tag:theconversation.com,2011:/fr/topics/scientific-literacy-27855/articlesScientific literacy – The Conversation2021-06-29T12:06:22Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1617132021-06-29T12:06:22Z2021-06-29T12:06:22ZScience denial: Why it happens and 5 things you can do about it<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408741/original/file-20210628-25-dhlbk1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=171%2C171%2C5433%2C3829&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Are you open to new ideas and willing to change your mind?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/entrepreneur-with-arms-crossed-at-modern-workplace-royalty-free-image/1210533708">Klaus Vedfelt/DigitalVision via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Science denial became deadly in 2020. Many political leaders <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-failure-of-public-health-messaging-about-covid-19/">failed to support what scientists knew to be effective</a> prevention measures. Over the course of the pandemic, people <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/11/16/south-dakota-nurse-coronavirus-deniers/">died from COVID-19 still believing it did not exist</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Galileo/Mario-Livio/9781501194740">Science denial is not new</a>, of course. But it is more important than ever to understand why some people deny, doubt or resist scientific explanations – and what can be done to overcome these barriers to accepting science.</p>
<p>In our book “<a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/science-denial-9780190944681">Science Denial: Why It Happens and What to Do About It</a>,” we offer ways for you to understand and combat the problem. As <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=LzHZpAEAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">two research</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=VBvoFacAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">psychologists</a>, we know that everyone is susceptible to forms of it. Most importantly, we know there are solutions.</p>
<p>Here’s our advice on how to confront five psychological challenges that can lead to science denial.</p>
<h2>Challenge #1: Social identity</h2>
<p>People are social beings and tend to align with those who hold <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119011071.iemp0153">similar beliefs and values</a>. Social media <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d43978-021-00019-4">amplify alliances</a>. You’re likely to <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/309214/the-filter-bubble-by-eli-pariser/">see more of what you already agree with</a> and fewer alternative points of view. People live in information filter bubbles created by <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2017/02/08/code-dependent-pros-and-cons-of-the-algorithm-age/">powerful algorithms</a>. When those in your social circle share misinformation, you are more likely to believe it and share it. Misinformation multiplies and science denial grows.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408706/original/file-20210628-21-1xk8f82.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="two seated men in discussion" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408706/original/file-20210628-21-1xk8f82.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408706/original/file-20210628-21-1xk8f82.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408706/original/file-20210628-21-1xk8f82.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408706/original/file-20210628-21-1xk8f82.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408706/original/file-20210628-21-1xk8f82.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408706/original/file-20210628-21-1xk8f82.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408706/original/file-20210628-21-1xk8f82.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">Can you find common ground to connect on?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/W3Jl3jREpDY">LinkedIn Sales Solutions/Unsplash</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Action #1: Each person has multiple social identities. One of us talked with a climate change denier and discovered he was also a grandparent. He opened up when thinking about his grandchildren’s future, and the conversation turned to economic concerns, the root of his denial. Or maybe someone is vaccine-hesitant because so are mothers in her child’s play group, but she is also a caring person, concerned about immunocompromised children.</p>
<p>We have found it effective to listen to others’ concerns and try to find common ground. Someone you <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-015-9312-x">connect with is more persuasive</a> than those with whom you share less in common. When one identity is blocking acceptance of the science, leverage a second identity to make a connection.</p>
<h2>Challenge #2: Mental shortcuts</h2>
<p>Everyone’s busy, and it would be exhausting to be vigilant deep thinkers all the time. You see an article online with a clickbait headline such as “Eat Chocolate and Live Longer” and you share it, because you assume it is true, want it to be or think it is ridiculous. </p>
<p>Action #2: Instead of sharing that article on how GMOs are unhealthy, learn to slow down and monitor the quick, intuitive responses that psychologist <a href="https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374533557">Daniel Kahneman calls System 1 thinking</a>. Instead turn on the rational, analytical mind of System 2 and ask yourself, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1730181">how do I know this is true</a>? Is it plausible? Why do I think it is true? Then do some fact-checking. Learn to not immediately accept information you already believe, which is called <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175">confirmation bias</a>. </p>
<h2>Challenge #3: Beliefs on how and what you know</h2>
<p>Everyone has <a href="https://www.routledge.com/Handbook-of-Epistemic-Cognition/Greene-Sandoval-Braten/p/book/9781138013421">ideas about what they think knowledge is</a>, where it comes from and whom to trust. <a href="https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315795225-9/epistemic-cognition-psychological-construct-advancements-challenges-barbara-hofer">Some people think dualistically</a>: There’s always a clear right and wrong. But scientists view <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2019.1629805">tentativeness as a hallmark</a> of their discipline. Some people may not understand that scientific claims will change as more evidence is gathered, so they may be distrustful of how public health policy shifted around COVID-19.</p>
<p>Journalists who present “both sides” of settled scientific agreements can unknowingly persuade readers that the science is more uncertain than it actually is, turning <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.001">balance into bias</a>. Only 57% of Americans surveyed accept that climate change is caused by human activity, compared with <a href="https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/">97% of climate scientists</a>, and only <a href="https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us/">55% think that scientists are certain that climate change is happening</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408752/original/file-20210628-21-19bxio7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="man with book looking off into distance" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408752/original/file-20210628-21-19bxio7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408752/original/file-20210628-21-19bxio7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408752/original/file-20210628-21-19bxio7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408752/original/file-20210628-21-19bxio7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408752/original/file-20210628-21-19bxio7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408752/original/file-20210628-21-19bxio7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408752/original/file-20210628-21-19bxio7.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">How did you come to know what you know?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/man-reading-book-on-the-table-royalty-free-image/980285120">ridvan_celik/E+ via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Action #3: Recognize that other people (or possibly even you) may be operating with misguided beliefs about science. You can help them adopt what philosopher of science <a href="https://leemcintyrebooks.com">Lee McIntyre</a> calls a <a href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/scientific-attitude">scientific attitude</a>, an openness to seeking new evidence and a willingness to change one’s mind. </p>
<p>Recognize that very few individuals rely on a single authority for knowledge and expertise. Vaccine hesitancy, for example, has been successfully <a href="https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/public-health/time-doctors-take-center-stage-covid-19-vaccine-push">countered by doctors</a> who persuasively contradict erroneous beliefs, as well as by friends who explain why they <a href="https://addisonindependent.com/joanna-colwell-i-didnt-vaccinate-my-child-and-then-i-did-0">changed their own minds</a>. <a href="https://www.churchleadership.com/leading-ideas/5-ways-churches-can-play-a-critical-role-in-vaccination-efforts/">Clergy can step forward</a>, for example, and some have offered places of worship as vaccination hubs.</p>
<h2>Challenge #4: Motivated reasoning</h2>
<p>You might not think that how you interpret a simple graph could depend on your political views. But when people were asked to look at the same charts depicting either housing costs or the rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over time, interpretations differed by political affiliation. Conservatives were more likely than progressives to <a href="https://apadiv15.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/APA-2020-Hockey-Stick-1.pdf">misinterpret the graph</a> when it depicted a rise in CO2 than when it displayed housing costs. When people reason not just by examining facts, but with an unconscious bias to come to a preferred conclusion, <a href="https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/what-is-motivated-reasoning-how-does-it-work-dan-kahan-answers">their reasoning will be flawed</a>.</p>
<p>Action #4: Maybe you think that eating food from genetically modified organisms is harmful to your health, but have you really examined the evidence? Look at articles with both pro and con information, evaluate the source of that information, and be open to the evidence leaning one way or the other. If you give yourself the time to think and reason, you can short-circuit your own motivated reasoning and open your mind to new information.</p>
<h2>Challenge #5: Emotions and attitudes</h2>
<p>When Pluto got <a href="https://theconversation.com/nasa-missions-may-re-elevate-pluto-and-ceres-from-dwarf-planets-to-full-on-planet-status-36081">demoted to a dwarf planet</a>, many children and some adults responded with anger and opposition. Emotions and attitudes are linked. Reactions to hearing that humans influence the climate can range from anger (if you do not believe it) to frustration (if you are concerned you may need to change your lifestyle) to anxiety and hopelessness (if you accept it is happening but think it’s too late to fix things). How you feel about climate mitigation or GMO labeling aligns with whether you are for or against these policies.</p>
<p>Action #5: Recognize the role of emotions in decision-making about science. If you react strongly to a story about stem cells used to develop Parkinson’s treatments, ask yourself if you are overly hopeful because you have a relative in early stages of the disease. Or are you rejecting a possibly lifesaving treatment because of your emotions?</p>
<p>Feelings shouldn’t (and can’t) be put in a box separate from how you think about science. Rather, it’s important to understand and recognize that emotions are <a href="https://wwnorton.com/books/9780393709810">fully integrated ways of thinking and learning</a> about science. Ask yourself if your attitude toward a science topic is based on your emotions and, if so, give yourself some time to think and reason as well as feel about the issue. </p>
<p>[<em>You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation’s authors and editors.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=youresmart">You can read us daily by subscribing to our newsletter</a>.]</p>
