bread, has served as an African plate of sorts for years. It makes sense that IncrEDIBLESpoon's four flavors, Salt, Masala, Spinach and Root, all fit in another bread-as-plate friendly culture: Indian.
Coffee and desserts sound like a good bet for now, though, especially for foodies. "People are curious to try edible spoons as they never heard or experienced them before," Tadepalli says. "Imagine eating a black pepper spoon after your soup or a chocolate spoon after your ice cream?"
The Secrets of a Long Life from the U.S.’s Top Longevity Hot Spot
Summit County resident Gloria Breigenzer, 75, does a yoga headstand in the Rocky Mountains while her horse looks on.
People are living longer in the world's richest countries, according to a recent Pew Report. Certain areas, in particular, have drawn the attention of researchers who study longevity because in those places, living to 100 is not unusual.
"If you want to live longer, shape your environment."
At 8000 feet up, Summit County, Colorado is a longevity hotspot. Surrounded by mountains that soar to more than 14,000 feet, the population of nearly 31,000 brags the highest expected lifespan in the United States, at 86.83 years. For comparison, the average life expectancy in the U.S. is 78.6 years.
So, what is it about living in Summit County that has brought about this high honor?
Despite popular belief, it's not about genes. Only about "20-30 percent of longevity can be predicted by genetics," longevity researcher Howard S. Friedman wrote in an email exchange. Friedman, a professor at the University of California at Riverside, co-authored a book about a famous study that followed participants for eight decades to learn what traits and factors contribute to a long life.
"About half is behavioral (including environmental)," Friedman says. "The rest is random (chance)." His longevity research is based on work that began in 1921 by Stanford University psychologist Lewis Terman. To discern the keys to longevity, Friedman and colleagues spent 20 years looking back at the lives led by the 1500 "gifted" 11-year old boys and girls who were born in 1910 and participated in Terman's study.
"We found that ambition, perseverance, and high motivation … predicted not only success but also longevity: Stressful job and hard work, long life!" Friedman says.
Longevity expert Dan Buettner agrees that an individual's environment is key. Buettner studies what he calls Blue Zones, where people "naturally live longer." But, unlike the five Blue Zones in the world -- Okinawa, Japan; Sardinia, Italy; Nicoya, Costa Rica; Ikaria, Greece; and Loma Linda, California — the majority of the Summit County population chose to move to the mountain towns that make up the region. Because Buettner believes that people can be taught to live longer, he sees Summit County as an instructive locale.
Like the Blue Zones, people in Summit County "do not pursue healthy lifestyles; [rather] it ensues," he says. "Blue Zones have the benefit of traditional patterns of eating and traditional rhythms of life. So they tend to be places where people walk to work, to a friend's house … [and] Blue Zone people eat the right food -- not because they have better individual responsibility or discipline; they simply live in an environment where beans, greens, nuts and grains are cheapest and most accessible."
"If you want to live longer," Buettner says, "shape your environment."
But an individual's environment can be affected by a number of factors, including socioeconomics, race, quality of and access to health care, as well as behavioral and metabolic risks. While the residents of Summit County smoke less and exercise more than those in regions with shorter life spans, they also have higher incomes and levels of education and lower unemployment.
"The healthiest individuals in The Longevity Project…lived meaningful, committed lives. They worked hard and played hard."
Gloria Breigenzer moved to Summit County 20 years ago with her husband. "We wanted to ski and ride horses up in the mountains," says Breigenzer. The 75-year-old still works part time as a hair dresser, goes to the gym every day, lifts weights and does yoga.
"I don't know why people don't want to get up and go out and work out and do stuff. I do," says the grandmother, who also exercises her rescue horse five days a week and for the past 15 years has done swing, country two step, and jazz dance in a group with her 77-year-old husband. She's also taking kiteboarding lessons and for the past two years has spent every afternoon studying Spanish.
Pete and Judy Rubin, both 65, retired to Summit County nearly two years ago from Cleveland. In Colorado, "socializing doesn't revolve around food," says Pete. "In Cleveland it always did…[Being outside] in summer or in winter is just easy. Skiing, on a bike, taking a hike, mowing the lawn, looking at a mountain instead of having someone else do it."
The Summit County approach resonates for researcher Friedman, who says that it's the "constellations of habits and patterns of living," that stood out most to him in his study. "Throw away your lists...The healthiest individuals in The Longevity Project…lived meaningful, committed lives. They worked hard and played hard. They were very persistent and responsible, and they were dedicated to things and people beyond themselves."
The following are some of the common denominators found in populations that live longer, including those who live in Summit County:
Plant-based diet: "Eat meat, no more than 5 times a month … [and] 95 percent of all the calories you take in should be whole plant-based foods," says Buettner.
Know your purpose: Buettner found that having and understanding your sense of purpose is worth up to seven years of extra life expectancy.
Have friendships: "You should have three to five friends who are healthy themselves who you can call on a bad day and they'll care," says Buettner.
Be on the move: Populations in zones where there is higher longevity "move naturally" as part of their day. It's not about diets. "No diet in the history of the world has worked for more than 5 percent of people after two years," says Buettner.
Relieve stress: "You should have some daily practices that help you downshift," says Buettner. It "could be taking naps, or meditation practice, or a habit of praying or a habit of doing happy hours."
Employ a family first rule: "Successful centenarians put their families first," explains Buettner. "And that means keeping your aging parents nearby, being seriously invested in your partner and if you have kids, you make them a priority."
It's these "key patterns of living [that] tend to make you both healthier and happier," says Friedman. "And health and happiness often then mutually reinforce each other."