tag:theconversation.com,2011:/au/topics/scientific-evidence-36592/articlesScientific evidence – The Conversation2023-08-02T21:15:53Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2107862023-08-02T21:15:53Z2023-08-02T21:15:53ZThe illusion and implications of ‘just following the science’ COVID-19 messaging<iframe style="width: 100%; height: 100px; border: none; position: relative; z-index: 1;" allowtransparency="" allow="clipboard-read; clipboard-write" src="https://narrations.ad-auris.com/widget/the-conversation-canada/the-illusion-and-implications-of-just-following-the-science-covid-19-messaging" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>In a recent special issue of the <a href="https://www.bmj.com/canada-covid-series"><em>British Medical Journal</em></a> (<em>BMJ</em>), commentators <a href="https://theconversation.com/inquiry-must-assess-how-canadas-fragmented-covid-19-response-lost-the-publics-trust-210443">demanded accountability</a> for Canada’s COVID-19 response in the form of an independent public inquiry. If such an inquiry is held, it must examine how — and with what consequences — politicians’ pandemic messaging deflected responsibility for controversial decisions onto scientific evidence and experts.</p>
<p>During the COVID-19 pandemic, it was common to hear politicians say that they were “just following the science” when explaining their policies. Although this may sound like a prudent way to tackle a public health crisis, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321X16831146677554">our research suggests that</a> such claims can be misleading about both science and government. </p>
<p>Such claims also risk damaging the credibility of the very scientific experts who are crucial to an effective public health response.</p>
<h2>Decisions and ‘the science’</h2>
<p>Scientific evidence and advice should be a key element of elected leaders’ decision-making in a public health emergency. However, this does not mean that scientific evidence should be the only input into such decisions, or that scientific advisors are responsible for those decisions. Yet this was how “following the science” rhetoric <a href="https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321X16831146677554">was often framed</a> by politicians in Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom during the pandemic. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="People on the grass in a large park, sitting in white circles drawn on the grass to keep people socially distanced" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/540860/original/file-20230802-25888-6zixs7.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/540860/original/file-20230802-25888-6zixs7.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540860/original/file-20230802-25888-6zixs7.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540860/original/file-20230802-25888-6zixs7.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540860/original/file-20230802-25888-6zixs7.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540860/original/file-20230802-25888-6zixs7.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540860/original/file-20230802-25888-6zixs7.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">People use social distancing circles at Trinity Bellwoods Park in Toronto in May 2021.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Cole Burston</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This messaging implied that there was such a thing as “the science,” and that it could tell politicians what to do. But as we saw repeatedly in the context of COVID-19, the scientific evidence (and experts’ interpretation of it) is <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-00925-7">frequently contested</a>, constantly <a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-advice-on-masks-is-changing-as-coronavirus-knowledge-evolves/">evolving</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-075666">not always inclusive</a> of the specific needs of diverse population groups. </p>
<p>Science can guide decisions, but it is not a magic eight-ball <a href="https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-51781-4">dictating what should be done</a>.</p>
<h2>Policy and evolving evidence</h2>
<p>Even if science could provide unambiguous answers, there are compelling reasons why it should not be the only consideration in public health decision-making. In representative democracies, politicians are elected to make decisions that balance multiple priorities and interests — including scientific evidence, but also economic impacts, budgets, ethics, equity, time constraints and public opinion. </p>
<p>This is one reason why governments in the same country or region with access to the same scientific evidence and advice made different decisions about addressing the spread of COVID-19. Governments wrestled with — and came to different decisions about — issues such as balancing the virus-containment benefits of <a href="https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/february-2022/have-provinces-put-schools-first-during-covid/">school closures</a> with the implications for children’s well-being and parents’ labour participation.</p>
<p>If “just following the science” does not accurately represent science or policymaking, then why the ubiquitous rhetoric? These claims <a href="https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321X16831146677554">can be seen as attempts</a> to de-emphasize politicians’ role in making potentially controversial decisions by <a href="https://theconversation.com/covid-inquiry-the-uk-governments-pandemic-response-was-often-not-guided-by-the-science-yet-now-scientists-are-under-fire-190691">deflecting responsibility</a> onto a <a href="https://news.sky.com/video/coronavirus-if-the-science-was-wrong-is-blame-game-starting-11990862">vague process</a> (“the science”) or by positioning public servants, such as the <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/corporate/organizational-structure/canada-chief-public-health-officer/role-chief-public-health-officer.html">chief public health officer of Canada</a> or provincial <a href="https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/a-new-breed-of-celebrity-in-the-age-of-covid-19-the-chief-medical-officer-1.4863943">chief medical officers of health</a> (CMOHs), <a href="https://edmontonjournal.com/news/postpandemic/postpandemic-covid-top-doctors">as responsible for decisions</a>. </p>
<p>But this is not how governments are supposed to work in mature democracies like Canada. The convention of ministerial responsibility means that elected politicians, and not their advisors, make decisions and are accountable to the electorate. Stating or implying that policy responses are prescribed by advisors can confuse the public about who is responsible for decisions and risks weakening the relationship between public servants and politicians.</p>
<h2>Messaging and mistrust</h2>
<p>Misleading the public about the role of scientific advisors in decision-making can also undermine public trust in scientific advisors, particularly when policy decisions inevitably change or are controversial. </p>
<p>Early in the pandemic, elected leaders’ “just following the science” messaging implied that scientific evidence and advisors held straightforward answers to complex questions. As the pandemic evolved and scientific evidence, expert advice and policy decisions inevitably changed (and diverged across jurisdictions), public health restrictions <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/radio/whitecoat/confusing-covid-19-advice-is-undermining-public-trust-here-s-how-to-restore-it-1.5755220">were met with public confusion</a>, <a href="https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/dr-tam-fires-back-at-messaging-criticism-says-advice-evolved-with-science-1.5168731">frustration</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/02/chris-whitty-video-appears-show-verbally-abused-street">even</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02741-x">vitriol</a> that was often <a href="https://edmontonjournal.com/news/postpandemic/postpandemic-covid-top-doctors">directed at the scientific advisors</a> who were presented as the public face of those decisions. </p>
<p>In Canada, the resulting mistrust was potentially made worse by the <a href="https://www.ubcpress.ca/behind-closed-doors-1">lack of transparency</a> around government decision-making, which prevented citizens from understanding the extent to which scientific advice informed policy decisions.</p>
<p>Although we cannot be certain of the reasons, public opinion polling shows that trust in Canada’s federal and provincial CMOHs as reliable sources of information on COVID-19 <a href="https://getproof.com/trust/cantrust/">declined steadily</a> between 2021 and 2023. Such an erosion of trust between scientific advisors and the public has implications for governments’ ability to handle both chronic and acute public health emergencies. </p>
<p>The role of the CMOH is designed to put a trusted scientific figure — a doctor — in front of the public to explain and make recommendations on issues from <a href="https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/8fc9-CMOH-Letter-to-Parents-and-Caregivers-Fall-Respiratory-Season.pdf">flu vaccines</a> to <a href="https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/concern-grows-in-new-brunswick-over-danger-of-vaping-products-1.4619277">vaping</a> to <a href="https://halifax.citynews.ca/2023/06/02/nova-scotias-top-doctor-urging-caution-as-wildfire-smoke-impacts-air-quality/">wildfire smoke</a>. The trust and credibility associated with being a non-partisan doctor who represents the public interest is <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2022.07.009">crucial to the role</a> of CMOHs, but it becomes vulnerable when these officials are left to take the fall for politicians’ decisions.</p>
<h2>Trust and transparency</h2>
<p>Where should governments in Canada go from here? An independent national inquiry that investigates (<a href="https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.p1634">among many other issues</a>) the implications of politicians’ distancing themselves from their decisions would be an important start. </p>
<p>It is in politicians’ interest to maintain relationships of trust with their senior public health officials, and between those officials and the public. Trust matters not just for managing the <a href="https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/05/1136912">next pandemic</a>, but for tackling the major public health challenges of our time, including health inequities, the opioid epidemic and the existential threat of climate change. </p>
<p>Politicians should realize that deflecting blame onto “the science” in their messaging is a short-term solution that can have long-term risks, and focus instead on crafting messaging that is more transparent about how, why and by whom decisions are made.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/210786/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adèle Cassola has received past funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Patrick Fafard has received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and Health Canada. He consults for the Institut national de santé publique du Québec.</span></em></p>During the pandemic, it was common for politicians to explain their COVID-19 policies by saying they were ‘just following the science.’ Such claims can be misleading about both science and government.Adèle Cassola, Research Director - Public Health Institutions, Global Strategy Lab, York University, CanadaPatrick Fafard, Full Professor, Faculties of Social Sciences and Medicine; Senior Investigator, Global Strategy Lab, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of OttawaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1511072020-12-07T14:54:24Z2020-12-07T14:54:24ZCOVID-19 in South Africa: A critical assessment of the first 90 days<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/373278/original/file-20201207-17-10f4f52.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Eight months later, it's unclear what the government’s strategy actually was when it imposed the strict lockdown</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Eight months ago, when South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa announced a strict lockdown for an initial 21 days in response to the COVID-19 threat, the decision was widely praised. A few <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-a-one-size-fits-all-approach-to-covid-19-could-have-lethal-consequences-134252">critics</a>, including myself, disagreed. I warned against “a strident ‘conventional wisdom’ which holds that governments and societies should respond through drastic measures”. I <a href="https://theconversation.com/covid-19-the-cure-could-be-worse-than-the-disease-for-south-africa-134436">argued</a> that the government had moved too rapidly to drastic measures, and that the negative consequences might outweigh the benefits. I said this would constrain South Africa’s options later in the pandemic.</p>
<p>Evidence on the widespread harms of the lockdown and government decisions to weaken regulations when case numbers were increasing corroborates these arguments. Many commentators now agree the government’s approach was not optimal. But they still argue that we can only say this with the benefit of hindsight. I disagree. The reasons why the government’s actions and approach were likely to be flawed were already evident at the outset.</p>
<p>In a <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305750X20304174">recent paper</a>, I examine in detail the crucial first 90 days of the government’s response from 1 March to 31 May 2020. The analysis uses two frameworks. </p>
<p>The first looks at the COVID-19 pandemic as a problem of balancing trade-offs between anti-disease measures and their social and economic consequences over a lengthy period of time. The second considers different characteristics of “scientism” – excessive, simplistic reliance on “science” – and how that can be harmful. </p>
<p>The overall lesson I suggest we draw from this is that while anti-scientific approaches are harmful, naïve reliance on scientific evidence and overly confident scientists is too. </p>
<h2>Excessive deference to science also dangerous</h2>
<p>Most analyses of government responses to COVID-19 internationally have focused on the dangers of unscientific or anti-scientific attitudes. The result has been to neglect the fact that excessive confidence in claims by scientists is dangerous as well. Scientific predictions are sometimes wrong. They are also often subject to a great deal of uncertainty. And if policymakers fail to recognise this they will not make the best decisions for society.</p>
<p>Based on publicly available evidence, which is detailed in <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305750X20304174">my paper</a>, I conclude that the response by the South African government during crucial periods reflects “performative scientism”. This is not just putting excessive faith in scientific claims that were unreliable, but also making a performance of that to give the government response more credibility than warranted. The performance allowed government to withhold the basis for its decisions and conceal these from critical scrutiny, leading to an initial strategy that caused significant social and economic harm with relatively little proven medical benefit. </p>
<p>And this is where the time dimension comes in, especially for developing countries that have less public and private wealth to use as buffers when implementing extreme restrictions. Having squandered the few societal resources available for more restrictive measures, the South African government had to move to lower stages of lockdown during the potentially more dangerous winter period and even in the face of increasing case numbers. </p>
<p>Even after eight months it remains unclear what the government’s strategy actually was when it imposed the strict lockdown. Many commentators seemed to think that it was to suppress the spread of the virus. This despite the fact that the health minister’s earlier comments had suggested a “herd immunity” strategy in which 60% to 70% of the population get infected. Yet, instead of interrogating what the core strategy was, various social actors – including the media – alternated between uncritical praise of government and sharp, sometimes unfair, criticism of aspects of the lockdown regulations or their consequences.</p>
<p>The performance of “being guided by science” that played out in the media meant there was no robust interrogation of the most critical decisions the government took. This was, in fact, very unscientific and its problematic nature was exposed when some government advisors started making critical public statements about its regulations and approach.</p>
<p>The fact that the government seems to be seriously considering unrestricted national travel during the December holiday period, even as infections increase, is simply further confirmation of the swing in the opposite direction to its initial strategy.</p>
<h2>Failures on various fronts</h2>
<p>A full quantitative analysis of how the pandemic has played out in South Africa, and the effect (or not) of government’s decisions, still needs to be conducted. The media have reported many claims from government, advisors and others claiming success. These include claims that the strict lockdown “saved lives”. But none have been backed up by published, rigorous analysis.</p>
<p>However, government’s own numbers already show how its strategy failed on various dimensions. </p>
<p>First, critical care capacity was not increased very much during the strict (Level 5) lockdown. Since the original definition of “flattening the curve” referred to reducing critical care cases below hospital capacity, this means that government failed to flatten the curve through its efforts. The fact that critical cases ended up being far lower than predicted does not change this conclusion. </p>
<p>Second, the strict lockdown did not have a large effect on the rate that the virus was being spread and never reduced the rate low enough to make stopping transmission possible. Third, the initial modelling predictions (as reported in the press but never released officially) and subsequent more sophisticated ones have been very inaccurate, overestimating the number of critical cases. </p>
<p>Fourth, dramatic worsening of social indicators (like hunger and access to healthcare services), unemployment and public finances demonstrate the large social and economic cost paid. In other words, the strict lockdown over five weeks had devastating societal consequences but did not achieve the objectives set out and was arguably unjustified anyway because it was based on simplistic generalising from other contexts.</p>
