tag:theconversation.com,2011:/fr/topics/experts-6418/articlesExperts – The Conversation2023-06-28T15:26:10Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2061342023-06-28T15:26:10Z2023-06-28T15:26:10ZWhy so many people have had enough of experts – and how to win back trust<p>When senior British politician Michael Gove announced in 2016 that the public had <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/3be49734-29cb-11e6-83e4-abc22d5d108c">“had enough of experts”</a> in the lead up to the Brexit vote, it highlighted a growing trend for questioning the authority and power of experts. </p>
<p>Only last month, the home secretary, Suella Braverman, took to the stage at the National Conservatism conference to rail against <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/15/suella-braverman-rails-against-experts-and-elites-in-partisan-speech">“experts and elites”</a>. Such comments form part of <a href="https://www.wiley.com/en-gb/The+Crisis+of+Expertise-p-9780745665771">a broader pattern</a> where experts and their authority have faced significant challenges and threats from various economic, political, social and cultural sources. </p>
<p>An expert is conceptualised as someone with knowledge accrued in an accredited fashion, who then operates with a high degree of independence as a result of that knowledge and skill. Their power and influence has traditionally played an important role in society – but this authority is increasingly being questioned from many sides. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GGgiGtJk7MA?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>At the beginning of the pandemic, there was potential for a restoration of trust in expert authority. <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-statement-on-coronavirus-16-march-2020">Politicians</a> and <a href="https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---11-march-2020">international bodies</a> talked about the importance of using expertise as the most viable path to navigate the COVID crisis. The public also <a href="https://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/UKRI-271020-COVID-19-Trust-Tracker.pdf">sought more communication</a> from scientific experts. </p>
<p>Even leaders such as <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/01/donald-trump-rejects-expertise/579808/">Donald Trump</a> and <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/24/brexit-latest-news-supreme-court-ruling-boris-johnson-prorogue/">Boris Johnson</a>, who had previously questioned the credibility of experts, appeared alongside medical professionals during press conferences to reassure the public.</p>
<p>But as the pandemic progressed, the authority of experts declined – with a few noteworthy exceptions such as <a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/06/26/coronavirus-pandemic-global-response-devi-sridhar-review/">New Zealand, South Korea and Senegal</a>, which maintained their reliance on expertise to guide their decision-making processes. </p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110734911">My new book</a>, co-authored with <a href="https://profiles.cardiff.ac.uk/staff/reedm">Michael Reed</a>, identifies three broad explanations for this decline which we call delegitimation, demystification and decomposition.</p>
<h2>Delegitimation</h2>
<p>One way the authority of experts diminishes is when societal institutions and structures that have traditionally supported them – such as governments, media and business – themselves face criticism, in particular from populist political movements.</p>
<p>Technology-driven advancements such as social media have accelerated this trend. Social media democratises communication and provides global platforms for those who want to question established societal structures and institutions. </p>
<p>This in turn can lead to these organisations turning on their expert advisors, in addition to populist groups using alternative platforms to directly express their scepticism of experts.</p>
<p>There were examples of this trend during the pandemic. Figures such as <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/06/politics/fauci-coronavirus-us-response/index.html">Trump</a> and then Brazilian president <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/23/brazils-jair-bolsonaro-says-coronavirus-crisis-is-a-media-trick">Jair Bolsonaro</a> openly challenged and dismissed experts. Trump’s position changed as COVID was not quickly “solved”.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A man with orange face and hair stands behind a podium with a microphone raising his index finger with a doubtful expression." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/533198/original/file-20230621-18-c1l04e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/533198/original/file-20230621-18-c1l04e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/533198/original/file-20230621-18-c1l04e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/533198/original/file-20230621-18-c1l04e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/533198/original/file-20230621-18-c1l04e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/533198/original/file-20230621-18-c1l04e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/533198/original/file-20230621-18-c1l04e.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">Donald Trump initially stood alongside scientific experts during the pandemic before using Twitter to dismiss them.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/wilkesbarre-pa-august-2-2018-president-1148319797">Wilkes-Barre/PA/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The spread of online disinformation and misinformation amplified the decline of expert authority. This led to the emergence of “<a href="https://theconversation.com/britains-descent-into-culture-wars-has-been-rapid-but-it-neednt-be-terminal-182885">culture wars</a>” centred around virus control, including mask wearing.</p>
<h2>2. Demystification</h2>
<p>When people learn more about experts, in terms of who they are, what they do and who they serve, their power can again diminish. Individual experts are increasingly being watched and criticised as they become more closely associated with institutions such as government, corporations and banks. As a result, the lines are increasingly blurred between independent experts and organisational agendas.</p>
<p>The UK government used the country’s leading medical experts such as <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/people/christopher-whitty">Chris Whitty</a> and <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/people/patrick-vallance">Patrick Vallance</a> to support its political rhetoric during the pandemic. They stood beside the prime minister at press conferences, but were often scapegoated for government decisions that were more <a href="https://harpercollins.co.uk/products/failures-of-state-the-inside-story-of-britains-battle-with-coronavirus-jonathan-calvertgeorge-arbuthnott?variant=39528280391758">politically motivated</a> than based on medical expertise. </p>
<p>Giving evidence at the COVID inquiry, Whitty <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-65989350">warned</a> that threats to independent experts could undermine responses to disasters in the future:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We should be very firm in saying that society very much appreciates the work of these people [experts and scientists], who put in considerable amounts of time … We, society, need to ensure scientists know their service is valued.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>3. Decomposition</h2>
<p>Finally, the authority of experts is also declining because there are now <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jpo/article-abstract/5/3/248/5151287">more occupations claiming expert status</a>, including management occupations such as human resource management, marketing and project management. While this can democratise expertise, it can also challenge the primacy of the traditional accredited sectors such as law, medicine and accountancy.</p>
<p>The pandemic has highlighted the fragmentation of expert occupations. Many different groups were involved in tackling the crisis, with multiple ideas being debated in public. This led to people questioning expert authority, as they saw different experts giving contrasting advice on issues such as mask use, herd immunity and vaccine efficacy.</p>
<h2>Rethinking how experts interact</h2>
<p>So, how can experts maintain their authority and power in a world where people are increasingly sceptical of them? We argue the authority and power of expertise can be maintained by rethinking how experts interact with governments and the public.</p>
<p>Traditionally, experts have had autonomy to control their work, but this has led to a lack of trust. In future, experts will need to be more transparent and accountable to the public. </p>
<p>Instead of the traditional, top-down view of expert authority, we can imagine a more reflexive, dynamic and contested form of expert power that is open to other standards. This would broaden decision-making processes to wider audiences, and involve a continual public dialogue between experts and non-experts. </p>
<p>At the same time, experts will need to work more closely with governments and other bodies to ensure their expertise is taken into account.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/politicians-love-to-appeal-to-common-sense-but-does-it-trump-expertise-206453">Politicians love to appeal to common sense – but does it trump expertise?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>None of this will be easy. It requires experts to engage with a broader range of people, some of whom they may have had little previous concern with. It may involve persuading others of their expertise, rather than assuming it as a given. And the power dynamics between experts and other people may alter, meaning there is greater potential for experts to be co-opted to other agendas.</p>
<p>Ultimately, whether we have really “had enough of experts” is questionable. But how these experts secure their power, and convince others of their authority, requires a rethink.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/206134/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Cara Reed has previously received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council. She is a member of the Labour Party.</span></em></p>Our research highlights three key reasons for declining trust in experts, and how to regain their authority in future.Cara Reed, Senior Lecturer in Organisation Studies at Cardiff Business School, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1958082022-12-15T15:56:25Z2022-12-15T15:56:25ZWhat do politicians really think of economists? Our new research explains why relations fell apart after 2008<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/501110/original/file-20221214-13666-u73s9p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=22%2C0%2C3721%2C2453&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/close-conference-meeting-microphones-businessman-82082848">ESB Professional / Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>As countries across Europe and around the world grapple with high living costs and impending recession, voters are <a href="https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voting-intention-13-november-2022/">concerned about the economy</a> and how their elected representatives will fix it. </p>
<p>For many, it’s tempting to call on politicians to cede some of their power to economic experts. Politicians might be more able to make difficult or unpopular (but necessary) decisions if they could argue they were following expert advice, as they did <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/1efbd3ac-8af3-11ea-a01c-a28a3e3fbd33">during the pandemic</a>.</p>
<p>But our new research reveals what politicians, when asked in private, really think about economists. Our team at UCL conducted <a href="https://www.agendapub.com/book/detail/politicians-and-economic-experts-by-anna-killick/?k=9781788215640">nearly 100 in-depth interviews</a> with economic ministers, opposition spokespeople and economic committee members. They were from five countries – France, Germany, Denmark, the UK and US – and across the party spectrum from the right-wing Alternative fur Deutschland to the French Communist party.</p>
<p>Across the board, politicians reported declining respect for economists since the 2008 financial crisis. And they were concerned that any increased reliance on such experts would alienate voters. </p>
<p>Very few politicians saw economists as experts in the way public health or other “hard scientists” are experts. They usually supported one specific group of economists rather than the discipline as a whole. Centre-left politicians tended to say the only economists they respect are “Keynesian”. They argued that John Maynard Keynes’s approach “allows us politicians to intervene” to promote greater socioeconomic equality. </p>
<p>Far-left politicians proclaimed the value only of non-mainstream economists, such as environmentalist <a href="https://www.kateraworth.com/doughnut">Kate Raworth</a>, who argues the planet’s resources are finite and growth not always desirable.</p>
<p>Centre-right politicians mentioned <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/F-A-Hayek">Friedrich Hayek</a> most often, best-known for defending free-market capitalism. They also described having respect for other “free market economists”. </p>
<h2>Losing usefulness</h2>
<p>Even politicians who had the utmost respect for mainstream economists most of their working lives found them less “useful” since the 2008 financial crisis. One British centrist politician told us that until 2008, “the economy worked almost like clockwork”. After the crash, people’s trust in the standard economic model was shattered, not just by the crisis itself, but by economists’ failure to predict it.</p>
<p>Those in office during the crisis consulted economists who were often divided. After they left the room, the politicians felt they were alone in “shouldering responsibility”. Very often they felt their greater knowledge of their constituents’ everyday circumstances meant they had a surer sense than the experts of whether something like a <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8135717.stm">car scrappage scheme</a> would restore confidence. They felt similarly alone as they charted how to get economies out of lockdown or through the supply chain crisis.</p>
<p>As well as viewing economists as less united and therefore less “scientific” than other experts, politicians complained they are often impractical, operating at too abstract a level and relying on mathematical modelling rather than real-world conditions. They may seek out an economist working on a specific policy area they need to explore. But only if the work they have done has been tested in the real world, and the economist is one of the rare breeds that can explain in accessible terms. </p>
<p>We found a greater integration of politicians and economists in Denmark’s consensual political system, where many parties share the same commitment to a Scandinavian welfare model of the economy and coalition is the norm. But in the US (where we might expect high levels of respect for economists, having pioneered the field) politicians had arguably the lowest respect for them. They labelled them by political party – “Republican” or “Democrat” – and said they use them to add value to their arguing points.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Donald Trump, as US president, gestures while speaking at a podium outside the White House" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/500675/original/file-20221213-12689-oswirn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/500675/original/file-20221213-12689-oswirn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500675/original/file-20221213-12689-oswirn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500675/original/file-20221213-12689-oswirn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500675/original/file-20221213-12689-oswirn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500675/original/file-20221213-12689-oswirn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500675/original/file-20221213-12689-oswirn.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">US politicians are concerned that reliance on experts has made voters turn to populism.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/washington-dc-june-12-2019-president-1424043059">Evan El-Amin / Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The politicians we interviewed also worried that turning to economic experts would make voters more distrustful. They thought past attempts to separate economics from the political arena – for instance, giving more power to central banks – confused and estranged voters who then turned to populist politicians offering simplistic solutions. </p>
<p>In the US, Republicans were privately horrified that President Donald Trump had “demagogued” economic issues. They had spent decades carefully crafting consistent and coherent economic messaging on the virtues of free trade and balancing the budgets, only for him to <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/trump-says-he-launched-an-economic-boom-heres-what-we-know">tell voters</a> that protectionism would bring back rust belt production jobs and cutting their taxes could be paid for out of increased borrowing.</p>
<h2>Meeting voters where they are</h2>
<p>As economic issues rise up the agenda for voters, many politicians welcomed the prospect of turning away from more cultural issues like immigration. But they recognised that if they are not prepared to outsource economic policy problems to economists they will have to explain their own policies more effectively to voters. They need to economically educate voters – not in a formal sense, but at least by being more in-depth and open. </p>
<p>Voters find economic issues more technical than social and cultural ones. As one French Socialist put it, they “turn off” because they doubt they will be able to understand. But, he said, politicians have to appeal to voters’ intelligence and urge them to make the effort to understand. His ideal situation would be if voters were informed enough to “qualify” their judgements more, saying things like “well, it could have been worse”. </p>
<p>Politicians have to prepare the ground by starting where voters are. One free trade Republican described using chocolates to illustrate how Trump’s tariffs made aluminium wrappers more expensive. Another said he regularly visited factory workers in their lunch hour for a question and answer session to explain his economic thinking.</p>
<p>Another often overlooked barrier is that politicians often have moral economic goals, whether left-wing visions of social justice or right-wing visions of the value of unleashed markets. But they are inhibited in describing them to voters because they think there is a gulf between them and voters, who they see as narrowly self-interested. Our research urges them nevertheless to be more open about their thinking with voters. If they want to earn trust on economic policy, they will have to be more honest about what they are trying to achieve.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/195808/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The UCL based research Anna Killick conducted for this book was funded by the UKRI Future Leaders Fellowship MR/ S015280/
1 to study “mental models in political economy”.</span></em></p>Since the 2008 financial crisis, politicians from a range of parties and countries have reported losing respect for experts.Anna Killick, Research Fellow, Political Science, UCLLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1875242022-09-02T12:19:58Z2022-09-02T12:19:58ZAmericans think they know a lot about politics – and it’s bad for democracy that they’re so often wrong in their confidence<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/481420/original/file-20220828-54554-ij15fr.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=3%2C9%2C2003%2C1480&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Overconfidence about their political knowledge is common among Americans.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/young-cheeky-male-is-looking-to-the-camera-crossed-royalty-free-image/1187619520?adppopup=true"> FXQuadro/iStock/Getty Images Plus</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>As statewide primaries <a href="https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/2022-state-primary-election-dates-and-filing-deadlines.aspx">continue through the summer</a>, many Americans are beginning to think about which candidates they will support in the 2022 general election. </p>
<p>This decision-making process is <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00389.x">fraught with difficulties</a>, especially for inexperienced voters. </p>
<p>Voters must navigate angry, emotion-laden <a href="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/718979?casa_token=ymdmvuFxNIYAAAAA:z1z3MKSdl3idlKSTX3zDO3d4uv0aoZCJMROMCQuHPK2k2fsYRJYYC1nIiKEjWyZtkJmKxS_pLvgc">conversations about politics</a> when trying to sort out whom to vote for. Americans are more likely than ever to view politics in <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/ajps.12448?casa_token=F2UjJp6yBzEAAAAA:s2iseAJ6C9nBkDGJRGM-62ud9L3khqJbDGV4zV-RUJxgM1TUyGpcKzpVy3W24gd8vuc2GO8Thi-a_tg">moral terms</a>, meaning their political conversations sometimes feel like epic battles between <a href="https://theconversation.com/liz-cheney-trounced-black-sheep-effect-and-gop-partisan-identity-explain-her-decisive-defeat-after-criticizing-trump-188635">good and evil</a>.</p>
<p>But political conversations are also shaped by, obviously, <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0093650219866357?casa_token=6GnhyVTa1fQAAAAA:5hawVbLeJesH5B4pkEjTQG0GzN0aXJtN-JvxPADq4uFSWy6P2m8yd8ZaD9bcgnPwUUpd1eRq5imFxQ">what Americans know</a> – and, less obviously, what they think they know – about politics. </p>
<p><a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=RG_vffMAAAAJ&hl=en">In recent research</a>, I studied how Americans’ perceptions of their own political knowledge shape their political attitudes. My results show that many Americans think they know much more about politics than they really do.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/481422/original/file-20220828-16-vjgmkz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A large sandwich board that says 'Voters enter here' outside a building." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/481422/original/file-20220828-16-vjgmkz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/481422/original/file-20220828-16-vjgmkz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/481422/original/file-20220828-16-vjgmkz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/481422/original/file-20220828-16-vjgmkz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/481422/original/file-20220828-16-vjgmkz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/481422/original/file-20220828-16-vjgmkz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/481422/original/file-20220828-16-vjgmkz.jpeg?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">Voters arrive to cast their primary ballots at a polling place on Aug. 9, 2022, in Oconomowoc, Wisconsin.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/voters-arrive-to-cast-their-ballots-at-a-polling-place-news-photo/1413852982?adppopup=true">Scott Olson/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Knowledge deficit, confidence surplus</h2>
<p>Over the past five years, I have studied the phenomenon of what I call “political overconfidence.” My work, in tandem with other researchers’ studies, reveals the ways it thwarts democratic politics.</p>
<p>Political overconfidence can make people <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/20531680221107869">more defensive</a> of factually wrong beliefs about politics. It also causes Americans to <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/pops.12490">underestimate</a> the political skill of their peers. And those who believe themselves to be political experts often <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/pops.12490">dismiss the guidance</a> of real experts.</p>
<p>Political overconfidence also interacts with <a href="https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20130921">political partisanship</a>, making partisans less willing to listen to peers across the aisle. </p>
<p>The result is a breakdown in the ability to learn from one another about political issues and events.</p>
<h2>A ‘reality check’ experiment</h2>
<p>In my most <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/20531680221107869">recent study</a> on the subject, I tried to find out what would happen when politically overconfident people found out they were mistaken about political facts. </p>
<p>To do this, I recruited a sample of Americans to participate in a survey experiment via the <a href="https://luc.id/log-in/">Lucid</a> recruitment platform. In the experiment, some respondents were shown a series of statements that taught them to avoid common political falsehoods. For instance, one statement explained that while many people believe that Social Security will soon run out of money, the reality is <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/06/many-fear-social-security-will-run-out-of-money-why-that-wont-happen.html">less dire</a> than it seems.</p>
<p>My hypothesis was that most people would learn from the statements, and become more wary of repeating common political falsehoods. However, as I have found in my <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/pops.12490">previous studies</a>, a problem quickly emerged. </p>
<h2>The problem</h2>
<p>First, I asked respondents a series of basic questions about American politics. This quiz included topics like which party controls the House of Representatives – the Democrats – and who the current Secretary of Energy is – Jennifer Granholm. Then, I asked them how well they thought they did on the quiz.</p>
<p>Many respondents who believed they were top performers were actually among those who scored the worst. Much akin to the results of a famous study by <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/dunning-kruger-effect">Dunning and Kruger</a>, the poorest performers did not generally realize that they lagged behind their peers.</p>
<p>Of the 1,209 people who participated, around 70% were overconfident about their knowledge of politics. But this basic pattern was not the most worrying part of the results. </p>
<p>The overconfident respondents failed to change their attitudes in response to my warnings about political falsehoods. My investigation showed that they did read the statements, and could report details about what they said. But their attitudes toward falsehoods remained inflexible, likely because they – wrongly – considered themselves political experts.</p>
<p>But if I could make overconfident respondents more humble, would they actually take my warnings about political falsehoods to heart?</p>
<h2>Poor self-assessment</h2>
<p>My experiment sought to examine what happens when overconfident people are told their political knowledge is lacking. To do this, I randomly assigned respondents to receive one of three experimental treatments after taking the political knowledge quiz. These were as follows:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Respondents received statements teaching them to avoid political falsehoods.</p></li>
<li><p>Respondents did not receive the statements.</p></li>
<li><p>Respondents received both the statements and a “reality check” treatment. The reality check showed how respondents fared on the political quiz they took at the beginning of the survey. Along with their raw score, the report showed how respondents ranked among 1,000 of their peers. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>For example, respondents who thought they had aced the quiz might have learned that they got one out of five questions right, and that they scored worse than 82% of their peers. For many overconfident respondents, this “reality check” treatment brought them down to earth. They reported much less overconfidence on average when I followed up with them.</p>
<p>Finally, I asked all the respondents in the study to report their levels of skepticism toward five statements. These statements are all common political falsehoods. One statement, for example, asserted that violent crime had risen over the prior decade – <a href="https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/nations-two-crime-measures-2011-2020">it hadn’t</a>. Another claimed the U.S. spent 18% of the federal budget on foreign aid – the real number was <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/what-every-american-should-know-about-u-s-foreign-aid/">less than 1%</a>.</p>
