Is the public losing faith in science?

Over the last century, life expectancy has seen a 30-year rise; vaccines have eradicated smallpox, a disease that used to be one of the deadliest known to man; and antibiotics have saved the lives of hundreds of millions of people across the globe. Yet, despite all the benefits modern medicine and science have unleashed unto the world, a deeply-rooted scepticism, mistrust and conspiracy in science continues to exist among many of the general public, be it in the field of medicine, climate change or technology. A 2014 Ipsos MORI survey investigating public attitudes to science, scientists and scientific policy revealed that a shocking 33% of respondents were undecided when asked if they believed the information they hear about science is “generally true”. A further 9% outright either “tended to disagree” or “strongly disagreed” with this statement, while an additional 7% didn’t know what to think, which suggests that almost half of the general public may be sceptical about the integrity of the scientific information they hear. I was particularly surprised to hear statistics like these, which got me thinking, is the public really losing faith in science?

“Almost half of the general public may be sceptical about the integrity of the scientific information they hear”

So, why is the public so sceptical about science?

This question can be particularly challenging to answer, because it isn’t quite so easy to pinpoint just one central reason. In reality, there are many reasons why people may distrust science, ranging from political ideology to religiosity, but I believe the greatest issue we face with trust in science is simply misunderstanding.

Here are the three myths I believe may influence a person’s understanding of scientific integrity:

MYTH 1: Science is static

Science is a dynamic specialty and it’s continually evolving. Take the example of eggs and cholesterol. There was a time when we were told to avoid eating eggs in excess because of its constituent cholesterol, and its association with heart disease or stroke. A few years later, science revealed that actually there were two types of cholesterol – one good and one bad, so it’s okay to eat the egg whites, but avoid the yolks. A few more years after that, science gained more information and realized that, actually, cholesterol in food may not affect the cholesterol in the body in the way we originally thought, so perhaps it’s okay to eat the whole of the egg after all. This diverging scientific opinion may seem counterintuitive and will definitely confuse the best of us, but akin to the growing picture in a puzzle, as we gain more and more evidence, we create a more comprehensive, “fuller” picture about the issue we’re trying to understand, and sometimes that may require a realignment of the information we already know. Simply put, science is not claiming to be the be-all-and-end-all of information, as many people assume it to be, but rather a journey that is continually evolving and changing as we learn more, which brings me to the next myth, why is it continually evolving? 

MYTH 2: A scientific fact is an absolute truth

A scientific “fact” is NOT an absolute truth, nor is it claiming to be. Many people incorrectly assume that when science reveals a new piece of information, it is undisputedly claiming proof of an absolute, unquestionable truth – but this couldn’t be any further from the case. In reality, a scientific “fact”, to use the term loosely, always was and always will be a distinct field of theory that unlike any other old theory, has stood the test of time and rigorous investigation, and despite all of that, was still unable to be disproven. Take the theory of evolution as just one such example, still known as a theory, despite the masses and masses of evidence in its support, and its reputation as a highly-esteemed truth of the world. This doesn’t make it any less robust, in fact I would argue it makes it even more robust, because opening up a theory to future investigation, gives it a place to grow and evolve alongside our own improving understanding, bringing it that. To put it simply, science is a continual search for the truth, and one cannot take evolving scientific understanding as a sign of the existence of “alternative facts” or the endorsement of false statements, but as a process that constantly brings us that one step closer to the truth we so enthusiastically work toward. Sometimes that means unlearning something we thought we knew, to make room for what is true – but even this is still progress, which at the end of the day is exactly what we should look for in science

MYTH 3: Scientific consensus can easily be manipulated

Science, particularly medical research, is highly regulated by governments, independent bodies and peers themselves, making it incredibly difficult to manipulate evidence to suit someone’s personal gain. If you’ve had a chance to read my previous article Five lessons Pharma has Learned from Past Failures, you’ll know that this has unfortunately been attempted before with Andrew Wakefield and the vaccine scandal, where Andrew Wakefield not only manipulated data, but failed to disclose a conflict of interest associated with the lawyers who were sponsoring his study, but even then, this tragic failure in intentional miscommunication quickly came to light and has only served to strengthen the regulatory measures that exist today to ensure something like that is never able to happen again. Nowadays, all clinical investigations pertaining to human medicines in the EU must be regulated by the European Medicines Agency, ensuring trials are conducted in accordance with EU clinical-trial legislation, and all new medicines undergo a rigorous evaluation process to ensure they meet high standards of integrity before they are licensed for use.

So, what can we in healthcare do to strengthen the public’s trust in science?

This is a big question, but I think quite a straightforward one to answer – we must increase transparency. In recent years, this concept of increased transparency across pharma has become a hot topic, and I for one couldn’t be more on board with it. Make information pertaining to science and clinical investigation available to the public, whatever that information may be, be it positive or negative. Not only will this increase open honesty among the industry players themselves, but the public alike, because everyone deserves access to knowledge, even if that knowledge simply tells us what direction NOT to look in. At Janssen we are particularly proud of our transparency policy, which demonstrates our commitment to responsible business practices that puts your trust in us at the heart of everything we do.