<h2>Lessons for the future</h2>
<p>It is not a coincidence that those who expressed concern about the government’s initial response disproportionately included academics who work on methodological and philosophical issues relating to evidence use.</p>
<p>Excessive confidence, of experts in their own views and of policymakers in experts, is a well-established phenomenon. And its potential harms are often quite obvious. The dangers are much higher in unfamiliar, high stakes situations. The South African government placed all its faith in modelling by a small number of advisors. That modelling appears to have been based on crude use of evidence from different parts of the world. It likely exaggerated even the consequences in the countries it was taken from. Failing to make that modelling public violated two key principles of scientific activity: transparency and independent peer review. </p>
<p>It is therefore not surprising that the predictions turned out to be wrong. The excessive confidence shown in those projections also violated key principles of evidence-based policymaking. Even if the projections had been right, the government’s response might still have failed because it did not appear to have a long-term plan. Slamming on the brakes when you see an obstacle in the road might seem praiseworthy until a truck drives into you from behind and you hit the obstacle anyway.</p>
<p>Fortunately, South Africa has experienced better epidemiological outcomes than many countries outside the African continent. The reasons for that are still not clear, but there is little evidence that it is the result of government’s stringent response.</p>
<p>To make the best possible decisions for society, policymakers should avoid pseudoscience <em>and</em> excessive deference to science. Scientists and policymakers need to be more humble in their claims of what they know. Policymaking must reflect uncertainty and ignorance, not “<a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2011.02457.x">incredible certitude</a>” and arrogance.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/151107/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Seán Mfundza Muller does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Scientists and policymakers need to be more humble in their claims of what they know.Seán Mfundza Muller, Senior Lecturer in Economics, Research Associate at the Public and Environmental Economics Research Centre (PEERC) and Visiting Fellow at the Johannesburg Institute of Advanced Study (JIAS), University of JohannesburgLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1491322020-11-09T13:14:37Z2020-11-09T13:14:37ZConservatives value personal stories more than liberals do when evaluating scientific evidence<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367850/original/file-20201105-22-11gidpl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=98%2C0%2C5892%2C3997&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">When science and anecdote share a podium, you must decide how to value each.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/director-of-the-national-institute-of-allergy-and-news-photo/1208907352">Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/research-brief-83231">Research Brief</a> is a short take about interesting academic work.</em></p>
<h2>The big idea</h2>
<p>Conservatives tend to see expert evidence and personal experience as more equally legitimate than liberals, who put a lot more weight on the scientific perspective, according to our new study <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12706">published in the journal Political Psychology</a>.</p>
<p>Our findings add nuance to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/20/opinion/coronavirus-conservatives.html">a common claim</a> that conservatives want to hear “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2019/aug/04/both-sides-of-the-climate-change-debate-how-bad-we-think-it-is-and-how-bad-it-really-is">both sides</a>” of arguments, even for <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/us/politicized-scholars-put-evolution-on-the-defensive.html">settled science</a> that’s not really up for debate. </p>
<p>We asked 913 American adults to read an excerpt from an article debunking a common misconception, such as the existence of “lucky streaks” in games of chance. The article quoted a scientist explaining why people hold the misconception – for instance, people tend to see patterns in random data. The article also included a dissenting voice that drew from personal experience – such as someone claiming to have seen lucky streaks firsthand.</p>
<p>Our participants read one of two versions of the article. One version presented the dissenting voice as a quote from someone with relevant professional experience but no scientific expertise, such as a casino manager. In the other version, the dissenting opinion was a comment at the bottom from a random previous participant in our study who also disagreed with the scientist but had no clearly relevant expertise – analogous to a random poster in the comment section of an online article. </p>
<p>Though both liberals and conservatives tended to see the researcher as more legitimate overall, conservatives see less of a difference in legitimacy between the expert and the dissenter.</p>
<h2>Why it matters</h2>
<p>Looking at both our studies together, while about three-quarters of liberals rated the researcher as more legitimate, just over half of conservatives did. Additionally, about two-thirds of those who favored the anecdotal voice were conservative. Our data also showed that conservatives’ tendency to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011">trust their intuitions</a> accounted for the ideological split.</p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1547">Other studies</a> of a scientific ideological divide have focused on politicized issues like climate change, where conservatives, who are more likely to oppose regulation, may believe they have something to lose if policies to curb climate change are implemented. By using apolitical topics in our studies, we’ve shown that science denial isn’t just a matter of self-interest.</p>
<p>In stripping away political interest, we have revealed something more basic about how conservatives and liberals differ in the ways they interact with evidence. Conservatives are more likely to see intuitive, direct experience as legitimate. Scientific evidence, then, may become just another viewpoint. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367884/original/file-20201106-21-pi7nb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="two women talking and walking on the sidewalk, one with a mask on" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367884/original/file-20201106-21-pi7nb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367884/original/file-20201106-21-pi7nb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367884/original/file-20201106-21-pi7nb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367884/original/file-20201106-21-pi7nb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367884/original/file-20201106-21-pi7nb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367884/original/file-20201106-21-pi7nb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367884/original/file-20201106-21-pi7nb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">For some people, a personal anecdote can be as influential as a science-backed public message.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/woman-holds-her-mask-while-talking-to-a-woman-wearing-a-news-photo/1254914571">Alexi Rosenfeld/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Though we conducted these studies in 2018 before the pandemic, they help explain some of the ideological reactions to it in the U.S.</p>
<p>Among conservatives especially, the idea that the pandemic itself is <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/03/18/u-s-public-sees-multiple-threats-from-the-coronavirus-and-concerns-are-growing/">not a major threat</a> can hold as long as there’s personal evidence on offer that supports that view. President Donald Trump’s recovery from COVID-19 and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/06/trump-says-dont-be-afraid-of-covid-thats-easy-for-him-to-say">his assertion</a> based on his own experience that the disease is not so bad would have bolstered this belief. Recommendations from researchers to wear masks can remain mere suggestions so long as the court of public opinion is still undecided.</p>
<h2>What other research is being done</h2>
<p>Social scientists are already documenting ideological reactions to the pandemic that fit our findings. For example, many conservatives see the coronavirus as <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620940539">less of a threat and are more susceptible to misinformation</a>. They also tend to see <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/711834">preventive efforts as less effective</a>. Our studies suggest these views will continue to proliferate as long as anecdotal experience conflicts with scientific expertise.</p>
<h2>What’s next</h2>
<p>An individual’s understanding of scientific evidence depends on more than just his or her political ideology. Basic science literacy also plays a role.</p>
<p>The pandemic has forced people to confront how hard it is to understand the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/tell-me-what-to-do-please-even-experts-struggle-with-coronavirus-unknowns/2020/05/25/e11f9870-9d08-11ea-ad09-8da7ec214672_story.html">uncertainty inherent in many scientific estimates</a>. Even liberals who are initially more sympathetic to science information might find their confidence in public health messages tested if these messages waver and evolve. </p>
<p>As such, we expect future research will focus on how health officials can most effectively <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.181870">communicate scientific uncertainty</a> to the public.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/149132/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>How much weight would you put on a scientist’s expertise versus the opinion of a random stranger? People on either end of the political spectrum decide differently what seems true.Randy Stein, Assistant Professor of Marketing, California State Polytechnic University, PomonaAlexander Swan, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Eureka CollegeMichelle Sarraf, Master's Student in Economics, California State Polytechnic University, PomonaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1452812020-09-07T14:26:49Z2020-09-07T14:26:49ZMedical research is broken: here’s how we can fix it<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/356744/original/file-20200907-22-1plbfas.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C5607%2C3741&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/blond-medical-scientific-researcher-doctor-using-35806912">Darren Baker/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Every year, around <a href="https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2016/01/14/paul-glasziou-and-iain-chalmers-is-85-of-health-research-really-wasted/">US$200 billion (£150 billion)</a> is spent globally on health research. Meanwhile, millions of people volunteer their time to be participants in health studies. Despite all the resources that go into creating medical research, though, there is a glaring issue – almost all of that time and money achieves nothing. In fact, <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60329-9/fulltext">about 85%</a> of all research is simply wasted.</p>
<p>This might seem too large a figure to be true, but it is much easier to imagine when you consider that around 50% of medical trials are <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.d7292">not published at all</a>. Studies that tend not to be published are those with results that are <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20181324/">inconclusive or negative</a> – so-called “null results”. To put this into context, this means studies that find that a drug helps to treat a disease are much more likely to be published than those finding no evidence that the drug works.</p>
<p>Even of the studies that are published, many are badly designed. When studies aren’t published or the research is of poor quality, precious resources can be wasted on <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/02/when-evidence-says-no-but-doctors-say-yes/517368/">treatments that don’t work</a>, or may even <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-50715156">harm patients</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Pile of medical journals next to a pair of spectacles" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/356745/original/file-20200907-22-2ljw9n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/356745/original/file-20200907-22-2ljw9n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356745/original/file-20200907-22-2ljw9n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356745/original/file-20200907-22-2ljw9n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356745/original/file-20200907-22-2ljw9n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356745/original/file-20200907-22-2ljw9n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356745/original/file-20200907-22-2ljw9n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Around of 85% of all research is wasted.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/journal-eyeglasses-43707034">Nickolay Khoroshkov/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Many published studies also fail to fully and accurately report how the study was conducted and what was found. This can lead to researchers engaging in questionable research practices such as <a href="https://theconversation.com/our-survey-found-questionable-research-practices-by-ecologists-and-biologists-heres-what-that-means-94421">selectively reporting results</a> (leaving out negative results) and not reporting their financial or political conflicts of interest. This failing in transparency means doctors and patients can’t fully review the evidence they base healthcare decisions on.</p>
<p>In medicine, these problems have been <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/308/6924/283">talked about for decades</a>, but this is a scandal that appears to be barely known by the wider public. However, <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1847">COVID-19 has now</a> made the problems with medical research impossible to ignore.</p>
<h2>The solutions</h2>
<p>Luckily, this colossal waste of research is avoidable. Because of the discipline of <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2005468">meta-research</a> (research about research), there is a great deal of understanding of the solutions to these problems. Yet we still have COVID-19 trials that are <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m2279">badly designed and lack transparency</a>. </p>
<p>Nowadays, the question isn’t “what are the solutions we can use to fix research waste?” but instead, “why aren’t these solutions being used widely across medical research?” </p>
<p>In response to these issues, an international group of doctors, researchers and patients has created the <a href="https://osf.io/k3w7m/">Declaration to Improve Biomedical and Health Research</a>. The declaration describes three actions that are available, right now, to improve health research. These are:</p>
<p>1) All research that is funded by the public or a charity should be catalogued and stored in a central website open to everyone. This should include detailed study documents, such as protocols and a summary of the results. Cataloguing all research would help increase the number of studies with negative results being read and would be a huge first step to reducing research waste.</p>
<p>2) Mandatory publication of all authors’ interest. Examples include any financial or political interests that may bias the study’s results. There have already been documented cases of funders influencing the findings of studies, which has already led to patients being <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/09/pelvic-mesh-scandal-doctors-public-register-healthcare-professionals-industry-patients">irreversibly harmed</a>. In several countries, so-called <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/370/bmj.m3247.full.pdf">“sunshine acts”</a> require doctors to disclose financial interests. But this has not yet been made mandatory in all countries.</p>
<p>While these actions will help improve transparency, they won’t help fix poorly designed research. This is where registered reports come in.</p>
<p>3) <a href="https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers-update/story/innovation-in-publishing/registered-reports-a-step-change-in-scientific-publishing">Registered reports</a> is a publication format where authors submit their study protocol to a journal for review before recruiting any patients. That way, reviewers can give feedback on the study design before it starts, rather than the current process of reviewing after it is complete and too late to change. A bonus of registered reports is that they’ve also been found to <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07118-1">increase the number of studies</a> with negative results being published. This is a promising solution currently in use by <a href="https://www.cos.io/our-services/registered-reports">over 250 journals</a>, but it’s a format that can be used by all journals.</p>
