A recent feature by Joel Achenbach of the Washington Post on the dangers of increased public distrust toward the scientific establishment, both to the public and to the scientists themselves, is itself a pitch-perfect example of why such skepticism exists in the first place. Written from the highest perch of one rotten establishment in order to give cover to another, the piece demonstrates a lack of self-awareness and tone-deafness that only the legacy media could achieve. Indeed, the article bolsters the perception of a scientific establishment that dissembles, misleads, and is incapable of self-reflection.

Achenbach begins by detailing the backlash experienced by researchers at Boston University’s National Emerging Infectious Disease Laboratories, or NEIDL, after they published results in October from a study that yielded valuable insight into the nature of the omicron strain of COVID but relied upon high-risk “gain-of-function” research methods. The controversy genuinely seems to puzzle Achenbach. It’s as if he can't imagine why “local activists” would push back against such experiments occurring in their backyard.

It’s true that public trust in our scientific establishment is at an all-time low. This is largely thanks to the numerous falsehoods peddled by Dr. Anthony Fauci during his reign as the White House’s COVID czar, including but not limited to lies about mask efficacy , about the percentage of the population that needs to be vaccinated or infected in order to achieve herd immunity , and about vaccines “ stopping the spread " of the virus. There can be no honest or fruitful conversation about the public perception of the scientific establishment without acknowledging this fact. However, there is no mention of Fauci and his disastrous and dishonest legacy in Achenbach's article.

With this context in mind, it is understandable that the public has little appetite for risky experiments like those taking place at the NEIDL (pronounced like “the needle”), particularly in the heart of one of our most densely populated cities. Though Achenbach describes the NEIDL as “basically a fortress” with a biosafety level 4 and “hundreds of security cameras,” the same could be said of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where the purported lab leak event occurred. There exists a mountain of circumstantial evidence that points to a major biosecurity event that occurred at the WIV only days before the COVID-19 outbreak. It would be useful for the public to know why the NEIDL’s biosafety level 4 is more impressive than the WIV’s biosafety level 4.

The increasing plausibility of the lab leak theory further complicates the relationship between the public and the white coats. However, Achenbach only partially addresses this problem by bemoaning the fact that the lab leak theory causes virologists to come "under scrutiny." According to the article, virologists have received an increased level of abuse online, and one prominent infectious disease researcher named Kristian Andersen at Scripps Research even had to receive extra security due to accusations of being involved in a cover-up operation. The “scrutiny” claim is strange given the gravity of these matters: Is it really so unusual, or even a bad thing, for virologists to face “scrutiny”? To suggest that this is somehow abnormal or unwelcome reflects the profound insulation from reality only found in certain sectors of the decaying liberal establishment.

As for the claim that virologists have received increased online abuse and threats, two responses come readily to mind. The first is that virologists are hardly special in this regard. It’s 2023: Everyone takes abuse online. The second is that it’s difficult to believe there's been an uptick in credible security threats. After all, reports of increased online “threats” and the hiring of additional security is the establishment’s response to every credible challenge to its authority. We all know the script by now, and we aren’t falling for it so easily anymore. The Washington Post can thank its very own Taylor Lorenz for rendering this particular method of crowd control obsolete.

Achenbach is correct, however, in emphasizing the need for a reset between the scientific establishment and the public. Indeed, the former would do well to acknowledge the need for strong public oversight and enhanced transparency, while the latter would do well to acknowledge the necessity of cutting-edge research that helps us remain one step ahead of future pandemics.

But the public will only "follow the science " again after it's been demonstrated that the scientific establishment is willing to shoot straight. There’s a very long way to go before trust is reestablished. Achenbach’s incredibly tone-deaf article is the clearest indication yet.

Peter Laffin is a writer in New England. Follow him on Twitter at @ petermlaffin .