I came across what I think is an amazing insight in the podcast I'm currently listening to. This isn't one of my podcasts that others might consider rather fringe. This is an interview with "a highly acclaimed Professor of Cardiology and Medicine at McGill University and a foremost expert in cardiovascular disease". He makes the point that decisions by unanimous consensus are a bad thing. He isn't talking about things like a group deciding where to go for lunch. He is talking in the context of a committee making guidelines and other such scientific "decisions." I think he even extended the idea to things like political decisions at one point. They do talk about how non-consensus viewpoints in the covid crisis are being shut out.
I'm not going to recommend that you listen to a 2-hour conversation on cardiovascular disease, unless that is something you have an interest in, but if you are curious about the point above, I'll copy some of the notes which have the timestamps for some of the times this was discussed (you might want to start a minute earlier to get more context).
#^#185 - Allan Sniderman, M.D.: Cardiovascular disease and why we should change the way we assess risk - Peter AttiaAllan Sniderman is a highly acclaimed Professor of Cardiology and Medicine at McGill University and a foremost expert in cardiovascular disease (CVD). In this episode, Allan explains the many risk factors used to predict atherosclerosis, including triglycerides, cholesterol, and lipoproteins, and he makes the case for apoB as a superior metric that is currently being underutilized. Allan expresses his frustration with the current scientific climate and its emphasis on consensus and unanimity over encouraging multiple viewpoints, thus holding back the advancement of metrics like apoB for assessing CVD risk, treatment, and prevention strategies. Finally, Allan illuminates his research that led to his 30-year causal model of risk and explains the potentially life-saving advantages of early intervention for the prevention of future disease.
The specific sections:
How medical advancement is hindered by the lack of critical thinking once a “consensus†is reached [1:15:15]
How the emphasis on consensus and unanimity has become a crucial weakness for science and medicine [1:35:45]