<p>These actions won’t solve all problems in research, but they are a start. With high-quality medical research needed now more than ever, we believe it is essential to start using these solutions now to change health science for the better.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/145281/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kelly E Lloyd is affiliated with The Declaration to Improve Biomedical & Health Research. She receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Bradley's research is funded by Cancer Research UK's multi-institutional CanTest Collaborative (C8640/A23385). He is a member of the executive committee of the Fabian Society, which is a think tank affiliated to the Labour Party. </span></em></p>Many published studies fail to fully and accurately report how the study was conducted and what was found.Kelly E Lloyd, PhD Candidate, Health Sciences, University of LeedsStephen Bradley, Clinical Research Fellow, University of LeedsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1313262020-02-10T17:01:59Z2020-02-10T17:01:59ZHS2 debate shows how evidence is ignored in favour of politics<p>The British government is <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51443421">expected to reaffirm</a> its commitment to building HS2, the proposed high-speed rail network, despite substantial opposition from sections of the public, politicians and environmental groups. For example, a <a href="http://stophs2.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Whats-the-damage-Summary-Report-FINAL-digital.pdf">recent report</a> commissioned and published by <a href="https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/about-us">The Wildlife Trusts</a> drew attention to the habitat loss threatened by HS2. The report claims as many as 693 classified wildlife sites within 500 metres of the line will be impacted, something echoed by <a href="https://rebellion.earth/event/extinction-rebellion-save-colne-valley-from-hs2/">Extinction Rebellion</a> and <a href="http://stophs2.org/">Stop HS2</a> activists:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Using guile, deceit, lies, fraud, coercion, blackmail and immensely destructive practices, HS2 wish to put an end to all we hold dear and our most important legacy to our children. This is our rainforest. Right now we desperately need tree climbers. We desperately need people. People really scare HS2.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This emotive language, playing to historic fears of destruction, pits HS2 against conservation. The pressure from environmental groups adds to that <a href="https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mps-mutiny-boris-johnson-hs2-decision-trains-1380728">from those politicians</a> who want the government to cancel or alter the project in favour of schemes that provide more benefit to their local areas. As a result, the future of the scheme has been uncertain, even with government backing.</p>
<p>Yet, like many projects with importance for wildlife, HS2 is by no means a clear-cut choice between obliteration and preservation. The problem is that human politics is central in defining the outcome of such planned projects and scientific knowledge is too often displaced by binary thinking.</p>
<p>The purpose of HS2 is partly to provide faster rail services between London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds (and, in turn, to other follow-on destinations). But it will also increase capacity on existing rail routes by taking current fast intercity trains off those lines, making space for more local commuter and freight services.</p>
<p>Research by the transport development organisation <a href="https://www.midlandsconnect.uk/publications/hs2-released-capacity/">Midlands Connect</a> found that as many as 73 stations would benefit from increased rail capacity, 54 of which are not directly served by the new lines. In short, HS2 will streamline a large proportion of the UK’s rail network.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/314470/original/file-20200210-109896-138lfjt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/314470/original/file-20200210-109896-138lfjt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/314470/original/file-20200210-109896-138lfjt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/314470/original/file-20200210-109896-138lfjt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/314470/original/file-20200210-109896-138lfjt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=455&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/314470/original/file-20200210-109896-138lfjt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=455&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/314470/original/file-20200210-109896-138lfjt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=455&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Siemens’ proposed design for HS2 trains.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://news.siemens.co.uk/news/siemens-mobility-formally-submits-bid-for-hs2-contract">Siemens</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The provision of frequent, accessible and attractive public transport is needed to encourage a “modal shift” away from the country’s reliance on CO₂-producing cars, lorries and planes. HS2 offers the UK a major opportunity to follow the examples demonstrated elsewhere <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/passenger-aviation-and-high-speed-rail-comparison-emissions-profiles-selected-european-routes">in Europe</a> <a href="https://www.iea.org/reports/the-future-of-rail">and Asia</a>. High-speed rail has reduced air travel’s modal share <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01441647.2013.853707">everywhere it has been introduced</a> and can also reduce car use, especially over long distances, helping to create a new vision for long-distance travel. </p>
<p>Without this kind of change, we face runaway climate change and a significant threat <a href="https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/01/15/biodiversity-climate-change/">to exactly the biodiversity</a> that environmental groups want to protect – and not just in the area around HS2’s tracks. <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-13241-y">Research has shown</a> how overall biodiversity can benefit even from measures to address climate change that might damage it on a small scale.</p>
<p>Yet the research is too often overlooked when political debates descend into simplistic narratives of development versus destruction, preservation versus loss. The picture is always more complex.</p>
<h2>Badger culling</h2>
<p>HS2 is not an isolated example of politics taking precedence over evidence. Take, for instance, the UK government’s current strategy for eradicating bovine tuberculosis, which involves the culling of infected cattle and, in some regions, other species that can spread the disease, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/11/badger-cull-england-extended">such as badgers</a>.</p>
<p>The government describes this approach as <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/bovine-tb-eradication-programme-for-england">“science-led”</a>. Yet as with HS2, the whole picture is complex and coloured by politics. While culling might seem a good solution, and is popular with practitioners, it is only fair to say that the scientific evidence <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-49957-6">shows a mixed picture</a>. </p>
<p>Many <a href="https://www.peta.org.uk/blog/badger-cull-3656-animals-killed-no-proven-disease-control-benefits/">environmental activists argue</a> that the limited evidence for culling means the animals suffer needlessly. On the other hand, in some places the culling of badgers can have a <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0095477">positive impact</a> on species they prey on, such as hedgehogs.</p>
<p>As for cattle, the <a href="https://www.nhs.uk/news/food-and-diet/is-eating-meat-infected-with-bovine-tb-harmful/">government itself recognises</a> that the risks of people catching TB from milk or meat from infected cows are extremely low. But because of restrictions in other countries, bovine TB impacts the UK’s ability to sell its produce abroad, which is increasingly important following Brexit and the opening of new trade negotiations around the world.</p>
<p>In a climate where politicians and commentators polarise the debate, members of the public can find it understandably difficult to judge the worth of various policies that impact wildlife. And the <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/3be49734-29cb-11e6-83e4-abc22d5d108c">rejection of expert</a> and practitioner knowledge also makes it difficult for policy-makers to make pragmatic judgements. </p>
<p>What we actually need is more, not less, scientific knowledge. Politicians, activists, journalists and the general public need to take a closer look at the empirical and scientific evidence to make a balanced judgement when evaluating difficult ecological problems that arise in the wake of infrastructure planning. Now more than ever, we need to move beyond human politics to investigate the facts that support sustainable policy decisions.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/131326/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The new railway might destroy some wildlife habitats but what if it helps tackle climate change?Lindsay Hamilton, Senior Lecturer in Organisational Ethnography, University of YorkKevin Tennent, Senior Lecturer in Management, University of YorkLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1061412018-11-19T11:37:47Z2018-11-19T11:37:47Z3 ethical reasons for vaccinating your children<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/245855/original/file-20181115-194497-k3ffuu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Vaccine work because they help create herd immunity.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/little-boy-looking-his-arm-while-227904523?src=cA4V5TbdL5K95Fdnfw39dg-1-10">JPC-PROD/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Across the country, <a href="https://www.apnews.com/87fcfe6ec2b34ca8900f4e7bc1e5cf81">billboards are popping up</a> suggesting that vaccines can kill children, when the science behind vaccination is crystal clear – vaccinations are <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25086160">extremely safe</a>. </p>
<p>Researchers who study the <a href="https://www.routledge.com/Values-and-Vaccine-Refusal-Hard-Questions-in-Ethics-Epistemology-and/Navin/p/book/9781138790650">beliefs of anti-vaxxers</a> have found <a href="https://theconversation.com/anti-vaccination-beliefs-dont-follow-the-usual-political-polarization-81001">many different reasons</a>, not just religious or political, as to why some parents refuse to get their children vaccinated. </p>
<p>As a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=igbI6WoAAAAJ">bioethicist</a> who investigates how societal values impact medicine, I consider such decisions to be downright indefensible. And here are three reasons why. </p>
<h2>1. Failure to contribute to the public good</h2>
<p>Public goods benefit everyone. Take the example of roads, clean drinking water or universal education. <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/Health_Civilization_and_the_State.html?id=Uz5ExznezQoC">Public health</a> – the health of the overall population as a result of society-wide policies and practices – also falls into this category. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674005112">Many ethicists</a> argue that it is unfair to take advantage of such goods without doing one’s own part in contributing to them. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/publications/en/">Years of research</a> involving <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24814559">hundreds of thousands of people</a> have proven vaccines to be safe and effective. One reason why they are so effective – to the point of complete eradication of certain diseases – is because of what scientists call <a href="http://op12no2.me/stuff/herdhis.pdf">“herd immunity.”</a> </p>
<p>What this means is that once a certain percentage of a population becomes immunized against a disease through public health programs, it provides general protection for everyone. Even if a few people get sick, the disease won’t spread like wildfire. </p>
<p>Those avoiding vaccination are aware that their children might nonetheless benefit from protection on account of herd immunity. This is unfair. For if everyone acted in that way, herd immunity would disappear.</p>
<p>Indeed, this happened in <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6406a5.htm">California</a>, where measles made a comeback because so many parents chose not to vaccinate their children. </p>
<p>These parents not only failed in their duty to contribute to the public good, they also actively undermined it, hurting others and also costing the economy <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2643169">millions of dollars</a>.</p>
<h2>2. Impact of health choices on the vulnerable</h2>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/245867/original/file-20181115-194516-e10z72.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/245867/original/file-20181115-194516-e10z72.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/245867/original/file-20181115-194516-e10z72.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/245867/original/file-20181115-194516-e10z72.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/245867/original/file-20181115-194516-e10z72.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/245867/original/file-20181115-194516-e10z72.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/245867/original/file-20181115-194516-e10z72.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">People with weakened immune systems are likely to get sick more easily.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/sick-woman-working-home-243413818?src=rocx1RleaND02Pl-xUjbhQ-3-36">Kaspars Grinvalds/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Viruses do not affect everyone equally. Oftentimes, it is the elderly, infants, and people with weakened immune systems, who are most at risk.</p>
<p>In my family, my brother, <a href="http://time.com/4892412/gene-editing-crispr-cas9-neurodiversity/?iid=sr-link1">Jason</a>, often had to be rushed to a hospital as he would easily catch a bug. So, when we had visitors, my family would inquire if they could let us know if they had any infections. </p>
<p>Often the answers were not truthful. Some would say that it was merely an “allergy,” and some others would be downright offended. My brother would end up catching the germs and more than once, nearly lost his life due to their lack of concern for his health.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo5974942.html">Ethicists have long argued</a> for special obligations towards the most vulnerable. And we need to be mindful of the impact of individual health choices on others, particularly the vulnerable.</p>
<h2>3: Health is communal</h2>
<p>Political philosophers like <a href="http://dewey.pragmatism.org/">John Dewey</a> have argued that democratic public institutions necessarily <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dewey-political/">rely upon belief in scientific evidence and facts</a>. People can hold different personal beliefs, but there are some truths that are irrefutable, such as the fact that the Earth is round and revolves around the sun.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/7/4/64/html">Anti-science attitudes</a> are dangerous because they undermine our ability to make decisions together as a society, whether about education, infrastructure or health. For example, if too many people treat the scientific consensus on climate change as just “one perspective,” that will hinder our ability to respond to the massive changes already underway. In a similar manner, treating the science on vaccines as just “one perspective” negatively impacts everyone.</p>
<p>In the face of overwhelming scientific evidence concerning the efficacy, safety and importance of vaccines, citizens have a duty to support vaccination and <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27586522">encourage others</a> to do so as well. </p>
<p>At the foundation of each of these duties lies a simple and powerful truth: <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30369509">Health is communal</a>. Health-related ethical obligations do not stop at our own doorstep. To think that they do is both empirically misguided and ethically indefensible.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/106141/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joel Michael Reynolds does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Billboards spreading misinformation on the risks of vaccination have popped up around American cities. A bioethicist explains why decisions not to vaccinate children are indefensible.Joel Michael Reynolds, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, UMass LowellLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/957372018-06-04T13:01:53Z2018-06-04T13:01:53ZThe misleading evidence that fooled scientists for decades<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221552/original/file-20180604-175400-1l9ua4f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/human-embryo-end-5-weeks-234278743?src=kL6hJmHjzdYQvteSqjIv0w-1-84">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>There are surprisingly <a href="https://theconversation.com/where%20s-the-proof-in-science-there-is-none-30570">few proven facts</a> in science. Instead, scientists often talk about how much evidence there is for their theories. The more evidence, the stronger the theory and the more accepted it becomes. </p>
<p>Scientists are usually very careful to accumulate lots of evidence and test their theories thoroughly. But the history of science has some key, if rare, examples of evidence misleading enough to bring a whole scientific community to believe something later considered to be radically false.</p>
<p>A common way scientists gather evidence is to make a prediction about something and see if they’re correct. The problem occurs when the prediction is right but the theory they use to make it is wrong. Predictions that seem particularly risky but turn out to be true look like very strong evidence, as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/17/popper-enemy-uncertainty-virtue-refutation">Karl Popper</a> and other philosophers of science have often stressed. But history shows us that even very strong evidence can be misleading.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221555/original/file-20180604-175418-m8i4vf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221555/original/file-20180604-175418-m8i4vf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=717&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221555/original/file-20180604-175418-m8i4vf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=717&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221555/original/file-20180604-175418-m8i4vf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=717&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221555/original/file-20180604-175418-m8i4vf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=901&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221555/original/file-20180604-175418-m8i4vf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=901&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221555/original/file-20180604-175418-m8i4vf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=901&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Johann Friedrich Meckel.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In 1811, Johann Friedrich Meckel successfully predicted that human embryos would have gill slits. This risky prediction seemed to provide very strong evidence for <a href="https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/meckel-serres-conception-recapitulation">his theory</a> that humans, as the “most perfect” organisms, develop via stages corresponding to each of the “less perfect” species (fish, amphibians, reptiles and so on).</p>