<p>I expected most respondents who had received my cautionary statements to become more skeptical of these misinformed statements. On average, they did. But did overconfident respondents learn this lesson too?</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/481423/original/file-20220828-30291-46sqsm.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Two boxes, one labeled myths and the other labeled facts, with the facts box checked." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/481423/original/file-20220828-30291-46sqsm.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/481423/original/file-20220828-30291-46sqsm.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/481423/original/file-20220828-30291-46sqsm.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/481423/original/file-20220828-30291-46sqsm.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/481423/original/file-20220828-30291-46sqsm.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/481423/original/file-20220828-30291-46sqsm.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/481423/original/file-20220828-30291-46sqsm.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Those who believe themselves to be political experts often dismiss the guidance of real experts.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/choose-the-facts-over-the-myths-concept-royalty-free-image/1305853676?adppopup=true">IvelinRadkov/iStock/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Reality check: Mission accomplished</h2>
<p>The results of the study showed that overconfident respondents began to take political falsehoods seriously only if they had experienced my “reality check” treatment first. </p>
<p>While overconfident respondents in other conditions showed no reaction, the humbling nature of the “reality check,” when they realized how wrong they had been, led overconfident participants in that condition to revise their beliefs. They increased their skepticism of political falsehoods by a statistically significant margin.</p>
<p>Overall, this “reality check” experiment was a success. But it reveals that outside of the experiment, political overconfidence stands in the way of many Americans’ ability to accurately perceive political reality.</p>
<h2>The problem of political overconfidence</h2>
<p>What, if anything, can be done about the widespread phenomenon of political overconfidence?</p>
<p>While my research cannot determine whether political overconfidence is increasing over time, it makes intuitive sense that this problem would be growing in importance in an era of <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2053168018816189">online political discourse</a>. In the online realm, it is often difficult to <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17512786.2015.1102607">appraise the credibility</a> of anonymous users. This means that false claims are easily spread by uninformed people who merely sound confident.</p>
<p>To combat this problem, social media companies and opinion leaders could seek ways to promote discourse that emphasizes humility and self-correction. Because confident, mistaken self-expression can easily drown out more credible voices in the online realm, social media apps could consider promoting humility by reminding posters to reconsider the <a href="https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93/html">“stance</a>,” or assertiveness, of their posts.</p>
<p>While this may seem far-fetched, recent developments show that small nudges can lead to powerful shifts in social media users’ online behavior. </p>
<p>For example, <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/25/21455635/twitter-read-before-you-tweet-article-prompt-rolling-out-globally-soon">Twitter’s recent inclusion</a> of a pop-up message that asks would-be posters of news articles to “read before tweeting” caused users to rethink their willingness to share potentially misleading content. </p>
<p>A gentle reminder to avoid posting bold claims without evidence is just one possible way that social media companies could encourage good online behavior. With another election season soon upon us, such a corrective is urgently needed.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/187524/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Anson 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>Many Americans think they know much more about politics than they really do. That overconfidence can thwart democratic politics.Ian Anson, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Maryland, Baltimore CountyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1750602022-02-07T01:25:51Z2022-02-07T01:25:51ZDissatisfied plastic surgery clients show the downsides of online research<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/444451/original/file-20220203-19-1l2ss1y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C321%2C6720%2C3430&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>A woman walks into a plastic surgeon’s office with an image she has found online. She wants her body to look like the same, and thinks she knows how to get it. She tells the consulting surgeon exactly what she wants: round, 350cc implants, with full projection. She believes this will get her to a full D-cup shape. </p>
<p>But after the operation, once the physical pain subsides and the scars heal, she’s dissatisfied with the decidedly unnatural-looking result. It’s nothing like the image she hoped to emulate. Because that body was not hers. </p>
<p>This woman wasn’t stupid. In spending many hours online pondering her options and making decisions she was doing exactly what expert services from plastic surgeons to financial advisers encourage clients to do. </p>
<p>Yet, as our research shows, this trend has also shifted responsibility and risks onto customers. </p>
<p>Charged with “doing their own research”, drawing on anecdotal information online to inform their decision making, consumers can become overconfident about their level of understanding. The result is <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4728899/">an increasing number</a> of bad outcomes.</p>
<h2>How we did our research</h2>
<p>To understand more about the paradox of “informed” customers, we conducted a <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/10946705211047983">qualitative study</a> of women seeking breast augmentation surgery.</p>
<p>Our research involved a deep immersion into plastic surgery forums over two years. This included an analysis of YouTubers who documented their breast augmentation in online videos, and participation in a private Instagram group designed for women seeking breast augmentation surgery. From this Instagram group, we then formally interviewed 20 women aged between 18 and 34 who had breast augmentation surgery. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Many women only see their cosmetic surgeon once before their surgery." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/444466/original/file-20220204-25-i773jv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/444466/original/file-20220204-25-i773jv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/444466/original/file-20220204-25-i773jv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/444466/original/file-20220204-25-i773jv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/444466/original/file-20220204-25-i773jv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/444466/original/file-20220204-25-i773jv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/444466/original/file-20220204-25-i773jv.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">Many women only see their cosmetic surgeon once before their surgery.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-five-most-surprising-cosmetic-surgery-trends-around-the-globe-59408">The five most surprising cosmetic surgery trends around the globe</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Turning to the internet</h2>
<p>The results of our research suggest many women turn to the internet because consulting a plastic surgeon is expensive. An appointment costs, on average, about US$500 (A$700), with the cost of breast augmentation in the US generally ranging from US$4,000 to US$15,000 (A$ 5,600 to $A21,000). </p>
<p>Many women only see their surgeon once, for 30 to 40 minutes, before their surgery. In this consultation everything must be decided – from aesthetic decisions to discussing any medical conditions that may complicate the surgery. </p>
<p>For this reason, customers often spend weeks and months online to prepare and educate themselves before they meet their surgeon. They learn about terminology and techniques, find pictures they like, and talk to others who have gone through the procedure. </p>
<p>They even conduct DIY experiments, such as the “rice-test”, which involves filling two bags with rice and placing them inside their bra as a way of understanding breast implant sizes. </p>
<p>Many women go to these efforts to build some form of expertise for their doctor consultations, to communicate what they want to a professional and get their money’s worth. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/441233/original/file-20220118-13-1mdt3qd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/441233/original/file-20220118-13-1mdt3qd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=382&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441233/original/file-20220118-13-1mdt3qd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=382&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441233/original/file-20220118-13-1mdt3qd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=382&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441233/original/file-20220118-13-1mdt3qd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441233/original/file-20220118-13-1mdt3qd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441233/original/file-20220118-13-1mdt3qd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The ‘rice-test’ involves filling two bags with rice as a way of understanding breast implant sizes.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The limits of individual expertise</h2>
<p>Our study suggests the more women solely relied on lay expertise to dictate how their breast surgery should go, the more likely they were to be disappointed with the outcome. Better results occurred when they carefully selected their doctors and were open to working with them.</p>
<p>Creating aesthetically beautiful breasts must consider myriad factors. But online forums for breast augmentation mostly focus on size and often ignore risks.</p>
<p>Those who reported trying to control the decision making, by asking for very specific products or techniques – as the woman in our introduction did – were more likely to be disappointed by the result. They described feeling their breasts were too small, too large, too perky, too fake-looking or not fake-looking enough.</p>
<p>When asked about why these bad outcomes occurred, they blamed themselves for being bad decision makers. “I should have asked more questions,” one said. “I should have researched more,” said another. “I should have communicated what I wanted better,” said yet another. </p>
<p>But more questions and research were not the solution. What they needed to question was the premise that a medical service provider should simply do what a customer asks.</p>
<h2>Research and ‘responsibilisation’</h2>
<p>This is part of a wider trend, in which access to unfettered information online has emboldened many people to believe they can work things out for themselves. </p>
<p>It is also reflects a trend in expert services that require deep technical knowledge, termed “responsibilisation”, in which customers are encouraged to do their own research and take responsibility for “<a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10946705211012474">coproducing</a>” those services. </p>
<p>While being prepared is superficially good advice, such encouragement also shifts risks to individual customers, who invest a lot of time and effort to become educated through the internet because it is easily accessible and free. But all this “research” does not necessarily lead to better outcomes. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/distrust-of-experts-happens-when-we-forget-they-are-human-beings-76219">Distrust of experts happens when we forget they are human beings</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Our research also highlights the downside problem when people lose faith in medical expertise. </p>
<p>Women in our study reported happier outcomes when they listened to the doctor. </p>
<p>One woman we interviewed related telling her surgeon what she wanted and being told no. “You will never have that shape,” he said, referring to an image she had shown him. The doctor then discussed with her what was possible. She credits her satisfaction with the outcome to this process of working with her surgeon.</p>
<p>Our research offers a cautionary tale of the limits of lay expertise in online forums. The best outcomes occurred when consumers’ preferences were respected within the limits of medical possibilities. </p>
<p>So it pays to listen to experts. There is certainly a space for online research, but not to the extent that it makes us think we always know better.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/175060/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Aphrodite Vlahos received funding from the Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anna E Hartman receives financial support provided by the Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Julie Ozanne 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>Our study found encouraging people to do their own research comes with risks – including shifting too much responsibility onto the individual.Aphrodite Vlahos, Adjunct Lecturer, The University of MelbourneAnna E. Hartman, PhD Candidate (Marketing), The University of MelbourneJulie Ozanne, Professor of marketing, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1723622021-12-01T13:31:41Z2021-12-01T13:31:41ZAaron Rodgers dropped the ball on critical thinking – with a little practice you can do better<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434749/original/file-20211130-27-1si37tj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=997%2C449%2C4994%2C3538&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">However Rodgers came to his decision to remain unvaccinated, he did not follow the tenets of critical thinking.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/aaron-rodgers-of-the-green-bay-packers-looks-on-during-news-photo/1356221041">Patrick McDermott/Getty Images Sport via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It was hard to miss the news about Green Bay Packers’ quarterback Aaron Rodgers testing positive for COVID-19 on Nov. 3. Like the <a href="https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#rates-by-vaccine-status">vast majority of people</a> currently catching – and dying from – the coronavirus, he was unvaccinated.</p>
<p>A few days after his diagnosis, <a href="https://youtu.be/Y3JU_oAEinQ">Rodgers took to the airwaves</a> to offer a smorgasbord of <a href="https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/news/aaron-rodgers-covid-pat-mcafee-show-target-woke-mob/1caksb1mfhcrj1dgikrkvttu90">pandemic misinformation and conspiracy theories</a> in defense of his decision to skip the COVID-19 vaccine. </p>
<p>Having listened to many an interview with Rodgers, I found it totally predictable that he began his comments by asserting, “I’m not, you know, some sort of anti-vax, flat-earther.” </p>
<p>But as someone who does research on how people think and decide, it’s what Rodgers said next that caused me to lean in: “I am somebody who’s a critical thinker.” </p>
<p>Critical thinker? The fact is, research on the link between <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13833">critical thinking ability and behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic</a> suggests that Rodgers is the opposite.</p>
<p>For scientists <a href="https://twitter.com/DecisionLab">like me</a> whose job it is to unravel how people instinctively make choices, and then to help them make better ones, critical thinking isn’t just a slogan used to score points. It’s not some after-the-fact justification someone makes to convince others – or themselves – that their opinions or behaviors are sound.</p>
<p>Instead, critical thinking is a pattern of behaviors that happen before someone makes a judgment, like coming to the conclusion that something is risky. Likewise, critical thinking comes before making a decision, like choosing to avoid something judged to be too risky for comfort.</p>
<p>Here’s what it really takes to be a critical thinker.</p>
<h2>Three ingredients for critical thinking</h2>
<p>Critical thinking as a precursor to sound judgments and decisions involves three related elements that are accessible to almost anyone. </p>
<p>First, critical thinking means being able to recognize that there are situations where you must <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/books/review/thinking-fast-and-slow-by-daniel-kahneman-book-review.html">balance your instinctive reactions</a> to what’s going on around you, based on emotions like fear and desire, with the need for a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2020.37">heavier psychological lift</a>. In these cases, it’s crucial to take note of conflicting objectives and make <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2019.1569107">difficult trade-offs</a>.</p>
<p>Take the pandemic, which, thanks to the arrival of new variants like omicron, has gone into overtime. You may have a strong desire to live your “normal” life as you knew it before COVID-19 started to spread; at the same time, you probably want to keep those around you safe and secure. Knowing where to draw the line between personal comfort and the well-being of those around you means putting your emotions to the side and diving into data so you can better understand the broader consequences of your intended actions.</p>
<p>Second, critical thinking means following some <a href="https://sjdm.org/dmidi/Actively_Open-Minded_Thinking_Beliefs.html">basic principles</a> when you search for and use information. You must be open to and consider more than one solution to a problem, without ignoring or dismissing evidence that goes against your initial beliefs. And you must be willing to change your mind and your behavior in response to new information or insights.</p>
<p>Last, critical thinking means recognizing when you are out of your depth and then looking to legitimate experts for help. In other words, critical thinkers understand when it’s time <a href="http://www.sjdm.org/presentations/2019-Poster-Baron-Jonathan-endorse-AOT-cues.pdf">to outsource critical thinking</a> to others. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434750/original/file-20211130-13-1xdrnl6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Rodgers confers with a coach on the sidelines" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434750/original/file-20211130-13-1xdrnl6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434750/original/file-20211130-13-1xdrnl6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434750/original/file-20211130-13-1xdrnl6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434750/original/file-20211130-13-1xdrnl6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434750/original/file-20211130-13-1xdrnl6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434750/original/file-20211130-13-1xdrnl6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434750/original/file-20211130-13-1xdrnl6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Consulting those with additional expertise can be an important part of critical thinking.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/green-bay-packers-head-coach-matt-lafleur-talks-to-news-photo/1190913564">Jorge Lemus/NurPhoto via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But this raises an important question: How do you figure out who is an actual expert? Critical thinkers answer this question by not just looking at someone’s stature or credentials. They also assess potential experts’ behaviors with respect to the first two elements of critical thinking. How good is the expert at balancing instinct with the need for more in-depth analysis? And does the expert follow the basic principles that should govern the search for and use of information?</p>
<h2>Everyone loses when critical thinking is sidelined</h2>
<p>Consider the results of a recent study conducted during what scientists around the world agree is a serious public health crisis. In it, my colleagues and I found that people in the U.S. who score high on a scale used to measure critical thinking ability <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13833">judge COVID-19 to pose a real and significant risk</a> to public health. They also placed greater trust in legitimate public health experts, and – importantly – behaved in a manner that is more consistent with <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/prevention.html">pandemic risk management strategies</a> recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.</p>
<p>Judging by his behavior and statements, Aaron Rodgers wouldn’t have belonged in this group. Indeed, Rodgers’ own comments suggest he fumbled his way through the three elements of critical thinking. </p>
<p>In spite of his claim that his decision to remain unvaccinated involved “a lot of time, energy and research,” it seems he <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/kidspost/aaron-rodgers-played-scientist-when-he-should-have-stuck-to-playing-football/2021/11/10/3d3b1b48-36b4-11ec-9bc4-86107e7b0ab1_story.html">neither understood nor weighed the trade-off</a> between the exceedingly slim chance of becoming sick from one of the available vaccines versus the much higher probability of becoming sick – or making others sick – from COVID-19. </p>
<p>And historically, Rodgers hasn’t been shy about <a href="https://torontosun.com/sports/football/nfl/aaron-rodgers-wont-let-woke-cancel-culture-stop-him-from-expressing-himself">dismissing viewpoints</a> that run counter to his own. <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/sports/sporting-scene/the-selfish-individualism-of-aaron-rodgers">Boasting about his COVID-19 infection</a>, Rodgers confessed as much when he said, “I march to the beat of my own drum.” </p>
<p>Finally his success rate when it comes to handing off critical thinking to others is lousy. On COVID-19, he follows the advice of pseudo-experts like <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/01/business/joe-rogan-covid-19.html">Joe Rogan</a> over that of <a href="https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/public-health/open-letter-american-public-covid-19-vaccines">actual medical experts</a> and has chosen to <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/aaron-rodgers-packers-covid-vaccine-ivermectin-woke-mob/">subject himself</a> to a demonstrably dangerous drug, <a href="https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19">ivermectin</a>, instead of a <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/safety-of-vaccines.html">safe and effective vaccine</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434751/original/file-20211130-21-1bao6a1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Rodgers on the ground post-fumble with football out of reach" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434751/original/file-20211130-21-1bao6a1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434751/original/file-20211130-21-1bao6a1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434751/original/file-20211130-21-1bao6a1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434751/original/file-20211130-21-1bao6a1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434751/original/file-20211130-21-1bao6a1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434751/original/file-20211130-21-1bao6a1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434751/original/file-20211130-21-1bao6a1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Rodgers fumbled on critical thinking when he overvalued advice from people who don’t have deep knowledge on coronavirus prevention and treatment.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/kony-ealy-of-the-carolina-panthers-forces-a-fumble-as-he-news-photo/496327324">Grant Halverson/Getty Images Sport via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Unfortunately, Aaron Rodgers is far from alone when it comes to poor critical thinking. And, making matters worse, the implications of uncritical thinking extend well beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.</p>
<p>Indeed, the poster child for an absence of critical thinking is the political divide in the U.S. From Main Street America to the U.S. Capitol, I’d argue that nothing says my-way-or-the-highway like the <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/a-new-report-offers-insights-into-tribalism-in-the-age-of-trump">inflexible tribalism</a> that has infected important policy issues ranging from <a href="http://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/syndicated/fear-racism-public-manipulated-politics-tribalism/">inequality</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/15/the-climate-change-movement-must-overcome-political-tribalism">climate change</a> to <a href="https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2019/09/14/david-burns-why-is-gun/">guns</a> and <a href="https://ldi.upenn.edu/our-work/research-updates/health-care-reform-in-the-age-of-partisan-deadlock-and-tribal-politics/">health care</a>. Balancing fast-acting emotion with the slow burn of analysis, a willingness to change your mind and compromise, and the courage to admit you are not an expert – and to trust those who are – seem as far away in politics today <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/1968-and-2020-lessons-from-americas-worst-year-so-far/612415/">as they have been in decades</a>.</p>
<h2>Training camp for critical thinking</h2>
<p>On the bright side, and with a little practice, people can learn to think critically. Unlike other tasks that require highly specialized skills – like playing the position of quarterback in the NFL – critical thinking is well within the reach of nearly anyone willing to put in the reps.</p>
<p>Studies show, for example, that critical thinking can be activated in the moment just before certain <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2018.1548379">judgments</a> or <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101964">choices</a> need to be made. Researchers also know that the <a href="https://sjdm.org/dmidi/Actively_Open-Minded_Thinking_Beliefs.html">basic principles</a> of critical thinking <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1993.tb00731.x">can be taught</a>, even to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/109019819101800302">young children and adolescents</a>. And, for complicated judgments and choices, people can take advantage of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es4036286">decision-support tools</a> that help them clarify their objectives, consider relevant information, evaluate a wide range of options and understand the compromises that come with choosing one possibility over another.</p>
<p>Deploying the skills of critical thinking ultimately requires one more important ingredient, though, and this one can’t easily be taught: courage. It takes courage to break from your closely held opinions and, especially, from the relative sanctuary offered by your social or political circle. And it takes courage to publicly change your mind and your behavior.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434753/original/file-20211130-19-1t7l30r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Rodgers initiates a pass with an opposing player coming at him" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434753/original/file-20211130-19-1t7l30r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434753/original/file-20211130-19-1t7l30r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434753/original/file-20211130-19-1t7l30r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434753/original/file-20211130-19-1t7l30r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434753/original/file-20211130-19-1t7l30r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434753/original/file-20211130-19-1t7l30r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434753/original/file-20211130-19-1t7l30r.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">It takes courage to be a critical thinker, especially when you might take a hit for it.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/aaron-rodgers-of-the-green-bay-packers-throws-a-pass-while-news-photo/1293522412">Dylan Buell/Getty Images Sport via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But here too there’s a bright side. Changing your mind and behavior because you thought critically about something doesn’t mean that your earlier opinions and behaviors were a mistake. On the contrary, it’s a public display that you learned something important and new. And that, at least as much as success on the <a href="https://www.wiscnews.com/sports/football/professional/frozen-tundra-the-5-coldest-games-in-green-bay-packers-history/collection_17677ba1-d47b-565a-9fb1-bb89327ba36e.html">frozen tundra</a> of Rodgers’ home field in Green Bay, is worthy of respect and admiration.</p>