<p>Everyone can be susceptible to these five psychological challenges that can lead to science denial, doubt and resistance. Being aware of these challenges is the first step toward taking action to meet them.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/161713/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Barbara K. Hofer has received research funding from the National Science Foundation and Vermont EPSCOR. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gale Sinatra has received funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF), Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada, Mattel Children's Foundation. </span></em></p>Science denial is not new, but researchers have learned a lot about it. Here’s why it exists, how everyone is susceptible to it in one way or another and steps to take to overcome it.Barbara K. Hofer, Professor of Psychology Emerita, MiddleburyGale Sinatra, Professor of Education and Psychology, University of Southern CaliforniaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1447312020-08-23T20:05:54Z2020-08-23T20:05:54ZTeach questions, not answers: science literacy is a crucial skill<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/354007/original/file-20200821-14-1fg9rmo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/innovative-idea-434810755">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It seems today the mistrust of official health advice and spread of <a href="https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2020/03/13/covid-19-coronavirus-myths-debunked">“alternative” treatments</a> for COVID-19 are as frightening as the virus itself. How is it that so many people are ill-informed (and seemingly choose to be so) about the pandemic, despite decades of compulsory science education?</p>
<p>Of course we are entering a <a href="https://theconversation.com/lies-damn-lies-and-post-truth-106049">post-truth era</a> in which fake news and conspiracy theories proliferate, while many have contempt for scientific facts. </p>
<p>But a deeper problem lies in the way we teach science. Our curriculum and instruction are still driven by content mastery and high-stakes testing, which has alienated many young people from scientific ideas.</p>
<p>Students are taught isolated and impersonal facts without understanding the history and processes of how scientists know what we know — an education in scientific literacy.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/science/glossary/?letter=S">Australian Curriculum</a> defines scientific literacy as:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>An ability to use scientific knowledge, understanding, and inquiry skills to identify questions, acquire new knowledge, explain science phenomena […] and draw evidence-based conclusions in making sense of the world, and to recognise how understandings of […] science help us make responsible decisions and shape our interpretations of information.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>While laudable as an educational goal, scientific literacy is seldom emphasised in practice. We need to do more to promote it in primary and secondary schools.</p>
<h2>Why facts aren’t enough</h2>
<p>The problem with people’s mistrust of science has little to do with their actual intelligence or overall education. After all, some educated people still <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/flat-earthers-what-they-believe-and-why/">believe the Earth is flat</a>, and <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1547">climate change is contentious</a>.</p>
<p>Getting someone to accept a new idea goes beyond the brain to a <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1098-2736%28200103%2938%3A3%3C296%3A%3AAID-TEA1007%3E3.0.CO%3B2-R">broader consideration</a> of the person’s social, cultural and emotional factors.</p>
<p>American social psychologist Jonathan Haidt used a <a href="https://www.carnegiefoundation.org/blog/how-to-change-things-when-change-is-hard/#:%7E:text=and%20an%20elephant.-,Heath%20framed%20his%20talk%20around%20the%20compelling%20elephant%2Drider%20analogy,a%20rider%20and%20an%20elephant.">rider and elephant analogy</a> to explain why we are resistant to new ideas and beliefs. The rider is the rational side of our mind while the elephant is the unconscious and emotional side. To change a person’s view, it is useless to focus on the rider without addressing the elephant.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/354008/original/file-20200821-24-1jt4vkc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A man riding an elephant in the jungle." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/354008/original/file-20200821-24-1jt4vkc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/354008/original/file-20200821-24-1jt4vkc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/354008/original/file-20200821-24-1jt4vkc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/354008/original/file-20200821-24-1jt4vkc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/354008/original/file-20200821-24-1jt4vkc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/354008/original/file-20200821-24-1jt4vkc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/354008/original/file-20200821-24-1jt4vkc.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">To get someone to change their beliefs, we need to get to the elephant.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/wild-elephant-mahout-beautiful-forest-kanchanaburi-398637409">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Science is full of strange ideas that are sometimes at odds with common sense, such as matter being made of moving atoms, or time being relative. Teaching these ideas as facts is like targeting the rider. </p>
<p>Many <a href="https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-94-007-2150-0_88">educational theorists have long argued</a> the idea knowledge could somehow be “transferred” from teachers and textbooks to students is untenable. The students will still interpret the taught content through a conceptual framework of prior knowledge and beliefs.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/knowledge-is-a-process-of-discovery-how-constructivism-changed-education-126585">Knowledge is a process of discovery: how constructivism changed education</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Years of <a href="https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-94-007-2150-0_88">research in science education</a> has found teaching facts alone is an ineffective strategy when trying to change a person’s ingrained misconceptions or “alternative theories”.</p>
<h2>A new approach to teaching scientific literacy</h2>
<p>Scientific theories are built on evidence through the process of argumentation. Every fact and theory taught in the curriculum should be questioned and tested with evidence. Students should ideally observe or collect data for themselves. </p>
<p>There are many <a href="https://www.space.com/38931-kids-can-prove-earth-round.html">practical ways to show the Earth is round</a> that can be done as a classroom activity. For instance, a classroom in Perth can interact online with another classroom in Bali (roughly the same longitude) to simultaneously measure the shadow from a metre stick and use the result to calculate the Earth’s circumference. </p>
<p>Repeatedly <a href="https://www.routledge.com/Discourse-Strategies-for-Science-Teaching-and-Learning-Research-and-Practice/Tang/p/book/9780367344245">asking students to question every fact</a> will instil a lifelong value of critical literacy in science. It is crucial for young people to always evaluate the source of information and discern false claims that are not backed by empirical evidence, such as drinking bleach to treat coronavirus.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1276155808129191937"}"></div></p>
<p>Science should also be taught as a dialogue within a community of people. This is the human side of science where ideas are discussed, argued and negotiated in the process of building consensus. </p>
<p>Mirroring this process, students must be given opportunities to <a href="https://ed.stanford.edu/spotlight/teach-science-through-argument">practise evidence-based argumentation</a>. Their innate theories about the world should be elicited and compared with accepted scientific theories, so students can see their relative merits and suitability in addressing a particular phenomenon or problem. </p>
<h2>Emotions play a large part</h2>
<p>Last but not least, emotions play a big part in science learning. Scientific issues that represent social concerns (such as the lockdown) and problems related to science and technology (the 5G network) can evoke a range of emotions among students.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-cut-through-when-talking-to-anti-vaxxers-and-anti-fluoriders-72504">How to cut through when talking to anti-vaxxers and anti-fluoriders</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>It is important to acknowledge students’ emotions as they deal with the moral and ethical issues in these ideas. Controversial issues provide not only an authentic learning context, but are also excellent topics for debate and argumentation. </p>
<p><a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11165-019-09873-1">Some studies</a> have found allowing students to express their emotions during lessons on such social issues in science can enhance their empathy and disposition towards science.</p>
<p>The goal of <a href="https://theconversation.com/science-curriculum-needs-to-do-more-to-engage-primary-school-students-74523">scientific literacy is not new</a>. But COVID-19 has brought a greater urgency to its importance. Scientific literacy is now no longer an educational aspiration that is good to attain, but a very immediate concern that impacts our survival in a post-truth society.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Correction: an error that Perth and Bali were located roughly on the same “latitude” has now been corrected.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/144731/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kok-Sing Tang receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC). </span></em></p>Students are taught isolated and impersonal facts without understanding the history and processes of how scientists know what we know — an education in scientific literacy.Kok-Sing Tang, Associate Professor, Curtin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1364822020-04-17T13:25:02Z2020-04-17T13:25:02ZPoliticians and scientists need strong connections during the coronavirus crisis — and beyond<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/328493/original/file-20200416-192731-c1nhpx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C40%2C3836%2C2626&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs Chrystia Freeland have relied heavily on the science-based advice of Chief Medical Officer Theresa Tam during the coronavirus pandemic.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The reaction of governments to the coronavirus pandemic perfectly illustrates the importance of maintaining strong links between the scientific and political communities.</p>
<p>Federal and provincial political leaders in Canada are working closely with scientific experts to slow the spread of the infection, combat misinformation and respond quickly and effectively.</p>
<p>Sadly, we have also seen in some cases the harm that weakening the role of science in policy-making can cause. </p>
<p>Whether in times of crisis or not, the constructive integration of scientific evidence into political decision-making strengthens policy initiatives, improves the quality of debate and leads to robust, cost-effective and successful outcomes for society.</p>
<p>Despite the importance of science in society — and we mean science in its broadest sense, including the natural, health and social sciences — there is a considerable gap between the scientific and political spheres.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/eclipse-of-reason-why-do-people-disbelieve-scientists-81068">This gap is widening in the current “post-truth” era</a>, where the role of science has become weakened in many public institutions, and is often discredited to the benefit of vested and financed interests. It is also increasingly difficult for policy-makers to navigate the growing quantity and variety of scholarly research and evaluate its validity. </p>
<p>In order to make full use of our knowledge resources, we need researchers from all disciplines to engage with the policy-making process. However, researchers are underrepresented in politics and governance worldwide. Canada is no exception. A recent analysis has revealed that <a href="https://ipolitics.ca/2019/11/28/do-we-have-enough-scientists-in-parliament/">scientific disciplines are strongly underrepresented within the current Parliament</a>.</p>
<h2>Why aren’t more scientists in politics?</h2>
<p>Scientists have often been portrayed as looking down from an ivory tower and many researchers still perceive science as outside of <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02379-w">or “above” politics and everyday life</a>. However, <a href="https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/fee.2084">a growing number of scientists worldwide recognize the need for public engagement</a> and involvement in the policy-making process to ensure that society can take the maximum benefit from the knowledge that science generates.</p>