<p>As it happens, early human embryos do have slits in their necks that <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13278255">look like gills</a>. This is almost certainly because humans and fish share some DNA and <a href="https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evodevo_02">a common ancestor</a>, not because we go though a “fish stage” when in our mothers’ wombs as part of our development towards biological perfection.</p>
<p>But the <a href="http://thebjps.typepad.com/my-blog/2015/06/srpetervickers.html">evidence available</a> after embryo neck slits were discovered in 1827 certainly made Mecklel’s theory appear persuasive. It was only when Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution took hold in the second half of the 19th century that it became totally clear that Meckel’s idea of a linear series of biological perfection was completely untenable.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221554/original/file-20180604-175425-1kjbrzs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221554/original/file-20180604-175425-1kjbrzs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=715&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221554/original/file-20180604-175425-1kjbrzs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=715&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221554/original/file-20180604-175425-1kjbrzs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=715&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221554/original/file-20180604-175425-1kjbrzs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=898&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221554/original/file-20180604-175425-1kjbrzs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=898&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221554/original/file-20180604-175425-1kjbrzs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=898&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">James Hutton.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Another example is 18th-century geologist James Hutton’s idea that the Earth is like an <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK219276/">organic body</a> that constantly reproduces itself to indefinitely provide a habitable world for humans. On the basis of his theory, Hutton successfully predicted that <a href="http://www.geologyin.com/2014/11/veins-and-hydrothermal-deposits.html">veins of granite</a> would be found passing through and mixing with other layers of rock. He also successfully predicted angular <a href="http://www.geologyin.com/2015/10/types-of-unconformities.html">uncomformities</a>, when new rock layers rest at a very different angle to the older layers immediately beneath them. </p>
<p>Hutton’s theory was wrong in <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039368117300390">all sorts of ways</a> compared to contemporary thinking. Most obviously, the Earth is not designed for human beings. And of course Hutton had no concept of plate tectonics.</p>
<p>But despite his theoretical errors the predictions were successful, and so highly influential. In fact, his theory was still a serious candidate for the truth 100 years later. It was only finally pushed out in the late 19th century by the <a href="http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110810104650743#">contracting Earth theory</a>, which (mistakenly) explained valley and mountain formations in terms of an Earth that gradually contracts as it cools.</p>
<h2>Mathematical evidence</h2>
<p>Meckel and Hutton’s predictions were based on incorrect arguments. But there are also dramatic examples of misleading evidence based on equations. For example, when Niels Bohr predicted in 1913 the correct frequencies of the specific colours of light absorbed and emitted by ionised helium, Einstein <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=b-VBDgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22niels+bohr's+times%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiqoZql_5jbAhUiKsAKHaNzDXkQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q&f=false">reportedly remarked</a>: “The theory of Bohr must then be right.”</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221556/original/file-20180604-175425-18ivriv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221556/original/file-20180604-175425-18ivriv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=720&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221556/original/file-20180604-175425-18ivriv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=720&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221556/original/file-20180604-175425-18ivriv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=720&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221556/original/file-20180604-175425-18ivriv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=905&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221556/original/file-20180604-175425-18ivriv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=905&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221556/original/file-20180604-175425-18ivriv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=905&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Niels Bohr.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Bohr’s predictions could instantly persuade Einstein (and many others besides) because they were correct to several decimal places. But they came out of what we now know to be a deeply flawed <a href="https://www.universetoday.com/46886/bohrs-atomic-model/">model of the atom</a>, in which electrons literally orbit the atomic nucleus in circles. Bohr was lucky: despite his model being wrong in fundamental ways, it also <a href="http://dro.dur.ac.uk/10520/">contained some kernels of truth</a>, just enough for his predictions about ionised helium to work out.</p>
<p>But perhaps the most dramatic example of all concerns <a href="https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/sommerfeld-the-eternal-nobel-candidate/">Arnold Sommerfeld’s development of Bohr’s model</a>. Sommerfeld updated the model by making the electron orbits elliptical and adjusting them in accordance with Einstein’s theory of relativity. This all seemed more realistic than Bohr’s simple model.</p>
<p>Today we know that electrons <a href="https://rationalisingtheuniverse.org/2016/07/02/the-non-orbital-electron/">don’t really orbit the nucleus at all</a>. But scientists working in the early 20th century thought of electrons as very tiny balls, and assumed their motion would be comparable with the motion of actual balls.</p>
<p>This turned out to be a mistake: modern quantum mechanics tells us that electrons are highly mysterious and their behaviour doesn’t line up even remotely with everyday human concepts. Electrons in atoms don’t even occupy an exact position at an exact time. Such considerations are what lie behind the <a href="http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130124-will-we-ever-get-quantum-theory">famous quip</a> “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don’t.”</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221553/original/file-20180604-175434-c5avrj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221553/original/file-20180604-175434-c5avrj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221553/original/file-20180604-175434-c5avrj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221553/original/file-20180604-175434-c5avrj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221553/original/file-20180604-175434-c5avrj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221553/original/file-20180604-175434-c5avrj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221553/original/file-20180604-175434-c5avrj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Arnold Sommerfeld.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sommerfeld,Arnold_1930_Jena.jpg">Wikimedia Commons/G F Hund</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So Sommerfeld’s theory had a radical misconception at its very heart. Yet, in 1916, Sommerfeld used his model as the basis for an equation that correctly describes the detailed <a href="http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/hydfin.html">pattern of colours</a> of light absorbed and emitted by hydrogen. This equation is <a href="http://thebjps.typepad.com/my-blog/2017/02/sommerfelds-miracle-the-ultimate-challenge-to-scientific-realism-peter-vickers.html">exactly the same</a> as the one derived by Paul Dirac in 1928 using the modern theory of relativistic quantum mechanics.</p>
<p>This result has long been considered a shocking coincidence within the physics community, and various <a href="http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/14350">ongoing attempts</a> have been made to try to understand how it could happen. Needless to say, Sommerfeld’s incredible predictive success persuaded many scientists of the day that his theory was true.</p>
<p>Despite the fact that later evidence proved these theories wrong, I don’t think we should say the scientists involved made mistakes. They followed the evidence and that is precisely what a good scientist should do. They weren’t to know that the evidence was leading them astray.</p>
<p>These few examples certainly shouldn’t persuade us that science can’t be trusted. It’s rare for evidence to be very misleading and, usually, radically false theories don’t produce successful, accurate predictions (and usually they produce radically false predictions). Science is a process of constant refinement, with a knack for ironing out unhelpful twists and turns in the long run. And we all know that even the most trustworthy can occasionally let us down.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/95737/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>From August 2014 to January 2018, Peter Vickers received funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council for a project entitled 'Contemporary Scientific Realism and the Challenge from the History of Science', grant reference AH/L011646/1.</span></em></p>From human ‘gills’ to reproducing rock, evidence hasn’t always pointed scientists in the right direction.Peter Vickers, Associate Professor in Philosophy of Science, Durham UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/951602018-04-25T12:05:55Z2018-04-25T12:05:55ZHow to reason with flat earthers (it may not help though)<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/215883/original/file-20180423-75123-a6xrih.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">SpaceX</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Thinking that the earth might be flat appears to have <a href="https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/11/daily-chart-21">grown in popularity</a> in recent years. Indeed, <a href="https://www.flatearthconventionuk.co.uk/">flat earthers are gathering</a> for their annual conference this year in Birmingham, just two miles from my own university.</p>
<p>But the earth isn’t flat. Unsurprisingly, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVa2UmgdTM4">this isn’t hard to prove</a>. But as scads of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-Law8Cw9kE">YouTube videos demonstrate</a>, these proofs fail to convince everyone. A glance at the comments show there’s still vitriolic disagreement in some quarters.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5-Law8Cw9kE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Philosophy can explain why. Consider <a href="https://youtu.be/8BQs0R72r9s?t=2505">one, standard, flat earth line</a>: “Can <em>you</em> prove the world is round?” Maybe you point to the (<a href="https://gizmodo.com/5854771/the-secrets-behind-the-most-famous-earth-image-of-all-time">often artificially assembled</a>) <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blue_Marble">photos of Earth from space</a>. Or possibly you rely on the testimony of astronauts. The flat earther knocks it all back. The standard of proof is higher, they say. <em>You</em> haven’t been to space. <em>You</em> haven’t seen the round earth.</p>
<p>Perhaps you then start to appeal to science. But unless you’re unusual, you probably don’t know all of the details of the scientific proofs – is it something to do with <a href="https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11560.0">ships and horizons</a>? <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXqGF0VsOsw">Or eclipses</a>? And even if you know the details, unless you’ve indulged existing flat earth literature you are unlikely – right here, right now – to be able to cogently, concisely and comprehensively respond to the lengthy rebuttals flat earthers will give to each and every scientific proof. </p>
<p>You could double down. Getting <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRYF2HYRN2ILwUoyLQ5TAdA">knee deep in the vloggersphere</a>, you might learn the details of the scientific proofs as well as painstakingly spelling out each error in every flat earther’s rebuttal.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qkRnJutL5ko?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>I recommend against doing that. I recommend letting philosophy do the work. I recommend “<a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contextualism-epistemology/">epistemic contextualism</a>”. To understand what this is, we first must understand a familiar idea: context shift. Consider the sentence “I’m tall”. Surrounded by five year olds at a rollercoaster park, the sentence is true – after all, I can get on all the rides and they can’t. But at the try-outs for the Harlem Globetrotters, my measly 5’11" won’t cut it. So in that context, the sentence is false. Tallness is contextually sensitive. And it makes no sense to further ask whether I’m <em>really</em> tall or not. It only makes sense given a particular context.</p>
<p>Epistemic contextualists say that knowledge is the same. Imagine you’re transferring £10 to your daughter. You know her bank details. You tap them in. You send the money. But now imagine you’re transferring £50,000. Doubt sets in. Do you really know her bank details? Are you <em>sure</em>? Sensibly, you phone her to double check. The contextualist says that in the first case, you know her bank details. In the second case, even though nothing about <em>you</em> has changed, the <em>context</em> has. And in that case, you <em>don’t</em> know the details.</p>
<h2>Moving the goalposts</h2>
<p>That said, I claim the flat earther is doing a “Phoebe”. In one episode from Friends, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rvPP-IgYJk">Phoebe and Ross argue about evolution</a>. Ross piles on the evidence thick and fast. Finally, Phoebe loses her temper. Can he be so unbelievably arrogant, she asks, that he can’t admit the slightest chance that he <em>might</em> be wrong? Sheepishly, Ross agrees that there might be a chance. Suddenly, Phoebe has him – Ross’s admission destroys his worldview. He’s a palaeontologist and, having admitted he can’t be sure about evolution, how can he “face the other science guys”?</p>
<p>Phoebe has (humorously) shifted context. Ross’s proof starts off relying on fossils in museums, books and articles on evolutionary biology, and so on. But Phoebe moves him to a “sceptical context” in which if there’s a hint of doubt about something – any possibility that you might be wrong – then you don’t know it at all.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"978947592372609024"}"></div></p>
<p>Philosophers are well acquainted with these sceptical contexts. For instance, you <em>could</em> be <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_Reality_(Red_Dwarf)">plugged into the Matrix</a> and, if you were, then every belief you had would be false. By bringing your attention to that, I put us in a sceptical context within which we don’t know much of anything. Most people, though, ignore this possibility – most people assume themselves <em>not</em> to be in a sceptical context.</p>
<p>It’s now easy to see how Ross can face the other science guys. He <em>does</em> know evolution is true in most everyday contexts. It is only in Phoebe’s weird context that Ross does not know evolution is true. </p>
<h2>Where flat earthers go wrong</h2>
<p>Flat earthers are pulling the same trick. They’re right that you don’t <em>know</em> the earth is round. But they’re only right in a context where <a href="https://www.wired.com/2014/11/marsha-ivins/">testimonies of hundreds are disregarded</a>, where widely accepted facts among the scientific community don’t count, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMR8VrkSTrI">where photographic evidence is inadmissible</a>, and so on.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"730078048503107584"}"></div></p>
<p>The flat earther’s argument is framed in a context where you can’t set aside the possibility that <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npxAxglUnKI">there’s a pervading global conspiracy</a> – albeit one which somehow intermittently leaves glaring errors which give them away. In that context, you don’t know the earth is round. But in that context, nobody knows much at all and so this conclusion is simply unsurprising.</p>
<p>In the more everyday contexts that we care about, we can rely on testimony. We can rely on the fact that every educated physicist, cartographer and geographer never pauses to think the earth might be flat. And we are <em>correct</em> to rely on these things. If it was incorrect, we’d never get treated at hospitals – for in a context where <a href="https://youtu.be/EDQzIcxOuxs?t=1062">we can’t trust the</a> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVHYCr3FTSc">established laws of physics</a>, how could we trust the judgements of medical science?</p>
