Trust, Honesty, and the Authority (and Misdemeanour) of Science

The COVID-19 pandemic has further challenged the old-fashioned model of science communication. Traditionally, new scientific findings were published in academic journals, which are not aimed at the general public, and were generally not accessible to non-scientists. These days, however, new findings were seized on immediately by politicians, the media and social media. This so-called 'infodemic' has, unfortunately, eroded the credibility and funding of scientific research, and had a negative impact on the already vulnerable careers of early career researchers.

What went wrong?

Poor communication management

In an ideal world, a scientist would communicate the results of their work as facts, as explanations that answer the questions of ‘what’ or ‘how’. However, the stories that most interest the public and policymakers are those that focus on the ‘so what’—that is, the consequences of the results and their importance. This often leads to problems in the translation of findings in a scientific study into a media story that describe their impacts for the general public.

In today’s fast-paced media culture, where a cacophony of sensationalistic claims is the norm, the ‘so what’ of a scientific study needs to be communicated with care—as a conjunctive instead of an indicative. A common (and disheartening) consequence of scientists excitedly communicating their research are the large, unjustified leaps in reasoning that seem thrilling, but may lead the audience to extrapolations that simply do not apply to the communicated results.

?Knowledge governance monopoly vs oversimplification

Too often, scientific institutions have not seen it as a priority to nurture their relationships with the public. They have held a monopoly on how knowledge is produced and shared, and this has not been open to debate or challenge.?

It is indeed important to be mindful of the jargons and complex processes that exists in a specific field of study. Against that backdrop, however, scientists and science communicators have to ensure the information is not oversimplified—which could be counterproductive.

?“You should make things as simple as possible but not simpler.” Already Albert Einstein knew about the dangers of simplification. Without a careful balance, oversimplification can become a noise in the communication channel that leads to the transmission of a false message, leading to the audience drawing the wrong conclusion. Hence, before simplifying our research to target those who may not be experts, we should first take the time to examine our metaphor of choice, discuss it with others, and make sure that it does not muddle the message itself.

Inaccurate portrayal of scientists and science

In the film industry and popular media, scientists are often depicted as all-powerful, capable of solving any catastrophe. The public often lacks a basic understanding that the scientific method involves questioning, testing and revising.

“If you want absolutes, speak to a politician or a pope,” said Nobel Laureate Peter Doherty. Indeed, scientific research always starts with a working hypothesis and the definition of a problem or an experiment setup with clearly defined constraints and parameters. The results obtained may, in the end, confirm or falsify just one aspect of the working hypothesis and give hints on others. In science, knowledge is created gradually, through dialogue and dispute. As researchers at the forefront of human knowledge, we need to understand how our professional adjustment to uncertainty and an ever-changing knowledge landscape can seem unreliable to the general public. Despite our expertise, we always only have the best possible answers at a particular time—and not the absolute truth.

What do we do?

Nourish the science-public partnership

The public needs to have direct, meaningful and trusted relationships with excellent scientists whose work has been scrutinised by peer review. In turn, scientists need to be dedicated to communicating their work to a broader audience. Institutional communication departments and public outreach programs should support them in managing this relationship strategically.

Improve science communication training

Scientists need to take communication far more seriously. They will only be able to influence the public if they show tenacity, tactfulness, good listening and empathy. They need to understand and respect how the media works, and to be familiar with its internal mechanics. They also need to understand that not all journalists have a background in science writing. Scientists should also have a working knowledge of how to use different communication channels effectively, and the potential pitfalls of each.

Social media news use and trust in science

We need to appreciate that social media is not all bad when it comes to communicating science. Social media diversify and expand information networks, and users have a greater chance of encountering science news than non-users because they are exposed through incidental exposure in addition to active news seeking.

Furthermore, social media news is supplemented by social recommendations, which affect news engagement. People engage with news posted by people they trust, people with whom they perceive similarity, or people to whom they feel closer. Hence, people are more likely to trust the science news on social media because it was likely posted by a social contact they trust.

Finally, scientists and universities can interact with the public through social media. If people had the choice, they prefer scientists to present scientific information rather than journalists because it is perceived as more trustworthy, more precise, and more objective. Moreover, the author’s authority has a positive effect on trust in information

Ensure good representation

People want to see themselves being represented when it comes to voices of authority — not unlike their desire to see superheroes on screen representing diversity. Scientists wanting to communicate to the public need not only to be trusted, but also to be likeable and relatable, in order for others to listen to them.

The bottom line

The Greeks had the notion of a philosopher as someone who loved truth and would not tell a lie; early modern English had their understanding of a gentleman as someone who valued the integrity of his word as he valued his sense of honour.

Regardless, ensuring regular visibility of respected individuals doing science for the love of truth and not for the love of lucre is key. Such individuals would be understood not to lie because nothing they wanted could be gained from a lie.

Interacting with the public is a challenging task which entails risks, and not all scientists and their institutions are prepared to take on those risks. However, in this seemingly post-truth era, it is our duty, no matter if you are a scientist or a science communicator, or both, to ensure the authenticity and integrity of science.

?

?

?