<p>[<em>You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation’s authors and editors.</em> <a href="https://memberservices.theconversation.com/newsletters/?source=inline-youresmart">You can read us daily by subscribing to our newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/172362/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joe Árvai has received funding from The National Science Foundation, NASA, and NOAA. In addition to his work at the University of Southern California, he serves as a member of the U.S. EPA’s Science Advisory Board, and as an advisor to a broad range of government agencies, businesses and NGOs.</span></em></p>Critical thinking means seeking out new information – especially facts that might run contrary to what you believe – and being willing to change your mind. And it’s a teachable skill.Joe Árvai, Dana and David Dornsife Professor of Psychology and Director of the Wrigley Institute for Environmental Studies, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and SciencesLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1687112021-10-14T18:57:31Z2021-10-14T18:57:31ZPeople use mental shortcuts to make difficult decisions – even highly trained doctors delivering babies<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/426007/original/file-20211012-23-181b1i7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=528%2C0%2C3665%2C2552&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The situation in the delivery room can change suddenly, and doctors need to react fast.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/obstetrician-at-work-royalty-free-image/154891439">naphtalina/E+ via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Being a physician is a difficult job. They must make complex, high-stakes decisions under severe pressure, with limited information about the patient, the disease and the treatment, while juggling personal and hospital priorities under the ever-present threat of lawsuits.</p>
<p>So what do physicians do in such highly uncertain situations?</p>
<p>Like all human beings, they unconsciously rely on quick rules that simplify complex decisions. Psychologists and economists call these mental shortcuts “<a href="https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/heuristics/">heuristics</a>.”</p>
<p>For example, if your sandwich falls on the floor, you might employ the <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-is-it-really-ok-to-eat-food-thats-fallen-on-the-floor-45541">five-second rule</a> to decide whether to pick it up and eat it or simply throw it away. That’s a heuristic – it allows you to approximate the correct decision quickly and easily, without getting mired in a lengthy mental debate about the pros and cons of each possible course of action.</p>
<p>While the average person’s reliance on heuristics is usually of little concern to society, the use of heuristics by physicians can have serious consequences.</p>
<h2>Heuristics in the delivery room</h2>
<p><a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=_SUPGvQAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">I’m a health economist</a> interested in the intersection of applied decision theory and health care.</p>
<p>There are all kinds of decisions a doctor must make while attending a birth: Should a woman continue to labor if the baby shows signs of distress? What interventions are warranted? Is it time for an emergency cesarean? The physician is responsible for life-and-death choices in a fraught, emotional environment.</p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc9818">In my recent research</a> published in the journal Science, I found that physicians use heuristics in the delivery room in ways that could potentially harm the mother and baby.</p>
<p>Looking at two academic hospitals’ data from more than 86,000 deliveries over 21 years, I saw that physicians who experienced complications during one patient’s delivery were more likely to switch to the other mode of delivery for their next patient, regardless of what the situation calls for. For example, if the physician’s last patient hemorrhaged during her vaginal delivery, the physician is more likely to perform a cesarean delivery for their next patient, even if a C-section is not indicated for that patient.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/426008/original/file-20211012-21-1f3axac.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="preparing for operation in darkened surgical suite" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/426008/original/file-20211012-21-1f3axac.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/426008/original/file-20211012-21-1f3axac.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/426008/original/file-20211012-21-1f3axac.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/426008/original/file-20211012-21-1f3axac.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/426008/original/file-20211012-21-1f3axac.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/426008/original/file-20211012-21-1f3axac.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/426008/original/file-20211012-21-1f3axac.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">A doctor may lean toward a C-section because the last vaginal delivery had complications.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/two-male-surgeons-performing-an-operation-royalty-free-image/1227588366">SDI Productions/E+ via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It appears physicians may overcorrect after a bad outcome, tending to shy away from the decision they believe caused it – even when faced with a new patient with her own unique circumstances.</p>
<p>Complications during a vaginal delivery increased the likelihood of a subsequent C-section by up to 3.6%. That’s about 23 potentially inappropriate C-sections per year per hospital. Complications during a cesarean increased the likelihood of a subsequent vaginal delivery by up to 3.4%. That’s about 50 potentially inappropriate vaginal deliveries per year per hospital.</p>
<p>It’s a sizable effect, considering the baseline effect should be zero. And patients at poorly resourced hospitals that have higher numbers of labor-and-delivery complications are more likely to be affected – as physicians experience more difficulties, this heuristic means they’ll be swayed toward more potentially inappropriate delivery choices.</p>
<p>There is evidence that this switching heuristic is harmful to the affected patient. For instance, if the physician switches delivery modes after the prior delivery had complications, my analysis found that the second patient and/or her baby are more likely to die than if the physician had switched delivery modes after no prior complications.</p>
<h2>What’s behind the overcorrection</h2>
<p>Since psychologists <a href="https://news.stanford.edu/pr/96/960605tversky.html">Amos Tversky</a> and Nobel laureate <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ImhakoAAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra">Daniel Kahneman</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124">introduced the idea of heuristics and biases</a> into the mainstream a few decades ago, researchers have conducted hundreds of studies establishing the various types of heuristics people rely on in various contexts. While these mental shortcuts are often useful for making immediate judgments with limited information, they can lead people to make very predictable mistakes.</p>
<p>There are several heuristics that could explain the switching behavior I identified in the delivery room data.</p>
<p>Take, for instance, the “win-stay/lose-shift” heuristic, which has been seen in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-010-1679-0">birds</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2020.00137">bees</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4153.796">rats</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023269">monkeys</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028753">children</a> and <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/101/52/18053.short">adults</a>. According to this heuristic, individuals stick with a strategy until they experience a “loss,” such as a labor-and-delivery complication. At that point, they switch strategies – like trying a different delivery mode.</p>
<p>Researchers have been especially interested in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016755">how experts use heuristics</a>, since it is not immediately clear whether people with enhanced knowledge of their specialized fields fall prey to the same decision-making flaws that afflict the lay individual. There is growing evidence that experts in a variety of fields – such as <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.09.001">forensic scientists</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(87)90046-X">real estate agents</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.101.1.129">elite athletes</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1018033108">judges</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2000.0393">academics</a> and <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12414468/">physicians</a> – do, in fact, rely on heuristics. Whether the use of such heuristics leads to poor outcomes – whether it can be called a “bias” – is still a matter of debate. </p>
<h2>Useful time-saver or dangerous bias?</h2>
<p>A bias arising from a heuristic implies a deviation from an “optimal” decision. However, identifying the optimal decision in real life is difficult because you usually don’t know what could have been: the counterfactual. This is especially relevant in medicine.</p>
<p>Take the win-stay/lose-shift strategy, for example. There are other studies that show that after “bad” events, physicians switch strategies. Missing an important diagnosis makes physicians test more on <a href="https://doi.org/10.5811/cpcem.2019.9.43975">subsequent patients</a>. Experiencing complications with a drug makes the physician <a href="https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38698.709572.55">less likely to prescribe it again</a>.</p>
<p>But from a learning perspective, it’s difficult to say that ordering a test after missing a diagnosis is a flawed heuristic. Ordering a test always increases the chance that the physician catches an important diagnosis. So it’s a useful heuristic in some instances – say, for example, the physician had been underordering tests before, or the patient or insurer prefers shelling out the extra money for the chance to detect a cancer early.</p>
<p>In my study, though, switching delivery modes after complications offers no documented guarantees of avoiding future complications. And there is the added consideration of the short- and long-term <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31930-5">health consequences of delivery-mode choice</a> for mother and baby. Further, people are generally less tolerant of having inappropriate medical procedures performed on them than they are of being the recipients of unnecessary tests.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/426009/original/file-20211012-19-jbfnr1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="doctor in scrubs using tablet" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/426009/original/file-20211012-19-jbfnr1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/426009/original/file-20211012-19-jbfnr1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=379&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/426009/original/file-20211012-19-jbfnr1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=379&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/426009/original/file-20211012-19-jbfnr1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=379&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/426009/original/file-20211012-19-jbfnr1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/426009/original/file-20211012-19-jbfnr1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/426009/original/file-20211012-19-jbfnr1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Decision support can be built into the systems doctors use as they make choices about care.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/integrating-the-modern-and-medical-worlds-royalty-free-image/1162117375">shapecharge/E+ via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Tweaking the heuristic</h2>
<p>Can physicians’ reliance on heuristics be lessened? Possibly.</p>
<p><a href="https://hbr.org/2018/03/how-mayo-clinic-is-combating-information-overload-in-critical-care-units">Decision support systems</a> that assist physicians with important clinical decisions are gathering momentum in medicine, and could help doctors course-correct after emotional events such as delivery complications. </p>
<p>For example, such algorithms can be built into electronic health records and perform a variety of tasks: flag physician decisions that appear nonstandard, identify patients who could benefit from a particular decision, summarize clinical information in ways that make it easier for physicians to digest and so on. As long as physicians retain at least <a href="https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2643">some autonomy</a>, decision support systems can do just that – support doctors in making clinical decisions.</p>
<p><a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2499658">Nudges</a> that unobtrusively encourage physicians to make certain decisions can be accomplished by tinkering with the way options are presented – what’s called “choice architecture.” They already work for <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-017-4286-5">other clinical decisions</a>.</p>
<p>Imagine a policy objective is to reduce prescription of drug X. The medical record system could present drug X as the last option in the physician’s drop-down menu, or auto-populate a default drug Y that the physician could choose to override. The physician would still be able to prescribe drug X, but it would require a little more mental involvement on their part to do so.</p>
<p>However, it is critical to understand that physicians frequently make highly consequential decisions under immense pressure. Any administrative barriers that hinder their ability to respond to clinical information in real time might harm patients even more. Designing and implementing interventions aimed at improving physician decision-making will be a challenge.</p>
<p>[<em>Get the best of The Conversation, every weekend.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/weekly-highlights-61?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=weeklybest">Sign up for our weekly newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/168711/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Manasvini Singh 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>It’s human nature to unconsciously rely on quick rules to help make spur-of-the-moment decisions. New research finds physicians use these shortcuts, too, which can be bad news for some patients.Manasvini Singh, Assistant Professor of Health Economics, UMass AmherstLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1616462021-05-31T08:12:15Z2021-05-31T08:12:15ZSuperforecasters: what pandemic planners can learn from the world’s best predictors<p>Experts got it catastrophically wrong, according to Dominic Cummings, UK prime minister Boris Johnson’s former chief adviser. <a href="https://theconversation.com/dominic-cummings-evidence-five-key-questions-that-must-be-investigated-161683">Cummings has argued</a> that the UK government’s official scientific advice in March 2020 hugely misunderstood how the pandemic would play out, leading to a delay in locking down that cost thousands of lives. </p>
<p>According to Cummings, it was certain specialists with less knowledge of pandemics or medicine – such as data scientist Ben Warner, artificial intelligence researcher Demis Hassabis of DeepMind, and mathematician Tim Gowers – who gave more accurate forecasts at this point. </p>
<iframe id="noa-web-audio-player" style="border: none" src="https://embed-player.newsoveraudio.com/v4?key=x84olp&id=https://theconversation.com/superforecasters-what-pandemic-planners-can-learn-from-the-worlds-best-predictors-161646&bgColor=F5F5F5&color=D8352A&playColor=D8352A" width="100%" height="110px"></iframe>
<p>Cummings is also known to be a <a href="https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2021/04/15/how-spooks-are-turning-to-superforecasting-in-the-cosmic-bazaar">fan</a> of <em>Superforecasting</em> by Philip Tetlock, a book about people who predict future events more reliably than most. Some superforecasters <a href="https://time.com/5848271/superforecasters-covid-19/">have been praised</a> for their predictions about the pandemic, while others have also been <a href="https://unherd.com/2020/10/how-the-experts-messed-up-on-covid/">critical of the experts’</a> record.</p>
<p>So should governments make greater use of superforecasters instead of relying on scientific experts? The evidence isn’t quite that clear cut. But there certainly seem to be things governments could learn from superforecasting.</p>
<p>In a <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epub/10.1177/0956797614524255">famous American study</a> on superforecasters published in 2014, they were an elite crew. Only the top 2% of contenders performed well enough in a geopolitical forecasting tournament to win the title. Their task was to assign probabilities to possible answers to dozens of questions. </p>
<p>The researchers provide a few illustrative examples. Who would be the president of Russia in 2012? Will North Korea detonate another nuclear weapon in the next three months? How many refugees will flee Syria next year?</p>
<p>Of course, just because someone does well one year doesn’t prove that they’re more skilled than anyone else. Maybe they just got lucky. We have to look at how well they did in the following years to evaluate how “super” they really are.</p>
<p>Impressively, these superforecasters maintained their edge as the tournament wore on for three more years. In fact, after being combined into “superforecasting teams” containing only other top performers, their performance increased by a substantial margin. The researchers also found that working in teams and taking relevant training improved performance for other forecasters, compared to forecasters in a control condition.</p>
<h2>Teams and training</h2>
<p>Whether or not we take Cummings at his word that the UK’s pandemic planning suffered from a “classic group-think bubble”, we know that teams don’t always make wise decisions. What was it that made the teams more successful in the US study? </p>
<p>It’s hard to say for sure, but the researchers specifically encouraged the teams to ask precise questions to encourage clearer thinking about the evidence supporting a particular forecast, to “look for evidence that contradicts your current prediction”, and to constructively introduce alternative points of view. </p>
<p>Such debate may well <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0273-4">improve collective judgment</a> and <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/104973239700700407">guard against groupthink</a>. Nor were team members required to come to a consensus. Although they shared information and opinions, they still made individual predictions which were combined by algorithm. Superforecaster teams in particular were <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1745691615577794">highly engaged</a>, frequently sharing information with and asking questions of other team members. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.sas.upenn.edu/%7Ebaron/journal/16/16511/jdm16511.pdf">Another study</a> took a closer look at which specific training techniques seemed to help most. Three techniques were particularly associated with higher accuracy. The first was the use of so-called comparison classes. </p>
<p>For example, if I am trying to predict the probability that Benedict Cumberbatch and Sophie Hunter will still be together in five years, it can be helpful to think about other “classes” that are relevant – say, the class of celebrity marriages, or even marriages in general. This allows me to look to history to inform my predictions: What percentage of celebrity marriages end in any given five-year period? </p>
<p>The second was to make use of mathematical and statistical models, when available, to help inform one’s views. The third was to “select the right questions” – a recommendation to spend more time predicting answers to questions where you know more than others about the topic, or on which additional research is likely to pay off. However, the researchers stressed that all components of <a href="https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.dartmouth.edu/dist/0/433/files/2014/06/ISQ-Supplement-Revised-2-20-17.docx">the training</a> may have contributed holistically to better performance.</p>
<p>Research has also shown that <a href="https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-effects-of-feedback-and-training-on-the-of-Benson-%C3%96nkal/ec3b6960526eeed863ff8c5af80130bc07f903f5">accuracy improves when we keep track of our past performance</a> – but the kind of feedback matters. Did outcomes you thought would happen 20% of the time actually happen 20% of the time? What about outcomes you thought would happen 90% of the time? Performance improves for those who receive this kind of information.</p>
<h2>Can governments do better?</h2>
<p>Could the UK government have done better on COVID-19 by soliciting input from teams of superforecasters? It’s possible. Superforecasters at <a href="https://www.gjopen.com/">Good Judgment Open</a> and practised forecasters at <a href="https://www.metaculus.com/questions/">Metaculus</a> (in which I’ve participated) each seem to have done well on COVID-19, with Metaculus claiming to have <a href="https://www.metaculus.com/news/2020/06/02/LRT/">outperformed experts</a> in June 2020. That said, in a <a href="https://github.com/computationalUncertaintyLab/aggStatModelsAndHumanJudgment_PUBL/blob/main/summaryreports/summaryReport03/MetaAndConsensusForecastOfCOVID-19Targets_Mar_v0.4.pdf">recent series</a> of COVID-19-related predictions, trained forecasters were not always more accurate than experts. The researchers behind the survey are experimenting with ways of combining predictions from domain experts and trained forecasters into a “consensus forecast”.</p>
<p>It also seems plausible that even the training that helped the non-supers make better forecasts would have been useful. For example, Cummings claimed that although there was much attention to epidemiological models, evidence that contradicted the models’ assumptions – such as data being reported by intensive care units – was ignored. It certainly seems plausible that someone trained to “look for evidence that contradicts your current prediction” might have spotted this earlier.</p>
<p>Of course, not all recommendations from the literature are practical in government settings. In theory, governments could test such recommendations for themselves, adopting any that seemed beneficial. Unfortunately, you can’t improve what you don’t measure. </p>
<p>In <em>Superforecasting</em>, Tetlock emphasises that any organisation serious about improving its forecasts must attach concrete numbers to them, at least internally. A phrase like “serious possibility” may mean a 20% chance to one person and an 80% chance to another. </p>
<p>This is almost certainly what Cummings was referring to <a href="https://youtu.be/8LFS3FaRs_s?t=4380">when he said</a>: “A guy called Phil Tetlock wrote a book and in that book he said that you should not use words like reasonable and probable and likely, because it confuses everybody.” Perhaps it shouldn’t surprise us if organisations that do not make forecasts in a way that they can be evaluated are not equipped to learn how to make them better. To improve, you first have to try.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/161646/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gabriel Recchia participates in forecasts on the Metaculus platform mentioned in the article.</span></em></p>Some so-called superforecasters are claimed to have predicted the course of the pandemic better than scientific experts.Gabriel Recchia, Research Associate, Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication, University of CambridgeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1602092021-05-05T03:33:27Z2021-05-05T03:33:27ZMale voices dominate the news. Here’s how journalists and female experts can turn this around<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/398584/original/file-20210504-15-qxntnd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=9%2C0%2C6029%2C4010&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Last week, the ABC announced it had achieved a milestone it had been trying to reach for more than two years. For the first time, in the previous month of March, it had equal numbers of women and men appearing in its news coverage.</p>
<p>This may seem surprising. You might expect the gender ratio of people quoted in the news would mirror the gender split of our society.</p>
<p>But that’s not the case. <a href="https://www.iwmf.org/missing-perspectives/">Studies of news coverage</a> from around the world have consistently found more than 70% of people seen, quoted and heard in the news are men, while women make up less than 30%.</p>
<p>When it comes to “expert” sources, <a href="https://whomakesthenews.org/wp-content/uploads/who-makes-the-news/Imported/reports_2015/highlights/highlights_en.pdf">around 80% are men</a>. </p>
<p>In response to this imbalance, the BBC started its <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/5050">50:50 equality project</a> in 2017. The ABC followed suit in December 2018. Other media organisations, such as Bloomberg, have introduced <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/company/values/diversity-and-inclusion/advancing-women/amplifying-voices/">similar initiatives</a>.</p>
<p>Despite these encouraging programs, the <a href="https://whomakesthenews.org/">Global Media Monitoring Project</a>, which analyses sources in news content from around the world on a set day every five years, has reported overall progress in bringing women’s voices into the news is “extremely slow”.</p>
<p>This means news tends to be male-centric, and women are denied the legitimacy, authority and status that often come with inclusion in the news. As a journalist and news researcher, I was interested to learn more about why women are so under-represented.</p>
<p>Is it because, as some journalists will argue, women are reluctant to be interviewed as news sources? Or is it because journalists tend to turn to the same sources again and again, and most of these experienced sources are men?</p>
<p>My <a href="https://journals-sagepub-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/doi/full/10.1177/14648849211007038">research</a>, which included interviewing 30 female academic experts about their attitudes towards interacting with the news media, suggests the latter is more likely.</p>
<p>All but one of the experts I spoke to said they would be willing to be interviewed for a news story. Most understood and appreciated the value of getting their work out into the community via the news.</p>
<p>However, they were not totally comfortable with being in the news. Most of them lacked confidence about the process. This was in part due to fears about their performance, but also due to a lack of knowledge about how the news media operate and what journalists want from them.</p>
<p>So how can journalists address these concerns and be more likely to secure a “yes” when approaching a female source for an interview? And how can sources improve their interactions with journalists and get the most out of their experiences with the media?</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/bloomberg-has-decided-women-matter-its-time-aussie-media-did-36552">Bloomberg has decided women matter; it's time Aussie media did</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Tips for journalists</h2>
<p><strong>Be very clear.</strong> Expert sources typically have little knowledge about how the media work. You have a much better chance of securing an interview if you explain exactly what you need in terms of the nature of the interview and the time required. </p>
<p><strong>Make a case.</strong> Experts need to demonstrate that their work and research is being seen and heard, and is having an impact. Media engagement is a crucial way to do this. Remind prospective sources about the benefits of promoting their work and research through news coverage.</p>
<p><strong>Be willing to negotiate.</strong> Where there is some flexibility about the timing or location of an interview, be prepared to discuss this with the source. Try to come to an arrangement that suits you both. Sometimes, a source might just want 10 minutes to prepare for an interview first.</p>
<p><strong>Respect the source and their time.</strong> Sources are much more likely to agree to an interview if the journalist appears to have some knowledge of their research and area of expertise. It’s also important for journalists to recognise that expert sources are usually very time-poor (just like journalists). </p>
<p><strong>Give feedback.</strong> Do this during and after the interview, if possible. The experts I spoke to all wanted to know how they had performed in their interviews, and how they could improve.</p>
<h2>Tips for sources</h2>
<p><strong>Say yes, but …</strong> It does not have to be an unconditional yes. It’s okay to say: “Yes, I can do the interview but I need 30 minutes to prepare.” Or “Yes, but I’m not willing to talk about this particular topic or issue.” </p>
<p><strong>Ask questions.</strong> You don’t have to let the journalist ask all the questions. If you don’t know what the journalist wants from you, ask.</p>
<p><strong>Don’t over-prepare.</strong> Most interviews are brief and will probably only take about 10 minutes. Don’t waste time over-preparing or over-thinking. Trust your expertise and knowledge.</p>
<p><strong>Cut yourself a break, but learn from your mistakes.</strong> Listen back to or watch your interviews to see how you can improve. But recognise it takes time and practice to become a polished media commentator.</p>
<p><strong>Be authentic.</strong> For radio and TV interviews in particular, try to relax and let your personality and passion for your work come through.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/160209/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kathryn Shine 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>Research shows men’s voices are heard in media reports far more frequently than women’s. Here are some ways journalists and sources can improve this.Kathryn Shine, Journalism Discipline Lead, Curtin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1463892020-11-25T18:35:12Z2020-11-25T18:35:12ZThe coronavirus pandemic increased the visibility of women in the media, but it’s not all good news<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/371133/original/file-20201124-23-1aw18fr.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=42%2C33%2C5584%2C3804&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The coronavirus pandemic has increased the prominence of women's voices in the media. Minister of Agriculture Marie-Claude Bibeau and Chief Public Health Officer of Canada Dr. Theresa Tam take part in a videoconference on July 31, 2020. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Justin Tang</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>We’ve repeatedly seen the ways in which COVID-19 has disproportionately affected women. However, the pandemic has been a boon for some women, who have received increased attention in the news because of their expertise.</p>
<p>COVID-19 has meant daily press briefings from Canada’s public health officers, many of whom are women. Facts and figures from those briefings have resulted in an increase in the number of quotes by women in news articles. </p>
<p>We know of that increase through data from the <a href="https://gendergaptracker.informedopinions.org/">Gender Gap Tracker</a>, a public awareness tool that measures the proportion of men and women quoted in Canadian media. The Gender Gap Tracker is a collaboration between <a href="https://www.sfu.ca/discourse-lab.html">the Discourse Processing Lab</a> (my lab), <a href="https://www.sfu.ca/big-data/">the Big Data Initiative</a> at Simon Fraser University, and <a href="https://informedopinions.org/">Informed Opinions</a>, a non-profit dedicated to amplifying the voices of women in the media. </p>
<h2>Good news, bad news</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/362776/original/file-20201009-15-1eetisv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Pie chart showing the ratio of male and female sources in Canadian media" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/362776/original/file-20201009-15-1eetisv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/362776/original/file-20201009-15-1eetisv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=616&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/362776/original/file-20201009-15-1eetisv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=616&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/362776/original/file-20201009-15-1eetisv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=616&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/362776/original/file-20201009-15-1eetisv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=775&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/362776/original/file-20201009-15-1eetisv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=775&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/362776/original/file-20201009-15-1eetisv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=775&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Aggregate ratio of male and female sources in Canadian media, since March 1, 2020.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Maite Taboada)</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The tracker has shown a three percentage point increase in quotes by women since March this year, compared to the same period in 2019 (to 31 per cent from 28 per cent). This increased visibility of public health officers is certainly a boon for women, and an indication of the prominence of women in health care and public health. </p>
<p>In the media, we also hear more from women on <a href="https://gendergaptracker.research.sfu.ca/apps/topicmodel">certain pandemic-related topics</a>: in April 2020, the majority of those quoted on health care, care homes, schools, or jobs and worker benefits were women. </p>
<p>This isn’t all due to professional expertise, though. Women are quoted more frequently because they undertake the majority of <a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-amplify-women-doing-it-all-or-most-of-it-isnt-a-sustainable-child/">home schooling</a> and <a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-pandemic-is-hurting-canadas-working-mothers/">childcare</a>. They are quoted about jobs and worker benefits because they are <a href="https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/future-of-work/covid-19-and-gender-equality-countering-the-regressive-effects">more likely to lose them</a>. And they are quoted more often on the impact of COVID-19 in caring for the elderly because they do the vast majority of that care, whether as <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-covid-19-pandemic-exacerbates-the-pressures-faced-by-women-caregivers-143576">family caregivers</a> or as <a href="https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/may-2020/covid-19-crisis-in-nursing-homes-is-a-gender-crisis/">professional caregivers</a>. </p>
<p>In other words, although women are more frequently quoted because they are health professionals, they are also more frequently quoted because they have been disproportionately affected by the consequences of COVID-19. </p>
<h2>Men still say more</h2>
<p>It is good news that we have created spaces for women to voice their concerns on those important issues (childcare, schools, jobs, health care). It is also a welcome development that many of the experts in those fields are women and they are being quoted because of their expertise, not just because they are affected. </p>
<p>Men, however, are still dominant in politics, business, finance, and sports. And they are quoted, overall and regardless of topic, about three times as often as women. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/363783/original/file-20201015-21-1qh7r9n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Graph showing the monthly topic dominance breakdown by gender between October 2018 and September 2020." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/363783/original/file-20201015-21-1qh7r9n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/363783/original/file-20201015-21-1qh7r9n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=199&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/363783/original/file-20201015-21-1qh7r9n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=199&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/363783/original/file-20201015-21-1qh7r9n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=199&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/363783/original/file-20201015-21-1qh7r9n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=250&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/363783/original/file-20201015-21-1qh7r9n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=250&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/363783/original/file-20201015-21-1qh7r9n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=250&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Monthly topic dominance breakdown by gender between October 2018 and September 2020 (red squares = female-prominent topics; blue squares = male-prominent topics).</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Maite Taboada)</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Beyond COVID-19, the Gender Gap Tracker shows the unequal role and representation of women in society. Over the past two years, we have monitored how often women are quoted and in which topics. We found women are quoted on three recurring topics more often than men: health care, entertainment and lifestyle</p>
<p>Another area where women are frequently quoted is legal and court cases. That is because women are much more likely to be victims of violence. In an analysis of the top people quoted each month for the past two years, out of the almost 2,000 individuals (politicians, business leaders, athletes, experts, celebrities, victims), 10 victims or witnesses were men, while 95 were women. </p>
<h2>More than representation</h2>
<p>This lack of equal representation in the news is even more pronounced in politics. In that analysis of the top 2,000 individuals quoted over the past two years, we found that 294 of those people were male politicians, while 268 were female politicians. </p>
<p>That may sound like we are close to parity. It certainly helps that we have a gender-balanced federal cabinet, as many of the politicians quoted are federal or provincial ministers. However, when we look at the actual number of quotes, that is, the number of times somebody was quoted, the difference is astounding: over 100,000 quotes by the 294 male politicians compared to 28,000 by the 268 female politicians. </p>
<p>It looks like women are given a presence, but then men get the majority of the space. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/zZkbyxcClaw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Journalism researcher Lis Howell asks why there are more men than women experts reflected in the news.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A recent report commissioned by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation analyzing news coverage in India, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States finds remarkably similar proportions to those in the Gender Gap Tracker: “<a href="https://www.iwmf.org/women-in-covid19-news/">A woman’s voice is drowned out by the voices of at least three men</a>.”</p>
<p>These are two complex problems, of gender bias in society and gender representation in media. First, we see the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on women, and, second, how women are represented in the news and how often. </p>
<p>Ours is by no means a solution to such problems. We offer a public awareness tool, because we believe that it is only by quantifying the current situation that we can accurately measure whether we are making progress.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/146389/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Maite Taboada receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. This research is supported by Informed Opinions, by Simon Fraser University's Big Data Initiative, and by Simon Fraser University's Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences.</span></em></p>More women are making appearances in the news media, and this is due to the coronavirus pandemic. This is not all good news: women are interviewed about the effects of the pandemic on their lives.Maite Taboada, Professor of Linguistics, Simon Fraser UniversityLicensed 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/1425932020-07-15T12:13:50Z2020-07-15T12:13:50ZThe Fed’s independence helped it save the US economy in 2008 – the CDC needs the same authority today<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/347455/original/file-20200714-139969-jo5q0z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=40%2C161%2C4437%2C2819&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Trump with two of his top health advisers in May. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Alex Brandon</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The image of scientists standing beside governors, mayors or the president has become common during the pandemic. Even the most cynical politician knows this public health emergency cannot be properly addressed without relying on the scientific knowledge possessed by these experts. </p>
<p>Yet, ultimately, U.S. government health experts have limited power. They work at the discretion of the White House, leaving their guidance subject to the whims of politicians and them less able to take urgent action to contain the pandemic.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/05/29/865324310/cdc-quickly-changed-its-guidance-on-limiting-choirs-at-religious-services">The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention</a> has issued guidelines only to later revise them after the White House intervened. The administration has also undermined its top infectious disease expert, Dr. Anthony Fauci, over <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/07/11/fauci-trump-coronavirus/">his blunt warnings</a> that the pandemic is getting worse – a view that contradicts <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/vice-president-mike-pence-op-ed-isnt-coronavirus-second-wave/">White House talking points</a>. And most recently, the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/14/us/politics/trump-cdc-coronavirus.html">White House stripped the CDC of control of coronavirus data</a>, alarming health experts who fear it will be politicized or withheld.</p>
<p>In the realm of monetary policy, however, there is an agency with experts trusted to make decisions on their own in the best interests of the U.S. economy: the Federal Reserve. As <a href="https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674980785">I describe in my recent book</a>, “Stewards of the Market,” the Fed’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-federal-reserve-independence-matters-119215">independence</a> allowed it to take politically risky actions that helped <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/12/upshot/financial-crisis-recession-recovery.html">rescue the economy</a> during the financial crisis of 2008. </p>
<p>That’s why <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=_pLIeZIAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">I believe</a> we should give the CDC the same type of authority as the Fed so that it can effectively guide the public through health emergencies without fear of running afoul of politicians. </p>
<h2>The paradox of expertise</h2>
<p>There is a paradox inherent in the relationship between political leaders and technical experts in government. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9781137583925">Experts</a> have the training and skill to apply scientific knowledge in complex biological and economic systems, yet democratically elected political leaders may overrule or ignore their advice for ill or good.</p>
<p>This happened in May when the CDC, the federal agency charged with controlling the spread of disease, <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/05/29/865324310/cdc-quickly-changed-its-guidance-on-limiting-choirs-at-religious-services">removed advice regarding the dangers of singing in church choirs</a> from its website. It did not do so because of new evidence. Rather, it was because of <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/white-house-and-cdc-remove-coronavirus-warnings-about-choirs-in-faith-guidance/2020/05/28/5d9c526e-a117-11ea-9590-1858a893bd59_story">political pressure from the White House</a> to water down the guidance for religious groups.
Similarly, the White House undermined the CDC’s <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/07/14/cdc-directors-trump-politics/">guidance on school reopenings</a> and has pressured it to revise them. So far, it seems the CDC has <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/09/politics/cdc-guidelines-school-reopenings/index.html">rebuffed the request</a>. </p>
<p>[<em><a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=experts">Expertise in your inbox. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter and get expert takes on today’s news, every day.</a></em>]</p>
<p>The ability of elected leaders to ignore scientists – or the scientists’ acquiescence to policies they believe are detrimental to public welfare – is facilitated by many politicians’ penchant for confident assertion of knowledge and the scientist’s trained reluctance to do so.</p>
<p>Compare Fauci’s <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6g5c92ZRhmc">repeated comment</a> that “there is much we don’t know about the virus” with President Donald Trump’s <a href="https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2020/we-have-it-totally-under-control-a-timeline-of-president-donald-trumps-response-to-the-coronavirus-pandemic/">confident assertion</a> that “we have it totally under control.” </p>
<h2>Experts with independence</h2>
<p>Given these constraints on technical expertise, the performance of the Fed in the financial crisis of 2008 offers an informative example that may be usefully applied to the CDC today.</p>
<p>The Federal Reserve is not an executive agency under the president, though it is chartered and overseen by Congress. <a href="https://www.frbsf.org/education/teacher-resources/what-is-the-fed/history/">It was created</a> in 1913 to provide economic stability, and its powers have expanded to guard against both depression and crippling inflation.</p>
<p>At its founding, the structure of the Fed was a <a href="https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/H/bo3634061.html">political compromise designed make it independent</a> within the government in order to de-politicize its economic policy decisions. Today its decisions are made by a seven-member board of governors and a 12-member Federal Open Market Committee. The members, <a href="https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674980785">almost all Ph.D. economists</a>, have had careers in academia, business and government. They come together to analyze economic data, develop a common understanding of what they believe is happening and create policy that matches their shared analysis. <a href="https://www.bostonfed.org/news-and-events/speeches/how-should-monetary-policymakers-cope-with-uncertainty.aspx">This group policymaking is optimal</a> when circumstances are highly uncertain, such as in 2008 when the global financial system was melting down.</p>
<p>The Fed was the lead actor in preventing the system’s collapse and spent <a href="https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/bst_recenttrends.htm">several trillion dollars</a> buying risky financial assets and lending to foreign central banks – <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/301357/crashed-by-adam-tooze/">decisions that were pivotal</a> in calming financial markets but <a href="https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674980785">would have been much harder</a> or may not have happened at all without its independent authority.</p>
<p>The Fed’s independence is sufficiently ingrained in our political culture that its chair can have a <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-14/trump-slams-fed-s-powell-saying-i-disagree-with-him-entirely?sref=Hjm5biAW">running disagreement</a> with the president <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/14/business/economy/trump-powell-fed-chair.html">yet keep his job and authority</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/347431/original/file-20200714-139854-f7b0g5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/347431/original/file-20200714-139854-f7b0g5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/347431/original/file-20200714-139854-f7b0g5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/347431/original/file-20200714-139854-f7b0g5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/347431/original/file-20200714-139854-f7b0g5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/347431/original/file-20200714-139854-f7b0g5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/347431/original/file-20200714-139854-f7b0g5.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">Trump slammed Fed Chair Jerome Powell repeatedly in 2019 over interest rate policy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Drew Angerer/Getty Images</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Putting experts at the wheel</h2>
<p>A health crisis needs trusted experts to guide decision-making no less than an economic one does. This suggests the CDC or some re-imagined version of it should be made into an independent agency.</p>
<p>Like the Fed, the CDC is run by <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/about/organization/cio.htm">technical experts</a> who are often among the best minds in their fields. Like the Fed, the CDC is responsible for both analysis and crisis response. Like the Fed, the domain of the CDC is prone to politicization that may interfere with rational response. And like the Fed, the CDC is responsible for decisions that affect fundamental aspects of the quality of life in the United States.</p>
<p>Were the CDC independent right now, we would likely see a centralized crisis management effort that relies on the best science, as opposed to the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/15/us/united-states-coronavirus-response.html">current patchwork approach</a> that <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/us-failed-coronavirus-response-reopening-exacerbated-first-wave-2020-6">has failed</a> to contain the outbreak nationally. We would also likely see stronger and consistent recommendations on masks, social distancing and the safest way to reopen the economy and schools. </p>
<p>Independence will not eliminate the paradox of technical expertise in government. The Fed itself <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/16/opinion/sunday/federal-reserve-trump.html">has at times succumbed</a> to political pressure. And Trump would likely try to undermine an independent CDC’s legitimacy if its policies conflicted with his political agenda – as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/30/business/economy/fed-trump-powell-ugh.html">he has tried to do with the central bank</a>. </p>
<p>But independence provides a strong shield that would make it much more likely that when political calculations are at odds with science, science wins.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/142593/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mitchel Y. Abolafia 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>The Trump administration has revised CDC health guidelines and undermined its own experts, making it harder for science to prevail over politics in US’s coronavirus strategy.Mitchel Y. Abolafia, Professor Of Public Affairs and Policy, University at Albany, State University of New YorkLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1395172020-05-28T12:28:22Z2020-05-28T12:28:22ZDominic Cummings: how the internet knows when you’ve updated your blog<p>When Dominic Cummings made a public statement to explain why he drove 260 miles to stay with his parents during the coronavirus lockdown, the prime Minister’s chief adviser made an assertion that initially went largely unnoticed:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>For years, I have warned of the dangers of pandemics. Last year I wrote about the possible threat of coronaviruses and the urgent need for planning.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It was, ultimately, beside the point but Cummings seemed to be reminding the public of his value. We are to believe that he is too vital a cog in the machine to be forced out of his job. </p>
<p>However, unfortunately for Cummings, it didn’t take the internet nerds long to find out his claim is not exactly true.</p>
<p>In fact, a quick search and check on the <a href="https://archive.org/web/">Wayback Machine</a> shows only one mention of coronavirus on Cummings’ blog or any other media attached to his name. That mention is in a paragraph that was added to a blog post some time between April 11 and April 15 2020 – several months into the current crisis, when anyone could see coronaviruses were a problem, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52802661">with or without an eye test</a>. The post was originally released on March 4 2019. </p>
<p>How do we know the lines were added later? And why can’t we tell when exactly the paragraph is added? Let me explain. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/338046/original/file-20200527-20241-1ozngfn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/338046/original/file-20200527-20241-1ozngfn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/338046/original/file-20200527-20241-1ozngfn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/338046/original/file-20200527-20241-1ozngfn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/338046/original/file-20200527-20241-1ozngfn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/338046/original/file-20200527-20241-1ozngfn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/338046/original/file-20200527-20241-1ozngfn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/338046/original/file-20200527-20241-1ozngfn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A comparison between two versions of Cummings’ blog captured on April 11 and April 15 2020 respectively.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Wayback Machine</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In the last years of the 1980s, Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web (WWW) as he was frustrated with how hard it was to find different documents on different computers. His original proposal was a protocol which connects documents regardless of which computer they are stored on and allows readers to navigate between those “hypertext” documents. The first phase of development of the web was supposed to be “read-only”. However, the very first web browser that Berners-Lee released was already a web editor too. Considering the digital nature of the web documents, it would have been stupid to deal with them as “static” objects such those printed on paper.</p>
<p>The web was born as an intrinsically dynamic concept. The network of documents can grow and change and the documents can too.</p>
<p>However, two problems soon appeared. These documents need to be stored somewhere and for many reasons (including scarcity of storage in 1990s) some documents might get deleted. Ironically, the very first webpage ever created seems to have been lost, or at best is sitting on an optical drive somewhere, according to some claims.</p>
<p>The other issue was the need to have access to archives of previous versions of webpages after they’d been changed – say, for legal reasons.</p>
<h2>Building an archive</h2>
<p>To solve these two problems, ideas of regularly archiving the content of the web started to form in the mid 1990s. In 1996 “The Internet Archive” – an American “digital library” – started to “crawl” the web and make copies of the pages. </p>
<p>There are various other web archivers out there, too, but the Internet Archive arguably has the most comprehensive collection. </p>
<p>The core element of a web archiver is its web crawler – a piece of software that navigates via hyperlinks to visit web pages and copies their content. The Internet Archive has made hundreds of billions copies of most of the pages and made the collection publicly available on its service called the Wayback Machine.</p>
<p>Many of the pages on the web do not change much but some change very frequently and many are frankly not important enough to archive. So the archive does not have the whole history of all the webpages, but it has a good number.</p>
<p>The Internet Archive crawler tries to visit “more important” and “more dynamic” pages more often. For example, Google.com was archived more than 5 million times between November 11 1998 and May 27 2020 – on average around 700 times per day. My university profile page, by contrast, has only been archived 48 times over the past seven years. I might point out that when you compare the 1998 version of the Google frontpage to today’s, there is little change to see. My page has been updated and changed many times. But the number of times that crawlers visit a page are much more influenced by the “importance” of the pages instead of how quickly it changes.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/338057/original/file-20200527-20215-1rjf491.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/338057/original/file-20200527-20215-1rjf491.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/338057/original/file-20200527-20215-1rjf491.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=269&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/338057/original/file-20200527-20215-1rjf491.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=269&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/338057/original/file-20200527-20215-1rjf491.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=269&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/338057/original/file-20200527-20215-1rjf491.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/338057/original/file-20200527-20215-1rjf491.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/338057/original/file-20200527-20215-1rjf491.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Two screenshots showing the oldest and newest records of Google.com on the Internet Archive (top: 1998, bottom: 2020)</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Wayback Machine</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>From the archive we can see that Cummings has been running his <a href="https://dominiccummings.com/">blog</a> since 2013 and the first actual post was released in March 2014 – although someone apparently had the domain name since 2004.</p>
<p>There are some 330 versions of his blog saved on the Internet Archive, with many more snapshots taken in recent dates. The earliest one is dated June 29 2017. And, sure enough, as mentioned above, there were two snapshots taken on April 11 and 15. A <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/diff/20200411090759/20200415092918/https://dominiccummings.com">close comparison</a> of the two shows that the “blue” paragraph in the figure above was added in between these two dates.</p>
<p>Should Cummings’ blog have been more frequently visited by the Archive crawler, we could have determined the exact timing of the change even more precisely. But we at least know that it happened some time during April 2020.</p>
<p>For future reference, <a href="https://help.archive.org/hc/en-us/articles/360001513491-Save-Pages-in-the-Wayback-Machine">you can make</a> the Wayback Machine make a copy of a page if it has no records of the page and you think it should. Archiving is something I’m sure Cummings will think about next time. Remember, the internet never forgets.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/139517/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Taha Yasseri receives funding from the European Commission (Horizon 2020), Google Inc, eHarmony, Oxford University John Fell Fund, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. He is affiliated with the Alan Turing Institute for Data Science and AI. </span></em></p>The prime minister’s adviser claims to have warned about coronavirus pandemics last year. The internet nerds say otherwise.Taha Yasseri, Senior Research Fellow in Computational Social Science, Oxford Internet Institute, Alan Turing Fellow, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1387732020-05-19T10:53:37Z2020-05-19T10:53:37ZThanks to The Conversation’s authors, for going above and beyond<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/335948/original/file-20200519-83397-ul3zsa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C5991%2C3997&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Right now, many people around the world are looking at New Zealand and Australia’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-may-well-be-able-to-eliminate-coronavirus-but-well-probably-never-eradicate-it-heres-the-difference-137991">responses</a> to COVID-19, and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/24/world/australia/new-zealand-coronavirus.html">wishing</a> they lived here. </p>
<p>Of course, it helps that we have big “moats” around our countries. But on both sides of the Tasman, we’ve been lucky to have good people giving clear, evidence-based advice – and politicians who heeded those experts in time. </p>
<p>Here at The Conversation, our COVID-19 authors have often also been key advisers to the New Zealand and Australian governments: people like University of Otago professors <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michael-baker-169808">Michael Baker</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nick-wilson-133898">Nick Wilson</a>, UNSW Professor <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/c-raina-macintyre-101935">Raina MacIntyre</a> and Monash University Professor <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/allen-cheng-94997">Allen Cheng</a>, to name just a few.</p>
<p>As editors, we’ve seen authors putting in long days in research labs, hospitals or teaching online from home, often while juggling kids, before writing into the night for The Conversation. Like us, they believe knowledge needs to be shared freely and in plain English, with as many people as possible. </p>
<p>That’s what The Conversation was created to do as a not-for-profit publisher. And thanks to our Creative Commons model of publishing, everything we do can be <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/republishing-guidelines">republished</a> for free by other media worldwide. </p>
<p>This COVID-19 pandemic has shown just how essential our university and research sectors are. Knowledge is powerful, and can save lives. So to all our authors – not just the public health experts, but everyone who’s worked with us in recent months, on everything from <a href="https://theconversation.com/nz/topics/covid-19-82431">COVID-19</a> to <a href="https://theconversation.com/nz/topics/climate-change-27">climate change</a> and more – thank you.</p>
<p>The Conversation only exists because of the generous support of our New Zealand and Australian <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/partners">university and strategic partners</a> and you, our readers. If you can, please consider giving a <a href="https://donate.theconversation.com/au?utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=AU+Donations+May+2020&utm_content=write-off">voluntary donation</a>. And if you already have, thank you for making our work possible.</p>
<p><em>Stay in touch with The Conversation’s coverage from New Zealand experts by signing up for our <a href="https://theconversation.com/nz/newsletters/new-zealand-weekly-58">weekly NZ newsletter</a> – delivered to you each Wednesday.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/138773/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Behind the scenes, authors have put in long days in research labs, hospitals or teaching online from home, often while juggling kids – before writing into the night for The Conversation.Liz Minchin, Executive EditorLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1381132020-05-17T19:55:27Z2020-05-17T19:55:27ZExperts are back in fashion – now more than ever we need to question them<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/335255/original/file-20200515-77276-bjk5vx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=38%2C0%2C8449%2C3000&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">www.shutterstock.com'</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Once upon a very different time, British cabinet minister Michael Gove <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/09/michael-gove-experts-academics-vote">sneered</a> that “people have had enough of experts from organisations with acronyms saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong.” </p>
<p>But that was then and this is now. One or two <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/03/trump-coronavirus-threat/607825/">obvious exceptions</a> aside, we are all <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/24/new-zealand-nurse-i-treated-boris-johnson-like-any-other-patient">in love with experts</a> these days. And the New Zealand government’s announcement that for the next two years a small <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/415689/cabinet-approves-fast-tracking-of-shovel-ready-projects">expert consulting panel</a> will take decisions regarding large infrastructure projects – without public or local authority input – confirms that experts are back with a vengeance.</p>
<p>Of course, it is less the experts themselves we are drawn to than their expertise. In times of profound uncertainty, most of us find reassurance and comfort in knowing that policy decisions are based on information and knowledge gained through rigorous, rational and methodical inquiry. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/new-zealands-pandemic-budget-is-all-about-saving-and-creating-jobs-now-the-hard-work-begins-138523">New Zealand's pandemic budget is all about saving and creating jobs. Now the hard work begins</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In Aotearoa New Zealand, if you’re one of those who has bought a t-shirt, <a href="https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/lifestyle/2020/04/hand-towel-emblazoned-with-dr-ashley-bloomfield-s-face-for-sale.html">hand towel</a> or tote bag featuring the nation’s director-general of health Dr Ashley Bloomfield, what you’ve really done is expressed confidence in the scientific method. </p>
<p>You may also be expressing admiration for Dr Bloomfield as a person, albeit one with <a href="https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-current-situation/covid-19-epidemic-notice-and-health-act-orders">sweeping emergency powers</a>, but one flows from the other.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tSuPeKaE6hk?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">A musical tribute to the reassuring face of New Zealand’s COVID-19 health response, Dr Ashley Bloomfield.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Politics is about to take over again</h2>
<p>As we slowly emerge into what many are hoping will be a brave new world, however, the executive arm of government – political and bureaucratic – will play the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/26/government-state-role-pandemic-coronavirus">central role</a> in charting social and economic reconstruction. </p>
<p>Equally, the further away we travel from full lockdown the more frequently we will confront policy challenges that are distributional rather than public health-related in nature. Tackling those in the years ahead is going to require expertise of many stripes: socio-cultural, historical, scientific, economic.</p>
<p>It will also mean that politics will reassert itself. You can see this happening already, with debate around an ill-advised <a href="https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/09-05-2020/covid-19-live-updates-may-8-leaked-pms-office-memo-says-no-need-to-defend-lockdown-decisions/">leaked memo</a> from someone in Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s office suggesting there was no need to defend lockdown policies due to the government’s popularity. </p>
<p>As the pre-election contest revs up, questions will inevitably be asked of people who have spent the lockdown on a public pedestal. Thus far, questioning experts has risked being dismissed as the sort of person prone to chopping down <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-5g-radiation-doesnt-cause-or-spread-the-coronavirus-saying-it-does-is-destructive-135695">5G cellphone towers</a> or injecting detergent.</p>
<p>But in democratic politics it is in the public interest to ask questions of those in positions of intellectual, economic or political authority. It is one of the ways in which we hold people who exercise influence to account. </p>
<p>It is also part of the process by which we try to ensure that various voices and types of knowledge are heard within public debates about the way ahead. </p>
<p>Probing experts and their expertise in this way long predates the advent of right-wing populism. Most populists simply dismiss science, without which it is fairly hard to have either experts or expertise. The far older practice of democratic scepticism does not do this. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/new-zealands-catch-up-patch-up-health-budget-misses-the-chance-for-a-national-overhaul-138509">New Zealand’s ‘catch up, patch up’ health budget misses the chance for a national overhaul</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Experts and expertise are not the issue. What is up for debate is how we define those things. Which forms of knowledge are recognised as expert and which are not? What methodologies are used in the production of knowledge (and what insights might this leave out)? And how does policy-making work to privilege certain voices but not others? </p>
<p>Those are democratic questions, not populist ones. They encourage us to think about the different types of knowledge that are permissible in policy-making. </p>
<h2>There are many kinds of expert – and not all have degrees</h2>
<p>At times, experts reproduce their expertise within relatively closed communities of interest. It is perfectly reasonable to ask if this devalues the voices of citizens who may lack the formal credentials of experts, but who nonetheless possess <a href="https://theconversation.com/caring-for-community-to-beat-coronavirus-echoes-indigenous-ideas-of-a-good-life-136175">significant knowledge</a> about how issues affect their communities.</p>
<p>Above all, it is eminently sensible to worry that an over-reliance on “objective” evidence can take the politics out of politics. Unless you happen to think that policy-making is simply a <a href="https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/10-05-2020/geoffrey-palmer-hallelujah-new-zealand-government-works/">value-free exericse</a> in solving technical problems, you’re likely to want more politics as we move into an uncertain future, not less. </p>
<p>I am not sure, for instance, that many of us would be comfortable leaving decisions about digital <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/25/contact-apps-wont-end-lockdown-but-they-might-kill-off-democracy">contact tracing</a> or <a href="https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/10/immunity-certificates-covid-19-practical-ethical-conundrums/">immunity certificates</a> to tech experts. Or, for that matter, irreversible environmental decisions to a three-person <a href="https://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2020/05/06/fast-tracking-rma-consents-expert-reaction/">expert panel</a>. Fundamentally, these are political issues that we should all be debating.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/335256/original/file-20200515-77251-15xd0zd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/335256/original/file-20200515-77251-15xd0zd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/335256/original/file-20200515-77251-15xd0zd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/335256/original/file-20200515-77251-15xd0zd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/335256/original/file-20200515-77251-15xd0zd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/335256/original/file-20200515-77251-15xd0zd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/335256/original/file-20200515-77251-15xd0zd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The massive Martha opencast gold mine at Waihi: can crucial environmental decision be left to experts alone?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">www.shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/new-zealands-covid-19-budget-delivers-on-one-crisis-but-largely-leaves-climate-change-for-another-day-138524">New Zealand's COVID-19 budget delivers on one crisis, but largely leaves climate change for another day</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Listening to and arguing over alternatives is the essence of representative democracy. So as we set about the business of rebuilding, let’s try learn from all of our experts. </p>
<p>Those with expertise in the humanities, social sciences, biophysical sciences, economics and so on have much to offer. But we should also harness the deep knowledge of those who, through these long days of lockdown, have become expert at <a href="http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=127489">keeping people connected</a>, <a href="https://sva.org.nz/">creating social capital</a> or building <a href="https://sosbusiness.nz/">futures markets for local businesses</a>. </p>
<p>These are the people who know their way around the issues in local communities and who have done so much to rejuvenate the village square and the public domain. Let’s make sure we listen to those experts too.</p>
<p><em>Stay in touch with The Conversation’s coverage from New Zealand experts by signing up for our <a href="https://theconversation.com/nz/newsletters/new-zealand-weekly-58">weekly NZ newsletter</a> – delivered to you each Wednesday.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/138113/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Shaw 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 coronavirus crisis has given experts and specialists worldwide a lot of power. As countries like New Zealand begin to recover, we need to question that power more than ever.Richard Shaw, Professor of Politics, Massey UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1313562020-03-09T15:38:31Z2020-03-09T15:38:31ZHow the technical expert emerged in 19th century politics – and what empire had to do with it<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/318598/original/file-20200304-66056-i9krqs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=8%2C6%2C1050%2C793&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Technical expertise comes first: the first vessels through the Suez Canal in 1869. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SuezCanalKantara.jpg">Wikimedia Commons</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In many of today’s debates on the world’s great challenges, one question that keeps getting asked – <a href="https://www.sciencealert.com/greta-thunberg-wants-you-to-listen-to-scientists-not-her">most prominently</a> by the climate change activist Greta Thunberg – is “why don’t politicians listen to the experts?” Why, for example, don’t governments listen to the <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/were-almost-out-of-time-the-alarming-ipcc-climate-report-and-what-to-do-next/">recommendations of</a> the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and take the necessary action to reduce global warming?</p>
<p>While more expertise does sound like a good solution, it is more complicated than that – for two main reasons. First, experts can bring in crucial information and know-how, but politicians also need to cast judgements about, say, fairness and equality. Politicians can listen to the scientists, and agree that climate change is real, but their opinions about who is responsible and where to make changes may still diverge. </p>
<p>Second, who counts as an expert is not obvious. Often the selection is politically motivated – and once experts are selected, it’s unclear how much power they should have over policies. This means the way politicians use expertise can underestimate or even overlook important questions of legitimacy, and it’s far from an easy add-on to democracy.</p>
<p>In my ongoing doctoral research, I’m exploring how ideas about expert politics proliferated in the 19th century and evolved into a deeper “expert mentality”. This mentality was built around an urge for applying scientific method to all aspects of social and political life for the purposes of progress, an urge in common with imperialism, and most ideologies at the time. </p>
<p>Its proponents hoped to dissolve political disagreement by rendering political problems strictly technical. This hope was as attractive then as it is today – a promise that we might be able to overcome partisanship and replace the politics of belief with a politics of facts.</p>
<h2>Birth of a science of politics</h2>
<p>In the early 19th century, political theorists and practitioners (particularly in France, Britain and Germany) formulated ideas about what they came to call “political science” – a discipline that would somehow apply the principles of scientific method to the realm of politics. </p>
<p>The puzzle was that politics is often made up of hard-to-grasp phenomena – phenomena that can be observed, but don’t always look the same. Principles like good and bad, fair and unfair, equal and unequal all depend on assumptions, contexts and perspective. So too do actions, whether they are planned and rational, or spontaneous and irrational. The goal was to devise a scientific method that would allow for the observation and examination of such fuzzy concepts, and create “order” from “chaos.”</p>
<p>Determined to tackle this, 19th century political theorists such as <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/27942/27942-pdf.pdf">John Stuart Mill</a>, philosophers such as <a href="https://archive.org/details/systemofpositive02comt/page/n6/mode/2up">Auguste Comte</a>, and statisticians such as <a href="https://archive.org/stream/grammarofscience00pearrich#page/n9/mode/2up">Karl Pearson</a> developed increasingly sophisticated methods that sought to distinguish truth from falsehood and fact from belief. But the problem they tried to address remained: politics was still replete with manipulation, partisanship and belief. The move to fact-based politics was far from straightforward.</p>
<h2>The making of experts</h2>
<p>As the science of politics <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/political-science/19th-century-roots-of-contemporary-political-science">became popular across Europe</a>, alongside the rise of capitalism and empire, a new mentality emerged. Keen reformers opened schools that would train technical specialists; created international organisations; and promoted the use of expert committees. One of the most widely read of these reformers was <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Henri-de-Saint-Simon">Henri de Saint-Simon</a>, who not only strongly influenced Comte’s notion of “positive science,” but also advocated government by an expert elite. </p>
<p>By the late 19th century, <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07341510701300288">an expert mode for doing politics had emerged</a>: the idea that the more specialist knowledge we gather, the better we are equipped to tackle national and international challenges. </p>
<p>Yet from the start, this idea was far from politically neutral. Big technological projects at the time relied on specialist technical knowledge – but they were <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/history/history-science-and-technology/scientist-empire-sir-roderick-murchison-scientific-exploration-and-victorian-imperialism">political and imperial projects</a> first and foremost, looking to spread “civilisation” through technical progress and to extend imperial control.</p>
<p>The first transatlantic telegraph cable, completed in 1866, was an Anglo-American project with <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-invisible-weapon-9780195062731?cc=gb&lang=en&">obvious benefits</a> for speeding up the command structure of the British Empire. Upon the opening of the Suez canal, completed by a French company in 1869 and acquired by the British in 1875, a <a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=msu.31293029591397&view=2up&seq=552">British contemporary characterised it</a> as “our highway to India.”</p>
<p>In these cases, expertise was brought in to assess the technical feasibility of laying a cable or excavating a canal – but who counted as an expert, and which experts politicians would listen to, were political questions. Often “technical feasibility” was taken as sufficient justification for projects that followed deeply political motivations. The Suez canal is a case in point: once an 1856 scientific commission had agreed the project was feasible, it was built as <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Parting_the_Desert.html?id=67NDDwAAQBAJ&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y">a private enterprise that exploited Egyptian labour</a> and strengthened European imperial transport routes.</p>
<p>There are various explanations for these projects, and imperial reach certainly <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-british-studies/article/engineering-the-empire-british-water-supply-systems-and-colonial-societies-18501900/781E208AD13B9585818E56F5C40F4907">informed the rationales</a> for building infrastructure in colonies and protectorates. But the role of <a href="https://www.press.umich.edu/4016693/politics_of_expertise">expert authority</a> and the supposed depoliticisation it brought about is crucial here, not least because it has survived to the present day.</p>
<h2>The technical point of view</h2>
<p>With the rise of using technical expertise to address complex political questions in the mid to late 19th century, politics became accessible not only to kings and courtiers, but to trained professionals as well – and with them, a new way of looking at and understanding politics <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/292997/governing-the-world-by-mark-mazower/">took hold</a>. The expectation was that, thanks to the involvement of technical experts in political decision making, politics would get “closer to the facts” and therefore better.</p>
<p>My ongoing research suggests that one effect of the introduction of expertise into politics is that technical experts can more easily claim to stand outside of politics. It renders politics a set of technical problems that can be solved with technical solutions. Moral problems disappear from view. But history shows that expertise is not something we can simply insert into politics in order to solve its problems.</p>
<p>After knowledge still comes judgement, which is always inherently political. Technical expertise can show that something is feasible, but not whether it is justified.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/131356/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jan Eijking receives funding from the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council and the University of Oxford.</span></em></p>The science of politics became popular across Europe, alongside the rise of capitalism and empire in the 19th century.Jan Eijking, PhD Candidate in International Relations, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1133022019-05-02T10:44:29Z2019-05-02T10:44:29ZModern shamans: Financial managers, political pundits and others who help tame life’s uncertainty<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272016/original/file-20190501-113839-q26aha.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=589%2C262%2C4489%2C3374&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Examining chicken intestines, reading the tea leaves, watching the markets – people turn to experts for insight into the mysteries that surround them.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Manvir Singh</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Aka Manai explains that there are two kinds of people in the world: simata and sikerei.</p>
<p>I am a simata. He is a sikerei. Sikerei have undergone transformative experiences and emerged with new abilities: They alone can see spirits. </p>
<p>I’ve experienced a lot since that night in Indonesia when Aka Manai told me this. I was there when an initiate first saw spirits, when he and the other sikerei wept as they saw their dead fathers swirling around them. I’ve attended seven healing ceremonies, witnessing the slaughter of dozens of pigs to accompany nights of dancing. But that chat with kind-faced Aka Manai, more than any other experience, grounded my understanding of sikerei in particular and shamanism more generally.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272014/original/file-20190501-113864-1eehcf8.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272014/original/file-20190501-113864-1eehcf8.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272014/original/file-20190501-113864-1eehcf8.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272014/original/file-20190501-113864-1eehcf8.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272014/original/file-20190501-113864-1eehcf8.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272014/original/file-20190501-113864-1eehcf8.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272014/original/file-20190501-113864-1eehcf8.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272014/original/file-20190501-113864-1eehcf8.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">A sikerei treats an initiate’s eyes so he, too, can see spirits.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Manvir Singh</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="https://www.manvir.org/research">I’m a cognitive anthropologist</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ZHpmcFYAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">who studies</a> why societies everywhere develop complex yet strikingly similar traditions, ranging from dance songs to justice to shamanism. And though trancing witch doctors may sound exotic to a Western reader, I argue that the same social and psychological pressures that give rise to healers like Aka Manai produce shaman-analogues in the contemporary, industrialized West.</p>
<h2>What is a shaman?</h2>
<p>Shamans, including the sikerei I’ve known in Indonesia, <a href="https://journal.fi/temenos/article/view/6345">are service providers</a>. They specialize in healing and divination, and their services can range from ending a drought to growing a business. Like all magical specialists, they rely on spells and occult gizmos, but what makes shamans special is that they use trance.</p>
<p>Trance is any foreign psychological state in which <a href="https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.1980.7.3.02a00010">a practitioner is said to engage with the supernatural</a>. <a href="https://www.routledge.com/The-Catalpa-Bow-A-Study-of-Shamanistic-Practices-in-Japan/Blacker/p/book/9781873410851">Some trances involve</a> complete immobilization; others appear as tongue-lolling convulsions. In some South American groups, shamans enter trance <a href="https://store.der.org/magical-death-p601.aspx">by snorting a hallucinogenic powder</a>, transforming themselves into crawling, unintelligible spirit-beings.</p>
<p>Being a shaman often carries benefits, both because they get paid and because their special position grants them prestige and influence.</p>
<p>But these advantages are offset by the ordeals involved. In many societies, a wannabe initiate lacks credibility until he (and it’s usually a he) <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-3537.2008.00002.x">undergoes a near-death experience</a> or a long bout of asceticism.</p>
<p>One aboriginal Australian shaman told ethnographers that, as a novice, he was killed by an older shaman who then replaced his organs with a new, magical set. When he woke up from the surgery and asked the old shaman if he was lost, <a href="https://archive.org/details/northerntribesc00gillgoog/page/n528">the old man replied</a>, “No, you are not lost; I killed you a long time ago.”</p>
<p>A long time ago, a short time ago, here, there – wherever you look, there are shamans. Manifesting as mediums, channelers, witch doctors and the prophets of religious movements, shamans have appeared in most human societies, including nearly all documented hunter-gatherers. They characterized the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0806030105">religious lives of ancestral humans</a> and are often said to be the “<a href="https://www.worldcat.org/title/ghost-dance-origins-of-religion/oclc/833142981">first profession</a>.”</p>
<h2>Why are there shamans?</h2>
<p>Why is it that when we lanky primates get together for long enough, our societies reliably give rise to trance-dancing healers?</p>
<p>According to <a href="http://michaelwinkelman.com/about/">anthropologist Michael Winkelman</a>, the answer is wisdom. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774302000045">Drugs and drumming, he’s argued</a>, link up brain regions that don’t normally communicate. This connection yields new insights, allowing shamans to do things like heal sickness and locate animals. By specializing in trance, shamans uncover solutions inaccessible to normal brains.</p>
<p>Based on my fieldwork, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X17001893">I’ve argued against Winkelman’s account</a>. Rather than all integrating people’s psychologies, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.98">trance states are wildly diverse</a>. Chanting, sipping psychoactive brews such as ayahuasca, dancing to the point of exhaustion, even smoking extreme quantities of tobacco – these methods produce profoundly different states. Some are arousing, others calming; some expand awareness, others induce repetitive thinking. In fact, the only element shared among these states is their exoticness – that once altered, the shaman’s experience stands apart from those of his onlookers.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272018/original/file-20190501-113861-5i401k.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272018/original/file-20190501-113861-5i401k.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272018/original/file-20190501-113861-5i401k.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272018/original/file-20190501-113861-5i401k.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272018/original/file-20190501-113861-5i401k.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272018/original/file-20190501-113861-5i401k.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272018/original/file-20190501-113861-5i401k.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272018/original/file-20190501-113861-5i401k.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">As part of his anthropological fieldwork, author Manvir Singh speaks with an Indonesian shaman.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Luke Glowacki</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Not only are shamans’ experiences exotic, their very beings are, too. As Aka Manai emphasized to me, people understand shamans to be different kinds of entities, made “other” by their ordeals. The Mentawai word for a non-shaman, simata, also describes uncooked food or unripe fruit; it implies immaturity. The word for shaman, in contrast, means a person who has undergone a process: one who has been kerei’d and come out the other side a sikerei.</p>
<p>This otherness is crucial. Convinced that shamans diverge from normal people, communities accept that they have superhuman abilities. Like Superman’s alien origins and the X-Men’s genetic mutations, shamans’ transformations assure people that they deviate from normal humanness, making their claims of supernatural engagement more believable.</p>
<p>And once people trust that a specialist engages with gods and spirits, they go to them when they need to influence uncertainty. A sick child’s parent or a farmer desperate for rain prefers to nudge the forces responsible for their hardship – and a shaman provides a compelling conduit for doing so.</p>
<p>This, I suggest, is why shamans recur around the world and across time. As specialists compete in markets for magic, they fuel the evolution of practices that hack people’s intuitions about magic and special abilities, convincing the rest of us that they can control uncertainty. Shamans are the culmination of this evolution. They use trance and initiations to transcend humanness, assuring their clients that they can commune with the invisible beings who oversee uncertain events. </p>
<h2>Who are the shamans of the industrialized West?</h2>
<p>Most people assume that shamanism has disappeared in the industrialized West – that it’s an ancient tradition of long-lost tribes, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_shaman">at most resurrected and corrupted</a> by New Age xenophiles and overeager mystics.</p>
<p>To some extent, these people are right. Far fewer Westerners visit trance-practitioners to heal illness or call rain than people have elsewhere in the world or throughout history. But they’re also wrong. Like people everywhere, contemporary Westerners look to experts to achieve the impossible – to heal incurable illnesses, to forecast unknowable futures – and the experts, in turn, compete among themselves, performing to convince people of their special abilities.</p>
<p>So who are these modern shamans?</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272113/original/file-20190501-117570-1t96u2n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272113/original/file-20190501-117570-1t96u2n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272113/original/file-20190501-117570-1t96u2n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272113/original/file-20190501-117570-1t96u2n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272113/original/file-20190501-117570-1t96u2n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272113/original/file-20190501-117570-1t96u2n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272113/original/file-20190501-117570-1t96u2n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272113/original/file-20190501-117570-1t96u2n.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">A specialist you can turn to for help divining the mysterious forces at work in financial markets.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/over-shoulder-view-stock-broker-trading-649146019">Matej Kastelic/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>According to the <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=A6G-jpwAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra">cognitive scientist Samuel Johnson</a>, financial money managers are likely candidates. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1968.tb00815.x">Money managers fail</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1995.tb04795.x">to outperform the market</a> – in fact, they even fail to systematically outperform each other – yet customers continue to pay them to divine future stock prices.</p>
<p>This faith might come from a belief of their fundamental otherness. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X17002096">Johnson points out that money managers</a> emphasize their differences from clients, exhibiting extreme charisma and enduring superhuman work schedules. Managers also adorn themselves with advanced mathematical degrees and use complicated statistical models to predict the market. Although money managers don’t enter trance, their degrees and models assure clients that the specialists can peer into otherwise opaque forces.</p>
<p>Of course, money managers aren’t the only experts to specialize in the impossible. Psychics, sports analysts, political pundits, economic forecasters, esoteric healers and even <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Octopus">an octopus</a> similarly sate people’s desires to tame the uncertain. Like shamans and money managers, they decorate themselves with badges of credibility – an association with the White House, for example, or a familiarity with ancient Tibetan medicine – that persuade customers of their special abilities.</p>
<p>As long as hidden forces shape our fates, people will try to control them. And as long as it’s profitable, pseudo-experts will compete for desperate clients, dressing in the most credible and compelling costumes. Shamanism is not some arcane tradition restricted to an ancient past or New Age circles. It’s a near-inevitable consequence of our human intuitions about special abilities and our desire to control the uncertain, and elements of it appear everywhere.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/113302/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Manvir Singh receives funding from Harvard University and the National Science Foundation.</span></em></p>Hidden forces are always at work in the world, and people always want to control them, a cognitive anthropologist explains. Enter the human universal of shamanism.Manvir Singh, PhD Candidate in Human Evolutionary Biology, Harvard UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1002072018-07-19T09:56:32Z2018-07-19T09:56:32ZResearch shows four in five experts cited in online news are men<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/228273/original/file-20180718-142423-w8trst.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">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Who gets to speak? Who do we listen to? And whose opinions do we respect? These questions are always important, but even more so now, as the UK faces an uncertain future, and political leaders need to make some tough decisions. So it’s disappointing to learn that female voices continue to be marginalised in the nation’s news coverage. Women’s expertise is going untapped and unheard at a critical time.</p>
<p>An analysis conducted by the <a href="https://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/policy-institute/cmcp/index.aspx">Centre for the Study of Media, Communication and Power</a> on behalf of the <a href="https://www.kcl.ac.uk/giwl/index.aspx">Global Institute for Women’s Leadership</a> at King’s College London has found that four out of every five people quoted as experts in online news articles by the main UK news outlets are male. The research analysed a representative sample of all news articles published online across a seven day period by major news outlets including the BBC, Channel 4, ITV, Sky, Daily Mail, Star, Express, The Times, Financial Times, Guardian, Independent, Mirror, Sun, and the Telegraph.</p>
<p>The imbalance is even greater for certain fields, such as foreign politics and business and finance, where men make up almost nine out of ten expert sources. And despite all the media campaigns and focus on equal representation in recent years, these figures haven’t materially shifted since a <a href="http://cdn.agilitycms.com/who-makes-the-news/Imported/reports_2010/national/UK.pdf">similar study</a> was carried out in 2010.</p>
<p>So what’s driving this imbalance? It’s true that the UK is unfortunately still a country with a well-documented under-representation of women in leadership positions across various sectors (not least <a href="https://www.iwmf.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/IWMF-Global-Report.pdf">news journalism</a>), and this certainly plays a part. But <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17512786.2016.1232173">previous research</a> has identified other factors. A tendency to rely on known contacts, reliable performers and suggestions from previous informants all militate against a widening of the expert pool.</p>
<p>And then there’s the question of who we consider to be an “expert”. Judgements about who is and isn’t credible <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17512781003760519">play a large role</a> in determining who gets to be a source, and therefore have a voice, in the national conversation. But judgements about credibility are not value-free. A series of studies have shown that we find the same information to be more credible when it is presented by a man, rather than a woman. Whether it be <a href="http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2441841">political tweets</a>, <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1077699012447922">articles about sport</a> or <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1075547012472684">abstracts for scientific papers</a>, simply changing the name on the information has been shown to affect respondents’ judgement of the quality, competence or expertise of the content.</p>
<h2>Updating the address book</h2>
<p>These biases show just how hopelessly naïve it is to argue that expert sources should “just be the person with the best expertise”. This person is a chimera – for how on earth would this expertise be ranked? Any attempt to work out who they are would be influenced by biases, not only on the part of the journalist in terms of judging their credentials, but by the fact that those credentials were earned in a gender-biased world.</p>
<p>A related line of thought might concede a level of bias in the selection of experts, and yet contend that it doesn’t matter. After all, aren’t experts there to simply present the facts and give an objective assessment of reality? While I’m sure many academics would be touched by this level of faith in their pronouncements, it is far from the truth.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/228246/original/file-20180718-142414-1ki0lbw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/228246/original/file-20180718-142414-1ki0lbw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/228246/original/file-20180718-142414-1ki0lbw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/228246/original/file-20180718-142414-1ki0lbw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/228246/original/file-20180718-142414-1ki0lbw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/228246/original/file-20180718-142414-1ki0lbw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/228246/original/file-20180718-142414-1ki0lbw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Women experts are significantly under-represented in the media.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Sam McGhee/ Unsplash</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A fascinating <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/kykl.12166">study</a> from earlier this year illustrates the point. After surveying more than 1,000 economists from 18 countries, the researchers found that female economists were far more likely than men to prefer government interventions over market solutions. They were also more likely to be in favour of increased environmental protection, to think that labour market policies were unequal, and were slightly more likely to disapprove of austerity. Such questions could hardly be less central to the future of society.</p>
<p>The differing views of female economists are not due to some inherent “redistributive gene” that is missing on the Y chromosome, but because such views rely on an analysis of certain approaches, and different life experiences will inform how we weight the associated costs and benefits. Indeed, as Sweden’s feminist government is showing, from <a href="https://www.government.se/information-material/2017/10/swedens-feminist-foreign-policy--examples-from-three-years-of-implementation/">foreign policy</a> to which <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/05/sweden-gender-equality-uk-government">streets to snowplough</a> first, the answer to policy questions changes when you include the perspective of the other half of the population.</p>
<p>Journalists have a responsibility to seek out diverse voices, rather than “neutrally” hold up a mirror to society. Who we see explaining the world around us sends a strong symbolic signal about whose views we value, and what is possible for different groups of people. Surely if anything is going to challenge bias then it will be seeing female names in areas that society codes “male”. This may require extra effort from journalists to look beyond their existing networks, but with a wealth of resources – from <a href="http://thewomensroom.org.uk/findanexpert">The Women’s Room</a> to <a href="http://www.womensmediacenter.com/shesource/">SheSource</a> and more – there is no longer any excuse not to make it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/100207/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Laura Jones 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 shocking lack of gender balance is not just bad for women. It’s doing the public a major disservice.Laura Jones, Research Associate at the Global Institute for Women's Leadership, King's College LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/958872018-05-02T10:50:22Z2018-05-02T10:50:22ZI watched an entire Flat Earth Convention for my research – here’s what I learnt<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217224/original/file-20180502-153873-1yycjez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=754%2C13%2C1711%2C1064&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/abstract-polka-dot-world-map-343406624">dsom/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Speakers recently flew in from around (or perhaps, across?) the earth for a three-day event held in Birmingham: the UK’s first ever public <a href="https://www.flatearthconventionuk.co.uk/">Flat Earth Convention</a>. It was well attended, and wasn’t just three days of speeches and YouTube clips (though, granted, there was a lot of this). There was also a lot of team-building, networking, debating, workshops – and scientific experiments. </p>
<p>Yes, flat earthers do seem to place a lot of emphasis and priority on scientific methods and, in particular, on observable facts. The weekend in no small part revolved around discussing and debating science, with lots of time spent running, planning, and reporting on the latest set of flat earth experiments and models. Indeed, as one presenter noted early on, flat earthers try to “look for multiple, verifiable evidence” and advised attendees to “always do your own research and accept you might be wrong”.</p>
<p>While flat earthers seem to trust and support scientific methods, what they don’t trust is scientists, and the established relationships between “power” and “knowledge”. This relationship between power and knowledge has long been theorised by sociologists. By exploring this relationship, we can begin to understand why there is a swelling resurgence of flat earthers.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-reason-with-flat-earthers-it-may-not-help-though-95160">How to reason with flat earthers (it may not help though)</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Power and knowledge</h2>
<p>Let me begin by stating quickly that I’m not really interested in discussing <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-reason-with-flat-earthers-it-may-not-help-though-95160">if the earth if flat or not</a> (for the record, I’m happily a “globe earther”) – and I’m not seeking to mock or denigrate this community. What’s important here is not necessarily whether they believe the earth is flat or not, but instead what their resurgence and public conventions tell us about science and knowledge in the 21st century. </p>
<p>Multiple competing models were suggested throughout the weekend, including “classic” flat earth, domes, ice walls, diamonds, puddles with multiple worlds inside, and even the earth as the inside of a giant cosmic egg. The level of discussion however often did not revolve around the models on offer, but on broader issues of attitudes towards existing structures of knowledge, and the institutions that supported and presented these models.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/iigUBjf4-pc?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The cosmic egg theory explained.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Flat earthers are not the first group to be sceptical of existing power structures and their tight grasps on knowledge. This viewpoint is somewhat typified by the work of Michel Foucault, a famous and heavily influential 20th century philosopher who made a career of studying those on the fringes of society to understand what they could tell us about everyday life.</p>
<p>He is well known, amongst many other things, for looking at the close relationship <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discipline_and_Punish">between power and knowledge</a>. He suggested that knowledge is created and used in a way that reinforces the claims to legitimacy of those in power. At the same time, those in power control what is considered to be correct and incorrect knowledge. According to Foucault, there is therefore an intimate and interlinked relationship between power and knowledge. </p>
<p>At the time Foucault was writing on the topic, the control of power and knowledge had moved away from religious institutions, who previously held a very singular hold over knowledge and morality, and was instead beginning to move towards a network of scientific institutions, media monopolies, legal courts, and bureaucratised governments. Foucault argued that these institutions work to maintain their claims to legitimacy by controlling knowledge.</p>
<h2>Ahead of the curve?</h2>
<p>In the 21st century, we are witnessing another important shift in both power and knowledge due to factors that include the increased public platforms afforded by social media. Knowledge is no longer centrally controlled and – <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2017/08/30/had-enough-of-experts-anti-intellectualism-is-linked-to-voters-support-for-movements-that-are-skeptical-of-expertise/">as has been pointed out</a> in the wake of Brexit – the age of the expert may be passing. Now, everybody has the power to create and share content. When Michael Gove, a leading proponent of Brexit, proclaimed: “I think the people of this country have had enough of experts”, it would seem that he, in many ways, meant it. </p>
<p>It is also clear that we’re seeing increased polarisation in society, as we continue to drift away from agreed singular narratives and move into camps around shared interests. Recent <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2016/10/14/in-presidential-contest-voters-say-basic-facts-not-just-policies-are-in-dispute/?utm_source=adaptivemailer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=16-10-14%20panel%20election%20report&org=982&lvl=100&ite=413&lea=66827&ctr=0&par=1&trk=">PEW research</a> suggests, for example, that 80% of voters who backed Hillary Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election – and 81% of Trump voters – believe the two sides are unable to agree on basic facts.</p>
<p>Despite early claims, from as far back as HG Well’s “<a href="https://www.vox.com/2015/2/23/8078973/hg-wells-wikipedia">world brain</a>” essays in 1936, that a worldwide shared resource of knowledge such as the internet would create peace, harmony and a common interpretation of reality, it appears that quite the opposite has happened. With the increased voice afforded by social media, knowledge has been increasingly decentralised, and competing narratives have emerged.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217233/original/file-20180502-153900-1ptisbm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217233/original/file-20180502-153900-1ptisbm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=767&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217233/original/file-20180502-153900-1ptisbm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=767&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217233/original/file-20180502-153900-1ptisbm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=767&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217233/original/file-20180502-153900-1ptisbm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=964&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217233/original/file-20180502-153900-1ptisbm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=964&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217233/original/file-20180502-153900-1ptisbm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=964&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">HG Wells’ plan for a world encyclopedia.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Scottbot</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This was something of a reoccurring theme throughout the weekend, and was especially apparent when four flat earthers debated three physics PhD students. A particular point of contention occurred when one of the physicists pleaded with the audience to avoid trusting YouTube and bloggers. The audience and the panel of flat earthers took exception to this, noting that “now we’ve got the internet and mass communication … we’re not reliant on what the mainstream are telling us in newspapers, we can decide for ourselves”. It was readily apparent that the flat earthers were keen to separate knowledge from scientific institutions.</p>
<h2>Flat earthers and populism</h2>
<p>At the same time as scientific claims to knowledge and power are being undermined, some power structures are decoupling themselves from scientific knowledge, moving towards a kind of populist politics that are increasingly sceptical of knowledge. This has, in recent years, manifested itself in extreme ways – through such things as public politicians <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michael-flynn-conspiracy-pizzeria-trump-232227">showing support for Pizzagate</a> or Trump’s suggestions that <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ted-cruz-jfk-files_us_59f20e61e4b07fdc5fbcaf6e">Ted Cruz’s father shot JFK</a>. </p>
<p>But this can also be seen in more subtle and insidious form in the way in which Brexit, for example, was campaigned for in terms of gut feelings and emotions rather than expert statistics and predictions. Science is increasingly facing problems with its ability to communicate ideas publicly, a problem that politicians, and flat earthers, are able to circumvent with moves towards populism.</p>
<p>Again, this theme occurred throughout the weekend. Flat earthers were encouraged to trust “poetry, freedom, passion, vividness, creativity, and yearning” over the more clinical regurgitation of established theories and facts. Attendees were told that “hope changes everything”, and warned against blindly trusting what they were told. This is a narrative echoed by some of the celebrities who have used their power to back flat earth beliefs, such as the musician B.O.B, who <a href="https://twitter.com/bobatl/status/691469676119982080">tweeted</a>: “Don’t believe what I say, research what I say.”</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"691411463051804676"}"></div></p>