<p>So do you know whether the earth is round? It turns out it depends on context. But in most regular contexts then, yes, you do. And that’s even though I doubt most people could prove it, right here and now.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/95160/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nikk Effingham does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>All the proofs in the world won’t change a convinced flat earther’s mind.Nikk Effingham, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, University of BirminghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/918012018-04-11T10:44:27Z2018-04-11T10:44:27ZStand up for science: More researchers now see engagement as a crucial part of their job<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213991/original/file-20180410-114076-1vlrt7b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C97%2C715%2C573&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">One of the authors speaking at the 2017 March for Science.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Emily Darling</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>As the first anniversary of the March for Science approaches, researchers continue to reflect on the relationship between science and society. A recent survey of 2017 marchers indicated that nearly all were also actively <a href="https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/all/march-for-science-2017/">participating in other types of science advocacy</a>. In the past year, inspired by the call to stand up for science, scientists have <a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/why-women-drop-out-of-science-careers/">written editorials</a>, contacted members of Congress, <a href="https://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-and-march-science-partner-uphold-science">attended public protests</a>, <a href="http://time.com/5134417/scientists-running-for-office/">initiated runs for political office</a>, and <a href="https://500womenscientists.org/">organized new groups</a> to support diversity, inclusion and justice.</em></p>
<p><em>How are today’s scientists rethinking public engagement? Here, four scientists spanning multiple academic career stages – entering Ph.D. student (<a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=qlaybZcAAAAJ&hl=en">Shukla</a>), early career (<a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=3PgkPboAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">Rochman</a>), midcareer (<a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ZgoB98kAAAAJ&hl=en">Hill</a>), and senior scientist (<a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=h7Na1OoAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">Williams</a>) – discuss whether society is witnessing a fundamental change in how scientific researchers perceive their interaction with the public and policymakers.</em></p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213950/original/file-20180409-114128-1fgud9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=471%2C0%2C4341%2C2559&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213950/original/file-20180409-114128-1fgud9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=471%2C0%2C4341%2C2559&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213950/original/file-20180409-114128-1fgud9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=308&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213950/original/file-20180409-114128-1fgud9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=308&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213950/original/file-20180409-114128-1fgud9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=308&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213950/original/file-20180409-114128-1fgud9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=387&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213950/original/file-20180409-114128-1fgud9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=387&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213950/original/file-20180409-114128-1fgud9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=387&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Author Priya Shukla presents her work to a general audience at a science festival.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Taste of Science San Francisco Festival</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Why should scientists engage?</h2>
<p>Williams: The public deserves to know about our science. Scientific discoveries help people understand our world and <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/nasa-tess-satellite-launch-habitable-planets-kepler-space-galaxy-cape-canaveral-a8276061.html">galaxies beyond</a>, <a href="https://www.space.com/40066-landslide-prediction-nasa-satellite-model.html">predict the future</a>, <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-science-is-important/">fuel economic growth</a> and reconnect all of us back to our childlike wonder. </p>
<p><a href="http://hillbiogeochemistry.squarespace.com">Hill</a>: I’ll add that the majority of science in the U.S. is <a href="https://www.aaas.org/page/federal-rd-budget-dashboard">paid for by taxpayers</a>, thus we work on behalf of the public. Personally, I want to encourage decision-making supported by evidence, both for individuals in their daily lives and for politicians setting official policy. If we don’t provide the evidence, how can people make decisions based upon it?</p>
<p>Rochman: <a href="http://scienceliteracy.ca/">Public engagement also improves science literacy</a>. I was inspired by a scientist. Because of him, I am a scientist. </p>
<h2>How have your perceptions of public engagement changed over time?</h2>
<p>Williams: If scientists had engaged more before now, we as a society might not be in the situation where “alternative facts” exist. Today, I’m more strategic about engagement. I engage when my expertise is core to the issue at hand, and also when I think I can reach a diverse audience. </p>
<p>Rochman: I also prioritize reaching more diverse audiences. More than ever before, I try to connect with people where they are – based upon shared values – to make headway in this time of political differences. I also engage with both sides of the political aisle.</p>
<p>Shukla: As a young scientist, I feel obligated to stand up for the integrity of science in civic decision-making. I also think it’s important to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.08.288">communicate the benefits of research to non-scientists</a>, so that people can understand, and feel part of, the whole enterprise. For me, public engagement is about embedding ourselves in our communities and helping inform a path forward.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/214094/original/file-20180410-566-8qr18z.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/214094/original/file-20180410-566-8qr18z.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/214094/original/file-20180410-566-8qr18z.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/214094/original/file-20180410-566-8qr18z.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/214094/original/file-20180410-566-8qr18z.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/214094/original/file-20180410-566-8qr18z.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/214094/original/file-20180410-566-8qr18z.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/214094/original/file-20180410-566-8qr18z.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Author Tessa Hill presents research findings to legislators and policymakers at the House Committee on Natural Resources’ Forum on Ocean Change, 2017.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Tessa Hill</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Hill: Important progress comes sometimes comes from being in uncomfortable situations. In that sense, the current political climate and concerns for the future of science are an opportunity – we shouldn’t let this pass us by! What worries me is that many scientists are doing engagement work on their own time because academic institutions <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2015/02/public-engagement-balancing-altruism-and-self-interest">primarily value and reward</a> time devoted to research, teaching and institutional service. </p>
<p>Rochman: I am optimistic! I think <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-academics-are-losing-relevance-in-society-and-how-to-stop-it-64579">academic culture</a> is shifting to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-03925-8">embrace public engagement</a>. Some departments and universities now encourage these activities and the <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2010/04/transitioning-researcher-outreacher">next generation is hungry for it</a>. </p>
<p>Williams: When I was a student, engagement was discouraged because it reputedly detracted from scholarship and was perceived to sully the ivory tower objectiveness. We’ve begun to move on from that point of view.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213952/original/file-20180409-114124-1ky7m6w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213952/original/file-20180409-114124-1ky7m6w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213952/original/file-20180409-114124-1ky7m6w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=456&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213952/original/file-20180409-114124-1ky7m6w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=456&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213952/original/file-20180409-114124-1ky7m6w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=456&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213952/original/file-20180409-114124-1ky7m6w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=574&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213952/original/file-20180409-114124-1ky7m6w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=574&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213952/original/file-20180409-114124-1ky7m6w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=574&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Author Chelsea Rochman presents her research at the United Nations.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">United Nations</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What type of engagement do you think has the most impact?</h2>
<p>Rochman: Putting scientific evidence in the hands of policymakers in a way they can digest. During my postdoc, <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB888">bills</a> to ban plastic microbeads were being introduced. In some cases, they were stalled because of a perceived lack of scientific information. I led the development of a policy brief and sent it to state legislators. We also wrote open-access communications in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b03909">Environmental Science & Technology</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/tiny-beads-big-problem-easy-fix-why-scientific-evidence-supports-a-ban-on-microbeads-42511">The Conversation</a>. This engagement led to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/microbeads-soon-will-be-banned-from-toothpaste-soaps-shampoos/2016/01/07/254166a8-b4c1-11e5-a842-0feb51d1d124_story.html">media interviews</a>, phone calls with legislators and opportunities to testify. This experience taught me that engagement is valued and without it, scientific evidence may be left out of the policy process. </p>
<p>Williams: My own testimony before U.S. congressional committees provided the background for an expansion of <a href="https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/news/june15/expansion.html">two national marine sanctuaries</a>. Although the process lasted about a decade, the result was tangible. Lines actually changed on maps because of this work.</p>
<p>Shukla: I think about two kinds of “impact”: via a medium that influences many people, and via a mode that reinvigorates me. For example, I can <a href="https://medium.com/the-prosaic-mosaic">write a blog</a> that is viewed by more than 1,000 people. But, public talks, where I can engage one-on-one, remind me why I became a scientist and have taught me that sharing our stories with individuals can be just as important as sharing the ultimate findings of our research.</p>
<p>Hill: Sometimes it is easy to forget how important <em>listening</em> is in advocating for science. Some of the most important engagement opportunities I’ve had were actually conversations with people about their values, and how science fits in. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213990/original/file-20180410-114112-17giy8d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213990/original/file-20180410-114112-17giy8d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213990/original/file-20180410-114112-17giy8d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=352&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213990/original/file-20180410-114112-17giy8d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=352&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213990/original/file-20180410-114112-17giy8d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=352&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213990/original/file-20180410-114112-17giy8d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=443&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213990/original/file-20180410-114112-17giy8d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=443&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213990/original/file-20180410-114112-17giy8d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=443&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Author Susan Williams on a dive. In order to engage with authority, the research must be solid.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Susan Williams</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Williams: I would add that our credibility is ultimately based on establishing our scientific credentials by doing good work. First and foremost, we need to focus on our scientific output. Change does not come overnight – it requires vision and perseverance. Over our careers, there are plenty of opportunities to engage meaningfully. </p>
<p>Shukla: So we’ve come up with these themes around effective engagement:</p>
<ol>
<li>Start with the highest-quality science.</li>
<li>Communicate to diverse audiences to increase scientific literacy, inspire awe and inform evidence-based decision-making.</li>
<li>Be strategic and have fun, trusting that true impact takes time.</li>
</ol><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/91801/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Susan Williams has received funding from the National Science Foundation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Environmental Protection Agency.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tessa M Hill receives funding from the National Science Foundation, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Park Service, and the California Ocean Protection Council for her research.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Chelsea Rochman and Priya Shukla do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Four scientists talk through the ways they now build outreach into their work as a way to spread their research’s impact – something that wasn’t the norm for past generations of academics.Chelsea Rochman, Assistant Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of TorontoPriya Shukla, Ocean Acidification Technician, University of California, DavisSusan Williams, Distinguished Professor of Evolution and Ecology, University of California, DavisTessa M. Hill, Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of California, DavisLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/855262017-10-31T02:13:32Z2017-10-31T02:13:32ZOral testimony of an Aboriginal massacre now supported by scientific evidence<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192401/original/file-20171030-30849-7ucpr1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=207%2C0%2C1292%2C666&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A cross was erected during the 1996 remembering ceremony of the Sturt Creek massacre.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Pam Smith</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>For almost 100 years, the Aboriginal people of the Kutjungka Region in southeast Kimberley, Western Australia, have reported through oral testimony and art how many of their ancestors were killed in a massacre.</p>
<p>Until now, their evidence has been the only record of this event. No written archives, including police records, have been found.</p>
<p>But we are part of a team that has now uncovered physical evidence of human intervention at the massacre site, comprising highly fragmented burnt bone. The results of our study were published in October’s <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2017.08.018">Forensic Science International</a> journal.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/dna-reveals-a-new-history-of-the-first-australians-65344">DNA reveals a new history of the First Australians</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>We believe our results go some way to providing public recognition of this atrocity. It also gives a model that can be used at other similar massacre sites in the search for evidence to verify the oral testimonies of Aboriginal people.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192160/original/file-20171027-13349-1lultb3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192160/original/file-20171027-13349-1lultb3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192160/original/file-20171027-13349-1lultb3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=894&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192160/original/file-20171027-13349-1lultb3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=894&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192160/original/file-20171027-13349-1lultb3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=894&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192160/original/file-20171027-13349-1lultb3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1124&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192160/original/file-20171027-13349-1lultb3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1124&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192160/original/file-20171027-13349-1lultb3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1124&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Sturt Creek Massacre: the full undated painting by artists Launa Yoomarri and Daisy Kungah under direction of Clancy and Speiler Sturt. The Aboriginal prisoners are chained between two trees. The four figures (two left and two right) hold guns. The footsteps end at the well and goat yard, and both contain fragmented bone. The white line and black stones on either side of the creek, Sturt Creek, represent the ‘milky’ coloured water of Sturt Creek and the black stone along the banks are what Daisy Kungah described as purrkuji, the jupilkarn (cormorants) in the dreamtime.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Kuningarra School, Billiluna Aboriginal Community, Western Australia.</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The massacre at Sturt Creek</h2>