<p>Why then do so few scientists run for office or engage with policy-makers? </p>
<p>One key problem is that <a href="https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/fee.2084">engaging in government policy is not well rewarded by academic institutions</a>. Given heavy demands on researchers’ time, it can be difficult to justify activities that <a href="https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/if-you-love-research-academia-may-not-be-you">are not typically recognized as benchmarks of academic achievement by research institutions or funding agencies</a>. </p>
<p>In addition to a lack of professional motivation, <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-02831-3">few scientists know how to communicate effectively with politicians</a>, provide valuable and timely input to policy questions or <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/02/want-get-politician-listen-science-here-s-some-advice">connect with government representatives</a>. While Canadian policy-makers rely on parliamentary committees to review and use scientific evidence, academics are largely unaware of the committee process or how to get involved.</p>
<h2>Science meets Parliament</h2>
<p>We were privileged to be among the scientists who participated in Canada’s inaugural <a href="https://academic.oup.com/spp/article/doi/10.1093/scipol/scz062/5710706">Science Meets Parliament</a> in November 2018.</p>
<p>This non-partisan event brought together academics and policy-makers to promote a mutual understanding of their respective roles and to build new relationships between the two communities. Based on <a href="https://scienceandtechnologyaustralia.org.au/what-we-do/science-meets-parliament/">a model founded in Australia</a> more than 20 years ago, the <a href="https://sciencepolicy.ca/en">Canadian Science Policy Centre</a> and Mona Nemer, <a href="https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/063.nsf/eng/h_97646.html">Canada’s Chief Science Advisor</a>, partnered to co-ordinate this two-day program on Parliament Hill.</p>
<p>Science Meets Parliament included workshops where scientists discussed methods for effective communication, the structure of government and legislative processes, national science-related policy issues and methods to assist MPs and senators to advance evidence-informed policy.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/328468/original/file-20200416-192762-jhalsn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/328468/original/file-20200416-192762-jhalsn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=447&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/328468/original/file-20200416-192762-jhalsn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=447&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/328468/original/file-20200416-192762-jhalsn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=447&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/328468/original/file-20200416-192762-jhalsn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=562&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/328468/original/file-20200416-192762-jhalsn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=562&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/328468/original/file-20200416-192762-jhalsn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=562&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Participants in the first meeting of the ‘Science Meets Parliament’ program with Mona Nemer, Canada’s Chief Science Advisor.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Canadian Science Policy Centre)</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Building on our experience from Science Meets Parliament, we are proposing six recommendations for improving science-policy relationships in Canada. </p>
<h2>1. Integrate public policy communication into academic training</h2>
<p>Effective communications with policy-makers is a key skill that researchers must develop if they are to facilitate the incorporation of science into policy. Yet this element is missing from most graduate programs and faculty training. </p>
<p>We contend that including policy communication skill development into professional training will provide the current and future generations of scientists with the tools necessary to engage with policy-makers. </p>
<h2>2. Develop incentives for policy engagement</h2>
<p>Researchers have identified the lack of professional incentives for policy engagement as an important reason why a gap exists between science and policy.</p>
<p>We recommend that universities and granting agencies view policy input, such as briefing notes or committee testimony, as valid research outputs and service for the purposes of promotion and funding applications. Additionally, to streamline faculty engagement with the policy process, public outreach offices could monitor parliamentary committee agendas and alert researchers to opportunities to contribute their expertise.</p>
<h2>3. Establish and support forums for public engagement training</h2>
<p>We applaud efforts to establish <a href="https://www.mitacs.ca/en/programs/canadian-science-policy-fellowship">Canadian Science Policy Fellowships</a> and <a href="https://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/Promoter-Promotion/ScienceComm_eng.asp">funding opportunities for scientists to participate in training activities</a> focusing on public communication skills. </p>
<p>Science Meets Parliament has demonstrated the potential to grow into a major capacity builder in this area. Starting with a <a href="https://sciencepolicy.ca/smp-2020">second edition planned for the fall</a>, we recommend funding this program on an annual basis to continue introducing scientists from diverse disciplines and backgrounds to the policy-making process.</p>
<h2>4. Create a research chair at the Chief Science Advisor’s office</h2>
<p>We propose the creation of visiting research chairs within the office of the Chief Science Advisor. This would allow scientists to learn and develop new strategies for integrating science into politics. This position could take the form of internships lasting from four months to one year for researchers who participated in the Science Meets Parliament program.</p>
<h2>5. Establish science literacy opportunities for Parliamentarians</h2>
<p>Parliamentarians should be offered more opportunities to enhance their science literacy through campus and community visits, targeted training and workshops, <a href="https://royalsociety.org/grants-schemes-awards/pairing-scheme/">or pairing with scientists</a>. These would enhance understanding of the scientific landscape in Canada, including how to access credible information from the scientific community. Access to relevant scientific information could also be facilitated by collaboration between academic researchers and analysts from the <a href="https://hillnotes.ca/">Library of Parliament, which publishes a research document called HillNotes</a>.</p>
<h2>6. Extend Science Meets Parliament to other levels of government</h2>
<p>In Canada, <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/intergovernmental-affairs/services/federation/distribution-legislative-powers.html">legislative powers are distributed among the federal and provincial/territorial governments</a>, and in co-ordination with First Nations, Inuit and Métis Nation communities. While the municipalities report directly to the provinces, they often have the most direct relationships to local residents. Strong links between scientists, Indigenous leaders and members of municipal councils and provincial legislative assemblies are therefore equally important as links with federal legislators.</p>
<p>Both scientists and policy-makers considered the inaugural Science Meets Parliament event highly successful. We hope the lessons learned can be applied to strengthen the program in order to foster a robust culture of science in Canadian public life.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/136482/count.gif" alt="La Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dominique Robert receives funding from the Canada Research Chairs Program and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adam T. Ford receives funding from the Canada Research Chairs Program, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), Canada Foundation for Innovation, the Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation, and Environment and Climate Change Canada.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Albrecht Schulte-Hostedde receives funding from the Canada Research Chair program and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Amanda J. Moehring receives funding from the Canada Research Chairs Program, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), and Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR).</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Angela Kaida receives funding from the Canada Research Chairs program, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), Grand Challenges Canada, Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research (MSFHR), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Arjun Krishnaswamy receives funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Scottish Rite Charitable Foundation, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, and the Canada Research Chairs Program.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Catherine L. Mah holds funding from the Canada Research Chairs program, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Cole Burton receives funding from funding from the Canada Research Chairs Program, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), Canada Foundation for Innovation, Mitacs, and British Columbia Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Erin Bertrand holds funding from the Canada Research Chair Program, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), the New Frontiers in Research Fund, the Ocean Frontier Institute and the Simons Foundation</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Heather Sparling holds funding from the Canada Research Chairs program and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. She has received funding from several Nova Scotia government grants at various points.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jackie Dawson receives funding from SSHRC, ArcticNet, MEOPAR.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kin Chan receives funding from the Canada Research Chairs program, SSHRC, NSERC, and the Ontario Ministry of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mary A De Vera receives funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, The Arthritis Society, the Canadian Initiative for Outcomes in Rheumatology Care, and the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Meghan Azad receives funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Research Manitoba, the Canada Foundation for Innovation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Manitoba Children’s Hospital Foundation, Prolacta Biosciences, Mitacs, and the Garfield G. Weston Foundation. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sheldon Williamson receives funding from the Canada Research Chairs (CRC) program, the Natural Sciences and engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada, the Ontario Centers of Excellence (OCE), MITACS, Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI), NSERC Discovery Grants Program , and the NSERC Alliance program.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephanie Waterman receives funding from the Canada Research Chair Program, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), the New Frontiers in Research Fund, MITACS, Marine Environmental Observation, Prediction and Response Network (MEOPAR), the Canadian Foundation for Innovation ( CFI) and the British Columbia Knowledge Development Fund (BCKDF).</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Trushar R. Patel receives funding from the Canada Research Chair program, Alberta Innovates, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Discovery program and Canada Foundation for Innovation.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Valorie A. Crooks receives funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research, and the Canada Research Chairs Secretariat. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jiaying Zhao et Matt McTaggart ne travaillent pas, ne conseillent pas, ne possèdent pas de parts, ne reçoivent pas de fonds d'une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n'ont déclaré aucune autre affiliation que leur poste universitaire.</span></em></p>The effective integration of science into policy-making improves legislation and leads to effective solutions for society — and not only during times of crisis like the coronavirus pandemic.Dominique Robert, Professeur et Chaire de recherche du Canada en écologie halieutique, Université du Québec à Rimouski (UQAR)Adam T. Ford, Assistant Professor and Canada Research Chair, University of British ColumbiaAlbrecht Schulte-Hostedde, Professor - Applied Evolutionary Ecology, Laurentian UniversityAmanda J. Moehring, Professor of Genetics, Western UniversityAngela Kaida, Associate Professor and Canada Research Chair in Global Perspectives in HIV and Sexual and Reproductive Health, Simon Fraser UniversityArjun Krishnaswamy, Assistant Professor, McGill UniversityCatherine L. Mah, Canada Research Chair in Promoting Healthy Populations, Dalhousie UniversityCole Burton, Canada Research Chair in Terrestrial Mammal Conservation, University of British ColumbiaErin Bertrand, Assistant Professor of Biology, Dalhousie UniversityHeather Sparling, Associate Professor of Ethnomusicology; Canada Research Chair in Musical Traditions, Cape Breton UniversityJackie Dawson, Associate Professor in the Department of Geography, Environment, and Geomatics, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of OttawaJiaying Zhao, Associate Professor, Psychology, University of British ColumbiaKin Chan, Assistant Professor in Biochemistry, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of OttawaMary A De Vera, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British ColumbiaMatt McTaggart, Assistant professor, Department of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Royal Military College of CanadaMeghan Azad, Associate Professor of Pediatrics and Child Health, University of ManitobaSheldon Williamson, Professor, Department of Electrical, Computer, and Software Engineering, and Canada Research Chair, Ontario Tech UniversityStephanie Waterman, Assistant Professor, Physical Oceanography, University of British ColumbiaTrushar R. Patel, Assistant professor, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, and Canada Research Chair, University of LethbridgeValorie A. Crooks, Full Professor, Department of Geography, Simon Fraser UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1321582020-03-09T12:22:22Z2020-03-09T12:22:22ZHow technology can combat the rising tide of fake science<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/318753/original/file-20200304-66112-vybpt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=63%2C13%2C1178%2C840&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A crop circle in Switzerland.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CropCircleW.jpg">Jabberocky/Wikimedia Commons</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Science gets a lot of respect these days. Unfortunately, it’s also getting a lot of competition from misinformation. Seven in 10 Americans think the benefits from science outweigh the harms, and nine in 10 think science and technology will create <a href="https://nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/report/sections/science-and-technology-public-attitudes-and-understanding/highlights">more opportunities for future generations</a>. Scientists have made dramatic progress in understanding the universe and the mechanisms of biology, and advances in computation benefit all fields of science. </p>
<p>On the other hand, Americans are surrounded by a rising tide of misinformation and fake science. Take climate change. Scientists are in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024">almost complete agreement that people are the primary cause of global warming</a>. Yet polls show that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02406-9">a third of the public disagrees</a> with this conclusion.</p>
<p>In my <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=OrRLRQ4AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">30 years of studying and promoting scientific literacy</a>, I’ve found that college educated adults have large holes in their basic science knowledge and they’re disconcertingly <a href="https://ejse.southwestern.edu/article/view/17315">susceptible to superstition and beliefs that aren’t based on any evidence</a>. One way to counter this is to make it easier for people to detect pseudoscience online. To this end, my lab at the University of Arizona has developed an artificial intelligence-based pseudoscience detector that we plan to freely release as a web browser extension and smart phone app.</p>
<h2>Americans’ predilection for fake science</h2>
<p>Americans are prone to superstition and paranormal beliefs. An annual survey done by sociologists at Chapman University finds that <a href="https://blogs.chapman.edu/wilkinson/2018/10/16/paranormal-america-2018/">more than half believe in spirits and the existence of ancient civilizations</a> like Atlantis, and more than a third think that aliens have visited the Earth in the past or are visiting now. Over 75% hold multiple paranormal beliefs. The survey shows that these numbers have increased in recent years.</p>
<p><iframe id="IbP7D" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/IbP7D/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Widespread belief in astrology is a pet peeve of my colleagues in astronomy. It’s long had a foothold in the popular culture through horoscopes in newspapers and magazines <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/01/the-new-age-of-astrology/550034/">but currently it’s booming</a>. Belief is strong even among the most educated. My surveys of college undergraduates show that three-quarters of them <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/AER2010040">think that astrology is very or “sort of” scientific</a> and only half of science majors recognize it as not at all scientific.</p>
<p>Allan Mazur, a sociologist at Syracuse University, has delved into <a href="https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9780203788967">the nature of irrational belief systems</a>, their cultural roots, and their political impact. Conspiracy theories are, by definition, resistant to evidence or data that might prove them false. Some are at least amusing. Adherents of the flat Earth theory turn back the clock on two millennia of scientific progress. <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/9/16424622/reddit-conspiracy-theories-memes-irony-flat-earth">Interest in this bizarre idea has surged in the past five years</a>, spurred by social media influencers and the echo chamber nature of web sites like Reddit. As with climate change denial, <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47279253">many come to this belief through YouTube videos</a>.</p>
<p>However, the consequences of fake science are no laughing matter. In matters of health and climate change, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.190161">misinformation can be a matter of life and death</a>. Over a 90-day period spanning December, January and February, people liked, shared and commented on posts from sites containing <a href="https://www.zdnet.com/article/coronavirus-misinformation-is-increasing-newsguard-finds/">false or misleading information about COVID-19</a> 142 times more than they did information from the Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization. </p>
<p>Combating fake science is an urgent priority. In a world that’s increasingly dependent on science and technology, civic society can only function when the electorate is well informed. </p>
<p>Educators must roll up their sleeves and do a better job of teaching critical thinking to young people. However, the problem goes beyond the classroom. The internet is the <a href="https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/report">first source of science information</a> for 80% of people ages 18 to 24. </p>
<p>One study found that a majority of a random sample of 200 YouTube videos on climate change <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00036">denied that humans were responsible or claimed that it was a conspiracy</a>. The videos peddling conspiracy theories got the most views. Another study found that <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/21/climate-tweets-twitter-bots-analysis">a quarter of all tweets on climate were generated by bots</a> and they preferentially amplified messages from climate change deniers.</p>
<h2>Technology to the rescue?</h2>
<p>The recent success of machine learning and AI in <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.00648">detecting fake news</a> points the way to detecting fake science online. The key is <a href="https://www.explainthatstuff.com/introduction-to-neural-networks.html">neural net</a> technology. Neural nets are loosely modeled on the human brain. They consist of many interconnected computer processors that identify meaningful patterns in data like words and images. Neural nets already permeate everyday life, particularly in <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.02709">natural language processing</a> systems like Amazon’s Alexa and Google’s language translation capability.</p>
<p>At the University of Arizona, we have trained neural nets on handpicked popular articles about climate change and biological evolution, and the neural nets are 90% successful in distinguishing wheat from chaff. With a quick scan of a site, our neural net can tell if its content is scientifically sound or climate-denial junk. After more refinement and testing we hope to have neural nets that can work across all domains of science. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/318416/original/file-20200303-66064-2dk56c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/318416/original/file-20200303-66064-2dk56c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/318416/original/file-20200303-66064-2dk56c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/318416/original/file-20200303-66064-2dk56c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/318416/original/file-20200303-66064-2dk56c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=591&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/318416/original/file-20200303-66064-2dk56c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=591&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/318416/original/file-20200303-66064-2dk56c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=591&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Neural net technology under development at the University of Arizona will flag science websites with a color code indicating their reliability (left). A smartphone app version will gamify the process of declaring science articles real or fake (right).</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Chris Impey</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The goal is a web browser extension that would detect when the user is looking at science content and deduce whether or not it’s real or fake. If it’s misinformation, the tool will suggest a reliable web site on that topic. My colleagues and I also plan to gamify the interface with a smart phone app that will let people compete with their friends and relatives to detect fake science. Data from the best of these participants will be used to help train the neural net.</p>
<p>Sniffing out fake science should be easier than sniffing out fake news in general, because subjective opinion plays a minimal role in legitimate science, which is characterized by evidence, logic and verification. Experts can readily distinguish legitimate science from conspiracy theories and arguments motivated by ideology, which means machine learning systems can be trained to, as well. </p>
<p>“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” These words of <a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2010/11/moynihan-letters-201011">Daniel Patrick Moynihan</a>, advisor to four presidents, could be the mantra for those trying to keep science from being drowned by misinformation.</p>
<p>[<em>You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation’s authors and editors.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=youresmart">You can read us daily by subscribing to our newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/132158/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Chris Impey 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 internet has allowed pseudoscience to flourish. Artificial intelligence could help steer people away from the bad information.Chris Impey, University Distinguished Professor of Astronomy, University of ArizonaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1050612018-10-24T14:33:27Z2018-10-24T14:33:27ZHow to read and learn from scientific literature, even if you’re not an expert<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/241808/original/file-20181023-169801-c0kgls.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">It's hard work, but reading scientific literature can be very valuable.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Brendan Howard/Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Reading scientific literature is not for the faint-hearted. It’s dense, and very often full of foreign terms and ideas. </p>
