Finding the elusive 'They'

I’d like to introduce you to an increasingly conspicuous crowd. Semi-mythical – to be found roaming the plains of human knowledge handing down decrees unbidden to the little people.

I’m talking about ‘They’. Perhaps you have heard of them? I’m sure you must have, even if you were unware at the time. It’s possible ‘They’ just slipped you by. That’s how ‘They’ are, you see…hidden in plain sight; only ever referred to, never actually seen.

A typical mention goes something like this: “First ‘They’ say that red wine is good for you, and then ‘They’ change their mind and tell us it isn’t.” Heads shake, and the topic is, by virtue of the dismissive use of the plural pronoun, discarded. But who are the elusive ‘They’?

This secretive group are mainly referred to when someone feels aggrieved in the terrible event that a person says a thing. That person, very often, is a scientist. And the thing is ordinarily the latest thinking about a given scientific question.

I can’t be the only one to have noticed? Scientists have been alarmingly ‘Theyed’. And each time it is thrown around you can be sure that the person doing the throwing is, at best, indifferent and more likely annoyed by the result being discussed. Is it the frustration felt when consensus is overturned? I suspect so, which is a problem because that is why science is what it is. New facts are discovered which may well change the scientific viewpoint on a given topic. Otherwise it’s just dogma.

And it’s not just pub-talk where you’ll find dismissive ‘Theying’. John Humphreys on the Today programme – hailed for its science coverage it should be noted – is a particular fan of this approach when science crops up. On a number of occasions I have heard him address scientists as if they are the court jester simply brought on to allow him to raise an ‘and finally’ smile.

Are people so conspiratorial that they really think there is a clandestine, all-connected ‘They’ of science? I hear it often enough to think many do – and that highlights a divide between scientists and the general public. However, this goes both ways – as demonstrated by the trap into which I have just fallen. Using the term ‘general public’, thinks Jessica Pelland – a biological scientist from The University of Florida – is a sure-fire way of alienating non-scientists. Writing in a piece for extranewsfeed.com she thinks that when scientists ‘other’ people in this way, it is a contributory factor as to why they shut their ears to what we have to say.

A fair point; so what is to be done to heal this wound? I don’t know, but surely a start has to be a moratorium of all ‘theying’ and ‘othering’ by both parties. After all, in a world becoming increasingly ‘post-fact’ we are very much all in this together.

Phil Prime, Editor