<p>In many ways, a public meeting of flat earthers is a product and sign of our time; a reflection of our increasing distrust in scientific institutions, and the moves by power-holding institutions towards populism and emotions. In much the same way that Foucault reflected on what social outcasts could reveal about our social systems, there is a lot flat earthers can reveal to us about the current changing relationship between power and knowledge. And judging by the success of this UK event – and the large conventions planned in Canada and America this year – it seems the flat earth is going to be around for a while yet.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/95887/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Harry T Dyer 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>A public meeting of flat earthers is a product and sign of our times.Harry T Dyer, Lecturer in Education, University of East AngliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/893622017-12-19T05:19:10Z2017-12-19T05:19:10ZJournalists, there’s more than one expert in town, and here they are<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/199832/original/file-20171219-27538-1i1nz3a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Crikey reminds Australia's media it can be a little narrow minded.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Crikey.com.au</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Journalists are often under deadline pressure, which is why, <a href="https://www.crikey.com.au/2017/12/11/australias-only-experts-according-to-the-media/">says Crikey’s Emily Watkins</a>, they return again and again to the same experts. Those who give good quotes are often also pretty good at making themselves available. The end result is it looks like there’s only one counter-terrorism expert in town, or one constitutional lawyer, or one demographer.</p>
<p>But in every field there is more than one expert, and not all of them are camera or radio shy. In the last 12 months at The Conversation we published 1,800 new writers, all experts in their given field. Most go on to do radio interviews and sometimes TV spots. Some even become the go-to expert in their field.</p>
<p>So for journalists and readers looking for a little more diversity and depth, here are some alternatives to Crikey’s list of speed-dial experts.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Counter-terrorism</h2>
<p><strong>The expert most journos go to:</strong> Greg Barton</p>
<p><strong>Alternatives:</strong> Adrian Cherney, UQ; Kieran Hardy, Griffith University</p>
<p>If you haven’t read Professor Greg Barton’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/out-of-the-ashes-of-afghanistan-and-iraq-the-rise-and-rise-of-islamic-state-55437">essay For The Conversation on the rise of Islamic State</a>, you really should.</p>
<p>But there are many other terrific counter-terrorism experts. Two are University of Queensland Associate Professor <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/adrian-cherney-139583">Adrian Cherney</a>, and Griffith University Lecturer <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/keiran-hardy-133297">Kieran Hardy</a>.</p>
<p>Cherney is especially perceptive on <a href="https://theconversation.com/yes-lets-have-a-frank-and-open-discussion-about-the-causes-of-extremism-and-terrorism-51726">the causes of extremism and terrorism</a> that aren’t about blaming Islam.</p>
<p>And if you’ve ever wondered <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-why-some-acts-are-classified-as-terrorism-but-others-arent-76013">why some acts of violence are classified as terrorism but other aren’t</a>, Hardy is your man.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Constitutional law</h2>
<p><strong>The expert most journos go to:</strong> Anne Twomey</p>
<p><strong>Alternatives:</strong> Gabrielle Appleby, UNSW; Brendan Gogarty, UTAS</p>
<p>The citizenship crisis meant 2017 was a good year for constitutional lawyers. But of the dozens of articles Professor Anne Twomey has written for The Conversation, the one on <a href="https://theconversation.com/can-newman-still-be-queensland-premier-if-he-loses-his-seat-36883">whether Queensland Premier Campbell Newman could still be premier</a> if he lost his seat remains the most poplar, proving it’s not just federal law Twomey is good at explaining.</p>
<p>There are also plenty of others with deep expertise in constitutional law.</p>
<p>Associate Professor Gabrielle Appleby is strong on the <a href="https://theconversation.com/lessons-of-1967-referendum-still-apply-to-debates-on-constitutional-recognition-76725">constitutional issues of Aboriginal recognition.</a></p>
<p>Dr Brendan Gogarty is also a constitutional law expert, and he’s particularly good on technology law and international law. One of his most popular pieces for The Conversation this year, was <a href="https://theconversation.com/backyard-skinny-dippers-lack-effective-laws-to-keep-peeping-drones-at-bay-76580">this one on how technology has left the law behind</a> in the case of drones and backyard skinny dippers.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Demography</h2>
<p><strong>The expert most journos go to:</strong> Bernard Salt</p>
<p><strong>Alternative:</strong> Liz Allen, ANU</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/199840/original/file-20171219-27595-kkc5ml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/199840/original/file-20171219-27595-kkc5ml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199840/original/file-20171219-27595-kkc5ml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199840/original/file-20171219-27595-kkc5ml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199840/original/file-20171219-27595-kkc5ml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199840/original/file-20171219-27595-kkc5ml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199840/original/file-20171219-27595-kkc5ml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">shutterstock.com.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We love your work Bernard, but we still haven’t forgiven you for that smashed avocado trope.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/liz-allen-10193">Dr Liz Allen</a> hasn’t invented a meme (as far as we know), but she has written some of The Conversation’s most popular data-driven articles, including this one on <a href="https://theconversation.com/politicians-stop-pitching-to-the-average-australian-being-middle-class-depends-on-where-you-live-88470">how to work out whether you are in Australia’s middle class.</a></p>
<hr>
<h2>Astronomy</h2>
<p><strong>The expert most journos go to:</strong> Alan Duffy</p>
<p><strong>Alternatives:</strong> Jonti Horner, USQ; Tanya Hill, Museums Victoria</p>
<p>Stargazing is a popular pastime, and there are few astronomers who can talk science as eloquently as <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/alan-duffy-95986/articles">Associate Professor Alan Duffy</a>.</p>
<p>But with a <a href="https://theconversation.com/weve-found-an-exo-planet-with-an-extraordinarily-eccentric-orbit-87011">new exo-planet</a> being discovered almost every week this year, we’ve needed more than one astronomer to help break it down. Senior Research Fellow <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jonti-horner-3355">Jonti Horner</a> is one such expert.</p>
<p>Horner, along with his USQ colleagues <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jake-clark-391989">Jake Clark</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/belinda-nicholson-142751">Belinda Nicholson</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/brad-carter-113970">Brad Carter</a> recently explained <a href="https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-why-do-stars-twinkle-81188">why stars twinkle</a> for a curious 3 year-old kid, proving academics can get through to even the youngest of audiences.</p>
<p>For the night sky observations and space probe exploration Honorary Fellow <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/tanya-hill-121214">Tanya Hill</a>, who is the astronomy curator at the Melbourne Planetarium, is worth adding to your speed dial.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Gender politics, feminism and pop culture</h2>
<p><strong>The expert most journos go to:</strong> Lauren Rosewarne</p>
<p><strong>Alternatives:</strong> Michelle Smith, Monash University; Catherine Strong, RMIT</p>
<p>Lauren has a huge base of loyal readers here at The Conversation. And in case you missed it last year, she wrote <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-christmas-film-recommendables-part-1-69710">the definitive guide to Christmas films.</a></p>
<p>This year’s #metoo movement has encouragingly seen more women find their voice in the media, and journalists seek out more diversity.</p>
<p>Senior Lecturer <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michelle-smith-128/articles">Michelle Smith</a> has penned some of our most well-read articles on attitudes to women, including <a href="https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-double-standards-and-derision-tracing-our-attitudes-to-older-women-and-beauty-79575">this one on our double standards</a> on older women and beauty.</p>
<p>And before the Harvey Weinstein scandal broke, Senior Lecturer <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/catherine-strong-17003">Catherine Strong</a> got us all thinking with this <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-do-you-remember-a-rock-god-the-complicated-legacy-of-chuck-berry-74835">discussion of Chuck Berry</a> and why iconic musicians, particularly after death, have their abuse of women ignored or excused.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Government budget analysis</h2>
<p><strong>The expert most journos go to:</strong> Chris Richardson</p>
<p><strong>Alternative:</strong> Richard Holden, UNSW</p>
<p>Trust us, if other economists spent as much time in the Canberra press gallery as Chris Richardson they’d be on telly a lot more too.</p>
<p>One economist who can also think on his feet is <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/richard-holden-118107">Professor Richard Holden</a>, who joins The Conversation in the budget lockup each year and writes our weekly economics wrap, <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/vital-signs-24164">Vital Signs</a>.</p>
<p>He’s also not afraid to talk housing bubble (and our banks’ <a href="https://theconversation.com/vital-signs-the-spooky-mortgage-risk-signs-our-bankers-are-ignoring-85591">exposure to mortgage risk</a>) – given it’s the topic on the lips of most Australians thinking about their fortunes in the year ahead.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/199849/original/file-20171219-27568-qemb5j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/199849/original/file-20171219-27568-qemb5j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199849/original/file-20171219-27568-qemb5j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199849/original/file-20171219-27568-qemb5j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199849/original/file-20171219-27568-qemb5j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199849/original/file-20171219-27568-qemb5j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199849/original/file-20171219-27568-qemb5j.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"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Adolescent psychology</h2>
<p><strong>The expert most journos go to::</strong> Michael Carr-Gregg</p>
<p><strong>Alternatives:</strong> Jo Robinson, University of Melbourne; Joanne Orlando, Western Sydney University</p>
<p>Michael Carr-Gregg has written several books on parenting, so it’s understandable he’s a hot commodity on breakfast television.</p>
<p>One alternative is <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jo-robinson-7281">Dr Jo Robinson</a>, Senior Research Fellow at Orygen, the National Centre of Excellence in Youth Mental Health at the <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne-722">University of Melbourne</a>. Robinson is doing interesting research on the role of the internet in suicide prevention.</p>
<p>And if you’re interested in that perennial parenting issue of how much technology is too much for kids, <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/joanne-orlando-111756">Joanne Orlando</a> can help.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>This list is just a small sample, and you can find thousands of other experts by searching for the subject you’re interested in via The Conversation’s search bar, or in our <a href="https://theconversation.com/experts/search/">research and expert database.</a> Many of them also provide their contact details on our site, but if you can’t find them, get in touch with <a href="mailto:editors@theconversation.com.au">editors@theconversation.com.au</a> or call 0423 156 062.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/89362/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Journalists are often under deadline pressure, which is why, says Crikey’s Emily Watkins, they return again and again to the same experts. Those who give good quotes are often also pretty good at making…Charis Palmer, Deputy Editor/Chief of StaffLicensed 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/827902017-08-23T10:37:41Z2017-08-23T10:37:41ZMayweather will beat McGregor, neuroscience predicts<p>In Las Vegas, on August 26, the unbeaten American boxer Floyd Mayweather Jr and the immensely popular Irishman Conor McGregor will <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/boxing/mayweather-mcgregor/mayweather-mcgregor-time-date-august-26-how-watch-channel-venue-odds-predictions-tickets-a7903996.html">face off in a boxing ring</a>, where only striking with hands while standing is allowed. It would be just another boxing match, albeit a huge one, except that McGregor is not even a boxer. Instead, he holds the lightweight and welterweight titles in mixed martial arts (<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/mma/0/ufc-mma-fighting-rules/">MMA</a>), an emerging combat sport where striking and grappling with both hands and legs is allowed, both while standing and on the ground.</p>
<p>It is an unprecedented match-up and <a href="http://www.oddsshark.com/boxing/floyd-mayweather-vs-conor-mcgregor-boxing-betting-odds-tracker">some people believe</a> that McGregor, with his speed, athleticism and youth (he is 11 years younger than Mayweather) has a shot at doing something that 49 professional boxers before him <a href="http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/352">have not been able to accomplish</a>. But scientific evidence from the <a href="http://www.cambridge.org/de/academic/subjects/psychology/cognition/neuroscience-expertise?format=PB#A2my8fQdwowxm21E.97">neuroscience of expertise</a>, an emerging field investigating the brain functioning of experts, warns against betting on an MMA fighter – even one as skilled as McGregor – upsetting a boxer in a boxing match.</p>
<h2>The neuroscience of expertise</h2>
<p>The performances of experts often leave us speechless, wondering how it is humanly possible to pull off such feats. This is particularly the case in sports. Consider the serve in tennis. Once the ball is in the air, the brain needs time to process the ball’s trajectory and prepare an appropriate course of action, but by the time the body actually executes the required movements in response to these mental processes, the racket will do no more than slice the air, as the ball will have already passed by.</p>
<p>This is the paradox of fast reaction sports such as tennis or boxing: it is only when the ball or the punch is in the air that we can tell with certainty what is going to happen, but by then it is far too late to react in time, even for the quickest humans. The expert brain adapts to this problem by “reading” the intention of the opponent. The positioning and movements of feet, knees, shoulders and the serving hand in tennis give away clues about the direction and power of a tennis serve. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183120/original/file-20170823-13293-170s7sf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183120/original/file-20170823-13293-170s7sf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183120/original/file-20170823-13293-170s7sf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183120/original/file-20170823-13293-170s7sf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183120/original/file-20170823-13293-170s7sf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183120/original/file-20170823-13293-170s7sf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183120/original/file-20170823-13293-170s7sf.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">Can you read this serve?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Visivastudio / Shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Similarly, the positioning of feet, hips and shoulders provide enough information for the boxing brain to anticipate a punch well in advance. This anticipation power of experts is the reason why the very best practitioners can look like characters from The Matrix, giving the impression of having all the time in the world in an environment where split-second responses decide who wins and who loses.</p>
<p>Being fast and having good reflexes in general is certainly helpful in rapidly changing environments like sports. But no speed in this world will be enough if the brain hasn’t experienced and stored tens of thousands of movement patterns, which can then be reactivated and used for reading the situation at hand. </p>
<h2>Muhammad Ali vs Jim Brown</h2>
<p>This is illustrated by another unofficial cross-discipline event that occurred 50 years ago between the legendary Muhammad Ali and Jim Brown, National Football League (NFL) legend. Jim Brown was a force of nature. He was incredibly quick, immensely powerful, and his extraordinary coordination and reflexes made him one of the greatest NFL players. In the mid 1960s, aged 30, Jim Brown was bored with the NFL and was pondering other ways of making a living. One of them was boxing, a sport where his immense quickness and sheer power would seem to be especially useful. </p>
<p>He persuaded his manager to organise a meeting with Muhammad Ali, at that time at the peak of his powers, who happened to be in London, where Jim Brown was shooting a film at that time. They met in Hyde Park, where Ali used to work out while preparing for the next bout. Ali tried to persuade Brown to give up on his dream of being a boxer. Brown maintained that he was as quick and as powerful as Ali, if not more so, and if boxing suited Ali, it should suit him too. </p>
<p>A “sparring session” ensued, where Ali asked Brown to hit him as hard as possible. The problem was that Ali was never to be found at the spot where he had been standing a moment earlier. <a href="https://www.si.com/more-sports/2012/12/05/bob-arum-bonus">According to the legendary promoter Bob Arum</a>, after about 30 seconds of swinging and missing by Brown, Ali pulled off one of his lightning quick one-two combinations and stopped Brown momentarily in his tracks. At that moment, Brown, visibly winded, clocked the situation and simply said: “OK, I get the point.”</p>
<p>Don’t expect McGregor to be so totally embarrassed, as Brown was. After all, MMA includes aspects of boxing and McGregor has had experience with the sport, unlike Brown. Still, that experience is limited because boxing is just a part of the MMA skill set (not to mention embedded in a context where one needs to employ leg strikes and takedowns). One can be certain that McGregor’s brain has stored vastly fewer kinematic boxing patterns than the brain of a person who has boxed all their life, such as Mayweather Jr. </p>
<p>Mayweather Jr may be 40, he may have ring rust after being absent from the ring for almost two years, and McGregor is not only 11 years his junior but also possibly faster and stronger; but everything we know about the way experts’ brains work tells us that the smart money is on Mayweather Jr recording a convincing win.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82790/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Merim Bilalic receives funding from Clarendon Fund, ORS, ESRC, DFG, OeNB, and Fortüne. </span></em></p>Everything we know about the way experts’ brains work tells us that Mayweather is likely to win the fight.Merim Bilalic, Professor of Cognitive Psychology, Northumbria University, NewcastleLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/764622017-07-06T20:18:56Z2017-07-06T20:18:56ZBook review: The Death of Expertise<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/174334/original/file-20170619-28805-17lbqbv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A new book expresses concern that the 'average American' has base knowledge so low that it is now plummeting to 'aggressively wrong'.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>I have to start this review with a confession: I wanted to like this book from the moment I read the title. And I did. Tom Nichols’ <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-death-of-expertise-9780190469412?cc=au&lang=en&">The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters</a> is a motivating – if at times slightly depressing – read.</p>
<p>In the author’s words, his goal is to examine:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… the relationship between experts and citizens in a democracy, why that relationship is collapsing, and what all of us, citizens and experts, might do about it.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This resonates strongly with what I see playing out around the world almost every day – from the appalling state of <a href="https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-the-finkel-plan-will-test-malcolm-turnbulls-ability-to-deliver-significant-reform-79530">energy politics in Australia</a>, to the frankly bizarre condition of public debate on just about anything in the US and the UK.</p>
<p>Nichols’ focus is on the US, but the parallels with similar nations are myriad. He expresses a deep concern that “the average American” has base knowledge so low it has crashed through the floor of “uninformed”, passed “misinformed” on the way down, and is now plummeting to “aggressively wrong”. And this is playing out against a backdrop in which people don’t just believe “dumb things”, but actively resist any new information that might threaten these beliefs.</p>
<p>He doesn’t claim this situation is new, per se – just that it seems to be accelerating, and proliferating, at eye-watering speed.</p>
<p>Intimately entwined with this, Nichols mourns the decay of our ability to have constructive, positive public debate. He reminds us that we are increasingly in a world where disagreement is seen as a personal insult. A world where argument means conflict rather than debate, and ad hominem is the rule rather than the exception. </p>
<p>Again, this is not necessarily a new issue – but it is certainly a growing one.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/174338/original/file-20170619-28772-1vjio62.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/174338/original/file-20170619-28772-1vjio62.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/174338/original/file-20170619-28772-1vjio62.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=907&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174338/original/file-20170619-28772-1vjio62.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=907&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174338/original/file-20170619-28772-1vjio62.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=907&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174338/original/file-20170619-28772-1vjio62.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1139&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174338/original/file-20170619-28772-1vjio62.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1139&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174338/original/file-20170619-28772-1vjio62.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1139&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Oxford University Press</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The book covers a broad and interconnected range of topics related to its key subject matter. It considers the contrast between experts and citizens, and highlights how the antagonism between these roles has been both caused and exacerbated by the exhausting and often insult-laden nature of what passes for public conversations.</p>
<p>Nichols also reflects on changes in the mediating influence of journalism on the relationship between experts and “citizens”. He reminds us of the ubiquity of Google and its role in reinforcing the conflation of information, knowledge and experience.</p>
<p>His chapter on the contribution of higher education to the ailing relationship between experts and citizens particularly appeals to me as an academic. Two of his points here exemplify academia’s complicity in diminishing this relationship. </p>
<p>Nichols outlines his concern about the movement to treat students as clients, and the consequent over-reliance on the efficacy and relevance of student assessment of their professors. While not against “limited assessment”, he believes:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Evaluating teachers creates a habit of mind in which the layperson becomes accustomed to judging the expert, despite being in an obvious position of having inferior knowledge of the subject material.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Nichols also asserts this student-as-customer approach to universities is accompanied by an implicit, and also explicit, nurturing of the idea that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Emotion is an unassailable defence against expertise, a moat of anger and resentment in which reason and knowledge quickly drown. And when students learn that emotion trumps everything else, it is a lesson they will take with them for the rest of their lives.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/poll-civil-service-experts_us_5849d515e4b04c8e2baeede9">pervasive attacks</a> on experts as “elitists” in US public discourse receive little sympathy in this book (nor should these). Nichols sees these assaults as entrenched not so much in ignorance, more as being rooted in:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… unfounded arrogance, the outrage of an increasingly narcissistic culture that cannot endure even the slightest hint of inequality of any kind.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Linked to this, he sees a confusion in the minds of many between basic notions of democracy in general, and the relationship between expertise and democracy in particular. </p>
<p>Democracy is, Nichols reminds us, “a condition of political equality”: one person, one vote, all of us equal in the eyes of the law. But in the US at least, he feels people:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… now think of democracy as a state of actual equality, in which every opinion is a good as any other on almost any subject under the sun. Feelings are more important than facts: if people think vaccines are harmful … then it is “undemocratic” and “elitist” to contradict them.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The danger, as he puts it, is that a temptation exists in democratic societies to become caught up in “resentful insistence on equality”, which can turn into “oppressive ignorance” if left unchecked. I find it hard to argue with him.</p>
<p>Nichols acknowledges that his arguments expose him to the very real danger of looking like yet another pontificating academic, bemoaning the dumbing down of society. It’s a practice common among many in academia, and one that is often code for our real complaint: that people won’t just respect our authority. </p>
<p>There are certainly places where a superficial reader would be tempted to accuse him of this. But to them I suggest taking more time to consider more closely the contexts in which he presents his arguments.</p>
<p>This book does not simply point the finger at “society” or “citizens”: there is plenty of critique of, and advice for, experts. Among many suggestions, Nichols offers four explicit recommendations. </p>
<ul>
<li><p>The first is that experts should strive to be more humble. </p></li>
<li><p>Second, be ecumenical – and by this Nichols means experts should vary their information sources, especially where politics is concerned, and not fall into the same echo chamber that many others inhabit. </p></li>
<li><p>Three, be less cynical. Here he counsels against assuming people are intentionally lying, misleading or wilfully trying to cause harm with assertions and claims that clearly go against solid evidence. </p></li>
<li><p>Finally, he cautions us all to be more discriminating – to check sources scrupulously for veracity and for political motivations. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>In essence, this last point admonishes experts to mindfully counteract the potent lure of confirmation bias that plagues us all.</p>
<p>It would be very easy for critics to cherry-pick elements of this book and present them out of context, to see Nichols as motivated by a desire to feather his own nest and reinforce his professional standing: in short, to accuse him of being an elitist. Sadly, this would be a prime example of exactly what he is decrying. </p>
<p>To these people, I say: read the whole book first. If it makes you uncomfortable, or even angry, consider why. </p>
<p>Have a conversation about it and formulate a coherent argument to refute the positions with which you disagree. Try to resist the urge to dismiss it out of hand or attack the author himself.</p>