<p>Tjurabalan, or Sturt Creek, provides water for life to flourish in this desert margin. The surrounding landscape is harsh, with pale green spinifex set against the deep red of the soil. </p>
<p>This is a terminal river system ending in Paruku, or Lake Gregory. Both the river and lake are places of spiritual significance to the Walmajarri and Jaru people, owners of the Tjurabalan Native Title claim.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192159/original/file-20171027-13327-qkfsny.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192159/original/file-20171027-13327-qkfsny.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192159/original/file-20171027-13327-qkfsny.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=459&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192159/original/file-20171027-13327-qkfsny.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=459&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192159/original/file-20171027-13327-qkfsny.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=459&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192159/original/file-20171027-13327-qkfsny.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=577&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192159/original/file-20171027-13327-qkfsny.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=577&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192159/original/file-20171027-13327-qkfsny.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=577&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Map showing the location of Sturt Creek Station and the study area on Sturt Creek, southeast Kimberley Region, Western Australia.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Robert Keane, Spatial Systems Analyst, Flinders University</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It was here, during the early years of the 20th century, that an unknown number of Aboriginal people were killed in at least three massacres reported in either oral testimonies or archival documents. </p>
<p>These events include one on Sturt Creek Station, where an adult man and his son escaped – it is their report that is recounted today by the descendants of those killed.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192386/original/file-20171030-17709-13ns81b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C40%2C1504%2C956&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192386/original/file-20171030-17709-13ns81b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C40%2C1504%2C956&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192386/original/file-20171030-17709-13ns81b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192386/original/file-20171030-17709-13ns81b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192386/original/file-20171030-17709-13ns81b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192386/original/file-20171030-17709-13ns81b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192386/original/file-20171030-17709-13ns81b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192386/original/file-20171030-17709-13ns81b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Dr Keryn Walshe (right) talking to members of the descent group at the massacre site.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Pam Smith</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We were asked by the Kimberley Land Council to search for archival evidence of the massacre on Sturt Creek Station and to record the site. In 2009 a group of descendants took us, both archaeologists, to the massacre site. </p>
<p>Colleagues from CSIRO Land and Water, Flinders University and the Institute of Medical and Veterinary Science, Adelaide, also collaborated through the <a href="http://www.flinders.edu.au/ehl/archaeology/research-profile/current-themes-and-projects/environment-and-society/kimberley-frontier-archaeology-project.cfm">Kimberley Frontier Archaeology Project</a> at Flinders University. </p>
<h2>The search for evidence</h2>
<p>Oral testimonies and paintings record that many Aboriginal people were shot and their bodies burnt. The number killed is not known.</p>
<p>The descendants reported that the massacre took place following the well-documented murder of two white men at Billiluna Station in 1922, and the subsequent police search for their killers.</p>
<p>But the search for written evidence of this massacre in the documents, diaries and newspapers of white people failed to find a reference, apart from a police diary with missing entries for four days. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192170/original/file-20171027-13298-1541phb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192170/original/file-20171027-13298-1541phb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192170/original/file-20171027-13298-1541phb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192170/original/file-20171027-13298-1541phb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192170/original/file-20171027-13298-1541phb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192170/original/file-20171027-13298-1541phb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192170/original/file-20171027-13298-1541phb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192170/original/file-20171027-13298-1541phb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">One of ten scrapes made in the dry stone wall enclosure. Scrapes into the loose top soil revealed burnt bone, all highly fragmented and embedded in burnt soil.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Pam Smith</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Two scatterings of burnt bone fragments were identified within a short distance of each other. All had been weathered in the harsh desert conditions for more than 90 years and all bone fragments were small, less than 20mm by 20mm.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192161/original/file-20171027-13340-urlp53.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192161/original/file-20171027-13340-urlp53.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192161/original/file-20171027-13340-urlp53.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192161/original/file-20171027-13340-urlp53.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192161/original/file-20171027-13340-urlp53.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192161/original/file-20171027-13340-urlp53.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=506&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192161/original/file-20171027-13340-urlp53.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=506&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192161/original/file-20171027-13340-urlp53.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=506&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Bone fragment No 2 from the Sturt Creek site.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Proving that the bones were of human origin, based on the few samples our team was permitted to collect, was challenging. Two bone fragments from a human skull were identified; the challenge then was to identify evidence of an intense fire.</p>
<p>This evidence was provided through X-ray diffraction analyses that determined the temperatures at which the fire burnt and the length of time.</p>
<p><iframe id="h33Ls" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/h33Ls/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Maintaining a fire of such high temperatures over many hours using timber as fuel must have involved human intervention and an intention to destroy the bones beyond recognition.</p>
<p>This was not a traditional hearth fire, as later experiments demonstrated, nor were Indigenous artefacts or cultural material found.</p>
<p>An objective of our study was to demonstrate that scientific research at massacre sites can verify the oral testimonies of Aboriginal people. We believe this was achieved at Sturt Creek.</p>
<h2>Recognition of a massacre</h2>
<p>Many people, both Aboriginal and white, lost their lives on the Australian frontier, but in most documented massacres it was Aboriginal people who were killed. </p>
<p>Scholars of Australian frontier history have argued the deaths of Aboriginal people should be acknowledged without political prejudice as grave injustices. Others have argued the many reported massacre events in Australia were fabricated.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/of-course-australia-was-invaded-massacres-happened-here-less-than-90-years-ago-55377">Of course Australia was invaded – massacres happened here less than 90 years ago</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This debate is now known as the “History Wars”, and are generally views expressed by non-Aboriginal people. Aboriginal people, particularly the descendants of those killed, still bear the pain of these past conflicts.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192172/original/file-20171027-13298-95o3xo.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192172/original/file-20171027-13298-95o3xo.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192172/original/file-20171027-13298-95o3xo.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192172/original/file-20171027-13298-95o3xo.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192172/original/file-20171027-13298-95o3xo.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192172/original/file-20171027-13298-95o3xo.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192172/original/file-20171027-13298-95o3xo.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192172/original/file-20171027-13298-95o3xo.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Memorial erected at the Sturt Creek massacre site by the descendants in 2011.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">John Griffiths</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>They know that grandparents, aunts and uncles were absent when they were children, and deep sorrow took their place. The descendants are also the custodians of the oral testimonies recording these events.</p>
<p>We believe our research confronts a significant cultural boundary that - apologies aside - political leaders have failed to address. We cannot undo the past, but we can acknowledge that these events are part of both Aboriginal and white histories – they are real and Aboriginal people still suffer the pain of the past.</p>
<p>Of all outcomes from this project, an email from a resident of the Balgo community gave the most hope for the future. The correspondent concluded by saying thank you for “contributing to bringing some closure to my friends”.</p>
<p>We ask little more than for archaeologists and scientists working with Aboriginal descent groups to achieve a level of closure, no matter how small, for the descendants of this and similar places of atrocities committed on the Australian frontier.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/85526/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Keryn Walshe receives funding from the Australia Research Council. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Pamela Smith does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The local Aboriginal people told stories and painted images of a massacre of their ancestors in the early 20th century, but there was no other evidence that the incident took place. Until now.Pamela Smith, Senior Research Fellow, adjunct, Flinders UniversityKeryn Walshe, Research Scientist in Archaeology, South Australian MuseumLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/826092017-08-24T09:00:21Z2017-08-24T09:00:21ZWhy we should expect scientists to disagree about antibiotic resistance – and other controversies<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183174/original/file-20170823-4869-19w8raj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">5 second Studio / Shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>On numerous matters including food, health and the environment, experts are called upon to communicate the implications of scientific evidence for particular choices. It may be tempting to highlight simple messages from complex evidence. But as the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jul/26/rule-patients-must-finish-antibiotics-course-wrong-study-says">recent controversy over advice on antibiotics</a> shows, there is a risk of such messages backfiring when new evidence comes to light. So in these fractious times of “alternative facts”, how best can experts <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-universities-can-earn-trust-and-share-power-in-the-bitter-post-truth-era-76653">build trust</a> with the public?</p>
<p>Evidence provided by science is often mixed, incomplete, changeable or conditional on context. Yet experts are expected to stick to narratives that highlight a consensus view. Simplifying the complex may be essential for public communication, but this is not the same as glossing over uncertainty or valid disagreements. It is far better to find ways to communicate why evidence may be inconclusive and why experts might reasonably make different judgements on the same question.</p>
<p>On antibiotics, it may be confusing to find experts giving conflicting assessments on whether or not people should “finish the course”. But far from representing post-truth, this disagreement suggests we must pay more attention to the matter of how to cope despite the vagaries of expert consensus.</p>
<h2>Fraying antibiotics consensus</h2>
<p>Healthcare professionals have long stressed that people mustn’t stop taking prescribed antibiotics when they feel better. <a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j3418">Some experts recently questioned</a> this conventional wisdom in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), suggesting that the advice is not evidence-based and that it impedes conservation of antibiotics in light of bacterial resistance. Elsewhere, <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-you-may-not-need-all-those-days-of-antibiotics-81820">it is claimed</a> that antibiotics are prescribed more out of fear and habit than on the basis of science. </p>
<p>But other experts have been critical, saying that the call to change established prescribing practice is <a href="http://gizmodo.com/doctors-slam-new-recommendation-that-we-should-stop-ant-1797301481">dangerous</a> as it is itself <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-you-really-should-take-your-full-course-of-antibiotics-81704">unsupported by sufficient evidence</a>.</p>
<p>In this debate, many actually agree that it is worth reconsidering antibiotic duration, and that more clinical trials are needed to specify appropriate doses for different infections. Some consensus is emerging that shorter courses may sometimes be sensible – but more evidence is needed.</p>
<p>All agree, for example, that tuberculosis merits a longer course of antibiotics to <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-you-may-not-need-all-those-days-of-antibiotics-81820">cure the infection</a> and <a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j3418">possibly to prevent resistance</a>. But for some common conditions, the recommended course has <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/body/truth-antibiotics-do-really-need-take-full-course/">already been shortened to three days</a>. Public health messages have subtly changed, with Public Health England telling people to take antibiotics “<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/465963/AntibioticGuardian_3-fold-leaflet_FINAL.pdf">exactly as prescribed</a>” rather than “completing the course”. Prescribers are asked to <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/564516/antibiotics_awareness_key_messages.pdf">avoid unnecessarily lengthy durations</a>.</p>
<p>So, calls to shorten antibiotic courses and gather more evidence are <a href="http://www.histmodbiomed.org/sites/default/files/44828.pdf">not new</a>. But <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-you-dont-have-to-finish-all-your-antibiotics-38774">until recently</a>, public discussion of the issue was rare.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183176/original/file-20170823-13319-jh1cyz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183176/original/file-20170823-13319-jh1cyz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183176/original/file-20170823-13319-jh1cyz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183176/original/file-20170823-13319-jh1cyz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183176/original/file-20170823-13319-jh1cyz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183176/original/file-20170823-13319-jh1cyz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183176/original/file-20170823-13319-jh1cyz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Scientific uncertainty and lack of consensus is rarely sufficiently communicated to the public.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Pressmaster / Shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Simple messages?</h2>
<p>The real controversy provoked by the BMJ article is about what experts should tell the public. The authors <a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j3418">suggest that</a> primary care patients prescribed antibiotics for common bacterial infections could be advised to stop when they feel better. Many of their critics fear that such advice is too subjective, and people will be confused by experts disagreeing or departing from an established message. The Chief Medical Officer <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jul/26/rule-patients-must-finish-antibiotics-course-wrong-study-says">has reiterated</a> that official advice is unchanged: follow what the doctor says.</p>
<p>The notion that experts must convey a simple message is based on the assumption that uncertainty creates anxiety, making people unsure of what to believe or how to act. Since being exposed to divergent views increases uncertainty, it seems to follow that experts must hew to a strict line. But health communication scholars suggest this is too simplistic as <a href="https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1061/a37f9408c9e583341526aeee58561005b99c.pdf">people manage and respond to uncertainty in different ways</a>. Some may have good reasons to ignore debates among experts, relying instead on familiar routines that shape their beliefs and behaviour. Others may distrust markers of excessive confidence, finding open discussion more reassuring as it chimes with their own instincts about knowledge. </p>
<p>Even where some reduction in uncertainty is desirable, evidence is not a substitute for judgement. Doing scientific research to address complex matters <a href="https://cspo.org/legacy/library/110104F2FV_lib_SarewitzEnvSciPo.pdf">often increases uncertainty</a> as new evidence raises further questions. Clinical trials data <a href="https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13063-015-0917-5">generate their own dilemmas</a> of assessment and interpretation for professionals. </p>
<p>In terms of antibiotic prescribing, <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-you-dont-have-to-finish-all-your-antibiotics-38774">one expert argues</a> that trials are needed but clinical judgement will still be important. So evidence of one sort may be valuable but it must be put in context of other evidence and practical objectives. The same principle applies to most issues that experts investigate, from <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/07/silicon-valley-weapon-choice-women-google-manifesto-gender-difference-eugenics">sex differences</a> to the <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/brexit-opinions-remain-brexiteer-bull-bs-leave-eu-new-york-times-jenni-russell-daniel-hannan-a7880401.html">economic impact of Brexit</a>.</p>
<h2>Coping with uncertainty</h2>
<p>In the case of antibiotic courses, it is unreasonable to expect that new evidence will automatically resolve current uncertainties. Science cannot meet such undue expectations. But this is only a problem in a culture where people expect prescriptions to be based on unshakeable evidence, and where experts cultivate that impression. On other issues such as climate change, where science is invoked to justify particular interventions to the public, we see the same pattern. </p>
<p>Tensions around the public role of science arise partly from the <a href="https://sites.hks.harvard.edu/sdn/articles/files/Beck.%20The%20challenges%20of%20building.pdf">belief</a> that the cultural credibility of expertise rests on communicating in terms of consensus. Whenever new knowledge seems to challenge current consensus, credibility becomes strained. We have recently highlighted how <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17524032.2017.1333965?scroll=top&needAccess=true">this diverts attention</a> from more urgent practical challenges.</p>
<p>But if conflicting or inconclusive evidence from new science is taken to be the norm rather than the exception, uncertainty wouldn’t be a problem to fear or eliminate. Similar points have been made in relation to <a href="http://www.academia.edu/26618241/From_reducing_to_coping_with_uncertainty_reconceptualizing_the_central_challenge_in_breast_self-exams">health communication</a>, where evidence provided by new technologies of screening and testing <a href="https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1ec5/7f22a02977ce345eb9c08bbd06e9ab20b66a.pdf?_ga=2.169986084.506992403.1501791683-575557984.1501791683">is often ambiguous</a>.</p>
<p>Promising consensus as derived from scientific evidence is a perilous principle on which to found meaningful engagement between experts and the public. We are better off trying to facilitate improved ways of appraising and coping with entirely normal uncertainties and reasons for disagreement.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82609/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sujatha Raman receives funding from the Leverhulme Trust to support the Research Programme, 'Making Science Public: Challenges and Opportunities'. She currently receives funding from the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) to support cultural research on antimicrobial resistance in the farm environment. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Warren Pearce receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council.</span></em></p>Promising scientific consensus is a perilous principle on which to found meaningful engagement between experts and the public.Sujatha Raman, Associate Professor in Science and Technology Studies, University of NottinghamWarren Pearce, Faculty Fellow (iHuman), University of SheffieldLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/802632017-08-02T08:39:33Z2017-08-02T08:39:33ZIf a brain can be caught lying, should we admit that evidence to court? Here’s what legal experts think<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180175/original/file-20170728-23788-guf82w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Functional magnetic resonance imaging could reveal whether someone knows something they're not telling.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fneur.2013.00016/full">John Graner et al/Frontiers in Neurology</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A man is charged with stealing a very distinctive blue diamond. The man claims never to have seen the diamond before. An expert is called to testify whether the brain responses exhibited by this man indicate he has seen the diamond before. The question is – should this information be used in court?</p>
<p>Courts are reluctant to admit evidence where there is considerable debate over the interpretation of scientific findings. But a <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jlb/article/3796509/The-limited-effect-of-electroencephalography?searchresult=1">recent study from researchers in the US</a> has noted that the accuracy of such “mind reading” technology is improving. </p>
<p>There are various methods of detecting false statements or concealed knowledge, which vary greatly. For example, traditional “lie detection” relies on measuring physiological reactions such as heart rate, blood pressure, pupil dilation and skin sweat response to direct questions, such as “did you kill your wife?” Alternatively, a <a href="http://theconversation.com/brain-scanners-allow-scientists-to-read-minds-could-they-now-enable-a-big-brother-future-72435">functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)</a> approach uses brain scans to identify a brain signature for lying. </p>
<p>However, the technology considered by the US researchers, known as “brain fingerprinting”, “guilty knowledge tests” or “concealed information tests”, differs from standard lie detection because it claims to reveal the fingerprint of knowledge stored in the brain. For example, in the case of the hypothetical blue diamond, knowledge of what type of diamond was stolen, where it was stolen, and what type of tools were used to effect the theft.</p>
<p>This technique gathers electrical signals within the brain through the scalp by electroencephalography (EEG), signals which indicate brain responses. Known as the <a href="https://www.rroij.com/open-access/the-p300-wave-of-eventrelatedpotential.php?aid=34978">P300 signal</a>, those responses to questions or visual stimuli are assessed for signs that the individual recognises certain pieces of information. The process includes some questions that are neutral in content and used as controls, while others probe for knowledge of facts related to the offence. </p>
<p>The P300 response typically occurs some 300 to 800 milliseconds after the stimulus, and it is said that those tested will react to the stimulus before they are able to conceal their response. If the probes sufficiently narrow the focus to knowledge that only the perpetrator of the crime could possess, then the test is said to be “accurate” in revealing this concealed knowledge. Proponents of the use of this technology argue that this gives much stronger evidence than is possible to get through human assessment.</p>
<p>Assuming this technology might be capable of showing that someone has hidden knowledge of events relevant to a crime, should we be concerned about its use?</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176612/original/file-20170703-4580-1c1nqcr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176612/original/file-20170703-4580-1c1nqcr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176612/original/file-20170703-4580-1c1nqcr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176612/original/file-20170703-4580-1c1nqcr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176612/original/file-20170703-4580-1c1nqcr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=627&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176612/original/file-20170703-4580-1c1nqcr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=627&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176612/original/file-20170703-4580-1c1nqcr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=627&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">How private are our memories?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/cute-girl-colorful-glowing-photo-memories-246693712?src=wiIuEZYLCMwWJVX1yAjxjQ-1-18">ESB Professional/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Potential for prejudice</h2>
<p>Evidence of this sort has not yet been accepted by the English courts, and possibly never will be. But similar evidence has been admitted in other jurisdictions, including India. </p>
<p>In the Indian case of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/world/asia/15brainscan.html">Aditi Sharma</a> the court heard evidence that her brain responses implicated her in her former fiancé’s murder. After investigators read statements related and unrelated to the offence, they claimed her responses indicated experiential knowledge of planning to poison him with arsenic, and of buying arsenic with which to carry out the murder. The case generated much discussion, and while she was initially convicted, this was later overturned. </p>
<p>However, the Indian Supreme Court has <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/migration_catalog/article16297234.ece/BINARY/Supreme%20Court%20judgement%20on%20narco-analysis%20test%20(833%20Kb)">not ruled out the possibility of such evidence being used</a> if the person being tested freely consents. We should not forget that people may knowingly conceal knowledge of facts relevant to a crime for all sorts of reasons, such as protecting other people or hiding illicit relationships. These reasons for hiding knowledge may have nothing to do with the crime. You could have knowledge relevant to a crime but be totally innocent of that crime. The test is for knowledge, not for guilt.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176644/original/file-20170703-17450-u7v7lb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176644/original/file-20170703-17450-u7v7lb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176644/original/file-20170703-17450-u7v7lb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=705&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176644/original/file-20170703-17450-u7v7lb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=705&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176644/original/file-20170703-17450-u7v7lb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=705&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176644/original/file-20170703-17450-u7v7lb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=886&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176644/original/file-20170703-17450-u7v7lb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=886&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176644/original/file-20170703-17450-u7v7lb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=886&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">How much weight is placed on neuroscientific evidence in the courtroom?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/balance-weight-head-silhouette-graphic-design-330801134">Studio_G/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Context is key</h2>
<p>The US researchers looked at whether brain-based evidence might unduly influence juries and prejudice the fair outcome of trials. They found concerns that <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2778755/">neuroscientific evidence may adversely influence trials</a> could be overstated. In their experiment, mock jurors were influenced by the existence of brain based evidence, whether it indicated guilty knowledge or the absence of it. But the strength of other evidence such as motive or opportunity weighed more heavily in the hypothetical jurors’ minds.</p>
<p>This is not surprising, as our <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jlb/article/2/3/510/1917949/The-use-of-neuroscientific-evidence-in-the?searchresult=1">case-based research</a> demonstrates the importance of the context in which neuroscientific evidence is introduced in court. It could help support a case, but the success is dependent on the strength of all the evidence combined. In no case was the use of neuroscientific evidence alone determinative of the outcome, though in several it was highly significant.</p>
<p>Memory detection technologies are improving, but even if they are “accurate” (however we choose to define that term) it does not automatically mean they will or should be allowed in court. Society, legislators and the courts are going to have to decide whether our memories should be allowed to remain private or whether the needs of justice trump privacy considerations. Our innermost thoughts have always been viewed as private; are we ready to surrender them to law enforcement agencies?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/80263/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Using mind reading technologies in court could become common practice.Lisa Claydon, Senior Lecturer in Law, The Open UniversityPaul Catley, Head of Law School, The Open UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/774202017-05-18T14:11:49Z2017-05-18T14:11:49ZAcademics can’t change the world when they’re distrusted and discredited<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168732/original/file-20170510-28071-1hvts20.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Academics find themselves in a world filled with people who aren't interested in facts.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>There have been persistent <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2015/sep/23/academics-leave-your-ivory-towers-and-pitch-your-work-to-the-media">calls</a> for academics and scientists to venture forth from academia’s ivory towers to engage with a wider audience on the critical issues facing society. It’s a reasonable argument. Academics stepping out of their traditional roles to disseminate scientific knowledge can offer great value to <a href="http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20160530142606345">public policy debates</a>.</p>
<p>By occupying public forums and social media platforms as public intellectuals and thought leaders, academics can contribute significantly to making the world a better place.</p>
<p>But not all academics want to be public intellectuals and those who do, don’t always have the necessary <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Public-Professor-Research-Change-World/dp/1479861391">skills</a>. That can be dealt with through training, encouragement or incentives. But the real challenge for academics in the public sphere is that we’re living in a <a href="http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/02/pursuing-veritas-in-a-post-truth-era/">post-truth world</a>. This describes a world where objective facts – scientific evidence – doesn’t influence public opinion. Instead, appeals to emotion and personal beliefs set the agenda.</p>
<p>Populist movements are on the rise. Their supporters distrust the establishment, elites, authority and official sources – including highly qualified academics. The post-truth world is a post-expert world.</p>
<p>If, as <a href="http://www.businesshardtalk.com/single-post/2016/07/07/Why-We-Don%E2%80%99t-Trust-Experts">research</a> suggests, people trust their Twitter and Facebook friends more than institutions such as the mainstream media, then experts may have no option but to immerse themselves in popular culture. They will have to engage on social media platforms, building new alliances and finding ways to build trust. </p>
<h2>Post-truth politics</h2>
<p>Post-truth politics and the mistrust of experts are not new. Some post-colonial African leaders have been <a href="http://democracyworks.org.za/african-leaders-are-masters-at-post-truth-politics/">described</a> as post-truth strategists, “manipulating the truth, distorting facts and fashioning alternative realities to cover-up their failures, to enrich themselves and stay in power”. </p>
<p>And politicians the world over have always been adept at manipulating popular opinion and discrediting scientific evidence that contradicts their ideological agendas or thwarts their political aspirations.</p>
<p>During his time in office former South African president Thabo Mbeki’s administration snubbed scientific evidence about the treatment of HIV/Aids. This had <a href="https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/researchers-estimate-lives-lost-delay-arv-drug-use-hivaids-south-africa/">devastating consequences</a>.</p>
<p>The country’s current president, Jacob Zuma, has also dabbled in post-truth. Zuma has referred to urban black intellectuals as “<a href="http://www.news24.com/Archives/City-Press/Zuma-scolds-clever-blacks-20150429">clever blacks</a>” on many occasions. When questioned in 2014 about corruption and the use of state expenditure for his private <a href="http://www.enca.com/elections-2014-south-africa/zuma-nkandla-not-issue-ordinary-voters">residence</a> he said that only “very clever and bright people” were concerned with the issue.</p>
<p>He has effectively driven a schism between rural black voters, where most of his support base lies, and the so–called “clever” urban black elite, many of whom are now calling for his <a href="http://www.news24.com/elections/news/the-clever-blacks-have-spoken-phosa-20160805">resignation</a>.</p>
<p>So how can academics adapt to a world in which populism trumps truth, perhaps more than ever before? </p>
<h2>Social media drives post-truth</h2>
<p>Some have <a href="https://theconversation.com/defending-science-how-the-art-of-rhetoric-can-help-68210">argued</a> that experts need to be schooled in the art of persuasive rhetoric. This will allow them to counteract junk science and anti-intellectualism. But there’s really no amount of training in persuasive communication that can prepare academics and scientists for engaging with dissenters on sites like Facebook or Twitter.</p>
<p>And it’s very <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21706498-dishonesty-politics-nothing-new-manner-which-some-politicians-now-lie-and">evident</a> that the internet, especially social media, is the main driver of the post–truth era.</p>
<p>There’s an overwhelming amount of contradictory information on the internet. Many people find it easier to retreat into their social media echo chambers that bolster their pre-existing beliefs and value systems than to engage with new ideas. </p>
