tag:theconversation.com,2011:/id/topics/trust-in-science-32261/articlesTrust in science – The Conversation2024-01-17T13:37:02Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2155722024-01-17T13:37:02Z2024-01-17T13:37:02ZConnecting researchers and legislators can lead to policies that reflect scientific evidence<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/569604/original/file-20240116-21-149ew.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C104%2C1919%2C1455&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Legislators make policy based on the information at hand, which isn't always the latest scientific findings.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/scenes-from-the-halls-of-the-state-house-as-senators-head-news-photo/1370192889">Stuart Cahill/Boston Herald via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Like most kids of the 1990s, I attended a school that used the original DARE program as a cornerstone initiative in the war on drugs. Congressional funding for this Drug Abuse Resistance Education program surged to over <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/12/a-brief-history-of-d-a-r-e-the-anti-drug-program-jeff-sessions-wants-to-revive/">US$10 million</a> per year by 2002, <a href="https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.94.6.1027">despite studies</a> published in the prior decade demonstrating the original program was ineffective at preventing substance use. Following mounting political pressure and declining government investments, the DARE program was retooled.</p>
<p>This scenario exemplifies how a disconnect between research-based information and decision-making can lead to ineffective policies. It also illustrates why scientists often <a href="https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.2011.110180">bemoan that it can take over a decade</a> before their work achieves its intended public benefit. </p>
<p>Researchers want the results of their studies to have an impact in the real world. Policymakers want to make effective policies that serve the people. The public wants to benefit from tax-funded research.</p>
<p>But there’s a disconnect between the world of science and the world of policy decision-making that keeps information from flowing freely between them. There are hundreds of <a href="https://evidence2impact.psu.edu/what-we-do/research-translation-platform/results-first-resources/clearing-house-database/">evidence-based programs</a> that receive minimal public investment despite their promise to curb social ills and save taxpayer dollars.</p>
<p>At the <a href="https://evidence2impact.psu.edu/what-we-do/research-translation-platform/">Penn State Research Translation Platform</a>, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=61NeK5gAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">I work</a> with a team that studies policymakers’ use of research evidence. Legislators and other decision-makers tend to prioritize certain solutions over others, largely based on the kinds of advice and input they receive from trusted sources. My team is developing ways to connect policymakers with university-based researchers – and studying what happens when these academics become the trusted sources, rather than those with special interests who stand to gain financially from various initiatives. </p>
<h2>Forging researcher-policymaker relationships</h2>
<p>Our Research Translation Platform team has found that policymakers assess in different ways how credible someone is. They generally consider <a href="https://www.routledge.com/Evidence-Based-Policymaking-Envisioning-a-New-Era-of-Theory-Research/Bogenschneider-Corbett/p/book/9780367523855">university-based researchers to be more reliable and impartial</a> than special interest groups, lobbyists and think tanks. Academic researchers can be key <a href="https://theconversation.com/scientists-political-donations-reflect-polarization-in-academia-with-implications-for-the-publics-trust-in-science-196691">trusted messengers</a>, and their information is most credible when it’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/whats-at-risk-if-scientists-dont-think-strategically-before-talking-politics-63797">not advocating particular political agendas</a>.</p>
<p>But scientists and lawmakers don’t usually have each other on speed dial. Building these connections is a promising way to improve policymakers’ access to credible, high-quality information. </p>
<p>Drawing on these principles, I co-developed a service that matches state and federal legislators with researchers who share their interests. Called the <a href="https://trestlelink.org/models/research-to-policy-collaboration/">Research-to-Policy Collaboration</a>, it involves a series of steps that starts with identifying policymakers’ existing priorities – for instance, addressing the opioid crisis. Then we identify and match them with researchers who work on studies relevant to substance use. The ultimate goal is to facilitate the meetings and follow-through that are critical for developing mutually beneficial partnerships between politicians and scientists.</p>
<p>Working closely with prevention scientist <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=IEjjoBAAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">Max Crowley</a>, we designed the first experiment of its kind to measure whether our <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2012955118">model was useful for congressional staffers</a>. We found that legislators we randomly assigned to receive researchers’ support introduced 23% more bills that reference research evidence. Their staffers reported placing a greater value on using research to understand problems compared with staffers who were not matched with a researcher.</p>
<p>This experiment showed that researcher-policymaker partnerships can be effective not only for bridging research and policy, but legislators and their staff may find value in the service for honing empirical evidence pertaining to their bills. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/569608/original/file-20240116-27-bebp9s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="seated state legislators face an audience at a public hearing in an auditorium" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/569608/original/file-20240116-27-bebp9s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/569608/original/file-20240116-27-bebp9s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=339&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569608/original/file-20240116-27-bebp9s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=339&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569608/original/file-20240116-27-bebp9s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=339&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569608/original/file-20240116-27-bebp9s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569608/original/file-20240116-27-bebp9s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569608/original/file-20240116-27-bebp9s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">State legislators tend to hear from many different stakeholders as they design policy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/boston-ma-the-joint-committee-on-public-health-hears-news-photo/1557184909">Pat Greenhouse/The Boston Globe via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Getting research into the hands of policymakers</h2>
<p>While research-policy partnerships can be effective, they’re also time-consuming.</p>
<p>When the world was turned upside down by the COVID-19 pandemic, routine handshakes disintegrated into social distancing. As a flurry of congressional activity tried to triage the catastrophe, pandemic conditions provided an opportunity to experiment with a way for researchers to communicate directly with policymakers online. </p>
<p>Our team created what we call the <a href="https://trestlelink.org/models/scope/">sciComm Optimizer for Policy Engagement</a>, or SCOPE for short. It’s a service that directly connects lawmakers with researchers who study timely policy issues. The researchers author a fact sheet in their area of study by summarizing a body of research pertaining to a national policy issue.</p>
<p>Then the SCOPE team sends an email on their behalf to lawmakers and staffers assigned to relevant committees. The email invites an opportunity to connect further. This effort is more interpersonal than a newsletter, providing a direct connection with a trustworthy source of science-based information. </p>
<p>As part of this <a href="https://research2policy.org/category/covid-19/">effort, scholars produced</a> over 65 fact sheets as well as several virtual panels and briefings relevant to various policy domains during the pandemic, such as substance use, violence and child maltreatment. These were disseminated over the course of a year and typically prompted about two researcher-policymaker meetings each. </p>
<p><iframe id="DQKp5" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/DQKp5/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>To investigate the value of this service, we looked at the language that state lawmakers used in social media posts pertaining to COVID-19. We found that those we had randomly assigned to receive our SCOPE emails produced <a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-023-01268-1">24% more social media posts</a> referencing research than those we didn’t contact. We particularly noticed increased use of technical language related to data and analytics, as well as more language pertaining to research concepts, such as risk factors and disparities.</p>
<p>Legislators receiving SCOPE material also used less language related to generating more or new knowledge, which suggests they were less likely to call for more studies to produce new evidence. Perhaps their access to evidence decreased their need for more.</p>
<h2>Capitalizing on timely and relevant research</h2>
<p>These studies show some promising ways to connect legislators with timely and relevant research, and how doing so might improve the impact of research translation.</p>
<p>More work is needed to study other types of science policy efforts. Most research translation initiatives have <a href="https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16420918447616">very little data for evaluating their impact</a>.</p>
<p>It’s also worth considering the possibility that some efforts may unintentionally damage these political relationships and the credibility of scientific institutions. For instance, partisan efforts <a href="https://theconversation.com/can-march-for-science-participants-advocate-without-losing-the-publics-trust-76205">advancing specific political agendas</a> are apt to reduce the <a href="https://theconversation.com/scientists-political-donations-reflect-polarization-in-academia-with-implications-for-the-publics-trust-in-science-196691">perceived credibility of academic scientists</a>.</p>
<p>And if educational outreach merely preaches science in the absence of interpersonal connections, scholars not only risk perpetuating the out-of-touch, eggheaded stereotype of academia, they risk squandering resources on ineffective programs, similar to the original DARE program. </p>
<p>The bridge between science and policy is a two-way street. Not only must the parties meet in the middle, but science policy and communication practice should be held to the same rigorous standards we expect in evidence-based policymaking. The world needs solutions to innumerable real-time crises. How to forge these connections is a critical area of study in itself.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/215572/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Taylor Scott has received funding from the William T. Grant Foundation, National Science Foundation's Science of Science Program, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and Penn State's Social Science Research Institute and the Huck Institutes at Penn State. She directs the Research Translation Platform in Penn State's Evidence-to-Impact Collaborative and serves on the boards of TrestleLink and the National Prevention Science Coalition. </span></em></p>Researchers want real-world impact. Lawmakers want programs that work. The public wants to benefit from taxpayer-funded research. Building a bridge from academia to legislatures is key to all three.Taylor Scott, Associate Research Professor of Human Development and Family Studies and Director of the Research Translation Platform, Penn StateLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2110802023-08-21T12:24:30Z2023-08-21T12:24:30ZAI and new standards promise to make scientific data more useful by making it reusable and accessible<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/542679/original/file-20230814-20-nwyn4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=44%2C35%2C5946%2C3961&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Data replication is an integral part of the scientific process, which proper research data management can improve. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/university-professor-gesturing-towards-whiteboard-royalty-free-image/1447684664?phrase=data&adppopup=true">Tom Werner/DigitalVision via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Every time a scientist runs an experiment, or a social scientist does a survey, or a humanities scholar analyzes a text, they generate data. Science runs on data – without it, we wouldn’t have the James Webb Space Telescope’s <a href="https://webbtelescope.org/news/first-images/gallery">stunning images</a>, disease-preventing <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/index.html">vaccines</a> or an evolutionary tree that <a href="https://www.gbif.org/">traces the lineages</a> of all life.</p>
