Skip to main content
The Globe and Mail
Support Quality Journalism.
The Globe and Mail
First Access to Latest
Investment News
Collection of curated
e-books and guides
Inform your decisions via
Globe Investor Tools
per week
for first 24 weeks

Enjoy unlimited digital access
Cancel Anytime
Enjoy Unlimited Digital Access
Get full access to
Just $1.99per week for the first 24weeks
Just $1.99per week for the first 24weeks
var select={root:".js-sub-pencil",control:".js-sub-pencil-control",open:"o-sub-pencil--open",closed:"o-sub-pencil--closed"},dom={},allowExpand=!0;function pencilInit(o){var e=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1];select.root=o,dom.root=document.querySelector(select.root),dom.root&&(dom.control=document.querySelector(select.control),dom.control.addEventListener("click",onToggleClicked),setPanelState(e),window.addEventListener("scroll",onWindowScroll),dom.root.removeAttribute("hidden"))}function isPanelOpen(){return dom.root.classList.contains(}function setPanelState(o){dom.root.classList[o?"add":"remove"](,dom.root.classList[o?"remove":"add"](select.closed),dom.control.setAttribute("aria-expanded",o)}function onToggleClicked(){var l=!isPanelOpen();setPanelState(l)}function onWindowScroll(){window.requestAnimationFrame(function() {var l=isPanelOpen(),n=0===(document.body.scrollTop||document.documentElement.scrollTop);n||l||!allowExpand?n&&l&&(allowExpand=!0,setPanelState(!1)):(allowExpand=!1,setPanelState(!0))});}pencilInit(".js-sub-pencil",!1); // via darwin-bg var slideIndex = 0; carousel(); function carousel() { var i; var x = document.getElementsByClassName("subs_valueprop"); for (i = 0; i < x.length; i++) { x[i].style.display = "none"; } slideIndex++; if (slideIndex> x.length) { slideIndex = 1; } x[slideIndex - 1].style.display = "block"; setTimeout(carousel, 2500); } //

Gabrielle Siegers credit April Scott


Gabrielle Siegers has a PhD in molecular immunology and is currently working as an independent scientific consultant.

For those unaware of how scientific discovery works, this pandemic has been an eye-opener.

Scientific progress, in all its complexity, is unfolding publicly and unwittingly sowing seeds of distrust. Public health officials are doing their best with new information surfacing daily, but such learning on the fly can create confusion. Last week’s mixed messaging regarding vaccines in Canada is a perfect example.

Story continues below advertisement

In the spirit of well-intended transparency, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI), which is charged with advising how vaccines should be prioritized for use in Canada, acknowledged the extremely small risk of blood clots associated with the AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines and advised that those at lower risk of contracting COVID-19 wait for the mRNA vaccines by Pfizer and Moderna. But NACI neglected to explain that the risk of blood clots and death are magnitudes higher from COVID-19 infection, currently rampant in Canada.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s message remains that the only way to conquer the virus is to get vaccinated as soon as possible, with whichever vaccine is available. Both parties would claim that their advice is supported by science, but once properly put into context, it is clear to me that waiting poses more of a risk.

Usually, we only hear about a new drug, procedure or vaccine long after it has been approved. But we have openly witnessed COVID-19 vaccine development, which has occurred at an astonishing rate.

To learn about COVID-19, scientists have taken different approaches, tackling questions from multiple angles, with different expertise, tools and protocols. From a seemingly messy jumble of data gathered from many studies, evidence emerges and evolves. This takes time, a luxury we don’t have when fighting a rapidly spreading existential threat. We have to make decisions quickly, without knowing for sure what will work.

Such uncertainty understandably makes people uncomfortable. Decisions made rapidly in the name of science – and sometimes reversed just as fast – have led people to question whether they should be trusted. What are we to think when scientists openly criticize one another’s research?

Yet this is how science progresses – the public just rarely sees the process. It is normal for scientists to point out weaknesses in research. In fact, the best studies point out their own limitations, providing direction for further investigation. If a study appears to have been ignored, it is likely because it has not been confirmed by others. Multiple high-quality independent papers that validate one another outweigh the one report that does not.

Furthermore, not all studies found online have undergone peer review, the scientific community’s version of quality control, though this has been of some benefit where COVID-19 is concerned.

Story continues below advertisement

Posting research on the “preprint server” bioRxiv (pronounced “bio-archive”) enables scientists to prove they did the work first and instantly share their data, while the process of publishing a peer-reviewed scientific paper takes months or even years. I have co-authored research papers that have taken anywhere from three to 13 months to publish formally. In the face of a rapidly growing global health threat, we do not have 13 months to wait.

Speed is of the essence, yet the rapid rate of advancement has made people uneasy. While the swift spread of COVID-19 has been devastating, this very characteristic has enabled vaccine trials to be completed so quickly.

To test a vaccine, infection rates are compared between a group of participants who receive it and an unvaccinated control group. Because COVID-19 spreads so quickly (naturally, among people living in their communities), critical numbers of infected cases were reached far faster than normal for viruses circulating at lower levels in the population. Scientists could tell how effective the vaccines were much more quickly than usual. But it was only after all the trial data had been carefully re-evaluated by scientists and medical doctors at Health Canada that vaccines were deemed safe and approved.

Despite worldwide rapid advances in science, we do not know everything about COVID-19. Still, I trust that the experts are doing the best they can with the information they have. We have seen an unprecedented co-operation among scientists around the globe to develop vaccines to quash this pandemic. While this has seemed quicker than many are comfortable with, we need to realize that safety is and remains everyone’s top priority. From researchers to health authorities and politicians, to you and to me – we all have loved ones we want to protect from COVID-19.

I got my first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine on April 19. Have you gotten yours? Stay safe.

Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies