Merton’s Betrayal: How scientists became propagandists during Covid-19 |

The New York Times, that self-proclaimed guardian of truth, has once again had its Eureka! moment—this time, sheepishly admitting it was misled on the origins of Covid-19. Translation: it dutifully parroted claims from select members of the scientific establishment, dismissed dissenting voices as conspiracy theorists, and mocked anyone who dared ask questions. Now, years later, the paper has dusted off its best Britney Spears impression to declare: Oops, we did it again.
The New York Times has a long history of promoting falsehoods masquerading as facts. Whether it’s Saddam Hussein’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction, cheerleading the Steele dossier, or now, regurgitating whatever Dr Fauci and friends told them about Covid-19, the paper has a remarkable knack for falling in line with the establishment narrative—only to admit, years later, that perhaps it should have asked a few more questions.
But the Times is just a symptom of a larger problem. The Covid-19 pandemic wasn’t just a public health crisis; it was a stress test for science itself. And, as we now know, science failed. The very principles that were supposed to safeguard scientific integrity—those outlined decades ago by sociologist Robert K. Merton—were casually tossed aside whenever they became inconvenient.
The real scandal isn’t that one newspaper got it wrong—it’s that much of the scientific community abandoned its own principles in the name of politics, funding, and self-preservation. Robert K. Merton, one of the great sociologists of science, outlined four norms that are supposed to guide scientific inquiry: Universalism, Communality, Disinterestedness, and Organised Scepticism. These norms are what make science different from propaganda, ideology, or mere guesswork.
And yet, during the Covid-19 pandemic, these sacred principles weren’t just ignored—they were actively trampled upon. The failure of science during the pandemic wasn’t just about getting things wrong. It was about suppressing debate, shutting down dissent, and prioritising power over truth.

1) Universalism: Science Became Tribal
Merton’s first principle, Universalism, holds that scientific claims should be judged on evidence alone, not on who is making them. Science, at its best, should be neutral, blind to politics, status, and ideology.
But during Covid-19, who was speaking mattered far more than what they were saying.
Take the lab-leak hypothesis. When Donald Trump and a handful of Republican politicians raised the possibility that Covid-19 had escaped from a lab, the scientific community didn’t respond with open-minded inquiry. Instead, they recoiled in horror.
Top virologists, some of whom privately suspected a lab leak was plausible, rushed to denounce the idea in public. A paper in Nature Medicine swiftly declared that a lab origin was off the table, even though internal emails later revealed that some of its authors weren’t fully convinced themselves. Scientists weren’t engaging with the evidence—they were engaging in damage control, lest they be seen as supporting the “wrong side.”
Meanwhile, social media platforms aggressively censored discussions about the lab-leak theory, slapping “misinformation” warnings on posts and banning accounts that dared to entertain the possibility. Scientists who challenged the prevailing view found themselves ostracised, dismissed as fringe contrarians.
Universalism demands that we judge ideas based on facts, not politics. But during Covid-19, science became just another tribal battleground.
2) Communality: Science Became a Private Club
Merton’s second principle, Communality, holds that science must be open and transparent. Knowledge should be freely shared, not hoarded by a select few.
Yet, from the very beginning of the pandemic, information was tightly controlled. China refused to release early data on the virus. The Wuhan Institute of Virology conveniently removed key virus sequencing data from public databases. Meanwhile, in the West, pharmaceutical companies kept much of their vaccine trial data under wraps, citing “proprietary concerns.” Even within the broader scientific community, access to knowledge was often restricted. Research institutions, funding bodies, and academic journals worked together to ensure that only approved narratives were amplified.
Papers questioning lockdown efficacy? Rejected.
Studies discussing natural immunity? Dismissed.
The most glaring example? The Proximal Origin paper, which became the foundation for dismissing the lab-leak theory.
The scientists who authored it coordinated with top government officials before its publication. Some of those very officials, including Dr Anthony Fauci, had vested interests in ensuring that gain-of-function research didn’t come under scrutiny.
Science should function as a shared enterprise, where ideas are tested, debated, and refined. Instead, during Covid-19, it became a private club where only certain perspectives were allowed.
3) Disinterestedness: Follow the Money, Follow the Power
Merton’s third principle, Disinterestedness, states that scientists should pursue truth for its own sake, free from financial or political self-interest.
But let’s be real: Covid-19 research was anything but disinterested. The scientific community is deeply reliant on funding, and during the pandemic, money flowed to those who reinforced the preferred narrative. Pharmaceutical companies made billions from vaccines, yet open discussions about risks, side effects, and alternative treatments were aggressively shut down.
And then there’s the NIH, which funded research on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. This inconvenient fact was something that top officials—like Dr Fauci—had every incentive to downplay. If the virus had, in fact, escaped from the very lab receiving US funding, it would have triggered a firestorm of accountability.
The reality is that many scientists were incentivised—consciously or unconsciously—to stick to the script. If you questioned the lockdowns, you risked being branded a dangerous contrarian. If you expressed scepticism about vaccine mandates, you were labelled an anti-science crank. The entire system was structured in a way that rewarded conformity and punished dissent.
Merton envisioned a scientific community that was above personal and institutional interests. But during Covid-19, those interests dictated the science.

4) Organised Scepticism: Science Became a Religion

Merton’s final principle, Organised Scepticism, is arguably the most important. Science, at its core, must welcome scrutiny. Every claim should be questioned. Every theory should be tested. Every study should be replicated.
Yet, during Covid-19, scepticism wasn’t just discouraged—it was demonised.
Lockdowns were treated as unquestionable policy, despite their devastating economic and social consequences. Even when countries like Sweden pursued a different approach and didn’t collapse into chaos, their data was ignored or dismissed.
Vaccine mandates were promoted as essential, and any discussion of risks was swiftly silenced. Even mild scepticism—such as suggesting that young, healthy people might not need boosters—was met with outrage.
Mask mandates were imposed even when scientific evidence was shaky. When researchers pointed out that cloth masks did little to prevent transmission, they weren’t engaged in debate—they were accused of spreading misinformation.
Scepticism is what separates science from dogma. But during Covid-19, science often acted like a religion, where questioning the official doctrine was met with hostility and excommunication.

Final Thoughts: A Crisis of Credibility

The New York Times admitting it got played is a nice little epilogue to the Covid-19 saga. But the real story is about the scientific establishment itself—and how it failed the very principles that are supposed to guide it.

The biggest casualty of all this isn’t just science’s reputation—it’s public trust. If the scientific community wants to rebuild trust, it needs to return to Merton’s principles—not just in theory, but in practice. Otherwise, the next crisis will only deepen the scepticism and disillusionment that Covid-19 has already sown.