<p>This scholarship generates an unimaginable amount of data – so how do researchers keep track of it? And how do they make sure that it’s accessible for use by both humans and machines?</p>
<p>To improve and advance science, scientists need to <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02486-7">be able to reproduce</a> others’ data or combine data from multiple sources to learn something new.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/FpCrY7x5nEE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Accessible and usable data can help scientists reproduce prior results. Doing so is an important part of the scientific process, as this TED-Ed video explains.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Any kind of sharing requires management. If your neighbor needs to borrow a tool or an ingredient, you have to know whether you have it and where you keep it. Research data might be on a graduate student’s laptop, buried in a professor’s USB collection or saved more permanently within an online data repository.</p>
<p>I’m an <a href="https://bradleywadebishop.github.io/website/">information scientist</a> who studies other scientists. More precisely, I study how scientists think about research data and the ways that they interact with their own data and data from others. I also teach students how to manage their own or others’ data in ways that advance knowledge.</p>
<h2>Research data management</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.oclc.org/research/areas/research-collections/rdm.html">Research data management</a> is an area of scholarship that focuses on data discovery and reuse. As a field, it encompasses research data services, resources and cyberinfrastructure. For example, one type of infrastructure, the <a href="https://www.re3data.org/">data repository</a>, gives researchers a place to deposit their data for long-term storage so that others can find it. In short, research data management encompasses the data’s life cycle from cradle to grave to reincarnation in the next study. </p>
<p>Proper research data management also allows scientists to use the data already out there rather than recollecting data that already exists, which saves time and resources. </p>
<p>With <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pmbts.2021.10.002">increasing science politicization</a>, many national and international science organizations have upped their <a href="https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/25303/reproducibility-and-replicability-in-science">standards for accountability and transparency</a>. <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2023/01/11/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-new-actions-to-advance-open-and-equitable-research/">Federal agencies</a> and other major research funders like the <a href="https://sharing.nih.gov/data-management-and-sharing-policy">National Institutes of Health</a> now prioritize research data management and require researchers to have a data management plan before they can receive any funds.</p>
<p>Scientists and data managers can work together to redesign the systems scientists use to make data discovery and preservation easier. In particular, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2021.01.083">integrating AI</a> can make this data more accessible and reusable.</p>
<h2>Artificially intelligent data management</h2>
<p>Many of these new standards for research data management also stem from an increased use of AI, including machine learning, across <a href="https://doi.org/10.3138/jelis-2021-0023">data-driven fields</a>. AI makes it highly desirable for any data to be machine-actionable – that is, usable by machines without human intervention. Now, scholars can consider machines not only as tools but also as potential autonomous data reusers and collaborators.</p>
<p>The key to machine-actionable data is metadata. <a href="https://www.dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/dces/">Metadata</a> are the descriptions scientists set for their data and may include elements such as creator, date, coverage and subject. Minimal metadata is minimally useful, but correct and complete standardized metadata makes data more useful for both people and machines.</p>
<p>It takes a cadre of research data managers and librarians to make machine-actionable data a reality. These <a href="https://doi.org/10.3138/jelis-2021-0023">information professionals</a> work to facilitate communication between scientists and systems by ensuring the quality, completeness and consistency of shared data.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles/">FAIR data principles</a>, created by a group of researchers called <a href="https://force11.org/">FORCE11</a> in 2016 and used across the world, provide guidance on how to enable data reuse by machines and humans. FAIR data is findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable – meaning it has robust and complete metadata. </p>
<p>In the past, I’ve studied <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.4">how scientists discover and reuse data</a>. I found that scientists tend to use mental shortcuts when they’re looking for data – for example, they may go back to familiar and trusted sources or search for certain key terms they’ve used before. Ideally, my team could build this decision-making process of experts and remove as many biases as possible to improve AI. The automation of these mental shortcuts should reduce the time-consuming chore of locating the right data.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/542885/original/file-20230815-19-pa41n9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A stack of papers and folders" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/542885/original/file-20230815-19-pa41n9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/542885/original/file-20230815-19-pa41n9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/542885/original/file-20230815-19-pa41n9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/542885/original/file-20230815-19-pa41n9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/542885/original/file-20230815-19-pa41n9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/542885/original/file-20230815-19-pa41n9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/542885/original/file-20230815-19-pa41n9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">FAIR data should be machine-actionable, meaning digital and complete with comprehensive metadata. Many librarians have worked to digitize historical data, which may be hard copy, and make it FAIR.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/many-books-stacked-on-top-of-cabinets-group-of-royalty-free-image/1402090075?phrase=old+file+cabinet&adppopup=true">Penpak Ngamsathain/Moment via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Data management plans</h2>
<p>But there’s still one piece of research data management that AI can’t take over. <a href="http://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2023-002">Data management plans</a> describe the what, where, when, why and who of managing research data. Scientists fill them out, and they outline the roles and activities for managing research data during and long after research ends. They answer questions like, “Who is responsible for long-term preservation,” “Where will the data live,” “How do I keep my data secure,” and “Who pays for all of that?” </p>
<p>Grant proposals for nearly all funding agencies across countries <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-data-sharing-requirements-from-the-national-institutes-of-health-are-a-big-step-toward-more-open-science-and-potentially-higher-quality-research-178869">now require data management plans</a>. These plans signal to scientists that their data is valuable and important enough to the community to share. Also, the plans help funding agencies keep tabs on the research and <a href="https://doi.org/10.29173/istl2602">investigate any potential misconduct</a>. But most importantly, they help scientists make sure their data stays accessible for many years.</p>
<p>Making all research data as FAIR and open as possible will improve the scientific process. And having access to more data opens up the possibility for more informed discussions on <a href="https://www.fgdc.gov/gda">how to promote</a> economic development, improve the stewardship of natural resources, enhance public health, and how to responsibly and ethically develop technologies that will improve lives. All intelligence, artificial or otherwise, will benefit from better organization, access and use of research data.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/211080/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bradley Wade Bishop receives funding from the Institute of Museum and Library Services. </span></em></p>The phrase ‘research data management’ might make your eyes glaze over, but it’s actually this behind-the-scenes work that allows for large-scale scientific discoveries and collaborations.Bradley Wade Bishop, Professor of Information Sciences, University of TennesseeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2084162023-06-29T15:01:08Z2023-06-29T15:01:08ZResearchers can learn a lot with your genetic information, even when you skip survey questions – yesterday’s mode of informed consent doesn’t quite fit today’s biobank studies<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/534693/original/file-20230628-29-j4a0gl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C1999%2C1499&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Participants in biobank studies are often asked for broad consent to use their data.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/genetic-research-royalty-free-image/136810911">Science Photo Library - TEK IMAGE/Brand X Pictures via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Imagine you agreed to be part of a new and exciting long-term research study to better understand human health and behavior. For the past few years, you’ve been visiting a collection site where you fill out some questionnaires about your health and daily activities. Research assistants take your height, weight and some other physical characteristics about you. Because you agreed to contribute your genetic data to the study, you also provided a saliva sample during your first visit.</p>
<p>Later, you see a news article reporting that researchers analyzing data from the study you’re participating in have <a href="https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/8/23/17527708/genetics-genome-sequencing-gwas-polygenic-risk-score">found genetic variants</a> that predict the likelihood of someone completing college. You remember reading a long form when you consented to giving your data, but you can’t quite remember all the details. You know the study was about health, but how do these findings about genes and education have anything to do with health? Did they analyze your data specifically? What did they find? </p>
<h2>What are biobanks?</h2>
<p>Many scientific research studies collect data meant to answer a specific research question. For example, to study the genetics of diabetes, researchers might collect data on your blood pressure and lipid levels in addition to genetic data. But increasingly, scientists are collecting large amounts of data to be <a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-019-1922-3">kept in biobanks</a> – repositories that store genetic data and other biospecimens like blood, urine or tumor tissue to be used in a wide number of future studies.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/sOP8WacfBM8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Biobank data is often used to conduct genome-wide association studies, or GWAS.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Some biobanks, like the <a href="https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk">UK Biobank</a>, link biospecimen data to other collected data, such as sexual behavior, medical history, weight, diet and lifestyle. Private companies <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-a-south-african-communitys-request-for-its-genetic-data-raises-questions-about-ethical-and-equitable-research-166940">like 23andMe</a> also obtain consent from their customers to have their data used in research efforts.</p>
<p><a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=zCedU50AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">As a researcher</a> interested in the intersection between <a href="https://www.robbeewedow.com">social behaviors and genetics</a>, I frequently have conversations with people who weren’t aware of how their genetic data is being used. They’re often surprised that the genetic data they consented to be used for research at a private company by using a DNA testing kit or at a biobank while visiting their local clinic might be used to study the genetics of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat7693">same-sex sexual behavior</a> or <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-018-0309-3">risk-taking</a>. </p>
<p>In our newly published research, my colleagues and I found that even <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01632-7">choosing not to respond to survey questions</a> can reveal information about the population (we found that not responding to survey questions is correlated with a person’s education, health and income levels) if genetic data is available.</p>
<h2>Genetic data and informed consent</h2>
