Why ‘Trust the Science’ Doesn’t Mean What You Think It Does

In recent years, we’ve heard the phrase “trust the science” repeated like a mantra.

It’s been used to shut down debate, silence questioning, and suggest that scientific truth is something fixed, final, and above scrutiny. But here’s the thing:

Science is not a belief system.

It’s not a moral code.

It’s not a static body of facts.

Science is a process. And that process is messy, flawed, and by design, always evolving.

So when someone says “I trust the science,” I often wonder: Which science?

The science of today? Of 10 years ago? Of 100 years ago?

Because if history has taught us anything, it’s that what we accept as scientific “truth” in one era is often disproven, revised, or radically reframed in the next.

Science Has a History of Being Wrong (Or Incomplete)

Let’s not forget:

– Smoking was once “scientifically proven” to be good for you.

– Thalidomide was declared safe, until thousands of babies were born with deformities.

– Women were excluded from most medical trials for decades.

– Hormonal contraception was tested unethically on women in Puerto Rico.

– The food pyramid was based on industry influence, not biology.

– And countless therapies from leeching to lobotomies were once considered cutting-edge.

This isn’t to say science is bad. I value it deeply.

But it is human. It is limited by what we can measure, by who funds the studies, by what gets published, and by the cultural paradigms of the time.

Science isn’t objective.

It’s shaped by the same forces that shape everything else: money, power, politics, and worldview.

Bias in the System

It’s estimated that up to half of published scientific research is unreproducible. In other words, many findings that make headlines can’t actually be replicated. And yet, these studies go on to inform public health policy, education, and even legal mandates.

Why?

Because studies that confirm dominant narratives get funded.

Because pharmaceutical companies fund a large percentage of medical research and unsurprisingly, studies tend to favour the drugs being sold.

Because journals are more likely to publish sensational findings than nuanced or “null” results.

Because dissenting scientists often lose grants, positions, or credibility if their findings challenge powerful institutions.

This doesn’t mean we should throw science away.

It means we should treat it with the curiosity and humility it actually requires.

From Certainty to Inquiry

The heart of science is not certainty—it’s inquiry.

The willingness to ask better questions. To test, refine, and revise.

So when we stop questioning… when we’re told the debate is over… when science is used like a weapon instead of a tool… we’re no longer in the realm of science.

We’re in dogma.

And that’s dangerous.

Living the Questions

In my own work—with microdosing, with trauma healing, with women’s bodies, I’ve often found myself outside the mainstream narrative. Not because I reject science, but because I hold it accountable. I refuse to outsource my intuition to a system that has historically ignored people like me.

I don’t need “studies” to tell me what my body already knows.

But I welcome research that’s done with rigour, transparency, and ethical care.

Real science makes space for mystery.

For things we can’t yet measure.

For questions that challenge the status quo.

Because true healing like true science, isn’t about having all the answers.

It’s about staying open.

So no, I don’t “trust the science.”

I respect the process.

I question the outcomes.

And I stay curious.

Because that’s what science was always meant to be.