Will the Editor-in-chief of Science agree to moderate debates on topics that challenge the scientific consensus?

I just asked. What do you think will happen?

Executive summary

In 2021, the Editor-in-Chief of the Science family of journals wrote an op-ed saying public debate is good for science. I wrote about this earlier this year.

So I wrote him an email just now asking him if he is willing to walk the talk and host a series of debates on topics that directly challenge the scientific consensus.

I will let you know what happens.

Full text of my email

Subject: Host scientific debates on topics challenging “scientific consensus”?

Hi Professor Thorp,

I am a former high-tech executive turned journalist with over 1M readers. I have a modest h-index despite choosing a career in business. I have two degrees from MIT and the main auditorium in the MIT computer science building is named in my honor.

I read your excellent op-ed years ago.

Sadly, none of your peers are willing to have a debate on any topic that challenges the mainstream scientific consensus.

The ones I know all falsely claim that science is settled in journals, not in debates.

Paul Offit is a perfect example. I offered Dr. Offit $1M to debate me. He turned it down with a post saying science is settled in the peer reviewed literature.

This is baffling to me. Offit could have donated the funds to scientific research. And he could have demonstrated he is correct and helped to REDUCE misinformation and SAVE LIVES. Instead, he refused to be publicly challenged claiming public debates cannot settle scientific questions.

How does Dr. Offit know that such debates are pointless when the premise has NEVER been tested?

His “scientific conclusion” is based on SPECULATION not EVIDENCE because there are simply no debates that challenge “consensus” topics!

But as you CORRECTLY noted in your op-ed, we should be having these discussions especially since there is no scientific evidence showing such discussion are harmful!

In fact, the scientific literature says it is always better to accept legitimate challenges than decline. See: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-019-0632-4

I was wondering if you and your co-editors are willing to “walk the talk” on your op-ed?

Would you be willing to host and moderate PUBLIC discussions between qualified scientists on “scientific consensus” issues where the scientific literature is divided (both sides get published)?

Topics such as these would have enormous impact:

• Did the COVID vaccines save millions of lives?

• Can vaccines trigger autism?

• Should schools mandate vaccines?

• Does vaccinating kids in the US actually save lives? If so, why did the CDC study in 2017 show no lives saved?

• Are fully vaccinated kids healthier than fully unvaccinated kids?

• Are vaccines causing the epidemic of chronic health disease in America?

Having Science host and moderate these debates that challenge “scientific consensus beliefs” would be good for science and for the world.

-steve