<p>The research that can be done with biobank data might sound scary, but it shouldn’t be. Genetic data, like the data used in our study, is de-identified. This means that it cannot be linked back to individual research participants, who remain anonymous. Further, genetic data for these sorts of genetic studies is used <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-021-00056-9">at the aggregate level</a>, meaning it isn’t used to predict or evaluate any one particular individual’s responses or behaviors.</p>
<p>Researchers aren’t using genetic data to target individuals with certain genetic profiles. Almost all genetic research is used to better understand how health behaviors and other factors affect health and to figure out ways to improve outcomes. This goal is why most research participants agree to contribute their data to research in the first place: to help the world through science.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/CzNANZnoiRs?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Many developments in human subject protections arose in response to unethical research.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The problem is whether research participants really understand how their data can be used. Many of the original ideas around the development of the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0414-6">informed consent process and Institutional Review Boards</a>, or IRBs, intended to protect research participants from direct harm or privacy violations were based on the expectation that research studies would be addressing particular questions about a single subject, like cardiovascular disease or lung cancer. This focus was so as not to repeat unethical research atrocities like the infamous <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/timeline.htm">Tuskegee Syphilis Study</a>, where researchers did not tell participants, who were all Black men, that they had syphilis and withheld treatment that was already widely available and known to be highly effective.</p>
<p>But since genetic data is de-identified, it is <a href="https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/node/4350/index.html">often considered exempt from full IRB review</a>, which is a protocol to ensure studies meet ethical standards and institutional policies. And the broad number of research questions that can be explored with biobanks, along with the amount and types of data collected, has made these original protections to ensure truly informed consent insufficient.</p>
<h2>Improving informed consent</h2>
<p>To be clear, biobanks are enormously important for public health research. They allow researchers to <a href="https://theconversation.com/people-dont-mate-randomly-but-the-flawed-assumption-that-they-do-is-an-essential-part-of-many-studies-linking-genes-to-diseases-and-traits-194793">link many different outcomes and variables</a> together to paint a critical overall picture of human health and behavior. And in contrast with the <a href="https://theconversation.com/most-americans-dont-realize-what-companies-can-predict-from-their-data-110760">personally identifiable online or phone data</a> that companies collect to show you targeted ads, biobanks collect de-identified data that is evaluated in aggregate.</p>
<p>In the age of vast data collection, ensuring that participants are aware of how their data can and cannot be used is necessary to ensure that biobanks are a transparent tool for global good. Biobanks can’t predict how a participant’s data will be used in the future, so it can be difficult for researchers and ethicists to bring back the “informed” part of “informed consent.” Even so, more needs to be done to earn the trust of the valuable research participants who contribute the data to improve science and the world.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/208416/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robbee Wedow is a research fellow at AnalytiXIN, which is a consortium of health-data organizations, industry partners and university partners in Indiana primarily funded through the Lilly Endowment, IU Health and Eli Lilly and Company.</span></em></p>Biobanks collect and store large amounts of data that researchers use to conduct a wide range of studies. Making sure participants understand what they’re getting into can help build trust in science.Robbee Wedow, Assistant Professor of Sociology and Data Science, Purdue UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1966912023-06-06T12:31:12Z2023-06-06T12:31:12ZScientists’ political donations reflect polarization in academia – with implications for the public’s trust in science<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/530181/original/file-20230605-25-5v5b99.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=175%2C143%2C3722%2C2746&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Under 10% of political donations from academic scholars go to Republican causes.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/political-contributions-super-pacs-and-political-royalty-free-image/1321234653">Douglas Rissing/iStock via Getty Images Plus</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>People who lean left politically reported an <a href="https://apnorc.org/projects/amidst-the-pandemic-confidence-in-the-scientific-community-becomes-increasingly-polarized/">increase in trust in scientists</a> during the COVID-19 pandemic, while those who lean right politically reported much lower levels of trust in scientists. This polarization around scientific issues – from COVID-19 to climate change to evolution – is at its peak since surveys started tracking this question over 50 years ago.</p>
<p><iframe id="dDH8G" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/dDH8G/7/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Surveys reveal that people with more education are <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/04/26/a-wider-ideological-gap-between-more-and-less-educated-adults/">more ideologically liberal</a>. And academia has been gradually turning left over the past 40 years. Scientists – the people who produce scientific knowledge – are widely perceived to be on the opposite side of the political spectrum from those who trust science the least. This disparity poses a challenge when communicating important science to the public.</p>
<p>In a recent study, science historian <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=UK9sjJMAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">Naomi Oreskes</a>, environmental social scientist <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=e138rTwAAAAJ&hl=en">Viktoria Cologna</a>, literary critic <a href="https://www.charlietyson.com/">Charlie Tyson</a> <a href="https://www.kaurov.org">and I</a> leveraged public data sets <a href="https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01382-3">to explore the dynamics of scientists’ political leanings</a>. Our analysis of individual political donations confirms that the vast majority of scientists who contribute have supported Democratic candidates. But we contend that this fact doesn’t need to short-circuit effective science communication to the public.</p>
<h2>Digging into individuals’ political donations</h2>
<p>In the United States, all donations to political parties and campaigns must be reported to the Federal Election Committee. That information is <a href="https://www.fec.gov/">published by the FEC on its website</a>, along with the donation amount and date; the donor’s name, address and occupation; and the recipient’s party affiliation. This data allowed us to examine millions of transactions made in the past 40 years.</p>
<p><iframe id="xgAEa" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/xgAEa/4/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01382-3">In our study</a>, we examined researchers in academia, specifically people with titles like “professor,” “faculty,” “scientist” and “lecturer,” as well as scientists in the energy sector. We conducted this analysis by identifying 100,000 scientists based on their self-reported occupation and cross-referencing them with the <a href="https://www.scopus.com/">Elsevier’s Scopus database</a>, which contains information on researchers and their scientific publications. The findings of our study indicate a gradual shift away from the Republican Party among American researchers, both in academia and the industry.</p>
<p>Overall support of the Republican Party, in terms of individual donations from the general public, has slid down over the past 40 years. But this trend is much steeper for scientists and academics than for the overall U.S. population. By 2022, it was hard to find an academic supporting the Republican Party financially, even at <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01382-3/figures/1">Christian colleges and universities</a>. The trend also persists <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01382-3/figures/3">across academic disciplines</a>.</p>
<p><iframe id="0xrLo" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/0xrLo/9/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Notably, scientists working at fossil fuel companies have also become more liberal, while their management has remained conservative, based on both groups’ political donations. We suspect this buildup of political polarization within companies may at some point intensify the public conversation about climate change.</p>
<h2>Who shares science messages</h2>
<p>People tend to accept and internalize information delivered by someone they consider trustworthy. Communication scholars call this the “<a href="https://ssir.org/articles/entry/finding_the_right_messenger_for_your_message">trusted messenger</a>” effect. Various factors like socioeconomic status, race and, increasingly, political leanings influence this perceived credibility.</p>
<p>Science communication gets stalled because of what appears to be a positive feedback loop: The more liberal academia gets, the fewer “trusted messengers” can communicate with the half of the U.S. that leans right. Trust in science and scientific institutions among Republicans declines and it gets reflected in their policies; academia, in response, leans even more left.</p>
<p>The increased clustering of scientists away from Republicans risks further damaging conservative Republicans’ trust in science. But we contend there are ways to break out of this loop.</p>
<p>First, academia is not a monolith. While our study may suggest that all academics are liberal, it is important to admit that the data we analyzed – political donations – is only a proxy for what people actually think. We don’t capture every scientist with this method since not everyone donates to political campaigns. In fact, <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2017/05/17/5-facts-about-u-s-political-donations/">most people don’t donate to any candidate at all</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://muse.jhu.edu/book/31449">According to</a> <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/">surveys</a>, many academics have traditionally considered themselves moderate. The question, then, is how to communicate to the public the diversity of political views in academia, given the degree of current polarization, and how to elevate these other voices.</p>
<p>Second, the evident left leaning of academia <a href="https://social-epistemology.com/2020/08/07/the-american-university-the-politics-of-professors-and-the-narrative-of-liberal-bias-charlie-tyson-and-naomi-oreskes/">is not necessarily proof of a “liberal bias</a>” that <a href="https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/">some people worry is corrupting research</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X14000430">impeding the pursuit of truth</a>. Overall, higher education does appear to have a <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/04/26/a-wider-ideological-gap-between-more-and-less-educated-adults/">liberalizing effect on social and political views</a>, but universities also play an important role in the formation of <a href="https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691163666/becoming-right">political identity for</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-020-09446-z">young conservatives</a>.</p>
<p>We believe that clear data about academia’s left-leaning orientation, as well as understanding the underlying reasons for it, could help interrupt the feedback loop of declining scientific trust.</p>
<p>For now there’s a shortage of centrist and conservative scientists serving as trusted messengers. By engaging in public conversation, these scientists could offer visible alternatives to the anti-scientific stances of Republican elites, while at the same time showing that the scientific world is not homogeneous.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/196691/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alexander Kaurov receives funding from Harvard University. </span></em></p>Public data about individual donors’ political contributions supports the perception that American academia leans left.Alexander Kaurov, Research Associate in History of Science, Harvard UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1930852022-10-25T14:01:36Z2022-10-25T14:01:36ZMost Americans do trust scientists and science-based policy-making – freaking out about the minority who don’t isn’t helpful<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/491675/original/file-20221025-18-1takuv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=386%2C304%2C5104%2C3351&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Over three-quarters of U.S. adults say they think scientists act in the public interest.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/female-scientist-explaining-experiment-to-royalty-free-image/1124557904">Thomas Barwick/DigitalVision via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Most Americans – 81% – think government investments in scientific research are “worthwhile investments for society over time,” according to the Pew Research Center’s <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2022/10/25/americans-value-u-s-role-as-scientific-leader-but-38-say-country-is-losing-ground-globally/">latest survey on public perceptions of science</a>.</p>
