Contributor: Charles Seaks, Chapter Treasurer
As has been discussed in previous blogs, there seems to be a decline in the public trust in scientists, and science as a whole, during the course of the ongoing pandemic. Despite this sentiment, FiveThirtyEight published an article in May with polling results showing that both Republicans and Democrats had a tremendous amount of trust in scientists and researchers, as well as doctors and hospitals (1). The survey consisted of 20,000 individuals, with over 80% expressing strong trust in scientists and doctors. Obviously, this was published in May, and opinions may have shifted in the interim, though such an extreme shift would be unlikely. This leaves the question then of why we, as scientists, feel so under attack and untrusted during the pandemic. The first likely answer is that the vocal minority of anti-science factions of each party have been given an ever-increasing platform in the form of social media, inflating their presence and voices. Secondly, the election of very publicly anti-science politicians over the past decade or so has inflated the influence of this vocal minority. Despite the evidence that most people still trust scientists, there seems to be a large disconnect when it comes to any scientific issues that have become politicized (i.e. Facemasks, global climate change, vaccines, smoking risks, etc.). Much of this separation has been attributed to fundamental differences in understanding of the science between those for and against certain issues. Whether that be blatant lack of comprehension or vulnerability to predatory, unethical scientists with ulterior motives. The core measure of this, for years, has been science education and literacy.
Another article by FiveThirtyEight back in March of 2019 examined the connection between science education in the US and political opinions on scientific policy (2). The typical assumption is that the US public is resistant to scientific policy changes due to their inability to understand it, owed further to the perception that the American public lacks sufficient science education. The results of a study from Pew Research Center, however, paint a very different picture. The study demonstrated an almost tripling of scientific literacy in the US over the past 30 years (3). It also shows a majority of Americans understanding the basics of experimental design, general/basic science knowledge (e.g. The connection between deforestation and soil erosion), and current issues in science (e.g. The relevance and importance of antibiotic resistance). The study essentially concluded that for the American public, scientific education and attitudes about science do not correlate strongly, if at all.
I think this is important to consider, given the preconceived notion that more science education is connected to improved attitudes toward science and related issues. As scientists, I think it is our responsibility to try to understand how we can better the environment we work in. How can we avoid widespread denial of critical issues and solutions? How can we effectively provide information and guidance to the general public? How can we ensure the public is receptive to scientific knowledge? Understanding that scientific education is not at the heart of the attitudes preventing a stronger relationship between science and the public, gives the opportunity to think about what else factors into these attitudes. How does politicization of certain issues affect attitudes? How do business interests and advertising tactics interfere with scientific diaspora? What changes are reasonable to expect of the general public in response to scientific research?
These articles help to illustrate the issues science faces in its relationship with the general public in this country as we enter into a new, pandemic/post-pandemic world. There is no easy solution. Science education does not seem to be the panacea one would hope for. The intertwinement of science with business and politics is a reality, but one that has had very real, very impactful consequences.
Sources:
Cover image is from iStock/Getty images