In Part 1, I wrote about the gadfly as a critical science pollinator, and about the factors contributing to the science gadfly being something of an endangered species. I had all of those thoughts running around in my brain at a recent conference. And then, I got completely knocked off of pretty much every axis I have by an encounter for which I was totally unprepared.
I’m going to obscure important details here, but I’m also going to tell the truth. If you were in the room, you’ll recognize this account immediately. Know that my intent is not to shame anyone, or to cast aspersions, or anything like that. I’ve been processing something that I think is a really important learning experience and that has left me shaken, hurting, and deeply troubled.
As I was still thinking about how to be a useful gadfly to move the science forward in ways that can actually help people living with diseases that have no treatments currently, I found myself in a conversation with several teenagers. They are aspiring changemakers, and some of them are living with incurable diseases themselves. This is one of my favorite kinds of conversations to have, because I get to be totally unfiltered about my deep love for serving people through caring, through learning new things and then applying those new things in ways that help people, and through all of the other parts of the biomedical enterprise that I’ve been privileged enough to be a part of. I get to geek out hardcore. I get to be an “adult” who still has lots of kid-like feelings about what I do for a living. I get to show that having a bunch of letters after your name doesn’t make you stop being a normal person. Most importantly, I get to help them see that science and medicine can be FOR THEM if that’s what fires them up. I didn’t know that myself until late in the game (and sometimes I still have moments of doubt about myself, if I’m being honest… imposter syndrome dies hard and rises like a phoenix from its own ashes again and again), and I always think about what it would’ve meant to me to have a conversation like this when I was a teen or tween.
My guard was down. My heart was open. So when a kid somewhere between 11 and 14 years old (I’m guessing… I don’t have children and am bad at estimating ages) asked to join the conversation, it was an immediate, easy, and enthusiastic yes!
And then, almost immediately:
“He has an accent. Where are you from originally?”
“How old do you believe the Earth is?”
“Do you really believe that humans evolved from apes? That’s not how God created us.”
“Scientists are making designer babies with CRISPR-Cas9.”
“I think scientists are making stuff up.”
I tried to be gentle in engaging them in fact-based conversation and was met with folded arms and repeated head shaking. I was honest about what I think and believe and was told directly I was wrong. I tried to establish some ground rules for how science thinks about evidence and was rebuffed.
I was totally unprepared for this. Still would be today, if I’m being honest. Dismissing or intellectually overpowering this young person would be wrong, especially in front of their peers. Risking crushing their curiosity isn’t something I could ever do in good conscience. But I didn’t know how to protect the other kids in the conversation, either. Thank goodness there were parents at the table (not this child’s parents, but the parents of some of the other kids present) and that one of those parents was a middle school science teacher who could redirect the conversation. I would never have expected this to come from a kid. I never in a lifetime would’ve expected this to come from someone at a scientific conference. I never in a million years would’ve expected this to come from a kid at a scientific conference dedicated to the science that’s this kid’s best chance to live.
You see, this kid has an incurable disease that’s definitely life-limiting. Without real scientific progress – the kind everyone was there to make happen, the kind I was trying to pollinate as a gadfly, the kind this child believes is being misused or made up or both and is being perpetrated by people just like me – they are almost certain to die before they ever get to be my age.
Kaboom.
In most analyses of the factors that tend to lead someone to become a suicide bomber, it is very clear that “suicide bomber” is a misnomer. “They are human bombs, not suicide bombers,” as summarized very succinctly by Dr. Yasser Elsayed. Neuropsychiatric diseases like depression or psychoses are rarely part of the picture. People who perpetrate these acts of violence are seeking to accomplish a goal that, if successful, will lead to their death. Death is often seen as an act of altruism or martyrdom in service to a higher cause, be it a national/secular one or a religious one. Political scientist Ronald Pape has described the “4 D’s” that contribute to someone becoming a suicide bomber – Deprivation of their rights, Deception in how they are recruited/radicalized, Devotion to a cause, and Death being reframed as a defining act of a meaningful life.
I don’t know what this young person’s motivations were or are. I don’t know if they really deep down believe what they were saying, or if they were just trying to get a rise out of people, just in it for the lulz. I don’t know if they were raised to believe what they were saying, or if they have come to align with specific viewpoints through their own social groups and connections. I don’t know if they wanted to make me look foolish, to undermine other people’s trust in the science and scientists who were at the conference, to try to change other people’s minds, to gain online clout (for all I know, they were recording the interaction and it’s on TikTok somewhere right now)… no idea. I don’t know if maybe this was part of this child’s process of coming to terms with a difficult/devastating diagnosis.
What I do know is that if this kid were overall successful at whatever it was they were trying to do, they would indeed die (though not for a number of years, probably) due to the necessary result of derailing any scientific progress that might help them. Other people would also be hurt and likely would die, because there were many other people at the conference with incurable diseases, one of whom was at the table during this discussion as well. What I do know is that this kid seemed to be working from a script aligned with people who feel deprived of their rights and who have been deceived by the messages that have been used to bring them into the cause to which they are devoted. I don’t know what this young person feels about the possibility of their own death, so I don’t know about the fourth D. Sadly, I don’t know much of anything about where this young person was coming from, because they wouldn’t really engage with me. They spat questions and alternative facts at me but wouldn’t answer questions.
I know we’re talking about a teenager here. I know frontal lobes are still developing. I know this child is also living with an incurable, deadly disease. But I cannot and will not dismiss someone simply because they’re young. Indeed, the fact that others have done so may be part of this young person’s grievance. Plus, I don’t believe they’re stupid or incapable of understanding. If they’re so sure that science is being misused or fabricated, why come to a scientific conference if not to create chaos or cause harm? If this young person had no choice about attending because their parents brought them, were the parents part of a plan to create chaos or cause harm? Or are the parents unaware of their child’s views?
What the hell happened here?
I’ve never encountered a child coming at me and anyone else in range with anti-science rhetoric like this. It was and is terrifying. How did this happen? How do I help this kid? Should I even try, or is my kind of help unwanted and unwelcome? What does it mean that someone this young is so aggressively taking anti-factual positions like this? Is this similar to a story a friend told me about their young niece suddenly and uncharacteristically spouting aggressive anti-immigrant talking points that turned out to be coming from exposure to online sources? I don’t have real answers, but I haven’t been able to come up with explanations that make me feel better.
This is where I’d usually put the So What Do We Do? heading and then try to offer a few thoughts about concrete things we can consider doing. I’m afraid I don’t have those thoughts to offer right now. I think we need to take this kind of thing seriously. It feels like a real existential threat, not just to science and medicine but to all manner of foundational stones of our society. I think we need to watch carefully, to observe and learn, to keep talking with (not *to*, but *with*) young people and keep listening to them closely. That’s really all I’ve got right now, so Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young can have the last word: Teach your children well/Your father’s hell did slowly go by/And feed them on your dreams/The one they pick’s the one you’ll know by
“Child With Toy Hand Grenade In Central Park” by Diane Arbus. Taken in 1962, Graham Nash associated the inspiration and message of the song “Teach Your Children” with this photo.