<p>A similar proportion said they have at least “a fair amount” of confidence that scientists act in the public’s best interests: 77% for all scientists, and 80% for medical scientists. As <a href="https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20207/figure/7-5">with previous surveys</a>, this puts confidence in scientists at about the same level as in the military – 77%. It’s also much higher than for any other group pollsters asked about and, unlike most groups, fairly stable over time, despite recent increasing <a href="https://news.uchicago.edu/story/trust-science-becoming-more-polarized-survey-finds">political polarization</a>.</p>
<p><iframe id="g0QsD" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/g0QsD/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Science supporters want researchers to share their insights to help address societal problems. Scientists themselves <a href="https://theconversation.com/scientists-dont-share-their-findings-for-fun-they-want-their-research-to-make-a-difference-146267">want their research to have an impact</a>. So public judgments like those identified in the Pew report matter because of what they suggest about how Americans might see evidence-based guidance on issues such as climate change and public health.</p>
<h2>Don’t fixate on the negatives</h2>
<p>It would be easy for the scientific community to look at this data and lament the 1 in 5 Americans who said they don’t think government investments in science are important or who said they do not have confidence in scientists.</p>
<p>Same with the fact that confidence in scientists has retreated from a small surge that Pew surveys previously identified starting in late 2018, or the reality that Republicans appear to have <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412438225">increasingly more negative views about scientists</a> and scientific investments than Democrats do.</p>
<p>But I suspect there are more shades of gray behind the black and white numbers themselves.</p>
<p><iframe id="X6Wfd" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/X6Wfd/4/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>For instance, while two-thirds of Democrat-oriented respondents said they supported scientists’ involvement in policy debates, less than a third of Republican-oriented respondents said they share this perspective, a further decrease from the proportion of Republicans who expressed this view in both 2019 and 2020.</p>
<p>But consider that this specific question only gave people two choices. Respondents could say they want scientists to take an “active role” in policy or “focus on establishing sound scientific facts.”</p>
<p>Given the choice, I suspect many respondents from across the political spectrum would have given a more nuanced answer. Even the biggest science boosters likely want scientists to devote most of their time to research and teaching. </p>
<p>Within this new survey, in fact, only about a third of Republicans said scientists currently have “too much” influence in public policy debates and about a quarter said scientists have “not enough” influence. The plurality – 39% – said they have “about the right amount.”</p>
<p><iframe id="ZxvV9" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/ZxvV9/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>From my perspective, yes, it is disheartening that about 2 in 10 Republicans think scientists are “usually worse” at “making good policy decisions about scientific issues” than “other people” and that this proportion has doubled since 2019. </p>
<p>But about a quarter of Republicans still said scientists’ decisions are “usually better” than others, with about half saying scientists’ decisions are “neither better nor worse.”</p>
<p>And it seems possible that while current Republicans responded to the survey they were thinking about issues such as abortion or COVID-19 policies that involve medicine, but also ethics and economics and personal values. Additionally, many Republicans presumably recognize that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01382-3">most scientists oppose current directions in the party</a> and may be using their poll answers to communicate their sense of alienation.</p>
<h2>What could improve overall perceptions</h2>
<p>Data such as those provided by the Pew Research Center point to potential problems; they don’t suggest a fix. Taking a positive view, though, puts the focus on potential solutions. </p>
<p>As <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=WHQF1CUAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">Anthony Dudo</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=0ssM57wAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra">and I</a> argue in our new book on <a href="https://www.press.jhu.edu/books/title/12411/strategic-science-communication">science communication strategy</a>, anyone who wants to be trusted – including scientists – should consider social science research about what enhances trust and perceptions of trustworthiness.</p>
<p>Key among these findings: people perceive others as trustworthy if they appear to be <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020949547">caring, honest and competent</a>.</p>
<p>Looking back at the Pew Research Center’s <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/08/02/trust-and-mistrust-in-americans-views-of-scientific-experts/">2019 surveys on trust in science</a>, which are consistent with <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139309">other research</a>, it seems that Americans largely perceive scientists as fairly competent. However, Americans tend to be less likely to believe scientists “care about people’s best interests,” are “transparent about conflicts of interest” or willing to take “responsibility for mistakes.”</p>
<p>These perceived characteristics help explain the chunk of the American population who don’t feel confident about scientists’ motivations. They are also perceptions that scientists, like others, can take responsibility for through their choices about how they behave and communicate.</p>
<p>Further, Americans tend to see “research scientists” less positively <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/08/02/trust-and-mistrust-in-americans-views-of-scientific-experts/">than science-focused practitioners</a> such as doctors, suggesting that they feel more distant from academic researchers.</p>
<h2>Looking on the bright side for better results</h2>
<p>Focusing too heavily on the minority of people with negative perceptions is dangerous for those of us who want science to play a strong role in society because <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625221091490">attacking one’s critics may exacerbate the problem</a>.</p>
<p>While it <a href="https://theconversation.com/calling-it-a-war-on-science-has-consequences-108302">might feel righteous to “fight” for science</a>, being aggressive toward people who question one’s trustworthiness seems unlikely to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019837623">spur positive perceptions</a>.</p>
<p>Unlike politicians, science supporters probably can’t win by making others look bad. Just like the press, members of the scientific community want to ensure their field’s long-term place in society. Research suggests that for scientists, building real relationships with other members of the public will depend on communicating and behaving in ways that <a href="https://www.press.jhu.edu/books/title/12411/strategic-science-communication">demonstrate caring, honesty and expertise</a>.</p>
<p>Loud griping by scientists and their supporters about how too many people just don’t appreciate science’s place in society, or insults toward those who don’t see its value, are bound to be counterproductive. </p>
<p>The stakes are high as humanity confronts a number of science-related challenges, including climate change, infectious diseases and habitat destruction. Anyone who wants scientific evidence to have a seat at the table where solutions are being discussed may need to follow the evidence on how to make that happen.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/193085/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John C. Besley has received funding from the Burroughs Wellcome Fund, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the David & Lucile Packard Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the John Templeton Foundation, The Kavli Foundation, the Rita Allen Foundation, SRI International, the United States Department of Agriculture, and the National Science Foundation.</span></em></p>It’s tempting to focus on the minority of Americans who hold negative views about scientists. But blaming others for their lack of trust won’t build the relationships that can boost trust.John C. Besley, Ellis N. Brandt Professor of Public Relations, Michigan State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1831962022-05-18T12:11:45Z2022-05-18T12:11:45ZThe role party affiliation played in getting US to grim new milestone of 1 million COVID deaths<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/463748/original/file-20220517-27-sl5ih4.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=7%2C0%2C4881%2C3261&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The American flag flies at half-staff at the U.S. Capitol in Washington on May 14, 2022, after President Biden ordered flags lowered to commemorate 1 million American dead due to COVID-19. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/VirusOutbreakMillionDead/e40b80c5ee2248efb0513731a5cc7532/photo?Query=1%20million%20dead%20COVID&mediaType=photo&sortBy=creationdatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=20&currentItemNo=0">AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>COVID-19 has now claimed the lives of 1 million Americans – a grim milestone made worse by the fact that probably a third of those fatalities could have been avoided. <a href="https://globalepidemics.org/vaccinations/">Estimates suggest</a> that more than 318,000 deaths from the disease occurred among individuals who had access to vaccines, but chose not to receive any. </p>
<p>With such a devastating pandemic sweeping the country, and the globe, why would so many Americans forego a potentially life-saving vaccine?</p>
<p>One key answer to this question is – as with much in the U.S. today – <a href="https://theconversation.com/partisan-divide-creates-different-americas-separate-lives-122925">partisan politics</a>.</p>
<p>Since vaccines for COVID-19 first became available, polls have consistently shown that Republicans are much less likely than Democrats to be vaccinated or to want to be vaccinated. According to <a href="https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/dashboard/kff-covid-19-vaccine-monitor-dashboard/">monthly surveys</a> conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation, this partisan gap has averaged more than 30 percentage points between May 2021 and April 2022. </p>
<p>But the story is both more complicated and wide-ranging than it first appears. <a href="https://theconversation.com/partisan-divide-creates-different-americas-separate-lives-122925">We know</a> that party and ideology account for many of the differences in the lives of Americans.</p>
<p>Our research finds that not only is party affiliation a powerful predictor of vaccine willingness, it also contributes to other attitudes that promote or inhibit willingness to be vaccinated, giving it added power.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/463752/original/file-20220517-14-7z3xzz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="At a gathering of people and trucks, one person holds flags with a swear word statement against Biden and in favor of Trump." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/463752/original/file-20220517-14-7z3xzz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/463752/original/file-20220517-14-7z3xzz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/463752/original/file-20220517-14-7z3xzz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/463752/original/file-20220517-14-7z3xzz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/463752/original/file-20220517-14-7z3xzz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/463752/original/file-20220517-14-7z3xzz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/463752/original/file-20220517-14-7z3xzz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The start of ‘The Peoples Convoy’ protest against COVID-19 vaccine and mask mandates in Adelanto, California, on Feb. 23, 2022.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/people-display-flags-as-they-gather-to-rally-with-truckers-news-photo/1238708606?adppopup=true">Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The pull of partisanship</h2>
