I am a scientist. I have used that phrase to describe me several times since I was in school studying poultry science. Today, someone asked me what I meant by that phrase. "I am a scientist" doesn’t mean I have all the answers, even within my areas of expertise. I don’t think anyone person can know them all. I think what the phrase means is that I understand experimental designs, I evaluate things critically and I do that by asking a lot of questions. I ask a lot of questions, sort through objectives and conclusions, and make sure they match.

I know last week there was a lot of talk about the face mask study that was conducted by Duke University. By the time I heard about it, the perceived conclusions from the study were already stated – don’t wear gaiters as they are less effective at controlling the spread of COVID-19. These conclusions were all over social media. Everyone had an opinion regarding companies banning gaiters on the processing floor and re-evaluating the face mask policy. Should employees be allowed to wear them? Personally, I was concerned because I had just bought my kids gaiters for sports and school. They were even recommended to me by people I trusted.

The scientist in me started to ask a lot of questions and then the scientist in me went and read the study. What I found was that the study was really a methodology paper on how to evaluate masks. The question was not “which face mask is better,” but more of, “how do we measure effectiveness?” It was not comprehensive and not all mask types were tested. It also did not have a control or a “no mask” group because it was not intended to answer the question related to which mask was better to prevent the spread of COVID-19. It was a methodology paper and not a recommendation to change company policy and ban gaiters on the processing floor.

Also, it is true that the gaiters did not work as effectively as some of the other masks in this particular study. But the question remains — do they work better than no mask at all? The material used to make the gaiters was fleece and we know that fabric type matters when it comes to protection. In addition, we all know that there are differences in individual people — face structure, how they wear their mask, and how often they talk or cough or sneeze into the masks. These important differences were not tested over a wide range of people. Again, it was a methodology experiment evaluating how to test a mask and not a scientific and critical evaluation of mask type.

It is important to reiterate this was a methodology paper and it was very good information within the scientific context of the objectives and conclusions. There are always some critical questions to ask before a scientific study changes company policy. Through such exercises, critical operational parameters come into question. These critical operational parameters are those which are critical in determining if what is written in the scientific paper is going to conclude the same results as what is working in your plant with your employees. I believe this study was not intended to change policy but to be informative. It raises more questions than answers — and this is the product of good science.

Finally, the CDC recommendations allow for uniformity among policy and policy implementation. CDC guidelines can change based on additional scientific evidence which is evaluated and deemed appropriate to require a change. But we do not need to reinvent the wheel. There are scientists on the CDC team and there are scientists at USDA that evaluate and understand the science behind this virus more than the general public and they update their policies based on new and conclusive results and science. Scientists understand the poultry industry and want to keep employees of this industry safe. When the scientific knowledge changes, then companies can then make more informed decisions. Until then, let science — and not social media — drive the discussions and decisions.

Science for the win

Join for free* to continue reading.