<p>It also assumes a basic understanding of the discipline in question. I can’t imagine that many people outside the world of theoretical physics are reading journal articles on the subject. That makes sense: <a href="https://www.nature.com/news/it-s-not-just-you-science-papers-are-getting-harder-to-read-1.21751">research has found</a> that scientific literature across disciplines is getting <a href="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/03/28/119370">more complicated</a>.</p>
<p>But as more and more journals embrace the principles of <a href="https://doaj.org/">open access</a>, and more information becomes freely available online, curious readers are probably more likely to start engaging with scientific literature. That’s a good thing. Research shouldn’t be regarded as a closely kept secret for a small number of people. In a world full of half truths, simplistic and misleading summaries, and outright “fake news”, being able to read and engage with scientific literature can be a powerful weapon.</p>
<p>Of course, you can also seek out examples of scientists writing for the public. But be wary: not all scientists are willing to do this; we are, on the whole, very picky about details and don’t like generalisations. So try to engage with scientific literature where you can: it will be hard work in the beginning if you have no scientific background, but it’s a skill that can be developed.</p>
<p>So, if you’d like to start reading more scientific literature, here are a few tips to improve your experience. I’m focusing largely on the life sciences since that’s my area of expertise.</p>
<h2>Making sense of articles</h2>
<p>Science is about asking and answering questions. Scientific articles are the way in which scientists communicate their results to their peers. Here’s how to navigate those articles.</p>
<p><strong>Choose journals that publish good science:</strong></p>
<p>“Good science” is rigorous, verifiable and rooted in a broader body of research. There are however, an increasing number of scientific journals available. Some have better credentials than others; often, these are linked to reputable scientific societies. For instance, the South African Journal of Botany is the journal of the South African Association of Botanists. </p>
<p>Only people with a four-year degree who are active in the field can be members of the society. The same sort of rigour is applied to who can publish in the journal.</p>
<p>When journals aren’t linked to societies, you can look at their editors’ credentials. Reputable scientists are unlikely to allow their names to be linked to fraudulent or predatory (those that charge a fee to publish articles, without any review or editing) journals. </p>
<p>These are not reputable, and do not publish robust, good science. </p>
<p>Also, don’t be fooled by people’s titles. I would hope that no one would consult me about heart surgery but I sometimes see adverts where a “doctor” has endorsed a product – often one that has nothing to do with their field of expertise.</p>
<p><strong>Start with the abstract for a broad overview:</strong></p>
<p>It’s expensive to subscribe to most journals or to buy entire articles online. But even limited access journals usually supply the abstract for free. This summarises the article and usually gives the major findings. You can then decide whether you want more details and are prepared to buy the article, if it’s not open access, or to keep reading if it is.</p>
<p><strong>And then continue in a chronological fashion:</strong></p>
<p>Most articles have an introduction which introduces the topic and sets the scene. It usually includes a statement as to the aim of the study – essentially, the question that the authors set out to answer. It also provides references to previous literature, which could be useful to understanding the topic. There will references throughout the article; this is a way of ensuring that all statements are substantiated with reference to the published literature.</p>
<p>The next section of an article is usually followed by the materials and methods (although in some journals this might be relegated to the end of the article). Here, the authors will provide details about the methodology used in their experiments. This is where things can get very technical, but you will also see constant reference to other research that has been published using the same or similar methods if you want to get a better understanding of the methods. </p>
<p>Then comes the results section, which outlines the results yielded by the experiments. This, too, is likely to be very technical but is also where the details are provided. </p>
<p>The last section is the discussion, which provides the authors’ interpretation of the results. This is often what scientists read most carefully, since it’s where the authors “connect the dots”; they are also likely to provide a conclusion and suggest an answer to the question they were trying to answer. </p>
<h2>Read widely</h2>
<p>Once you’re finished reading one article on a topic, read some more. You should not ever just believe what is stated in a single article. Science is very repetitive and builds on the research that has come before, so researchers are often repeating others’ experiments. This is where the in text references come in handy. They provide a way for results from one laboratory to be checked and tested by others. So, to get the truth about a topic, read a number of articles about it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/105061/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brenda Wingfield receives funding from NRF and DST. She works for the University of Pretoria and her research is done in FABI. She is vice president of ASSAf and holds a research chair in Fungal Genomics. </span></em></p>Scientific articles are the way in which scientists communicate their results to their peers.Brenda Wingfield, Vice President of the Academy of Science of South Africa and DST-NRF SARChI chair in Fungal Genomics, Professor of Genetics, University of PretoriaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/960992018-05-08T10:45:06Z2018-05-08T10:45:06ZThe thinking error at the root of science denial<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217977/original/file-20180507-46344-1b5ztgz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Could seeing things in black-and-white terms influence people's views on scientific questions? </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/bipolar-mental-health-brain-disorder-concept-696763021?src=QIP761u6PnS62HfxXQTh7A-1-21">Lightspring/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Currently, there are three important issues on which there is scientific consensus but controversy among laypeople: climate change, biological evolution and childhood vaccination. On all three issues, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikax0Y0NJsY">prominent</a> <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/epa-chief-pruitt-refuses-to-link-co2-and-global-warming/">members</a> of the Trump administration, including the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump-energizes-the-anti-vaccine-movement-in-texas/2017/02/20/795bd3ae-ef08-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?utm_term=.06bebd42c026">president</a>, have lined up against the conclusions of research. </p>
<p>This widespread rejection of scientific findings presents a perplexing puzzle to those of us who value an evidence-based approach to knowledge and policy.</p>
<p>Yet many science deniers do cite empirical evidence. The problem is that they do so in invalid, misleading ways. Psychological research illuminates these ways.</p>
<h2>No shades of gray</h2>
<p>As a psychotherapist, I see a striking parallel between a type of thinking involved in many mental health disturbances and the reasoning behind science denial. As I explain in my book “Psychotherapeutic Diagrams,” dichotomous thinking, also called black-and-white and all-or-none thinking, is a factor in depression, anxiety, aggression and, especially, borderline personality disorder. </p>
<p>In this type of cognition, a spectrum of possibilities is divided into two parts, with a blurring of distinctions within those categories. Shades of gray are missed; everything is considered either black or white. Dichotomous thinking is not always or inevitably wrong, but it is a poor tool for understanding complicated realities because these usually involve spectrums of possibilities, not binaries.</p>
<p>Spectrums are sometimes split in very asymmetric ways, with one-half of the binary much larger than the other. For example, perfectionists categorize their work as either perfect or unsatisfactory; good and very good outcomes are lumped together with poor ones in the unsatisfactory category. In borderline personality disorder, relationship partners are perceived as either all good or all bad, so one hurtful behavior catapults the partner from the good to the bad category. It’s like a pass/fail grading system in which 100 percent correct earns a P and everything else gets an F.</p>
<p>In my observations, I see science deniers engage in dichotomous thinking about truth claims. In evaluating the evidence for a hypothesis or theory, they divide the spectrum of possibilities into two unequal parts: perfect certainty and inconclusive controversy. Any bit of data that does not support a theory is misunderstood to mean that the formulation is fundamentally in doubt, regardless of the amount of supportive evidence. </p>
<p>Similarly, deniers perceive the spectrum of scientific agreement as divided into two unequal parts: perfect consensus and no consensus at all. Any departure from 100 percent agreement is categorized as a lack of agreement, which is misinterpreted as indicating fundamental controversy in the field. </p>
<h2>There is no ‘proof’ in science</h2>
<p>In my view, science deniers misapply the concept of “proof.” </p>
<p>Proof exists in mathematics and logic but not in science. Research builds knowledge in progressive increments. As empirical evidence accumulates, there are more and more accurate approximations of ultimate truth but no final end point to the process. Deniers exploit the distinction between proof and compelling evidence by categorizing empirically well-supported ideas as “unproven.” Such statements are technically correct but extremely misleading, because there are no proven ideas in science, and evidence-based ideas are the best guides for action we have.</p>
<p>I have observed deniers use a three-step strategy to mislead the scientifically unsophisticated. First, they cite areas of uncertainty or controversy, no matter how minor, within the body of research that invalidates their desired course of action. Second, they categorize the overall scientific status of that body of research as uncertain and controversial. Finally, deniers advocate proceeding as if the research did not exist. </p>
<p>For example, climate change skeptics jump from the realization that we do not completely understand all climate-related variables to the inference that we have no reliable knowledge at all. Similarly, they give <a href="https://critical-angle.net/2017/05/03/new-publication-does-it-matter-if-the-consensus-on-anthropogenic-global-warming-is-97-or-99-99">equal weight</a> to the 97 percent of climate scientists who believe in human-caused global warming and the 3 percent who do not, even though many of the latter <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2015/mar/05/doubt-over-climate-science-is-a-product-with-an-industry-behind-it">receive support from the fossil fuels industry</a>. </p>
<p>This same type of thinking can be seen among creationists. They seem to misinterpret any limitation or flux in evolutionary theory to mean that the validity of this body of research is fundamentally in doubt. For example, the biologist James Shapiro (no relation) discovered a <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-View-21st-Century-paperback/dp/0133435539/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1525455301&sr=1-1&keywords=james+shapiro+evolution">cellular mechanism of genomic change</a> that Darwin did not know about. Shapiro views his research as adding to evolutionary theory, not upending it. Nonetheless, his discovery and others like it, refracted through the lens of dichotomous thinking, result in articles with titles like, “Scientists Confirm: Darwinism Is Broken” by Paul Nelson and David Klinghoffer of the Discovery Institute, which promotes the theory of “intelligent design.” Shapiro insists that his research provides no support for intelligent design, but proponents of this pseudoscience <a href="https://evolutionnews.org/2012/01/is_james_shapir_1/">repeatedly cite his work</a> as if it does. </p>
<p>For his part, Trump engages in dichotomous thinking about the possibility of a link between childhood vaccinations and autism. Despite <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2275444#Results">exhaustive research</a> and the consensus of all major medical organizations that no link exists, Trump has often cited a link between vaccines and autism and he <a href="http://www.trumptwitterarchive.com/highlights/vaccines">advocates</a> changing the <a href="http://fortune.com/2017/02/16/donald-trump-autism-vaccines/">standard vaccination protocol</a> to protect against this nonexistent danger. </p>