<p>In two surveys we conducted in March and June of 2021, <a href="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/719918">we found</a> that party affiliation affected COVID-19 vaccination preferences independently of some of the standard influences such as education, age and race. That means party alone can help determine whether a person got a vaccination. </p>
<p>What we also found, however, is that partisanship has additional effects on vaccination status and willingness. That’s because it contributes to other factors that also affect willingness to get vaccinations, and so contributes “indirectly” to willingness as well as directly. </p>
<p>These indirect factors included the impact of partisanship on one’s concern for contracting COVID-19 oneself; concern for others contracting it; trust in government; trust in scientists and medical professionals; and conspiracy theories surrounding the vaccine – namely that the vaccine would insert a tracking microchip into the body and that it could cause sterility. </p>
<p>Party affiliation influenced Americans’ attitudes in each of these areas, which in turn affected a person’s willingness to get a COVID-19 vaccine. This basically multiplies the effect that party affiliation has over vaccinations. </p>
<h2>Vaccine divide</h2>
<p>Republicans and Democrats haven’t always felt this differently about potentially life-saving vaccines.</p>
<p>A <a href="https://preprints.apsanet.org/engage/apsa/article-details/62013852a6fb4df4e24d9a3c">review of historical public opinion trends</a> during other health crises shows that in 1954, Republicans were roughly equally as likely – only 3 percentage points less – as Democrats to say they were willing to get the then-new polio vaccine. </p>
<p>The vaccine hesitancy gap between the parties for the <a href="https://www.britannica.com/event/1957-flu-pandemic">Asian flu vaccine in 1957</a> was somewhat larger, but still a far cry from today’s gap – Democrats were 9 points more likely to get that vaccine. For the swine flu vaccine in 1976, Democrats were 4 points more likely to get the vaccine. </p>
<p>But since 2000, there have been double-digit partisan gaps in willingness to accept other vaccines to address public health crises. When the administration of George W. Bush raised the <a href="https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2002/12/bush-announces-smallpox-vaccination-plan-military-health-workers">possibility of reintroducing the smallpox vaccine in 2002</a>, Republicans were 11 points less likely than Democrats to say they would get the vaccine. During the <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/2009-h1n1-pandemic.html">swine flu pandemic in 2009</a>, this difference grew to 15 points. Most recently, initial reaction in a <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/317018/one-three-americans-not-covid-vaccine.aspx">July 2020 Gallup Poll</a> to the promise of a new COVID-19 vaccine produced a gap of 34 points: 81% of Democrats said they were likely to get the vaccine compared to just 47% of Republicans.</p>
<p>While there is no way to definitively tell if Republicans are dying from COVID-19 at higher rates than Democrats as a result of these discrepancies, there are numbers that suggest it. An <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Health/red-blue-america-glaring-divide-covid-19-death/story?id=83649085">ABC News analysis</a> shows that after vaccines became readily available, states that voted for Donald Trump in 2020 had an average of 38% higher death rates due to COVID-19 than states that voted for Joe Biden. </p>
<p>The partisan difference in vaccine hesitancy can be traced to a broader change in each party’s attitudes toward science.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/463754/original/file-20220517-26-7z3xzz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A church interior with blue ribbons hung from walls that each represent one person dead from COVID-19." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/463754/original/file-20220517-26-7z3xzz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/463754/original/file-20220517-26-7z3xzz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/463754/original/file-20220517-26-7z3xzz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/463754/original/file-20220517-26-7z3xzz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/463754/original/file-20220517-26-7z3xzz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/463754/original/file-20220517-26-7z3xzz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/463754/original/file-20220517-26-7z3xzz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In January 2022, 2-foot-long blue ribbons encircle First Parish Congregational Church in Gorham, Maine, each representing a Maine resident who had died from COVID-19.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/two-foot-long-blue-ribbons-encircle-first-parish-news-photo/1237975595?adppopup=true">Ben McCanna/Portland Press Herald via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What happened?</h2>
<p><a href="https://academic.oup.com/poq/article-abstract/83/4/817/5573092">Polling data shows</a> that throughout the 1970s and 1980s, Republicans were consistently more likely than Democrats to report a great deal of confidence in the scientific community. </p>
<p>In the mid-1980s, however, prominent Republican leaders <a href="https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/chris-mooney/the-republican-war-on-science/9780465003860/">began to publicly disparage</a> scientific input on public policy issues – initially about <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-reason-some-republicans-mistrust-science-their-leaders-tell-them-to/">the acid rain debate</a>, then expanding to other topics. </p>
<p>Over time, these messages discrediting science and scientists’ opinions on public policy <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-reason-some-republicans-mistrust-science-their-leaders-tell-them-to/">affected</a> public opinion within the parties. </p>
<p>In the early 2000s, the parties began to switch positions. Since 2008, Democrats have consistently displayed greater confidence in science, with the largest gap on record – 30 percentage points – occurring in the <a href="https://news.uchicago.edu/story/trust-science-becoming-more-polarized-survey-finds">most recent</a> survey measuring it, in 2020.</p>
<p>The path from broader distrust in science to hesitancy toward vaccines may have a long history, but it is fairly straightforward. Scientists are the ones who research and develop vaccines, while scientifically trained doctors and nurses administer them. The most prominent talking heads in the media advocating for vaccination are from the scientific community – including, most notably, Dr. Anthony Fauci. Based on years of rhetoric from party leaders, Republican voters were already primed to distrust these figures. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/719918">Our own research</a> demonstrates that citizens who distrust scientists and who distrust medical professionals are less likely to be vaccinated and show less willingness to consider doing so in the future. </p>
<p>Since these tendencies are now more prominent in the Republican Party than in the Democratic Party, this helps drive the overall partisan gap in COVID-19 vaccination and death rates among red and blue states.</p>
<p>Even as COVID-19 seems to be becoming less deadly, experts warn that it is <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/18/bill-gates-covid-risks-have-reduced-but-another-pandemic-will-come.html">not the last</a> viral pandemic we will face. </p>
<p>Elected officials and other policymakers planning for future threats would be wise to keep in mind the depth of the ongoing partisan divide on vaccination. </p>
<p>For example, while state and federal officials made a point of doing specialized outreach to boost COVID-19 vaccination rates in low-income communities and communities of color, specialized outreach may also be appropriate on the basis of partisan affiliation. Furthermore, such outreach needs to consider that a prominent hurdle to overcome among Republicans is a deficit in trust in medical professionals specifically – and science more generally.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/183196/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Monika L. McDermott is affiliated with brilliant corners Research and Strategy as a consultant. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>David R. Jones 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>Your willingness to get a vaccination is tied to your political party. And that may have deadly consequences.Monika L. McDermott, Professor of Political Science, Fordham UniversityDavid R. Jones, Professor of Political Science, Baruch College, CUNYLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1641522021-12-14T18:23:39Z2021-12-14T18:23:39ZPandemic, war and environmental disaster push scientists to deliver quick answers – here’s what it takes to do good science under pressure<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/435919/original/file-20211206-140267-1cr6m9q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=881%2C0%2C4230%2C2690&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic lends urgency to scientific research, putting researchers under pressure to produce.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/laboratory-team-working-on-coronavirus-vaccine-royalty-free-image/1251892829">janiecbros/E+ via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>How can you know that science done quickly during a crisis is good science? </p>
<p>This question has taken on new relevance with the COVID-19 vaccine rollout. Researchers developed vaccines in <a href="https://connect.uclahealth.org/2020/12/10/the-fastest-vaccine-in-history/">under a year</a> – <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03626-1">easily breaking the previous record of four years</a>. But that pace of development <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/29/us/vaccine-skepticism-beliefs.html">may be part of the reason</a> about 1 in 7 unvaccinated adults in the U.S. <a href="https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/poll-finding/kff-covid-19-vaccine-monitor-november-2021/">say they will never get the COVID-19 shot</a>. This is in spite of continued <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fauci-receives-vaccine-extremely-confident-effective/story?id=74859728">assurances from infectious disease experts</a> that <a href="https://theconversation.com/covid-19-vaccines-were-developed-in-record-time-but-are-these-game-changers-safe-150249">the vaccines are safe</a>.</p>
<p>Scientists are called on to come up with answers under pressure whenever there is a crisis, from the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/02/us/challenger-columbia-and-the-nature-of-calamity.html">Challenger space shuttle explosion</a> to the <a href="https://research.ucdavis.edu/how-researchers-are-responding-to-mitigate-californias-wildfire-crisis/">2020 California wildfires</a>. As they shift from “regular” to “crisis” research, they must maintain rigorous standards despite long hours, mentally demanding tasks and persistent outside scrutiny. Thankfully, science produced under urgent conditions <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax5052">can be just as robust and safe</a> as results produced under normal conditions. </p>
<p><a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=QuvnahQAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">We are two social</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=nj8nAbIAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">scientists interested</a> in understanding how researchers can best work on urgent problems and deliver useful findings.</p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.15195/v8.a22">In a recent study</a>, we focused on “conflict archaeologists,” an interdisciplinary group tasked with rapid assessments of archaeological destruction in Syria during the war between 2014 and 2017. Observers feared that one particular form of destruction, artifact looting, was a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/03/opinion/isis-antiquities-sideline.html">major source of revenue</a> for terrorist groups, including the Islamic State. <a href="https://2009-2017.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2014/09/231992.htm">Prominent policymakers</a>, security officials and a worried public wanted clear answers, quickly. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/412204/original/file-20210720-21-17ywyd2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="John Kerry giving speech at lectern in front of Syrian artifacts." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/412204/original/file-20210720-21-17ywyd2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/412204/original/file-20210720-21-17ywyd2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/412204/original/file-20210720-21-17ywyd2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/412204/original/file-20210720-21-17ywyd2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/412204/original/file-20210720-21-17ywyd2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/412204/original/file-20210720-21-17ywyd2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/412204/original/file-20210720-21-17ywyd2.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">Then-Secretary of State John Kerry praised the work of crisis archaeologists as ‘the gold standard’ in a 2014 speech about the looting of cultural artifacts.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://sy.usembassy.gov/education-culture/cultural-events/">U.S. Department of State</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>By any measure, conflict archaeologists succeeded. <a href="https://theconversation.com/were-just-beginning-to-grasp-the-toll-of-the-islamic-states-archaeological-looting-in-syria-116645">They produced findings</a> that improved <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188589">scientific knowledge</a>. Their research led to a <a href="https://uscbs.org/news/president-signs-engel-bill-stop-isis-looting-antiquities/">landmark bipartisan bill</a> signed by President Obama. Perhaps most importantly, they raised public awareness of the problems associated with looting and smuggling archaeological materials.</p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.15195/v8.a22">Our latest research aimed to understand</a> how work cultures played a role in these achievements – and what lessons can be applied in crisis science across disciplines.</p>
