How a Zombie Apocalypse details the Devil’s need in Science

By: Filza Fawad, November 6th, 2020  

It is interesting to see and observe cinema, notably Hollywood, inculcate sciences into their movies. More often than not, errors do take place. For the average viewer, they are excused in the desperation of saving the world or the action-packed fights.

Such is the case with World War Z. A notable name in the zombie apocalypse genre, with an A list actor and mixed reviews in tow. The movie introduces a unique concept known as the devil’s advocate. It is defined as “one who takes a contrary position for the sake of testing an argument or just to be perverse” (Martin, G.). 

Definitely the poster of a Hollywood blockbuster

Source:

https://www.cinemablend.com/new/How-World-War-Z-Originally-Ended-What-Happened-Matthew-Fox-38192.html

 

We see it in action when Israel is the only country to have fortified itself and Jerusalem from the zombie invasion. Well before the rest of the world. Their implementation of the concept was the result of the Arab-Israeli War in 1973, where the general consensus of the Arabs not being a serious threat led to a great loss (Joustra, R. J., 2013).

The wall surrounding the city of Jerusalem

Source: https://sites.psu.edu/matthewlamas/2015/03/20/world-war-z/

The Relevance of Zombies and the Devil to Science

At this point, we now have an understanding of the first two aspects of this blog’s title. What about the third segment, Science? How does it all connect? The answer my dear reader is found in the process known as peer review.

 

Peer reviews are “peer experts in a particular field of knowledge reviewing and providing critical evaluation of the (scholarly) merit of the researcher(s)’ intellectual product” (Poff, D. C., 2017). We see the movie is filled with professionals and experts teeming here and there in search of the source and the solution. Even if the circumstances entailed desperation, would it risk altercations to the scientific community’s standard of procedures? To this simple step in validating research? 

Source: https://www.clipartkey.com/view/hoxhwh_peer-review-process-cartoons/

 

My curiosity led to research, and research led to a surprise finding peer reviews being incredibly flawed. The more I read into it, the more I saw the devil’s advocate remedying the issues experienced. Thus, this blog, through the framework of the movie, shall explore how devil’s advocate can be of benefit to the scientific community in research by tackling the problems in peer review.

 

Peer Review: Is it really that objective?

In the movie, the experts scramble for finding the source, and in turn, creating a solution is bound to have some subjectivity enter into the equation. Which makes sense, given the dire circumstances the globe experienced. 

 

That said, even without a zombie apocalypse at hand, we encounter subjectivity in the sciences through peer reviews. This might be difficult to process for some, as noted by Tennant, J. P. and Ross-Hellauer, T. (2020), peer reviews are considered as a ‘golden standard;’ the hallmark of ‘quality.’

Is the ‘gold standard’ really that pristine?

Source: https://www.enago.com/academy/authors-perspective-on-peer-review-good-bad-and-ugly/

At the same time, they also identify that “only recently has there been any research conducted into the role and competencies of peer reviewers.” The trust in experts (in the movie) and peer reviewers without questioning and critique that holds them accountable leads to the problems, and in turn, the unnecessary subjectivity experienced today. 

 

Inconsistencies in Peer Reviewing

This subjectivity has been brought to light through the inconsistencies experienced in the process. Smith R. (2006) makes note of these inconsistencies by questioning the idea of what is considered a “good or bad peer review?” 

 

He argues that the ambiguity present in answering these questions leads to variation reviewing. Either it is superficial or an in-depth critique and analysis, with him noting the latter as rare. This lends itself to creating subjectivity in publication, where differing reviewers may accept and rejects the exact same paper (Smith R., 2006). 

“We can agree to disagree,” actually makes for inconsistencies"

Source: https://www.npr.org/2015/08/21/433192324/peer-review-feedback-the-good-the-bad-the-really-ugly

 

Such inconsistencies demand a solution that can remedy these, and devil’s advocate can be of great help in this regard. It causes the individual to engage in self-critique and identify possible flaws or errors that we may assume are not present. Implementation of such a perspective is significant in ensuring the knowledge published is absolute and would’ve saved more lives in the movie, had they had the foresight to do so.

 

Implementing the Devil’s Advocate in terms of Gender Bias

We do end up viewing the implementation of devil’s advocate not just by Israel, but also in the diversity of individuals present in the movie, specifically with gender. Even if Brad Pitt was the hero discovering the significant answers, the contribution made in identifying the cause and cure was not biased to one gender. 

Women active and in action, and not just Brad Pitt

Source: http://www.btchflcks.com/2013/07/the-strong-yet-traditional-women-of-world-war-z.html#.X6QI8S2w1QI

 

This point lends itself to the devil’s advocate having been utilized in identifying gender bias and making an active effort to overcome it. In Lundine, J., Bourgeault, I. L., Glonti, K., Hutchinson, E., & Balabanova, D. paper of “I don't see gender”: Conceptualizing a gendered system of academic publishing (2019), they mention how participants (those involved in peer review) believed that “men are more visible in peer review and academia in general.” This recognition, through the devil’s advocate, is important. 

 

What may have been perceived otherwise as having followed all the necessary procedures, the devil’s advocate enabled individuals to recognize the gender bias present. Specifically, the handling and reviewing of information by individuals that do not go through similar experiences. A particular instance noted is men reviewing information on women’s health issues (Lundine, J., Bourgeault, I. L., Glonti, K., Hutchinson, E., & Balabanova, D., 2019). What the male reviewer may believe as critiquing a segment irrelevant, might actually be important in benefitting the woman.

 

In the End

It is surprising to see a movie about a zombie apocalypse, introduce a concept that can benefit scientific research, but it is appreciated. Devil’s advocate, taking an opposing stance, allows us to identify and evaluate where bias and subjectivity permeate science, and the knowledge it screens and evaluates. In some respects, we are making an active effort for the better. Whether that is to save the world or to simply provide knowledge to aid the progression of human society, we have taken the first few steps in the right direction and need only carry on.

 

References:

• Joustra, R. J. (2013). The Tenth Man. Center for Public Justice, https://www.cpjustice.org/public/capital_commentary/article/264.
• Lundine, J., Bourgeault, I. L., Glonti, K., Hutchinson, E., & Balabanova, D. (2019). “I don't see gender”: conceptualizing a gendered system of academic publishing. Social Science & Medicine, 235, 112388.
• Martin, G. 'The devil's advocate' - the meaning and origin of this phrase. https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/devils-advocate.html.
• Poff, D. C. (2017). Peer review: strengths, limitations, and emerging issues. Committee of Publication.
• Smith R. (2006). Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99(4), 178–182.
• Tennant, J. P., & Ross-Hellauer, T. (2020). The limitations to our understanding of peer review. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 5, 1-14.