An Additional Thrust to Enhance the Public’s Trust in Federal S&T

Enhancing the public’s trust in Federal science and technology (S&T) requires two thrusts: (1) ensuring the integrity of the science itself (including how it is communicated to other scientists and used in operations) and (2) ensuring the science is being explained properly to nonscientific audiences. The majority of the government’s prior scientific integrity endeavors predominantly focused on the first thrust. That is an understandable first step as it is foundational to the effort. But going forward we need to significantly enhance efforts on the second front as well, as this is the part that the public actually sees and drives their individual analyses. While the Federal Government cannot dictate how this is done, it can serve as an example for others to follow. Discussion of three common concerns and actions the Federal Government can take to help overcome each is provided below.

S&T knowledge is often conveyed in diametric terms; this is what the science says, you should believe it (or not). In reality, science is neither true nor false but instead has graduated levels of consensus. “The very nature of scientific discovery is a series of hits and misses, then arguing about those hits and misses until the learned community coalesces around a solidly proven idea. Sometimes, though not very often, that proven consensus ends up being disproven decades later!” Scientists (and science agencies) that convey more certainty in their findings than is warranted are contributing to the public’s distrust of science when those findings are later shown to be false or are only accurate in specific conditions. Going forward, the government should not only state the new finding but also convey where that finding stands within science’s evolutionary process.?(For more insights on understanding and discussing S&T evolution, see When and How Should We "Trust the Science?".)

Discussing the role of science within policymaking also, unfortunately, suffers from similar diametric messaging: either the policymaker “trusted the science” in their decisions (if the author agreed with the decision) or they were “anti-science” (if they did not). In most every situation of actual policymaking, which differs significantly from lobbying or advocating for preferred policy outcomes, there are many considerations beyond just the science. Consider our recent history with COVID-19 as an example. The recommendation from a pure science aspect would have been to completely shut everything down and isolate everyone until the threat passed. But doing so would have created extremely negative consequences for the nation’s financial and security considerations, not to mention increasing other types of health issues. Policymakers had to find the right balance amongst all of these considerations, adjusting over time as conditions changed. The same analysis and balancing occur in all actual policy decisions, which is not normally reflected in government communications—and certainly not within the reactions of those advocating from a single perspective. Proper scientific analysis should play a large role in these debates but overplaying its hand by promoting its infallibility or dominance is wrong—in fact, it is downright unscientific. The Federal Government needs to better explain all influences within these policy decisions, and how they determined the role and proper influence science should properly have held at the time of the decision.

Finally, S&T has become weaponized within partisan politics, by politicians from both political parties as well as by outcome-focused advocacy organizations. Each occurrence, no matter if their statement is positive or negative towards S&T, generally leaves half of the population that hears it reactively distrustful of the message being conveyed. It is easy to conjecture how this is having a negative impact on the public’s trust of S&T and its use by Federal agencies. S&T is inherently apolitical, and it is in the nation’s interest for it to be treated as such by everyone. While Federal S&T agencies cannot directly influence these partisan efforts, they can take actions to minimize their impact by proactively providing descriptive information about its findings that is understandable to the nonscientific community. For example, in addition to publishing a formal technical report or journal article, agencies could also produce a flyer tailored to general audiences that explains the findings, the certainty of those findings, and the meaning or potential impact of the findings. The availability of this non-partisan, readily understandable material will help interested citizens accurately understand the S&T without it being provided through the lens of influencer operations.