<h2>What worked for conflict archaeologists</h2>
<p>To investigate, we interviewed 35 conflict archaeologists and other scientists who worked with them. We also observed work in satellite labs and team meetings, and talked to people who used the data and analysis created by conflict archaeologists.</p>
<p>Those we interviewed worked in different physical locations and across multiple disciplines. If they met, they would do so remotely. And yet they were generally aware of what others in this research area were doing. Collaboration is central to doing good urgent science, and we found three key factors behind successfully working together during a crisis.</p>
<p>First, the percentage and distribution of effort matters. We call this “temporal control.” We found that full-time devotion to crisis science was not necessarily the only way to produce good work. In fact, researchers involved on a part-time basis expressed higher confidence in the quality of other collaborators’ work. We think part-timers were able to maintain a more comprehensive perspective on the collaboration overall.</p>
<p>And keeping a hand in their usual scientific practices seemed to help researchers stay sharp. It meant that when they turned to urgent science tasks, they could do so with fresh eyes and renewed attention to methodological precision.</p>
<p>Second, sharing responsibility for outcomes motivated researchers to generate rapid findings for policy and public-interest needs. We call this “responsibility control.” Effective conflict archaeologists distributed credit among collaborators. They translated their objectives and priorities for policymakers and set boundaries and expectations for understanding and using their findings. As a result, they could do their work with the knowledge that they stood with a team – producing accurate findings that could be used to combat artifact looting and trafficking was not any one individual’s sole responsibility.</p>
<p>[<em>Too busy to read another daily email?</em> <a href="https://memberservices.theconversation.com/newsletters/?source=inline-toobusy">Get one of The Conversation’s curated weekly newsletters</a>.]</p>
<p>Finally, it was important to have limits around the extent of an individual’s personal involvement. This is “scope control,” a work environment that helped scientists set boundaries between the research and their personal lives. “It was exhausting,” one respondent told us. “I tried not to take the work home with me, but I know it was starting to affect my family life.”</p>
<p>Scientists who were able to control the scope of their work, and to speak openly about their challenges, were more likely to stick with the project and express confidence in the strength of the research. We hypothesize that those who are able to set borders around what and how much work they took on were in a better position to assess the strength of both their own research and that of others – and thus feel confident in it.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/435921/original/file-20211206-25-svpv87.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="soldiers with guns ride in pickup trucks through ancient city of Palmyra" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/435921/original/file-20211206-25-svpv87.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/435921/original/file-20211206-25-svpv87.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/435921/original/file-20211206-25-svpv87.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/435921/original/file-20211206-25-svpv87.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/435921/original/file-20211206-25-svpv87.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/435921/original/file-20211206-25-svpv87.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/435921/original/file-20211206-25-svpv87.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Crisis science can be triggered by any number of external challenging conditions.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/picture-taken-on-march-3-2017-shows-syrian-government-news-photo/647612170">Stringer/AFP via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Creating the conditions for good crisis science</h2>
<p>Generating high-quality, safe and reliable scientific research under pressure is not a matter of having a heroic personality or superhuman stamina. It is a matter of thoughtful, deliberate work environments and being part of professional fields that support their members even as they hold them to high standards of rigor and ethics.</p>
<p>To be sure, no two crises are identical. At the same time, <a href="https://www.amacad.org/publication/science-during-crisis/section/1">crisis science best practices</a> can be adapted to fit the specific circumstances of the project. Global pandemics or imminent environmental catastrophe may require short, intensive, full-time bursts of work. Some research projects are lab- or equipment-sensitive and require specific personnel. As our findings show, science conducted with a supportive infrastructure, with rigor and ethics built into the process, can produce reliable results under pressure.</p>
<p>Like COVID-19 researchers, conflict archaeologists worked with tight deadlines under intense scrutiny. Both groups also emphasized the need for researchers to continue to employ <a href="https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/331507/WHO-RFH-20.1-eng.pdf">high ethical standards</a> in the research process.</p>
<p>And understanding <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phaa017">how scientists maintain their ethics </a> and rigor while working under difficult conditions is essential for maintaining the <a href="https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/trend/archive/winter-2021/why-we-must-rebuild-trust-in-science">public’s trust in science</a>. </p>
<p>This much is certain: Crises aren’t going away. As long as society is relying on scientists for solutions, it’s important to create conditions conducive to effective research.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/164152/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fiona Greenland receives funding from the National Science Foundation.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle D. Fabiani receives funding from the National Science Foundation. </span></em></p>Scientists can be asked to help find solutions during disasters. A study of how archaeologists worked on the problem of looting during the Syrian war offers lessons for science done during crisis.Fiona Greenland, Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of VirginiaMichelle D. Fabiani, Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice, University of New HavenLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1653862021-09-16T12:16:51Z2021-09-16T12:16:51ZPolitical orientation predicts science denial – here’s what that means for getting Americans vaccinated against COVID-19<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/421428/original/file-20210915-18042-xvm9nw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C3000%2C1886&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Protesters at an anti-vaccine rally in Pennsylvania in August 2021.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/protesters-hold-a-huge-american-flag-during-the-anti-news-photo/1234956589">Weaver/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Vaccine refusal is a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/25/health/coronavirus-vaccine-refusal.html">major reason</a> COVID-19 infections continue to surge in the U.S. Safe and effective vaccines have been available for months, but as of mid-September 2021, only <a href="https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccinations_vacc-total-admin-rate-total">65% of eligible American adults</a> are fully vaccinated. In many areas, a <a href="http://www.healthdata.org/news-release/new-tool-shows-more-50-percent-population-vaccine-hesitant-over-580-zip-codes-across-us">majority of eligible adults</a> haven’t taken advantage of the opportunity to get vaccinated.</p>
<p>In the U.S., polling on intent to get vaccinated shows a massive <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/17/us/politics/coronavirus-vaccines-republicans.html">political divide</a>. Counties that went for Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election <a href="https://www.vox.com/22587443/covid-19-vaccine-refusal-hesitancy-variant-delta-cases-rate">show higher vaccination rates</a> than counties that went for Donald Trump. Attendees at the <a href="https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/07/11/anthony-fauci-cpac-cheers-missing-vaccination-goal-sot-sotu-vpx.cnn">Conservative Political Action Committee’s summer meeting</a> cheered the fact that the U.S. didn’t meet <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-covid-19-vaccine-goal-missed/">Biden’s July 4 vaccination goals</a> for the country.</p>
<p><iframe id="rGcbA" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/rGcbA/5/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p><a href="https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/the-red-blue-divide-in-covid-19-vaccination-rates/">Politically motivated denial</a> of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness tracks with a dramatic politicization of trust in science itself. In a <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/352397/democratic-republican-confidence-science-diverges.aspx">survey conducted in June and July</a>, Gallup found that the percentage of Republicans expressing a “great deal” or “quite a lot of” trust in science is down, shockingly, from 72% in 1975 to only 45% today. Over the same period, confidence in science among Democrats is up from 67% to 79%.</p>
<p><iframe id="TWcjz" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/TWcjz/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Scientific institutions have never been perfect, but overall they have a tremendous track record of success – both in basic research and in applied sciences like epidemiology and immunology. The vast majority of expert opinion on, say, antibiotics, radio waves, orbital mechanics or electrical conductivity is accepted without complaint by the general public. Evidently people are satisfied with applied science in almost all walks of life. </p>
<p>So why is confidence in science so malleable, and what does a person’s political orientation have to do with it?</p>
<p>The rejection of scientific expertise with regard to COVID-19 vaccines appears to be standing in for something else. <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=QISyZMoAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">As a philosopher who has studied science denial</a>, I suggest that this “something else” includes factors like distrust in public institutions and perceived threats to one’s cultural identity.</p>
<h2>Ideologies that mesh with science denial</h2>
<p>Identifying as a Republican is <a href="https://replicationindex.com/2020/06/09/racism-decreased-in-the-us-but-not-for-conservative-republicans/">very strongly associated</a> with embracing central tenets of conservative ideology. A <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430221990104">2021 public opinion study</a> confirms that endorsement of conservative political ideology is currently the dominant predictor of anti-science attitudes.</p>
<p>Another recent <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430221992126">study of anti-science attitudes</a> identifies several tendencies particularly associated with conservative ideology. People who hold anti-science beliefs tend to be sympathetic toward <a href="https://theauthoritarians.org/">right-wing authoritarianism</a> – that is to say, they are conformists who defer to selected authority figures and who are willing to act aggressively in the name of those figures.</p>
<p>They also tend to support group-based hierarchy, with “superior” groups dominating “inferior” groups. Political psychologists call this “<a href="http://psychology.iresearchnet.com/social-psychology/group/social-dominance-orientation/">social dominance orientation</a>” and see it in, for example, attitudes about racial or gender equality. </p>
<p>Indeed, social scientists looking at the causes of science denial have increasingly narrowed in on two contributing causes. Certain <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209351435">personality traits</a>, including comfort with existing social and cultural hierarchies and a predilection for authoritarianism, go along with a skepticism for science. So do closely related aspects of identity, such as identification with a dominant social group like <a href="https://theconversation.com/faith-and-politics-mix-to-drive-evangelical-christians-climate-change-denial-143145">white evangelical Christians</a>. </p>
