Dr. Céline Gounder

It's great to be here. Thanks, Stacey.

It's great to be here. Thanks, Stacey.

I think this is something that is very much on the mind of those of us working in science, in medicine, in public health and related fields right now. What we saw during the pandemic was really an attack on science and public health.

I think this is something that is very much on the mind of those of us working in science, in medicine, in public health and related fields right now. What we saw during the pandemic was really an attack on science and public health.

Because many of the conclusions of the science were politically inconvenient, did not reflect well on certain politicians and leaders, I do think there is room for discussion if we start from a place of shared

Because many of the conclusions of the science were politically inconvenient, did not reflect well on certain politicians and leaders, I do think there is room for discussion if we start from a place of shared

understanding facts, science, and then to weigh what are some of the trade-offs, how do you weigh different values, whether it's value of human life, value of an elderly person's life, value of a young student's schooling, et cetera. But I think we have gotten to the point in some of these conversations where instead of having a conversation about values,

understanding facts, science, and then to weigh what are some of the trade-offs, how do you weigh different values, whether it's value of human life, value of an elderly person's life, value of a young student's schooling, et cetera. But I think we have gotten to the point in some of these conversations where instead of having a conversation about values,

We are attacking the science or some of us are attacking the science because they don't want to have that honest conversation about what they actually value. It's more convenient. It's easier to say the science is wrong.

We are attacking the science or some of us are attacking the science because they don't want to have that honest conversation about what they actually value. It's more convenient. It's easier to say the science is wrong.

I do think, could you be a Secretary of Health and Human Services without being a scientist? I mean, we have one right now, Javier Becerra, you know, but he has other skills he brings to the table, being able to manage a large administration, understanding sort of institutional norms and practices. So he does bring a certain skill set. And this is where

I do think, could you be a Secretary of Health and Human Services without being a scientist? I mean, we have one right now, Javier Becerra, you know, but he has other skills he brings to the table, being able to manage a large administration, understanding sort of institutional norms and practices. So he does bring a certain skill set. And this is where

your career civil servants are really important, which is to say the scientists, the technical experts who work under numerous different administrations, who are not political appointees, who are not partisan, you can rely on those people to help inform your decision-making, take the science, the expertise that they are using to advise you, and then make decisions that may be partisan decisions, but at least informed by that science.

your career civil servants are really important, which is to say the scientists, the technical experts who work under numerous different administrations, who are not political appointees, who are not partisan, you can rely on those people to help inform your decision-making, take the science, the expertise that they are using to advise you, and then make decisions that may be partisan decisions, but at least informed by that science.

Now, what we're seeing are conversations coming from the incoming president and his team about eliminating some of those civil service protections to make it easier to fire, hire whomever they want in those scientific, technical expert roles.

Now, what we're seeing are conversations coming from the incoming president and his team about eliminating some of those civil service protections to make it easier to fire, hire whomever they want in those scientific, technical expert roles.

And the problem is if those roles are filled by people who do not have the qualifications, the scientific, medical, public health expertise, then the person at the top is not going to be appropriately counseled. So you don't necessarily yourself as the leader of HHS need to have that expertise, but you do need to have people who have that expertise to advise you.

And the problem is if those roles are filled by people who do not have the qualifications, the scientific, medical, public health expertise, then the person at the top is not going to be appropriately counseled. So you don't necessarily yourself as the leader of HHS need to have that expertise, but you do need to have people who have that expertise to advise you.

And if we don't have either, then we're in real trouble.

And if we don't have either, then we're in real trouble.