Readers Write: College and coronavirus, scientific truth, Enbridge Line 3

Kudos to St. Olaf President David Anderson and the school for holding students accountable when they broke the COVID-19 guidelines put in place to ensure safety on campus ("St. Olaf students suspended over party," Aug. 21). A handful of students put their classmates and our community at risk and were punished.

Don't get me wrong. I live in Northfield and we all miss the students, who have been noticeably absent since the colleges closed to in-person classes in March. But we want the students and our town alive and healthy. I am happy that Anderson is acting like a responsible adult and taking the pandemic seriously.

But where are the other grown-ups — the ones who make the hard decisions so our students get the best chances in the long run? I understand that parents of college athletes want them to play. They question the wisdom of decisions to postpone sports until it is safe to resume. I get it. We all want to play, see our friends and party. However, these (adult) college students and their (adult) parents could benefit from some "adulting" classes. Sometimes grown-ups just need to say "no."

This pandemic will be over someday, one way or another. But it will be over sooner if everyone can act responsibly for a short time.

So, Gov. Tim Walz is being sued by a right-wing group; imagine that ("Walz sued again over masks," Aug. 22). One of the petitioners, Elizabeth Berg, was quoted as stating the mask requirement is an "impossible task for business owners." Berg ought to visit Grand Marais. We visited there in July, and I have to say the efforts the community made to keep themselves and their visitors safe was quite impressive. Where there's a will, there's a way.

Stuart Ritchie's comments about the search for truth in science were cogent as far as they went, but they did not go far enough, and in not doing so, they gave an incomplete view of the everyday conduct of research. ("It's true, we need to 'trust science,' " Opinion Exchange, Aug. 22.) Almost all studies are based on previous work, as the introduction to the publication always explains, and often involve an extension of those findings to new methodologies, situations, materials, species and so on. These extensions are important because they test the generality of the findings; they are crucial because any particular combination of methodologies and materials may contain biases and drawbacks unknown to the researchers at the time. Only when different methodologies converge on the same conclusion do we think we might be on the right track.

A classic case in physics is the measurement of the charge/mass ratio of the electron. Only after the same quantitative value was found with very different methodologies was that value of this fundamental constant accepted as true. In my own field of behavioral neuroscience, we want to see converging evidence that stimulation of brain circuit X promotes behavior Y, inactivation of circuit X blocks Y and that X is active when Y occurs before we provisionally entertain the hypothesis that circuit X generates behavior Y, pending replication and extension in other labs.

Thanks for the article about accuracy in experiments. Several years ago, the Economist magazine had its cover issue about the problems in science. The issue stated, as Ritchie did, that the lack of replication of experiments, often because there is no money or prestige for it, is detrimental for the furthering of knowledge in these fields.

I think that this is a large reason why many people are adverse to scientific opinion and don't trust it. They see its failure in many situations: their own or a relative's medical treatment, implementation of "scientific" or "statistically significant" procedures in their workplace that simply don't work, or these same procedures implemented by a government agency that wreak havoc with their life. (Example: the use of ramp meters on freeway entrances — good in certain circumstances — which caused large backup of traffic in local neighborhood streets some years ago in the Twin Cities area.)

This has big political consequences in our society as a large minority of people do not trust scientific data that deal with really important issues of the day, such as wearing masks and social distancing and the reality of climate change.

Another reason for problems is that many scientists do not do multivariate experiments because they are too costly or too time-consuming. Instead, they do two-factor experiments, which may or may not give good information. The rush to publish or perish for academics, and the news media sometimes publishing scientific data before it is vetted, are a couple of other concerns.

I say this as a person with a bachelor's degree in physics who worked in a minor capacity in some research labs. I have deep respect for the scientific process and its capacity to make amazing discoveries and build awesome things. But there are very real problems in both hard and soft scientific fields that must be addressed to help build up trust in science again.

I don't know what a fair and comprehensive plan to meet a goal of simultaneously protecting the environment and the economy would do about Line 3. But if the plan rejected it, it would certainly include compensation for affected families and communities who worry about jobs and financial security. If we had such a plan years ago, and if it had said "no" to Enbridge at that time rather than stopping it now, Enbridge would have saved money and frustration and civility would be in better shape.

We desperately need leadership; not bullies pitting us against each other. Given good leadership, we can devise a plan that will balance our needs and restore civility. That's democracy in action: the only form of governing that maximizes freedom, liberty and justice for society rather than just a few privileged individuals.

Supporters say the Enbridge Line 3 pipeline should be approved because it will create jobs and increase tax revenue. These justifications ignore the damaging climate change implications of bringing dirty Canadian tar sands oil to market and they also ignore a simpler truth: You don't build pipelines to create jobs and increase tax revenue. You build pipelines if you need the oil they carry. We don't.