<p>Conservative traditionalists from the historically dominant white Christian demographic in the U.S. have had the most reason to feel threatened by science. Evolution by natural selection is threatening to many doctrinal religious traditionalists. Climate science threatens the economic status quo that conservatives seek to conserve. The whole concept of a public health mandate runs counter to the “small government” individualism of political conservatives. </p>
<p>Further, because <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020950735">COVID-19 has been starkly politicized</a> since the beginning of the pandemic, public health measures have become directly associated with the political left. Rejection of such measures has consequently become <a href="https://www.thebulwark.com/no-we-didnt-get-the-vaccine-were-republicans/">a signal of political and cultural identity</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/421709/original/file-20210916-21-7o2731.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="chart of vaccination levels and partisan lean of U.S. counties" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/421709/original/file-20210916-21-7o2731.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/421709/original/file-20210916-21-7o2731.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=686&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/421709/original/file-20210916-21-7o2731.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=686&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/421709/original/file-20210916-21-7o2731.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=686&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/421709/original/file-20210916-21-7o2731.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=862&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/421709/original/file-20210916-21-7o2731.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=862&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/421709/original/file-20210916-21-7o2731.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=862&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">U.S. counties that skewed more heavily toward Trump in the 2020 election tend to have lower vaccination rates than those that skewed toward Biden.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://acasignups.net/21/09/15/weekly-update-us-covid19-vaccination-levels-county-partisan-lean">Charles Gaba/ACASignups.net</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210319/Study-shows-COVID-19-denial-depends-on-peoples-trust-in-governments-social-institutions.aspx">Other recent studies on science denial</a> have shown that people who don’t have a lot of confidence in the honesty and reliability of others, as well as in social institutions like government, academia and media, tend to deny the dangers of COVID-19. Low social trust tends to track with conservative political orientation – in particular, with <a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-supporters-have-little-trust-in-societal-institutions-131113">support for Trump</a>. His supporters are much <a href="https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/10/what-caused-the-u-s-anti-science-trend/">more likely to say</a> that scientific inquiry is driven by political considerations. </p>
<h2>Grasping for a sense of control</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.vox.com/2018/7/29/17627134/income-inequality-chart">Increasing economic inequality</a> and <a href="https://apnews.com/article/census-2020-house-elections-4ee80e72846c151aa41a808b06d975ea">racial and ethnic diversification</a> are also part of the science denialism mix.</p>
<p>One school of thought in psychology, called <a href="https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315661452-12/compensatory-control-theory-psychological-importance-perceiving-order-bastiaan-rutjens-aaron-kay">compensatory control theory</a>, holds that many social phenomena – including ideological science denial – <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01649.x">stem from the basic human need for a sense of control</a> over one’s environment and life outcomes. According to this theory, perceived threats to one’s sense of personal control can motivate denial of scientific consensus. The idea is that due to a combination of economic insecurity, demographic changes and the perceived erosion of cultural norms favoring whites, some people feel an existential threat to the white supremacy they’ve long benefited from – which in turn <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/04/its-not-vaccine-hesitancy-its-covid-denialism/618724/">spurs them to deny government warnings about the dangers of COVID-19</a>.</p>
<p>I believe this compulsive defensiveness plays a big part in the phenomenon of science denial, once trusted elites like politicians or news media hosts trigger the inclination to oppose some particular science-based public policy. You can’t control the coronavirus – or inequality, or a changing culture – but you can control whether you take the vaccine or wear a mask. This sense of control is implicitly but powerfully attractive on a deep, emotional level.</p>
<p>The need for control may also explain an attraction to politicians or media figures who promise to give you your power back by endorsing unproven, <a href="https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-cautions-against-use-hydroxychloroquine-or-chloroquine-covid-19-outside-hospital-setting-or">alternative</a> <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/23/trump-bleach-one-year-484399">home</a> <a href="https://slate.com/technology/2021/08/ivermectin-covid-cure-farm-supply-stores.html">remedies</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/421429/original/file-20210915-17-292n9p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="man in USA cap with American flag mask and another flag around shoulders" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/421429/original/file-20210915-17-292n9p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/421429/original/file-20210915-17-292n9p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/421429/original/file-20210915-17-292n9p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/421429/original/file-20210915-17-292n9p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/421429/original/file-20210915-17-292n9p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/421429/original/file-20210915-17-292n9p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/421429/original/file-20210915-17-292n9p.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">In the U.S., attitudes toward public health recommendations are tied up with political beliefs and identity.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/man-wears-a-face-mask-made-of-the-us-flag-while-attening-a-news-photo/1216630256">Beata Zawrzel/NurPhoto via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Denial feeds on political polarization</h2>
<p>As I discuss in my book, “<a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-truth-about-denial-9780190062279">The Truth About Denial</a>,” I think that science denial, including COVID-19 vaccine denial, is probably best seen as the result of vicious feedback loops. Factors like economic pain, white Christian identity and low social trust play off one another in populations experiencing relative social and informational isolation. This denialism can take hold more easily in people who have chosen to limit their experiences to relatively homogeneous geographic areas, social contexts and <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/01/americans-main-sources-for-political-news-vary-by-party-and-age/">news media environments</a>.</p>
<p>In the short run, the failure of a society to vaccinate enough people to get COVID-19 under control will dramatically change life for everyone for years to come. The larger issue is the way science itself has become politicized in ways never seen before. This development endangers the ability of organized society to respond effectively to pandemics and other existential threats, including climate change. </p>
<p>Is there any hope of depolarizing the issue of COVID-19 vaccination, or trust in science itself? I’d say probably not until leaders in conservative politics, media and religion exert a concerted effort to change the narrative.</p>
<p>[<em>Get our best science, health and technology stories.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/science-editors-picks-71/?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=science-best">Sign up for The Conversation’s science newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/165386/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adrian Bardon received funding from the Humility and Conviction in Public Life project at the University of Connecticut. </span></em></p>Republicans are four times as likely as Democrats to say they’re not going to get the COVID-19 vaccine. What’s behind the polarization of who trusts or denies science?Adrian Bardon, Professor of Philosophy, Wake Forest UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1516912020-12-27T20:41:20Z2020-12-27T20:41:20ZThe less equal we become, the less we trust science, and that’s a problem<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/376314/original/file-20201222-57996-1ej1g27.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=1100%2C207%2C2775%2C1615&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">PopTika/Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In mid November, South Dakota emergency room nurse Jodi Doering <a href="https://twitter.com/JodiOrth/status/1327771329555292162">tweeted</a> her experience of caring for dying patients. </p>
<p>Many, she said, were <a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/11/south-dakota-covid-healthcare-worker.html">denying the existence of COVID-19</a> until their final breaths. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Their last dying words are “this can’t be happening, it’s not real.” And when they should be … FaceTiming their families, they’re filled with anger and hatred</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Five months earlier, a 30 year old man died of COVID-19 in the Methodist Hospital in San Antonio, Texas. His <a href="https://theworldnews.net/au-news/believing-pandemic-a-hoax-30-year-old-dies-after-attending-covid-party">dying words</a>, to his nurse: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>I think I made a mistake. I thought this was a hoax, but it’s not </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The hospital’s chief medical officer reported that the patient became infected at a party with other sceptics, all thinking the virus was “fake news”.</p>
<h2>Trust varies by location</h2>
<p>That Texas party was doubtless organised by mobile phone, and the friends drove their cars there. Both pieces of technology have much more computer storage and processing power than the Apollo 11 moon landing had in 1969. </p>
<p>Ironically, recent advances in science and technology helped people gather to express their doubts about scientific advice.</p>
<p>But it is not just individuals who have downplayed scientific advice and warnings about the virus. </p>
<p>Scientists around the world frequently feel governments do not pay enough attention to scientific advice. That was the view of some half of the 25,307 researchers surveyed by Frontiers, a Swiss publisher of scientific journals, in May and June. </p>
<h2>New Zealand takes advice, the US not so much</h2>
<p>The survey asked the international scientists whether lawmakers in their country had used scientific advice to inform their COVID strategy.</p>
<p>Overall, the scientists <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2020.621563/full">split 50:50</a> on how much, or how little, their government had considered the scientific advice.</p>
<p>Opinions varied widely between countries. In New Zealand, almost 80% were happy with the attention their government paid to scientific advice. In the United States, fewer than 20% of the scientists thought the same about their government.</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Where policy makers take scientific advice into account</strong></p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375561/original/file-20201216-13-bo45jc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375561/original/file-20201216-13-bo45jc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375561/original/file-20201216-13-bo45jc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=595&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375561/original/file-20201216-13-bo45jc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=595&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375561/original/file-20201216-13-bo45jc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=595&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375561/original/file-20201216-13-bo45jc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=747&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375561/original/file-20201216-13-bo45jc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=747&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375561/original/file-20201216-13-bo45jc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=747&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2020.621563/full">The Academic Response to COVID-19, Frontiers in Public Health, October 2000</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>One obvious factor in scientists’ attitudes is the penchant some politicians from various parts of the world have for denigrating experts. </p>
