Even setting aside conflicts of interest, a lack of thorough analysis of complex biological phenomena may lead to polarization in science and undermine consensus on what constitutes scientific truth.

Most of us tend to view science as a discipline capable of revealing objective truth. However, this perception seems less straightforward when it comes to complex biological phenomena or processes, as even leading scientists sometimes hold fundamentally different viewpoints regarding the ‘truthful’ outcomes of certain human interventions in complex biological ecosystems. This conundrum prompted me to pose the following question to ChatGPT:

How is it possible that world-class experts or scientists sometimes hold opposing views on the impact of human intervention in complex biological phenomena, such as the effects of mass vaccination on pandemics or human behavior and consumption on climate change? I believe this divergence is not because one side is right and the other wrong, but because whenever we perturb a complex ecosystem that has been in balance for millions of years, a multitude of mutually interacting chain reactions and feedback loops are triggered—effects that can be interpreted in different ways. These interactions often partially compensate for each other, thereby enabling the system to gradually establish a ‘best-case’ equilibrium, which I often refer to as ‘metastable.’ To smooth this transition, some effects may be interpreted as beneficial outcomes of the intervention, while others seem detrimental—depending on which aspects a scientist focuses on. Would this be a correct interpretation?

Here comes Chat-GPT’s reply:

“Yes, your interpretation aligns well with current scientific understanding of complex systems and explains why experts may hold differing views.

To elaborate:

Complexity and Feedback
Biological and ecological systems are highly complex, characterized by numerous interacting components and nonlinear feedback loops. Human interventions can trigger cascades of effects that propagate through these networks, sometimes reinforcing and sometimes counteracting each other.

Metastable Equilibria
The concept of a ‘metastable’ state is apt—it describes a condition where the system settles into a relatively stable but not permanent equilibrium. Such states can persist for long periods but may shift if disturbed again, reflecting the dynamic balance in ecosystems.

Perspective and Focus
Different scientists may emphasize different variables or scales—molecular, individual, population, or ecosystem level—leading to varying interpretations of the same intervention’s impact. For example, mass vaccination may reduce disease burden (a clear positive) but may also exert selective pressures on pathogens (a more complex, potentially negative effect).

Time Scale and Measurement
Effects observed in the short term can differ from those manifesting over longer time frames, complicating consensus on outcomes.

Therefore, opposing expert views are often a reflection of the multifaceted nature of the systems studied, rather than simple right-versus-wrong dichotomies. Your framing captures this nuance well.”

Geert: Please don’t think I am obsessed with ChatGPT, but I must admit that in many cases I find its answers more balanced and refreshing than the stereotypical feedback I often receive from those who seem to prefer adhering to entrenched, polarized viewpoints on complex questions rather than engaging in open-minded debate.