<p>There is a vast gulf between perfect knowledge and total ignorance, and we live most of our lives in this gulf. Informed decision-making in the real world can never be perfectly informed, but responding to the inevitable uncertainties by ignoring the best available evidence is no substitute for the imperfect approach to knowledge called science.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/96099/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jeremy P. Shapiro 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>Why do some people reject scientifically accepted ideas? A psychotherapist points to black-and-white thinking as part of the explanation.Jeremy P. Shapiro, Adjunct Assistant Professor of Psychological Sciences, Case Western Reserve UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/791012017-06-13T02:55:47Z2017-06-13T02:55:47ZWhen politicians cherry-pick data and disregard facts, what should we academics do?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173427/original/file-20170612-10208-qr82w3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Advocating for facts and evidence at the March for Science in California earlier this year.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/matthewalmonroth/33822848630/">Matthew Roth/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>When politicians distort science, academics and scientists tend to watch in shock <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0963662511418743">from the sidelines</a> rather than speak out. But in an age of “fake news” and “alternative facts,” we need to step into the breach and inject scientific literacy into the political discourse. </p>
<p>Nowhere is this obligation more vivid than the debate over climate change. Contrary to the consensus of <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/significantfigures/index.php/2017/01/17/joint-statements-on-climate-change-from-national-academies-of-science-around-the-world/">scientific agencies</a> worldwide, the president has called climate change a “<a href="http://www.newsweek.com/what-has-trump-said-about-global-warming-quotes-climate-change-paris-agreement-618898">hoax</a>” (though his position may be <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/03/politics/nikki-haley-donald-trump-climate-change-cnntv/index.html">shifting</a>), while his EPA administrator has <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/09/epa-scott-pruitt-carbon-dioxide-global-warming-climate-change">denied even the most basic link to carbon dioxide as a cause</a>. </p>
<p>It’s another sign that we, as a society, are drifting away from the use of scientific reasoning to inform public policy. And the outcome is clear: a misinformed voting public and the passage of policies to benefit special interests. </p>
<h2>Using data to meet predetermined goals</h2>
<p>We saw this dynamic at work when President Trump announced his intention to <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-trumps-decision-to-leave-paris-accord-hurts-the-us-and-the-world-78707">withdraw from the Paris Agreement</a> on climate change. In making his case, he <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/06/01/statement-president-trump-paris-climate-accord">presented</a> an ominous economic future: “2.7 million lost jobs by 2025,” and industries devastated by 2040: “Paper – down 12 percent. Cement – down 23 percent. Iron and steel – down 38 percent. Coal – and I happen to love the coal miners – down 86 percent. Natural gas – down 31 percent.”</p>
<p>These data were drawn from a <a href="http://www.nera.com/content/dam/nera/publications/2017/170316-NERA-ACCF-Full-Report.pdf">study</a> – one study! – funded by the <a href="http://accf.org/">American Council for Capital Formation</a>, a pro-business lobbying group, and conducted by <a href="http://www.nera.com/about.html">National Economic Research Associates</a> (NERA), a consulting firm for industrial clients often opposed to environmental regulations. The <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/opinion/trump-paris-climate-change-agreement.html?ref=opinion">New York Times</a> Editorial Board called the data “nonsense” and “a cornucopia of dystopian, dishonest and discredited data based on numbers from industry-friendly sources.”</p>
<p>A closer look at the study reveals how it was misused and distorted to make the president’s case. The NERA study modeled five different scenarios, but President Trump cited only one. It assumed <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/06/01/fact-checking-president-trumps-claims-on-the-paris-climate-change-deal/?utm_term=.1ea9b7476f94">limited technological development</a> with regard to clean technologies that could reduce the costs of low-carbon energy over the long term. Also, the president’s use of the study’s cost projections did not put them in the context of a larger economy in 2040. </p>
<p>Indeed, the study looked only at specific industrial sectors and not the <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/regulations-jobs/513563/">economy as a whole</a> and it did not consider where other sectors of the economy might benefit by policies to reduce greenhouse gases. It also didn’t note that some industries, <a href="https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/coal.cfm">including coal mining</a>, face decline for market reasons that go beyond climate policy. And lastly, it did not consider the costs of <a href="https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v527/n7577/full/nature15725.html">inaction</a> to climate change as compared to action.</p>
<p>Since the president’s speech, NERA has issued a <a href="http://www.nera.com/news-events/press-releases/2017/nera-economic-consultings-study-of-us-emissions-reduction-polici.html">statement</a> that the “study was not a cost-benefit analysis of the Paris Agreement and does not purport to be one” and that “use of results from this analysis as estimates of the impact of the Paris Agreement alone mischaracterizes the purpose of NERA’s analysis.” </p>
<p>In short, the use of their analysis was misleading. And yet, there it is, standing as justification to the American public for the historic U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. </p>
<p>That American public, <a href="https://phys.org/news/2009-03-american-adults-flunk-basic-science.html">surveys</a> show, is often uninformed about science and the scientific process. And so, academic scholars have an important role to play standing up for scientific integrity by speaking out when it is threatened. </p>
<p>Just this past winter, the Heartland Institute, a libertarian think tank that rejects the scientific consensus on climate change, <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/democrats-condemn-climate-change-skeptics-for-targeting-teachers/">sent their book</a> “Why Scientists Disagree about Climate Change” to 25,000 K-12 science teachers for inclusion in their curriculum. Their goal is to reach 200,000. </p>
<p>This represents a threat that requires a response from all who value rigorous evidence-based decision-making: professors, research scientists, college deans, university presidents, journal editors, heads of professional societies, donors, employers, professionals and the general public.</p>
<h2>Standing up for scientific integrity</h2>
<p>I have long advocated for <a href="http://blog.ucsusa.org/science-blogger/the-balancing-act-public-engagement-for-the-academic-scholar-291">greater public engagement</a> from academics. But how do we bring scientific literacy to the realm of policy-making? We begin by being authentic in local, regional and global arenas. Surveys in both <a href="http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/how-americans-communicate-about-global-warming-april-2013/">2013</a> and <a href="http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us-2016/?est=discuss&type=diff&geo=county">2016</a> show that only one in three Americans discusses global warming with friends or family. If that number is to ever approach 100 percent, academic scholars must lead the way, whether that be in small gatherings, town hall meetings, local schools, newspaper editorials and publications (like <a href="https://theconversation.com/us">The Conversation</a>), <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/22/science/march-for-science.html?_r=0">public protests</a>, government testimony and of course the classroom. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173433/original/file-20170612-3809-1i66cyx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173433/original/file-20170612-3809-1i66cyx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173433/original/file-20170612-3809-1i66cyx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=286&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173433/original/file-20170612-3809-1i66cyx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=286&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173433/original/file-20170612-3809-1i66cyx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=286&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173433/original/file-20170612-3809-1i66cyx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173433/original/file-20170612-3809-1i66cyx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173433/original/file-20170612-3809-1i66cyx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Computer scientist Patrick Madden is running for Congress because ‘in Washington, there’s an all out attack on the very idea of facts, and on anyone who tells the truth.’</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.maddenforcongress.com/why-im-running/">Patrick Madden for Congress</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>At the extreme, some, like <a href="http://www.ozy.com/politics-and-power/professors-are-lining-up-to-challenge-trump-but-will-it-work/78640">Dr. Patrick Madden,</a> have decided to <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/thanks-to-trump-scientists-are-planning-to-run-for-office/514229/">run for office</a>. </p>
<p>We cannot wait until our particular science is under threat, as some <a href="http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/06/02/mit-researchers-trump-misstated-our-data/iqMIeh72HKWkf6YLgI9aGO/story.html">MIT scientists</a> had to do when President Trump misused their climate data in his speech as well. We must stand up for all science and the integrity of the scientific process now. </p>
<h2>Responding when science’s credibility is challenged</h2>
<p>This is not comfortable terrain. Science and scientists have <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism_in_American_Life">long been mistrusted</a> by a segment of American society, newly emboldened to attack its credibility on several fronts. Consider just these five and how to respond.</p>
<ul>
<li><p><strong>It is not the place for scientists to become political.</strong> But any research that asks people to change their beliefs or their actions is, by definition, political. You can try to remain outside the fray, but in my view, that is the same as remaining irrelevant.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>There are mistakes in scientific research, so scientists should not be trusted.</strong> Any good scientist knows you do not throw out an entire model when a flaw is found. Scientific research is corrected when subsequent studies challenge prior work, and fatally flawed studies are <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/stap-retracted-1.15488">retracted</a>.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Scientists are arrogant and don’t want to listen.</strong> One should not conflate the act of standing up for a conclusion that is based on rigorous scientific analysis with arrogance. It is an <a href="http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/neil_degrasse_tyson_-_communicating_science">issue of tone</a>, not of content.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Academics are liberal and therefore biased.</strong> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html?_r=1&">Some studies</a> show that academia in general is a left-leaning institution, and we can do better at bringing a diversity of viewpoints to campus. But, that does not mean that scientific research is biased. The peer review process is established to remove weak reasoning and selection biases, creating an environment where <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/02/27/research-confirms-professors-lean-left-questions-assumptions-about-what-means">conservative professors thrive</a> as much as liberal.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Scientists use fossil fuels too, so they are not serious.