It’s been a while since I wrote a post. Events have been moving fast along the roller coaster, or better — with the strenuous climb of the covid curve. Now the vaccines are here, and people are praising science. It is, people are saying, a triumph of science.
 


The vaccines are good, and (personal note!) I’d like one as soon as possible. I’m a healthcare worker enrolled in a lottery. I’m fine, but I’m impatient.


But if “science” is credited with the vaccine, science should also be asked how the vaccine is going to be distributed to the same people and groups who science (in its institutions, practices, leaders, and funding streams) has by-and-large ignored, or neglected, in testing and treatment.
 


If you’re undocumented?
If you’re in jail?
If you’re homeless?
If you speak a language other than English?
 


How is the vaccine going to get to you, especially if you are still expected to show up at work, or you don’t have the means to get to the clinic, or the bus isn’t running, or you need to concentrate on feeding your family?


The actions of inequity are just as much a part of science as the inspiring advances of virology.
 


By the same token, “listening to science” means that our incoming president, and our healthcare institutions, should take heed of multiple realms of knowledge which help describe human behavior in time of pandemic. Yes, T-cells and B-cells, but also sociologists, anthropologists, economists, and ethicists.
 


Listening to science means knowing when to pursue complexity and not reductionism in understanding why people don’t get vaccines.


It also means understanding what drives health inequities, and what measures a society will not take to prevent the death of its vulnerable. Because the gaps in its care are written into its laws, inscribed on the bodies of its oppressed and enslaved.