<p>Professor Mary Beard, the Cambridge University classicist, is a case in point. She took part in a BBC1 panel programme in 2013 and cited a report that claimed immigration had brought some benefits to the UK. Her statements, based on evidence-based research, unleashed a torrent of sexual taunts and horrific verbal abuse. This illustrates how evidence can clash with individuals’ beliefs and create a severe “<a href="https://daily.jstor.org/the-backfire-effect/">backfire effect</a>” that is further amplified in the post-truth digital space.</p>
<p>Dr Stella Nyanzi in Uganda illustrates the severe backlash that academics face when they take on powerful forces. Nyanzi has run afoul of Uganda’s President and First Lady with a series of radical and explicit posts on Facebook. These led to <a href="https://dailynewslagos.wordpress.com/2017/04/12/ugandan-human-rights-activist-stella-nyazi-jailed-for-calling-the-president-a-pair-of-buttocks/">her arrest</a> on charges of cyber harassment under Uganda’s Computer Misuse Act 2011. After four weeks in prison she was finally released on bail. Amnesty International has <a href="https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/05/uganda-stella-nyanzi-free-but-ludicrous-charges-must-be-dropped/">called</a> for all charges against her to be dropped. </p>
<p>The internet is a democratic space in that it can be accessed by almost anyone. The problem is that for every qualified academic and expert you find online, sharing information based on peer-reviewed, highly scrutinised research, there’s a snake oil salesman, pseudo-scientist, hate-mongerer and conspiracist who wants to <a href="http://theconversation.com/how-social-media-and-human-nature-have-spawned-hoaxes-and-hate-mongering-70929">spread false</a>, misleading, anti-science information to the masses. And, as Nyanzi’s case illustrates, powerful politicians might prefer those who don’t bring evidence to the table.</p>
<p>How, then, do academics and scientists fight distrust and denigration whilst bringing cutting edge, evidence based research to public policy debates? </p>
<h2>Adapt or die?</h2>
<p>Rapid advancements in digital technology and communications dictate that the “genie is out of the bottle”. So withdrawing when your research and evidence is attacked online may not really be an option. Just like Nyanzi, Beard chose to escalate her intellectual interaction on Twitter – as <a href="https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/weird-and-wonderful-world-academic-twitter">many academics</a> are doing. She pushed back at her detractors and has been described as a <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/01/troll-slayer">“troll slayer”</a>.</p>
<p>It’s evident that even academics who’ve been wary of public engagement may not have the luxury of remaining invisible any more. They will have to rethink their traditional roles, functions and develop new ways of being. This may come more naturally as younger researchers – millennials – move into the academy. This generation tends to be more at ease with the cut and thrust of social media than the current crop of “baby boomers”.</p>
<p>There are however, clearly complex challenges – and even dangers – for the academic as a public intellectual in the post-truth information age.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77420/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lyn Snodgrass does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Populist movements are on the rise. Their supporters distrust the establishment, elites, authority and official sources. The post-truth world is a post-expert world.Lyn Snodgrass, Associate Professor and Head of Department of Political and Conflict Studies, Nelson Mandela UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/730402017-03-08T03:08:21Z2017-03-08T03:08:21ZScientific theories aren’t mere conjecture – to survive they must work<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159794/original/image-20170307-14951-ks286.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">There wouldn't be statues acclaiming Darwin and his theory if it couldn't stand up to decades of testing.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/cgpgrey/4896956109">CGP Grey</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>“The <a href="https://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm">evidence is incontrovertible</a>. Global warming is occurring.” “<a href="https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/policy/publicpolicies/sustainability/globalclimatechange.html">Climate change is real</a>, is serious and has been influenced by anthropogenic activity.” “The <a href="https://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-reaffirms-statements-climate-change-and-integrity">scientific evidence is clear</a>: Global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and is a growing threat to society.” </p>
<p>As these scientific societies’ position statements reflect, there is a <a href="http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/">clear scientific consensus</a> on the reality of climate change. But although <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/190010/concern-global-warming-eight-year-high.aspx?g_source=CATEGORY_CLIMATE_CHANGE&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles">public acceptance of climate theory is improving</a>, many of our elected leaders <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/most-americans-disagree-with-their-congressional-representative-on-climate-change-95dc0eee7b8f#.c83f2lvw6">still express skepticism</a> about the science. The theory of evolution also shows a mismatch: Whereas there is virtually <a href="https://nihrecord.nih.gov/newsletters/2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm">universal agreement among scientists</a> about the validity of the theory, <a href="http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/views-about-human-evolution/">only 33 percent of the public</a> accepts it in full. For both climate change and evolution, skeptics sometimes sow doubt by saying that it is just a “theory.”</p>
<p>How does a scientific theory gain widespread acceptance in the scientific community? Why should the public and elected officials be expected to accept something that is “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/09/science/in-science-its-never-just-a-theory.html">only a theory</a>”? And how can we know if the science behind a particular theory is “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/full-text-of-obamas-2014-state-of-the-union-address/2014/01/28/e0c93358-887f-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html">settled</a>,” anyway? </p>
<h2>Does the theory deliver?</h2>
<p>In science, there are successful theories and unsuccessful theories. The word “theory” has nothing to do with the validity of a scientific principle or lack thereof. In contrast to general parlance where a theory “<a href="http://www.dictionary.com/browse/theory?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic">is a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural</a>,” a scientific theory is only conjectural until it is tested experimentally. </p>
<p>The issue is not whether a scientific theory is settled, but rather whether it works. Any successful scientific theory must be predictive and falsifiable; that is, it must successfully predict outcomes of controlled experiments or observations, and it must survive tests that could disprove the theory.</p>
<p>A scientist advocating a particular theory must propose an experiment and use her theory to predict the results of that experiment. If the experimental results are inconsistent with her predictions, then she must admit that her theory is wrong. To gain acceptance for a theory, a scientist must be willing to subject it to a falsifiable test.</p>
<p>If an experiment produces results that are consistent with a scientist’s predictions, then that’s good news for her theory. Just one successful test, though, is not usually enough. And the more controversial a theory is, the more experimental verification is required. As Carl Sagan said, “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPjA_9htc-8">Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence</a>.”</p>
<p>Wide acceptance comes from repeated, different experiments by different research groups. There is no threshold or tipping point at which a theory becomes “settled.” And there is never 100 percent certainty. However, near-unanimous acceptance by the scientific community simply doesn’t occur unless the evidence is overwhelming.</p>
<h2>Scientific theories are repeatedly put to the test</h2>
<p>As an example, in 1905, Albert Einstein published <a href="http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/154">two</a> <a href="http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/186">papers</a> on what we now call the Special Theory of Relativity. In these papers, he made a series of arguments that dramatically altered our notions of how the universe works. He argued that different observers measure the passage of time differently; they also measure different lengths for moving objects. He also showed that matter and energy are different forms of the same thing and theoretically can be converted into each other.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HOeGVrm8ZFE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">A computer simulation shows the collision of two black holes. It was created by solving equations from Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity using data collected more than 100 years later.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But Einstein didn’t just make these statements. His theory made detailed, quantitative and falsifiable predictions that could be tested experimentally. Einstein was prepared to drop the entire theory if even one experiment convincingly contradicted his predictions. It took a long time for many of these predictions to be tested. In fact, the <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/the-black-hole-collision-that-reshaped-physics-1.19612">first direct measurements of gravity waves</a> – <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-happens-when-ligo-texts-you-to-say-its-detected-one-of-einsteins-predicted-gravitational-waves-53259">one of Einstein’s predictions</a> – came just last year. </p>
<p>Every single confirmed experimental test of relativity has agreed (<a href="http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/02/faster-than-light-neutrino-measurement-has-two-possible-errors.html">eventually</a>) with Einstein’s predictions. And relativistic theory has also been used as the basis for several technological advances, including <a href="http://physicscentral.com/explore/writers/will.cfm">GPS satellites</a>, <a href="https://nuclear-energy.net/what-is-nuclear-energy/history">nuclear power</a> and (unfortunately) <a href="http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/atombombe">nuclear bombs</a>. There is absolutely no doubt among anyone in the physics community about the validity of the Theory of Relativity. </p>
<p>For an example of an unsuccessful theory, consider the announcement in March 1989 of a <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-0728(89)80006-3">mechanism for nuclear fusion in a table-top configuration</a>. This discovery of “cold fusion” was met with tremendous excitement since cost-effective nuclear fusion could hold the key to society’s future power needs. But <a href="http://undsci.berkeley.edu/lessons/pdfs/cold_fusion.pdf">follow-up experiments</a> by other scientific groups had results that disagreed with the cold fusion theory. Despite the initial excitement, there was near-unanimous consensus in the scientific community by the end of 1989 that the <a href="http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/050399sci-cold-fusion.html">cold fusion theory was incorrect</a>. When the evidence isn’t there, the theory won’t hold up.</p>
<p>Like relativity, the <a href="http://humanorigins.si.edu/">Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection</a> has been tested extensively. The <a href="http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence">body of experimental data</a> that supports evolution is overwhelming. Of course, the fossil record supporting evolution is impressive and complete. But evolution has also been <a href="http://www.nature.com/subjects/bacterial-evolution">tested in real time with populations of organisms</a> that can mutate and <a href="http://www.mothscount.org/text/63/peppered_moth_and_natural_selection.html">evolve over measurable time scales</a>.</p>
<p>Evolution has been subjected to many falsifiable tests and has emerged unscathed in every one. Yes, evolution is a “theory” – it is a theory that works and works very well, an overwhelmingly successful and correct theory.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/158183/original/image-20170223-32726-1plrc0r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/158183/original/image-20170223-32726-1plrc0r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/158183/original/image-20170223-32726-1plrc0r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=305&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158183/original/image-20170223-32726-1plrc0r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=305&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158183/original/image-20170223-32726-1plrc0r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=305&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158183/original/image-20170223-32726-1plrc0r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=383&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158183/original/image-20170223-32726-1plrc0r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=383&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158183/original/image-20170223-32726-1plrc0r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=383&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Change in global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures. Although they fluctuate from year to year, average global temperatures have been rising for decades.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/">NASA/GISS</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Scientific agreement, political controversy</h2>
<p>Theories of climate change are also supported by an extensive body of evidence. Of course there’s the <a href="https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/">continuing upward drift of global average temperatures</a> over the past few decades. But climate change models are also supported by numerous laboratory experiments that have provided compelling verification of the <a href="http://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm">mechanisms</a> by which <a href="http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/grnhse.html">carbon dioxide gas traps heat</a> in our planet’s atmosphere.</p>
<p>And, crucially, theories of global warming have passed falsifiability tests. Quantitative <a href="http://doi.org/10.1038/239023a0">predictions of global warming</a> were <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1975)032%3C0003:TEODTC%3E2.0.CO;2">first made</a> in the 1970s. Had there not been a clear increase in average global temperatures since then, climate scientists would have been forced to admit that climate change theory was wrong. In fact, several scientists in the 1960s who had predicted global cooling later had to admit that <a href="http://doi.org/10.1126/science.190.4216.741">their theory was incorrect</a>. Even a <a href="https://theconversation.com/improved-data-set-shows-no-global-warming-hiatus-42807">supposed pause in the increases</a> in the 2000s (which were exaggerated by a spike in the average global temperature in 1998) has been followed by a strong upward trend during the past three years. </p>
<p>Tellingly, skeptics of both evolution and climate change theory have been unwilling or unable to subject their arguments to the same rigorous testing undergone by the very theories they’re criticizing. To make a scientific argument, critics must propose an experiment or measurement that can distinguish their alternative theory from evolutionary and climate change theories, and they must make a specific prediction for its outcome. And, like the scientists they’re criticizing, they must be willing to admit they are wrong if the results disagree with their prediction. Absent any falsifiable tests, why should the public or our elected officials believe their counterarguments?</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159799/original/image-20170307-14973-tnqs5e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159799/original/image-20170307-14973-tnqs5e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159799/original/image-20170307-14973-tnqs5e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159799/original/image-20170307-14973-tnqs5e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159799/original/image-20170307-14973-tnqs5e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159799/original/image-20170307-14973-tnqs5e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159799/original/image-20170307-14973-tnqs5e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159799/original/image-20170307-14973-tnqs5e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Scientists continue to test hypotheses to see if a theory can withstand anything they throw at it.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://mediaassets.caltech.edu/gwave">Matt Heintze/Caltech/MIT/LIGO Lab</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>These issues are important from more than just a purely scientific perspective. An understanding of evolution is critical for developing any valid strategy for combating the spread of diseases, especially since microbes responsible for diseases can mutate so rapidly. And an understanding and acceptance of climate change theory is critical if we are to take the necessary steps to avoid potential catastrophe from a continuation of the global warming trend. </p>
<p>Scientific theories aren’t mere conjecture. They are subject to exhaustive, falsifiable tests. Some theories fail these tests and are jettisoned. But many theories are successful in the face of these tests. It is these theories – the ones that work – that achieve consensus in the scientific community.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/73040/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tom Solomon receives funding from the National Science Foundation.. </span></em></p>In science, the word ‘theory’ has a very specific meaning that’s easy for nonscientists to misunderstand or misconstrue. Here’s what a theory must withstand to be accepted by the scientific community.Tom Solomon, Professor of Physics and Astronomy, Bucknell UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.