</strong> Scientists should be <a href="https://theconversation.com/eco-authenticity-advocating-for-a-low-carbon-world-while-living-a-high-carbon-lifestyle-56893">authentic</a> and reduce their carbon footprint. But the solutions to climate change require broad-scale shifts in our industrial systems and culture, and this will happen only by continuing our research, teaching and engagement, all of which require energy.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>The corruption of science is an existential threat to both <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-academics-are-losing-relevance-in-society-and-how-to-stop-it-64579">the academy</a> and democratic society, neither of which can function on half-truths and fictions that distort our sense of the real problems we face and the solutions we should enact. If scientists do not step up to change our course toward a scientifically illiterate public, who will? If we don’t do it now, then when?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/79101/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew J. Hoffman 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>Scientists typically stay out of public policy debates, but an academic makes the case that they need to push back against politicians who distort research.Andrew J. Hoffman, Holcim (US) Professor at the Ross School of Business and Education Director at the Graham Sustainability Institute, University of MichiganLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/706342017-01-11T02:08:11Z2017-01-11T02:08:11ZGetting a scientific message across means taking human nature into account<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/152315/original/image-20170110-29024-qr971p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Yeah, I'm not hearing that.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=452192425">Woman picture via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>We humans have collectively accumulated a lot of science knowledge. We’ve developed vaccines that can eradicate some of the most devastating diseases. We’ve engineered bridges and cities and the internet. We’ve created massive metal vehicles that rise tens of thousands of feet and then safely set down on the other side of the globe. And this is just the tip of the iceberg (which, by the way, we’ve discovered is melting). While this shared knowledge is impressive, it’s not distributed evenly. Not even close. There are too many important issues <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/">that science has reached a consensus on that the public has not</a>. </p>
<p>Scientists and the media need to communicate more science and communicate it better. Good communication ensures that scientific <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-academics-are-losing-relevance-in-society-and-how-to-stop-it-64579">progress benefits society</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/science-communication-is-on-the-rise-and-thats-good-for-democracy-62842">bolsters democracy</a>, weakens the potency of <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-challenge-facing-libraries-in-an-era-of-fake-news-70828">fake news</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-social-media-can-distort-and-misinform-when-communicating-science-59044">misinformation</a> and fulfills researchers’ <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/why-researchers-should-resolve-to-engage-in-2017-1.21236?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews">responsibility to engage</a> with the public. Such beliefs have motivated <a href="http://www.centerforcommunicatingscience.org/">training programs</a>, <a href="https://www.aaas.org/pes/communicating-science-workshops">workshops</a> and a <a href="https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23674/communicating-science-effectively-a-research-agenda">research agenda</a> from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine on learning more about science communication. A resounding question remains for science communicators: <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-does-research-say-about-how-to-effectively-communicate-about-science-70244">What can we do better?</a></p>
<p>A common intuition is that the main goal of science communication is to present facts; once people encounter those facts, they will think and behave accordingly. The <a href="https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23674/communicating-science-effectively-a-research-agenda">National Academies’ recent report</a> refers to this as the “deficit model.”</p>
<p>But in reality, just knowing facts doesn’t necessarily guarantee that one’s opinions and behaviors will be consistent with them. For example, many people “know” that recycling is beneficial but still throw plastic bottles in the trash. Or they read an online article by a scientist about the necessity of vaccines, but leave comments expressing outrage that doctors are trying to further a pro-vaccine agenda. Convincing people that scientific evidence has merit and should guide behavior may be the greatest science communication challenge, particularly in <a href="https://theconversation.com/in-a-post-truth-election-clicks-trump-facts-67274">our “post-truth” era</a>.</p>
<p>Luckily, we know a lot about human psychology – how people perceive, reason and learn about the world – and many lessons from psychology can be applied to science communication endeavors.</p>
<h2>Consider human nature</h2>
<p>Regardless of your religious affiliation, imagine that you’ve always learned that God created human beings just as we are today. Your parents, teachers and books all told you so. You’ve also noticed throughout your life that science is pretty useful – you especially love heating up a frozen dinner in the microwave while browsing Snapchat on your iPhone.</p>
<p>One day you read that scientists have evidence for human evolution. You feel uncomfortable: Were your parents, teachers and books wrong about where people originally came from? Are these scientists wrong? You experience <a href="http://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-dissonance.html">cognitive dissonance</a> – the uneasiness that results from entertaining two conflicting ideas.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/152316/original/image-20170110-29019-1s8m21j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/152316/original/image-20170110-29019-1s8m21j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/152316/original/image-20170110-29019-1s8m21j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/152316/original/image-20170110-29019-1s8m21j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/152316/original/image-20170110-29019-1s8m21j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/152316/original/image-20170110-29019-1s8m21j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/152316/original/image-20170110-29019-1s8m21j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/152316/original/image-20170110-29019-1s8m21j.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’s uncomfortable to hold two conflicting ideas at the same time.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=463867253">Man image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Psychologist Leon Festinger <a href="http://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=3850">first articulated the theory of cognitive dissonance</a> in 1957, noting that it’s human nature to be uncomfortable with maintaining two conflicting beliefs at the same time. That discomfort leads us to try to reconcile the competing ideas we come across. <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-do-science-issues-seem-to-divide-us-along-party-lines-66626">Regardless of political leaning</a>, we’re hesitant to accept new information that contradicts our existing worldviews.</p>
<p>One way we subconsciously avoid cognitive dissonance is through <a href="https://theconversation.com/confirmation-bias-a-psychological-phenomenon-that-helps-explain-why-pundits-got-it-wrong-68781">confirmation bias</a> – a tendency to seek information that confirms what we already believe and discard information that doesn’t. </p>
<p>This human tendency was first exposed by <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14640746808400161">psychologist Peter Wason</a> in the 1960s in a simple logic experiment. He found that people tend to seek confirmatory information and avoid information that would potentially disprove their beliefs.</p>
<p>The concept of confirmation bias scales up to larger issues, too. For example, psychologists John Cook and Stephen Lewandowsky asked people about their beliefs concerning global warming and then <a href="http://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12186">gave them information stating that 97 percent of scientists agree</a> that human activity causes climate change. The researchers measured whether the information about the scientific consensus influenced people’s beliefs about global warming. </p>
<p>Those who initially opposed the idea of human-caused global warming became even less accepting after reading about the scientific consensus on the issue. People who had already believed that human actions cause global warming supported their position even more strongly after learning about the scientific consensus. Presenting these participants with factual information ended up further polarizing their views, <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-science-for-climate-change-only-feeds-the-denial-how-do-you-beat-that-52813">strengthening everyone’s resolve in their initial positions</a>. It was a case of confirmation bias at work: New information consistent with prior beliefs strengthened those beliefs; new information conflicting with existing beliefs led people to discredit the message as a way to hold on to their original position.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/152318/original/image-20170110-29036-1lcs417.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/152318/original/image-20170110-29036-1lcs417.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/152318/original/image-20170110-29036-1lcs417.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/152318/original/image-20170110-29036-1lcs417.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/152318/original/image-20170110-29036-1lcs417.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/152318/original/image-20170110-29036-1lcs417.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/152318/original/image-20170110-29036-1lcs417.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/152318/original/image-20170110-29036-1lcs417.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Just shouting louder isn’t going to help.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=518718154">Megaphone image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Overcoming cognitive biases</h2>
<p>How can science communicators share their messages in a way that leads people to change their beliefs and actions about important science issues, given our natural cognitive biases?</p>
<p>The first step is to acknowledge that every audience has preexisting beliefs about the world. Expect those beliefs to color the way they receive your message. Anticipate that people will accept information that is consistent with their prior beliefs and discredit information that is not.</p>
<p>Then, focus on <a href="http://collabra.org/articles/10.1525/collabra.68/">framing</a>. No message can contain all the information available on a topic, so any communication will emphasize some aspects while downplaying others. While it’s unhelpful to cherry-pick and present only evidence in your favor – which can backfire anyway – it is helpful to focus on what an audience cares about.</p>
<p>For example, <a href="http://collabra.org/articles/10.1525/collabra.68/">these University of California researchers point out</a> that the idea of climate change causing rising sea levels may not alarm an inland farmer dealing with drought as much as it does someone living on the coast. Referring to the impact our actions today may have for our grandchildren might be more compelling to those who actually have grandchildren than to those who don’t. By anticipating what an audience believes and what’s important to them, communicators can choose more effective frames for their messages – focusing on the most compelling aspects of the issue for their audience and presenting it in a way the audience can identify with.</p>
<p>In addition to the ideas expressed in a frame, the specific words used matter. Psychologists <a href="http://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683">Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman first showed</a> when numerical information is presented in different ways, people think about it differently. Here’s an example from their 1981 study:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Imagine that the U.S. is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed. Assume that the exact scientific estimate of the consequences of the programs are as follows:
If Program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved.
