The cornerstone of any scientific investigation is the formulating and asking of questions. Indeed, being permitted to ask and formulate research questions lies at the heart of scientific enquiry and is often the first step in new knowledge acquisition. What makes a good scientific question is that it can be answered by direct observations, following an established scientific approach.
Scientists, researchers and medical professionals must be able to formulate their own research questions, even if this means challenging official guidelines, narratives or policies.
However, over the past 18 months, persons questioning the established COVID-19 narrative, or the advice given by governments, have often been silenced and sometimes vilified, not for suggesting people ignore government advice but for daring to question the very existence of the science upon which this advice is based. Take, for example, the current issues surrounding the wearing of face masks and that of COVID-19 vaccination side effects. A quick literature search on the medical database Medline for the evidence on the use of face masks and their effectiveness at preventing viral spread reveals (literally) hundreds of papers. Some of these research papers claim that face masks are ineffective at preventing the spread of a virus. Others claim that wearing face masks does help prevent the spread of infection. Yet others suggest that in terms of preventing viral infection spread, it depends on the type of face mask worn. Indeed, it appears that there is a difference between a face mask, a medical-grade face mask and a (mere) face covering. The point, here, is that there is a clear need to ask the questions: ‘do face masks work?’ and ‘if so, what type of mask is most effective?’ Merely asking these questions should not be seen as a challenge to the official advice; however, when governments are instructing their citizens to wear masks/face coverings, surely it is reasonable to ask: upon what science are these instructions based? What does the science say or prove regarding the wearing of a face mask or covering regarding preventing the spread of COVID-19? Science isn't static, knowledge isn't generated or created and then left unchecked or unchallenged; the constant questioning and challenging of established ‘facts’ is what moves science forward. Science is dynamic and fluid, and continuous questioning is what keeps it so.
Similarly, asking for data on COVID-19 vaccination side effects is not the same as questioning the efficacy of the vaccine. Nor should it be the case that a scientist or researcher who wishes to explore possible vaccine side effects should ever be vilified or accused of being a conspiracy theorist or ‘anti-vaccination’ merely because they are asking appropriate scientific/research questions. Again, a search of the medical literature reveals hundreds of papers about COVID-19 vaccination side effects. Most side effects are rare, some are mild, some severe. However, similar to the issue regarding face masks, the point here is that we should all be able to—without being vilified—ask questions such as: ‘are there any side effects associated with the COVID-19 vaccine?’.
Asking questions should never result in vilification or accusations of being a conspiracy theorist. Asking questions is fundamental to the scientific process. Similar to issues of freedom of speech—scientists and clinical researchers must be free to formulate, ask, test, and explore their own questions, no matter how uncomfortable these may be. Further, it is essential that the scientific community stand for and protect this freedom.