<p>I fear, though, that as is common with a treatise like this, the people who might most benefit are the least likely to read it. And if they do, they will take umbrage at the minutiae, and then dismiss or attack it. </p>
<p>Unfortunately we haven’t worked how to change that. But to those so inclined, reading this book should have you nodding along, comforted at least that you are not alone in your concern that the role of expertise is in peril.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/76462/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rod Lamberts has received funding from the ARC and The Department of Industry, Innovation an Science.</span></em></p>Tom Nichols’ book The Death of Expertise examines why the relationship between experts and citizens in a democracy is collapsing, and what can be done about it.Rod Lamberts, Deputy Director, Australian National Centre for Public Awareness of Science, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/762192017-05-12T01:57:13Z2017-05-12T01:57:13ZDistrust of experts happens when we forget they are human beings<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168844/original/file-20170511-21593-t28wl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">One of these is a human, the other not. Can you tell the difference? </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/411319051?src=wSnv0OC0ynaSWAt1jzkdaw-1-37&size=huge_jpg">from www.shutterstock.com </a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In 2016, conservative, pro-brexit, British politician <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/michael-gove-sky-news-brexit-economics-imf-466365">Michael Gove announced</a> that people in England “…have had enough of experts with organisations from acronyms saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong”.</p>
<p>In the US, Donald Trump famously <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/trump-edelman-trust-crisis/513350/">doesn’t believe any expert </a> who doesn’t agree with him. Our most recent former Prime Minister Tony Abbott has also been <a href="https://www.crikey.com.au/2013/07/26/crikey-says-abbott-has-to-trust-someone/">accused</a> of having trust issues. </p>
<p>Growing distrust of experts is <a href="https://theconversation.com/please-dont-explain-hanson-2-0-and-the-war-on-experts-62106">linked with</a> changing social and political climates. But it also stems from misunderstandings about what experts are, and what their obligations to society entail. </p>
<p>At their heart, criticisms of experts often imply that they are servants, commodities or so vested in their field they can’t relate to reality. </p>
<p>To restore trust in experts, we need to remember they are, first and foremost, human beings. </p>
<h2>How detractors define and judge experts</h2>
<p>It’s probably safe to assume politicians are working from a relatively <a href="http://www.ewi.org.uk/membership_directory_why_join_ewi/whatisanexpertwitness">simple definition</a> of “expert”, such as: “an expert is a person with specialist knowledge not commonly held, or likely to be understood, by a layman.”</p>
<p>When people like Trump make assertions about the right and proper role of experts in public conversations, they appear to have an implicit list of infringements that experts must never transgress. </p>
<h3>Expressing values or opinions</h3>
<p>Detractors claim that when speaking as an expert, the things you say in public should be untainted by your values and opinions. In essence, you should be a passive conduit for information or facts. </p>
<p>University of Colorado Professor <a href="http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about_us/meet_us/roger_pielke/">Roger Pielke</a> offers a subtle disdain for experts occupying this position when he critiques the “<a href="http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2015/01/five-modes-of-science-engagement.html">stealth issues advocate</a>”, a role “characterized by the expert who seeks to hide his/her advocacy behind a facade of science, either pure scientist or science arbiter.” </p>
<h3>Deviating from the straight and narrow</h3>
<p>Critics of experts believe that should you even <em>appear</em> to deviate from your role as a neutral presenter of facts (for example, by offering policy advice), you are no longer an expert and/or cannot be trusted. </p>
<p>This is typified by <a href="https://www.desmog.uk/2017/02/01/european-conservatives-shun-us-uk-climate-science-denier-s-anti-expert-rhetoric-incredibly-dangerous">Myron Ebell</a> when he was head of Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency transition team. He said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[…] whenever you hear an environmental expert, think that he is an urban eco-imperialist.</p>
</blockquote>
<h3>Making mistakes</h3>
<p>Those who criticise experts assert that if you get something wrong, you are no longer an expert and/or cannot be trusted. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/30/green-movement-greatest-threat-freedom-says-trump-adviser-myron-ebell">Myron Ebell</a> referred to experts as “the expertariat”, saying:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The people of America have rejected the expertariat, and I think with good reason because I think the expertariat have been wrong about one thing after another, including climate policy. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>All of these criticisms forget one thing: experts are human beings. </p>
<p>To suggest that the benefits of expertise can be delivered “value-free” is naive. Like all people, experts are influenced by politics and biases, emotions and beliefs. They are motivated, active agents who create, process and communicate knowledge. Experts are not passive conduits.</p>
<h2>The reality of the expert</h2>
<p>To consider the role of experts in public debates, I’m drawing on my own area of expertise: <a href="http://cpas.anu.edu.au/news-events/rod-lamberts-science-communication-frequently-public-occasionally-intellectual">science communication</a>. In the spirit of this article, I should note that I claim expertise here based on nearly 20 years of university-based research, practice, and teaching as well as my experience providing consultancies in Australia and around the globe. </p>
<p>In my realm, the most interesting grist for discussions around experts and trust turns up wherever science-<em>related</em> (but not always science-<em>based</em>) assertions are flung around in contests over socially contentious issues. </p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/our-political-beliefs-predict-how-we-feel-about-climate-change-69435">Climate change action</a>, the acceptance of <a href="https://theconversation.com/perceptions-of-genetically-modified-food-are-informed-by-more-than-just-science-72865">genetically modified foods</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/want-to-boost-vaccination-dont-punish-parents-build-their-trust-40094">compulsory childhood vaccination</a> are three classic examples where this regularly plays out in public.</p>
<p>Of course in examples like these, the role of expertise is not straightforward. For starters, exactly what constitutes pertinent specialist knowledge is itself up for debate. </p>
<p>Scientific aspects of disagreements about climate change, genetic modification or vaccination are regularly accompanied by arguments grounded in social, political, economic and religious concerns. And well they should be – these are not uni-dimensional issues. It’s not simply a matter of ‘getting some expertise’, it’s also about working out which expertise is relevant, and to whom.</p>
<p>In an ideal world, the evidence-based assertions of experts withstand evidence-based challenges, and are modified where they are found wanting. It’s through the open, honest, systematic contest of ideas among experts that the best ideas emerge. </p>
<p>Clearly the place of the expert in public conversations on these issues depends on many factors: the goal(s) of the conversation; the knowledge, interests and positions of the parties involved; and importantly, the types of people who might be ‘listening in’. </p>
<p>But more, it should also depend on what the experts themselves want to achieve. Like anyone else, experts have their own motives, even when overtly wearing their expert hat. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168849/original/file-20170511-21613-150n3vh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168849/original/file-20170511-21613-150n3vh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168849/original/file-20170511-21613-150n3vh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168849/original/file-20170511-21613-150n3vh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168849/original/file-20170511-21613-150n3vh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168849/original/file-20170511-21613-150n3vh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168849/original/file-20170511-21613-150n3vh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168849/original/file-20170511-21613-150n3vh.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">Yes, I’m wearing my scientist hat but I’m also a human being.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/634641254?src=u_rKdO-eHmSU9eYxpcJO5g-2-48&size=huge_jpg">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Traditionally, an expert’s motivation for participating in public conversations as an expert will be rooted in a desire to inform, guide, advise or warn based on their specialist knowledge. </p>
<p>But equally – and often simultaneously – they could be driven to participate because they want to engage, inspire or entertain. They themselves may also hope to learn from their participation in a public conversation. </p>
<p>Or maybe they just want to be noticed (and there’s nothing wrong with that).</p>
<h2>So, what’s the place of experts in public conversations?</h2>
<p>Assessing the actions of experts using criteria that downplay, and even ignore, the fact that they are people makes it easier to admonish them and dismiss their expertise because they dare to have opinions, to make mistakes, or to pick a side. </p>
<p>US Navy Professor <a href="http://thefederalist.com/author/tomnichols/">Tom Nichols</a> says <a href="http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/17/the-death-of-expertise/">we live in</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[…] a manic reinterpretation of “democracy” in which everyone must have their say, and no one must be “disrespected”. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is a place where, at the extremes, positions put forward by experts are deemed suspect <em>because</em> they come from experts. </p>
<p>In a world where facts and logic are considered malleable, and where powerful, influential interest groups cast doubt on the notion of expertise <em>itself</em>, it’s the <a href="http://cpas.anu.edu.au/news-events/rod-lamberts-science-communication-frequently-public-occasionally-intellectual">place of the expert in public conversations</a> to help turn this tide. </p>
<p>It’s my opinion that the expert should strive to be seen as <em>more</em> human, to embody at every opportunity their position as a part of society, as a person who has interests and opinions <em>and also</em> expertise. </p>
<p>How they choose to do this, however, should be up to them.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/76219/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rod Lamberts currently receives funds from DIIS, and has in the past received ARC funding. </span></em></p>Experts may be dismissed when they express values, offer advice or make mistakes. But these expectations are unreasonable and unhelpful.Rod Lamberts, Deputy Director, Australian National Centre for Public Awareness of Science, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/766532017-05-04T07:54:29Z2017-05-04T07:54:29ZHow universities can earn trust and share power in the bitter post-truth era<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167685/original/file-20170503-21616-19gp0y6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Universities can take a stand.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/573113302?src=XWimLqj5Cthnc9mBfgP3QQ-1-10&size=medium_jpg">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>James Baldwin, the author, playwright and social critic, whose life is depicted in the remarkable 2016 film <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/jamesbaldwin">I Am Not Your Negro</a>, once said: “It is certain, in any case, that ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can have.” Alongside Baldwin’s commentary, the work of <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Origins_of_Totalitarianism.html?id=zLrKGGxBKjAC">Hannah Arendt</a> teaches us about the “banality of evil”: that everyday, ordinary people are capable of acts of barbarity, cruelty and injustice if the leaders and circumstances around them normalise those behaviours. She famously said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In these conditions, of course, we are all in grave danger. The enemy of a civilised and decent society, a society in which democracy, human flourishing and social justice have a chance, is power plus ignorance normalised. Where this occurs, we should not be surprised to witness a world where spectacle, bravado and celebrity triumph over “truth”; where “alternative facts” triumph over evidence, data, human experience and testimony.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VSrEEDQgFc8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>We are already on that path. Today, we witness the devaluation of expertise and experts, knowledge and reason, critique and dissent. <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/10/michael-goves-guide-to-britains-greatest-enemy-the-experts/">Michael Gove’s infamous 2016 statement</a>, declaring that “people in this country have had enough of experts”, is just one example. He may have meant it as a throwaway remark, or something peculiarly restricted to the debate over Brexit, but it sounded much more general, and it lodged, like a thorn in the side, in the body of experts who had been so lightly dismissed. </p>
<p>With the election of the new US president, and political and social turbulence on a national and international scale, we are witnessing renewed attacks on the very institutions and values which support critical thinking, robust analysis, informed agency, and on the structures necessary to defend and maintain democracy and knowledge-driven societies.</p>
<p>Britain is often spoken of as a “knowledge economy”. This needs experts as surely as a manufacturing economy needs makers, as an agricultural economy needs farmers, and as a hunting and gathering economy needs hunter-gatherers. So, if people have had enough of experts, have they had enough of the knowledge economy, too? Who are these “people” anyway? How should universities, as institutions of expertise and knowledge, respond? </p>
<h2>The burning issue of trust</h2>
<p>In November 2016, the British Science Association pulled together a group of senior representatives from academia and industry (some might even call them experts) to debate the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2016/nov/09/how-can-we-rebuild-trust-in-scientific-experts">burning issue of trust in the 21st century</a>. How much did Gove’s quip capture the public mood? Was public trust in experts being eroded? Were experts and expertise itself under threat? Could we ever hope to win that trust back?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.britac.ac.uk/users/baroness-onora-oneill">Dame Onora O’Neill</a>, professor of philosophy at Cambridge University, questioned whether Gove had really captured anything other than his own confusion. She pointed to <a href="https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3685/Politicians-are-still-trusted-less-than-estate-agents-journalists-and-bankers.aspx">recent public attitude surveys</a> which showed that scientists and doctors were still much-trusted members of society – leagues ahead of journalists, estate agents and politicians. </p>
<p>But she also questioned the blind placing of trust in something as abstract as “science” and a “scientist”. Trust was meted out, case by case. All that we can hope for is that an astute person would bestow trust on someone, perhaps an expert, who is demonstrably trustworthy. Blind, unconditional trust in anything or anybody doesn’t help society at all. And if scientists, and academics more generally, don’t engage with the public in meaningful ways, they are very unlikely to be trusted. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167684/original/file-20170503-21641-3gfp3e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167684/original/file-20170503-21641-3gfp3e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167684/original/file-20170503-21641-3gfp3e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167684/original/file-20170503-21641-3gfp3e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167684/original/file-20170503-21641-3gfp3e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167684/original/file-20170503-21641-3gfp3e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167684/original/file-20170503-21641-3gfp3e.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">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Michael Gove may have had enough of experts … but what about everyone else?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/michael-gove-giving-speech-london-united-558196201?src=lAuzBQ3ctXdaFy6Cv7GGAQ-1-16">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Whether or not we believe there has been an erosion of trust in experts, it has always been incumbent on such experts to engage with the public – to share knowledge and to ensure that the way in which knowledge is being driven forward benefits as many people as possible. But are our knowledge engines – principally universities – <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/researchers-should-reach-beyond-the-science-bubble-1.21514">really working for the good of the many in society</a>? Or have they become hopelessly elitist, self-serving machines to generate knowledge – and power – for a slim sector of society to the detriment of the rest? </p>
<p>Despite the growth in science, knowledge and global higher education, the world is profoundly unequal, with social, geographical, ethnic, gender and other divisions, including income and wealth. </p>
<p>Even within Britain, the fourth largest economy in the world, the gap between rich and poor is <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/24e88c30-bc5f-11e6-8b45-b8b81dd5d080">larger than it was in the 1970s</a>. Last year, Oxfam published a report showing that the world’s <a href="http://www.oxfam.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases/2016/01/62-people-own-same-as-half-world-says-oxfam-inequality-report-davos-world-economic-forum">richest 62 people owned as much wealth</a> as the bottom half of the world’s population – 3.6 billion people. Billions of people globally are being left behind. What, if anything, has higher education achieved for them?</p>
<h2>Driving social change</h2>
<p>The potential for universities to be instigators of social change, to level the field a little when it comes to knowledge capital, can extend beyond the bounds of the campus. There’s a strong civic and philanthropic drive behind the desire to increase the social and economic impact of our research and teaching. </p>
<p>But it’s not just about discoveries that might have a positive economic benefit, or a positive impact on health and well-being of people more generally. The way we carry out research and scholarship, and generate and share knowledge, could – with effective engagement – be something much more beneficial and relevant to society as a whole. </p>
<p>There’s a growing recognition that universities can only achieve this by working purposefully and effectively with external partners, civic society organisations, business, and wider publics. Engagement is increasingly seen as something that is not only essential to excellent research, and to teaching – but as part of universities’ social and civic responsibilities. Universities are knowledge institutions and brokers. Part of their democratic and enlightening function is to make knowledge relevant, accessible and useable to people everywhere. But the benefits of research have not been distributed evenly through society. Researchers may be convinced they are acting for the public good, but they need to test that assumption. </p>
<p>So there’s a note of caution to be sounded here. We might think we know how to engage with the public, but do we really know what people would like from us and how they would like us to engage? And how they would like to influence the direction of research and education? </p>
<p>There won’t be a one-size-fits-all solution for effective engagement across and within institutions. And we boldly suggest that the solutions will be discovered through a bottom-up rewiring of the system – and a re-energising of social responsibility in research – supported from above, and from outside. If we can achieve that, then through that exchange of ideas, knowledge and trust, power really could be shared more widely, for a change.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/76653/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Saul Becker is affiliated with Citizens UK. The views expressed in this article are his own.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alice Roberts 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>Despite the claims of populist politicians, academics and experts can drive positive social change.Alice Roberts, Professor of Public Engagement in Science, University of BirminghamSaul Becker, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, University of BirminghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/762222017-04-13T11:31:16Z2017-04-13T11:31:16ZEU agencies: a Brexit loss nobody’s talking about<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/165578/original/image-20170418-32716-19u2drp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">EU agencies play an important role in food regulation.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Brexit doesn’t only mean the UK leaving the European Union, the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/604079/Prime_Ministers_letter_to_European_Council_President_Donald_Tusk.pdf">single European market</a>, the European Economic Area, the customs union, the European Investment Bank and the European Atomic Energy Community. There are also more than <a href="https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/library/eu_agencies_brochure_final_en_web.pdf">40 specialist EU agencies</a> throughout the continent from which the UK will no longer benefit.</p>
<p>Some, such as the European Food Safety Authority in Parma, have important regulatory roles. These agencies are full of experts whose work directly benefits British people’s health, security and economic well-being. Are they experts Britain can do without?</p>
<p>Leave campaigners implied that quitting the European Union would be as easy as giving up a gym membership. Instead, the process looks fiendishly complicated – and that’s before the impact of abandoning EU agencies has been discussed. Presumably Britain will no longer contribute, nor have access to agency expertise unless it negotiates continuing association. It would have to pay for that privilege.</p>
<p>One of these bodies is the <a href="https://www.eda.europa.eu/">European Defence Agency</a> in Brussels. The EDA seeks to enhance European defence and security by identifying duplication and inefficiency between nations. It makes recommendations about how to improve equipment interoperability between armed forces, weapons systems, and software. It encourages pooling and sharing in the interests of efficiency and effectiveness, pushing member states towards a <a href="https://www.eda.europa.eu/what-we-do/eda-priorities/strategies/capabilities">better use</a> of their resources. This is clearly in the UK’s national interest and in the interests of NATO. Reduced engagement with the EDA cannot possibly benefit Britain’s security.</p>
<p>Other agencies include the <a href="http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/pages/home.aspx">European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control</a>, based in Stockholm, the Agency for European Global Navigation Satellite Systems in Prague, and the <a href="https://echa.europa.eu/">European Chemicals Agency</a> in Helsinki. These all deal with global concerns of high importance, so reduced UK involvement smacks of insularity and arrogance.</p>
<h2>Manifold benefits</h2>
<p>EU agencies cover many health, safety and security issues. Collectively they help to ensure the quality of the food people eat, the medicines they take, chemicals, education, justice, the <a href="https://osha.europa.eu/en">quality of working life</a>, environmental protection (<a href="http://www.eea.europa.eu/">European Environment Agency</a>), and the safety of transport by air, sea and rail (European Aviation Safety Agency, European Maritime Safety Agency, European Agency for Railways). They work on international security (Institute for Security Studies), policing (<a href="https://www.europol.europa.eu/">EUROPOL</a>), fundamental rights, justice, cybersecurity and many other fields. The UK should remain at the heart of international efforts to boost safety and the quality of life in all these areas.</p>
<p>Among the more esoteric but nevertheless important is the wonderfully named Clean Sky Joint Undertaking. Clean Sky works with European aviation industries to reduce the environmental impact of flying by developing technologies to halve noise, cut carbon dioxide emissions and reduce fuel consumption.</p>
<p>Two EU agencies are based in London. One, <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/51a68c6e-e094-11e6-9645-c9357a75844a">the European Banking Authority</a>, was set up in the wake of the financial crisis to help stabilise the EU by safeguarding the integrity and efficiency of the banking sector. It will now almost certainly move to a eurozone country. This would mean a loss of expertise that contributes to the security of UK banking. The financial crisis and the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19199683">Libor scandal</a> highlight the arrogant complacency in assuming that the City can manage banking perfectly well without the transnational expertise the EBA contributes. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/">European Medicines Agency</a> is also in London. This researches chronic conditions including AIDS, cancer, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases, and diabetes. It contributes to developing medicines for children, rare diseases, advanced therapies, and herbal and veterinary medicines. It brings together clinical research from across Europe. In 2013, the EMA dealt with over 1m adverse drug reports and recommended 81 medicines for authorisation, including 13 for treating cancers. Does Britain no longer wish to engage with the EMA?</p>
<p>Presumably, UK negotiators will enjoy the immense challenge Brexit presents. They might arrange continued membership of a few EU agencies, some of which may welcome UK involvement, but the most rabid Brexiteers would cut all links. Will the government regard agency expertise as expendable and give up the benefits? Or will the UK create its own equivalents? This would mean duplicating work and failing to profit from the international knowledge, intellectual capital and economies of scale provided by these agencies. It would also damage the UK’s reputation as a valued partner in creating knowledge capital for the benefit of all humanity.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, post-Brexit resentment is inevitable. Britain will suffer from cutting its engagement with EU agencies, adding to the already visible loss of expertise from universities, hospitals and research institutes. Prominent Leave campaigner Michael Gove declared that the UK has <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/professor-brian-cox-michael-gove-experts_uk_5777dceee4b073366f0f20b5">had enough of experts</a>. No-one expected the government to adopt this sentiment with such bizarre enthusiasm.</p>
<p>Quitting the single market will close down access to EU agencies. Some transactional relationships will survive, but few divorces end up as harmonious partnerships between friends.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/76222/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Simon Sweeney was a member of the UK Socrates Erasmus Bologna Experts group between 2006-13, working to promote the principles and practice of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA).</span></em></p>A network of EU experts helps monitor food safety, banking conduct and medicines. And no-one seems to have a plan for replacing them.Simon Sweeney, Senior Lecturer in International Political Economy and Business, University of YorkLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.