If Program B is adopted, there is ⅓ probability that 600 people will be saved, and ⅔ probability that no people will be saved.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Both programs have an expected value of 200 lives saved. But 72 percent of participants chose Program A. We reason about mathematically equivalent options differently when they’re framed differently: <a href="http://www.apa.org/monitor/mar05/misfires.aspx">Our intuitions</a> are often not consistent with probabilities and other math concepts.</p>
<p>Metaphors can also act as linguistic frames. Psychologists Paul Thibodeau and Lera Boroditsky found that people who read that crime is a beast proposed different solutions than those who read that crime is a virus – even if they had no memory of reading the metaphor. The <a href="http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016782">metaphors guided people’s reasoning</a>, encouraging them to transfer solutions they’d propose for real beasts (cage them) or viruses (find the source) to dealing with crime (harsher law enforcement or more social programs).</p>
<p>The words we use to package our ideas can drastically influence how people think about those ideas.</p>
<h2>What’s next?</h2>
<p>We have a lot to learn. Quantitative research on the efficacy of science communication strategies is in its infancy but <a href="https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23674/communicating-science-effectively-a-research-agenda">becoming an increasing priority</a>. As we continue to untangle more about what works and why, it’s important for science communicators to be conscious of the biases they and their audiences bring to their exchanges and the frames they select to share their messages.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/70634/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rose Hendricks receives funding from the US NSF GRFP. </span></em></p>Quirks of human psychology can pose problems for science communicators trying to cover controversial topics. Recognizing what cognitive science knows about how we deal with new information could help.Rose Hendricks, Ph.D. Candidate in Cognitive Science, University of California, San DiegoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/598712016-06-02T01:04:41Z2016-06-02T01:04:41ZAccurate science or accessible science in the media – why not both?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124855/original/image-20160601-1951-sdxq1j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Scientists themselves may be the key to finding the right balance.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-342000797/stock-photo-scales-on-wooden-background.html">Scales image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Every day, millions of people take to search engines with common concerns, such as “How can I lose weight?” or “How can I be productive?” In return, they find articles that offer simple advice and quick solutions, supposedly based on what “studies have shown.”</p>
<p>A closer look at these articles, however, reveals a troubling absence of scientific rigor. Few bother to cite research or discuss studies’ methodologies or limitations. The <a href="http://doi.org/10.1093/embo-reports/kvf225">authors seldom have scientific training</a>.</p>
<p>As young scientists from four diverse fields (psychology, chemistry, physics and neuroscience), we’ve noticed that much writing about science, particularly on topics most relevant to the daily lives of readers, is currently failing to resolve the trade-off between accessibility and accountability. Rigorous findings shared by researchers in specialist journals are obscured behind jargon and paywalls, while accessible science shared on the internet is untrustworthy, unregulated and often click-bait.</p>
<p>If this communication crisis is due to a lack of scientifically literate voices, the solution may be for more scientists to enter the fray. Scientists have the expertise to publicly correct misinterpretations of their and others’ data. By developing new ways to disseminate science knowledge, they can help prevent inaccurate and overhyped stories from gaining traction. We argue that scientists bear a responsibility to reform the way their work is ultimately communicated.</p>
<h2>Science gets lost in translation</h2>
<p>Scientific publication – which operates through an intensive peer review process – is flourishing. In 2014, over <a href="http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=scholcom">2.5 million scholarly articles</a> were published on topics that ranged from how to <a href="http://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2015.18965">reduce carbon emissions</a> to how <a href="http://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614557867">Twitter influences the rate of heart disease</a> and how <a href="http://doi.org/10.1038/nrrheum.2014.193">regular exercise can prevent inflammation</a> associated with rheumatic diseases. Because of recent research, we know there’s little evidence that genetically modified vegetables <a href="http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003">are unhealthy</a>, and that <a href="http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.02.004">eating less meat</a> is <a href="http://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1104-5">a simple way</a> to positively influence the environment.</p>
<p>These are important messages, and when people don’t hear or listen to them, there can be serious consequences. Misinformed campaigns arise <a href="https://theconversation.com/vaccines-back-in-the-headlines-heres-what-the-experts-say-47815">against vaccinations</a>, and <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/06/anti-vaccine-movement-is-giving-diseases-a-2nd-life/7007955/">near-extinct diseases return</a>. Mental illness remains <a href="https://theconversation.com/inspiration-from-gamers-on-tackling-mental-health-stigma-18769">shamefully stigmatized</a>. Climate change is <a href="https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php">dismissed as fiction</a>. People become erroneously convinced that <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/bacon-and-sausages-do-cause-cancer-says-the-who#.mxz3wYjge">red meat causes cancer</a> and that <a href="http://io9.gizmodo.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800">eating dark chocolate helps weight loss</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124856/original/image-20160601-1951-zljpl5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124856/original/image-20160601-1951-zljpl5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124856/original/image-20160601-1951-zljpl5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124856/original/image-20160601-1951-zljpl5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124856/original/image-20160601-1951-zljpl5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124856/original/image-20160601-1951-zljpl5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124856/original/image-20160601-1951-zljpl5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124856/original/image-20160601-1951-zljpl5.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"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">It’s hard for the general public to even access most research journals.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Maggie Villiger</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Rigorous science is locked away</h2>
<p>So how can we ensure that everyone has access to useful science knowledge?</p>
<p>Most scientific articles are aimed at an audience of other experts in highly specific fields, making them ill-suited for popular consumption. Between complex methodological language and frequent acronyms, even scientists have trouble following the <a href="http://arstechnica.com/staff/2013/04/two-sciences-separated-by-a-common-language/">jargon specific to other fields</a>, leaving little hope for those with less scientific training.</p>
<p>An even more pressing issue, however, is that people outside of research institutions can’t even access most journal articles. Many of these papers are <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/jan/17/open-access-publishing-science-paywall-immoral">hidden behind a publisher paywall</a>, and nonsubscribers are forced to pay <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/02/read-this-academic-journal-article-but-prepare-to-pay/71536/">US$30-$50 for a single article</a>.</p>
<p>These paywalls are not merely obstructive; we would argue they’re also unethical. Most research is publicly funded, yet taxpayers are charged to consume scientific articles.</p>
<p>Ideally, scientific publishing will transition to healthy open-access journals that serve both researchers and readers. Legislation regarding quasi-monopolistic scientific publishing companies, predatory publishing practices and public access to primary scientific sources would go far to serve this end. </p>
<p>The European Union recently stipulated that all <a href="http://doi.org/10.1126/science.aag0577">publicly funded research articles be freely accessible</a> by 2020, but the United States has not yet passed a similar mandate. Scientists will play a crucial role in calling for and implementing these kinds of changes.</p>
<h2>The public wants accessible science</h2>
<p>As debates over open access continue, people’s desire and need for evidence-based solutions to medical and social dilemmas has not diminished. As a consequence, we see a rising tide of popular science outlets that are more accessible both in content and availability than the research journals some of their content is ostensibly based on. </p>
<p>These platforms range in accuracy, from questionable blogs preaching “7 ways to get happy now” to serious websites and magazines like <a href="http://discovermagazine.com/">Discover</a> and <a href="http://www.americanscientist.org">American Scientist</a>. As part of our own efforts to bridge the divide between accessibility and accuracy, we each contribute content to the nonprofit <a href="http://www.usefulscience.org/">Useful Science</a>, which curates research for the general public through short reviewed summaries and an <a href="http://www.usefulscience.org/podcast">in-depth podcast</a>.</p>
<p>However, even reputable sources are not immune to sensational headlines. In 2012, an article in ScienceNews on female mimicry in snakes was titled “<a href="https://www.sciencenews.org/article/she-male-garter-snakes-some-it-hot">She-male garter snakes: some like it hot</a>.” An article on male sheep neuroendocrinology was headlined “<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/02/AR2007020201462.html">Brokeback mutton</a>” by the Washington Post, and “<a href="http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1582336,00.html">Yep, they’re gay</a>” by Time. This unfortunate trend in popular science suggests that open-access publishing, even if it does proliferate, would still need to compete with flashier posts that sacrifice strict validity for clicks.</p>
<p>The growth of science communication websites that solicit and address questions and feedback directly and immediately from the general public provides some hope. These include <a href="https://www.quora.com/">Quora</a> and communities on Reddit such as <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience">AskScience</a>. The popularity of these resources (AskScience has over <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/">eight million subscribers</a>) shows that a good portion of the public wants scientific information communicated, on demand, in an accurate and approachable manner. Furthermore, a lack of direct incentive for contributors may make <a href="http://doi.org/10.1038/nn0505-535">content manipulation less likely</a>.</p>
<p>These efforts are laudable but suffer from a lack of accountability – any author can claim to be speaking from a perspective of expertise. Even in the best cases, when authors have training in science or its communication, advice is not scrutinized prior to posting.</p>
<p>There are ways to resolve these problems. Science journalists should solicit feedback from independent experts before publishing. Posts in scientific communities could go through an expedited peer-review process. In all cases, scientists and science communicators should be working together to match the accessibility of their content with accuracy and precision. </p>
<h2>Who will lead the revolution?</h2>
<p>The present state of science communication reveals important work to be done, but no burden of responsibility. </p>
<p>Some responsibility seems to fall on scientific journals, but most journals are profit vehicles, not conscientious individuals. Some seems to fall on media outlets, but many websites and magazines are squeezed by intense competition for ad revenue. Furthermore, reporters are seldom trained to understand science, let alone contribute to the discipline’s evolution.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124858/original/image-20160601-1425-wv6cbg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124858/original/image-20160601-1425-wv6cbg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124858/original/image-20160601-1425-wv6cbg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124858/original/image-20160601-1425-wv6cbg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124858/original/image-20160601-1425-wv6cbg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124858/original/image-20160601-1425-wv6cbg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124858/original/image-20160601-1425-wv6cbg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124858/original/image-20160601-1425-wv6cbg.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">Researchers need to think beyond the lab notebook.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/proteinbiochemist/3167660996">J Biochemist</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The onus, then, is on scientists. There are <a href="https://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/acs-18.pdf">20 million people with science or engineering degrees</a> in the United States alone. Instead of passively consuming media with outrageous scientific claims, it should be scientists’ personal responsibility to make research freely available, and to moderate accessible scientific communities so they’re accurate and accountable. Scientists should also work with journalists to set guidelines for media publication, such as a vetting process where popular articles are approved by experts in the field before publication, and should speak up when inaccurate information is disseminated. </p>
<p>It’s time for the scientific community to act; not only as individuals, but also as interdisciplinary groups. If scientists do so, the next generation of science communication vehicles may be coalitions of journalists and researchers (as in <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/who-we-are">The Conversation’s collaborative model</a>) who can disseminate messages that are both exciting and responsible. Science will not only be more interesting and accountable. It will also be more useful.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/59871/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joshua Conrad Jackson receives funding from the National Science Foundation. He is affiliated with the non-profit organization Useful Science (usefulscience.org). </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Mahar receives funding from Fonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé. He is affiliated with the non-profit organization Useful Science (usefulscience.org). </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jaan Altosaar founded Useful Science (usefulscience.org) and receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Gaultois receives funding the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 659764. He is affiliated with the non-profit organization Useful Science (usefulscience.org).</span></em></p>The public loses when their only choices are inaccessible, impenetrable journal articles or overhyped click-bait about science. Scientists themselves need to step up and help bridge the divide.Joshua Conrad Jackson, Doctoral Student, Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel HillIan Mahar, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Neuroscience, Boston UniversityJaan Altosaar, Ph.D. Student in Physics, Princeton UniversityMichael Gaultois, Postdoctoral Researcher in Chemistry, University of CambridgeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.