In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, one phrase has become a rallying cry for leaders, policymakers, and the public alike: “Follow the science.” From political leaders to public health officials, the call to heed the advice of scientists and medical experts has been universal. But what does it truly mean to “follow the science”? And is science, as it is traditionally practiced, sufficient to address the complex, multifaceted challenges of our time?

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed a critical gap in how we approach science. Traditional scientific inquiry has long been focused on the identification, prevention, and cure of disease. While this approach has yielded remarkable advancements—vaccines, treatments, and diagnostic tools—it often overlooks the broader economic, sociological, and humanistic dimensions of health. Science, in its purest form, is reductionist. It seeks to isolate variables, control for external factors, and arrive at objective truths. But life, as we know it, is anything but isolated or controlled.

Consider the early days of the pandemic. Leading infectious disease experts initially downplayed the risks of the novel coronavirus, stating that it posed a “very, very low risk” to certain regions. Similarly, high-ranking health officials echoed this sentiment, assuring the public that the risk of infection remained low. These statements, while rooted in the scientific knowledge available at the time, failed to account for the rapid spread of the virus, the fragility of global supply chains, and the socioeconomic disparities that would exacerbate its impact.

The problem is not that science was wrong; it’s that science, as traditionally practiced, is often too narrow in its scope. It focuses on the biological mechanisms of disease while ignoring the societal mechanisms that determine how disease spreads and who suffers the most. For example, the scientific community was quick to develop vaccines, but the rollout exposed deep inequities in access and distribution. Wealthy nations hoarded doses, while low-income countries struggled to vaccinate even their most vulnerable populations. Science gave us the tools to fight the virus, but it didn’t provide the framework to ensure those tools were used equitably.

This narrow focus is not unique to the pandemic. For decades, the scientific community has prioritized the “hard” sciences—biology, chemistry, physics—over the “soft” sciences of economics, sociology, and anthropology. Yet, as the pandemic has shown, these disciplines are not separate; they are deeply interconnected. The spread of a virus is not just a biological phenomenon; it is a social one. It is shaped by human behavior, economic policies, and cultural norms. To truly “follow the science,” we must broaden our definition of what science is and what it can do.

This is not to say that traditional science is unimportant. On the contrary, it is essential. But it is not sufficient. We need a more holistic approach to science—one that integrates the insights of multiple disciplines and considers the broader implications of scientific discoveries. We need scientists who are not only experts in their fields but also skilled communicators, collaborators, and systems thinkers. They must be able to translate complex findings into actionable insights for policymakers, engage with communities to understand their needs, and work across disciplines to address the root causes of health disparities. This requires a shift in how we train scientists, moving beyond technical expertise to cultivate skills in leadership, ethics, and interdisciplinary collaboration.

Moreover, we need leaders who recognize that science does not exist in a vacuum. It is shaped by political, economic, and cultural forces, and it must be applied with a deep understanding of these contexts. Leaders must create environments where science can thrive—by investing in research, fostering public trust, and ensuring that scientific advancements are accessible to all.

The pandemic has also highlighted the dangers of politicizing science. Erratic pronouncements on COVID-19 treatments—from unproven drugs to speculative remedies—underscored the need for evidence-based leadership. But the solution is not simply to “follow the science”; it is to understand what science can and cannot do. Science can tell us how a virus spreads, but it cannot tell us how to balance public health with economic stability. It can tell us how to develop a vaccine, but it cannot tell us how to distribute it fairly. These are questions that require not just scientific expertise but also moral and ethical judgment.

As we look to the future, we must rethink our approach to science. We must move beyond the narrow focus on disease identification, prevention, and cure and embrace a more holistic view of health—one that considers the economic, social, and cultural factors that shape our lives. We must recognize that science is not just a collection of facts but a process of inquiry that requires collaboration, communication, and compassion. And we must remember that the goal of science is not just to understand the world but to improve it.

In this new paradigm, science becomes a tool for justice. It is not just about understanding the world but about changing it for the better. It is about ensuring that the benefits of scientific progress are shared equitably, that the voices of marginalized communities are heard, and that the pursuit of knowledge is guided by a commitment to the common good.

This vision of science is not without challenges. It requires us to confront uncomfortable truths about inequality, to question long-held assumptions, and to embrace uncertainty. But it is also a vision full of hope—a hope that science can be a force for healing, for connection, and for transformation.

So, as we move forward, let us not just follow the science. Let us lead it. Let us create a science that is as compassionate as it is rigorous, as inclusive as it is innovative, and as bold as it is humble. A science that reflects the best of who we are and who we can become.

Let us follow the science. But let us also follow the economists, the sociologists, the ethicists, and the humanists. Let us follow the data, but also the stories behind the data. Let us follow the experts, but also the voices of those who are often excluded from the conversation. Only then can we truly say that we are following the science—and only then can we hope to build a healthier, more equitable world.