<p>Outgoing US President Donald Trump frequently dismisses anything he disagrees with as “fake news”. </p>
<p>In Britain in the 2016 Brexit referendum, a raft of economists argued that Brexit would damage the UK economy. Leading Conservative politician and Brexit supporter Michael Gove ignored them, saying: “<a href="https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/The_Death_of_Expertise/x3TYDQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Tom+Nichols+The+Death+of+Expertise&printsec=frontcover">people in this country have had enough of experts</a>”.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/5-ways-we-can-prepare-the-public-to-accept-a-covid-19-vaccine-saying-it-will-be-mandatory-isnt-one-144730">5 ways we can prepare the public to accept a COVID-19 vaccine (saying it will be 'mandatory' isn't one)</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>And recently in Australia, the Grattan Institute, an independent think tank, issued a report <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/flame-out-the-future-of-natural-gas/">Flame Out</a>, which argued there is limited future need for natural gas. </p>
<p>A spokesman for the energy minister Angus Taylor dismissed the report, saying its findings about the manufacturing sector did not reflect <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/15/benefits-of-coalitions-gas-led-recovery-overstated-and-declining-usage-inevitable-report-finds">the industry’s own views</a>.</p>
<p>Who needs experts when they can rely on industry?</p>
<h2>Less-equal societies trust less</h2>
<p>But there are other, less obvious, factors underlying how much attention countries and governments have paid to expert advice. </p>
<p>A significant one is the level of inequality in the country. This graph maps the results from the Frontiers survey against levels of income inequality.</p>
<p>Inequality is measured by the standard Gini coefficient, which runs from 0.0 (everyone has the same income) to 1.0 (one person has all of a country’s income).</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Proportion of scientists saying government took scientific advice on COVID</strong></p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/376290/original/file-20201221-13-kwoabm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/376290/original/file-20201221-13-kwoabm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/376290/original/file-20201221-13-kwoabm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/376290/original/file-20201221-13-kwoabm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/376290/original/file-20201221-13-kwoabm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=537&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/376290/original/file-20201221-13-kwoabm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=537&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/376290/original/file-20201221-13-kwoabm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=537&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Gini coefficient measures inequality on scale where 0 = income is shared equally, 1 = one person has all the income.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htm">Frontiers in Public Health, OECD</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>The line running through the diamonds is a trend line. It shows that, on average, trust in science declines as inequality increases.</p>
<p>On average, an increase of one percentage point in inequality is associated with a decrease of 1.5 percentage points in listening to scientists.</p>
<p>Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett provide a clue as to why this might be the case in their 2009 book <a href="https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resources/the-spirit-level">The Spirit Level</a>, observing that </p>
<blockquote>
<p>inequality affects how you see those around you … people in less equal societies are less likely to trust each other".</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In such countries the beliefs that it’s a “dog-eat-dog” world, or that “everyone’s out for themselves”, seem to be more prevalent.</p>
<p>New York Times columnist David Brooks believes collapsing levels of trust are <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/10/collapsing-levels-trust-are-devastating-america/616581/">devastating America</a>. In his view</p>
<blockquote>
<p>an anti-institutional bias has manifested itself as hatred of government; an unwillingness to defer to expertise, authority, and basic science; and a reluctance to fund the civic infrastructure of society, such as a decent public health system.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>World-wide, efforts to tackle the coronavirus have been hampered by communities disputing the severity – or even the existence – of the virus.</p>
<p>Australia still has a fair measure of trust. Announcing restrictions earlier this year, Victorian Premier Dan Andrews said “<a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-23/daniel-andrews-press-conference-latest-coronavirus-update/12484334">everybody will pay a price</a>” if Victorians don’t play their part and act on the advice of experts.</p>
<p>So far we have, impressively; and in Sydney too. But trust is fragile. </p>
<p>Inequality is a corrosive solvent.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/151691/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tony Ward does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>New Zealand’s government seems to trust scientists the most, the US government, the least.Tony Ward, Fellow in Historical Studies, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1493512020-11-12T13:27:19Z2020-11-12T13:27:19ZWhen scientific journals take sides during an election, the public’s trust in science takes a hit<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/368891/original/file-20201111-13-hvhyb9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=447%2C60%2C5157%2C3745&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">People lose faith in science when it takes a political side.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/Election2020WisconsinVoting/f700f11017154b8198897294aaa18cba/photo?boardId=d7f2514f50804466b15dfb81ed00d9cd&st=boards&mediaType=audio,photo,video,graphic&sortBy=&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=15&currentItemNo=6">AP Photo/Wong Maye-E</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/research-brief-83231">Research Brief</a> is a short take about interesting academic work.</em></p>
<h2>The big idea</h2>
<p>When the scientific establishment gets involved in partisan politics, it decreases people’s trust in science, especially among conservatives, according to our recent research.</p>
<p>In the lead-up to the 2020 presidential election, several prestigious scientific journals took the highly unusual step of either endorsing Joe Biden or criticizing Donald Trump in their pages.</p>
<p>In September, the editor-in-chief of the journal Science wrote a scathing article titled “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe7391">Trump lied about science</a>,” which was followed by other strong critiques from both the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMe2029812">New England Journal of Medicine</a> and the cancer research journal <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30548-9">Lancet Oncology</a>.</p>
<p>Several other top publications – including <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02852-x">Nature</a> and <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientific-american-endorses-joe-biden1/">Scientific American</a> – soon followed, with overt endorsements of Biden. The statements focused on each candidate’s impact on scientific knowledge and science-based decision-making.</p>
<p>To evaluate whether political endorsements like these might influence people’s attitudes toward science, we ran an <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NuknCbGqhuJyeGYLGuqBCqa9hC0MR13Z/view?usp=sharing">online survey experiment</a>.</p>
<p>We asked one group of respondents to read a news article about a scientific journal or magazine. We asked a second group of people to read an article that contained the same description of the publication but with additional details about the political position it took and quotes from its actual statements regarding Biden and Trump. Then we asked respondents about their trust in scientists, scientific journals and science as an institution.</p>
<p><iframe id="qH79F" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/qH79F/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>We found that trust in science declined among respondents who learned about a publication’s partisan statement. The magnitude of the observed effects is small but statistically significant, holds across a range of controls and is persistent across different ways of measuring trust in science. The finding was most pronounced for conservatives, likely because the endorsements were all supportive of Biden and against Trump.</p>
<p>Furthermore, we also found an interesting indirect effect. As trust in science decreased, so did the reported likelihood of complying with scientific recommendations about health behaviors related to COVID-19 – for example, wearing face masks.</p>
<h2>Why it matters</h2>
<p>There’s a lot of new research in the area of trust in science, including large polls of the public. Some findings suggest that there is still confidence in scientific expertise – but this <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/08/02/trust-and-mistrust-in-americans-views-of-scientific-experts/">declines as soon as science mixes with policy recommendations in people’s minds</a>.</p>
<p>Public policy issues have become highly polarized, reflecting larger political trends. While scientific research itself has not driven such polarization, some areas of scientific research, such as climate change, have become very politicized.</p>
<p>Further, while <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/27/public-confidence-in-scientists-has-remained-stable-for-decades/">public trust in scientists and science has remained largely stable</a> over the years, the American public is <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/08/02/trust-and-mistrust-in-americans-views-of-scientific-experts/">divided along party lines</a> in terms of trust in, and perceived impartiality of, science. Even more concerning, <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/516412-polls-show-trust-in-scientific-political-institutions-eroding">trust in science and medicine has been on the decline</a> since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.</p>
<p>Our findings suggest there may be costs when scientific institutions take partisan stances on electoral politics.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/368758/original/file-20201111-13-13p0pse.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="people with signs at a March for Science in DC" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/368758/original/file-20201111-13-13p0pse.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/368758/original/file-20201111-13-13p0pse.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368758/original/file-20201111-13-13p0pse.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368758/original/file-20201111-13-13p0pse.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368758/original/file-20201111-13-13p0pse.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368758/original/file-20201111-13-13p0pse.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368758/original/file-20201111-13-13p0pse.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">Science supporters – like these at a 2017 March for Science – risk looking like just another advocacy group.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/ScienceMarch/547723549891476ba4b3595c94e3bc10/photo?boardId=d7f2514f50804466b15dfb81ed00d9cd&st=boards&mediaType=audio,photo,video,graphic&sortBy=&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=15&currentItemNo=0">AP Photo/Sait Serkan Gurbuz</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>How we did our work</h2>
<p>Because a single survey – even with a sample as large as our initial group of 2,975 demographically diverse Americans – could be a fluke, we ran a second survey. We configured a new sample of 1,000 people to be representative of the U.S. population, allowing us to generalize our findings better. The results lined up with those from the first study, indicating that our findings were not a fluke but robust. We will submit our full analysis to a peer-reviewed journal soon.</p>
<p>Because of the experimental design of our study, the effects we have identified can’t be due to people’s initial views coming into the survey. That’s because participants were randomly assigned to treatment and control groups, no matter what their prior beliefs on science or partisan positions. </p>
<p>As with any experimental study, we don’t know whether these effects will last or not. The highly partisan environment of the 2020 election may make some of our results specific to this time and place.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/149351/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kevin L. Young donated to a PAC during the current election, focusing on voter mobilization.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bernhard Leidner receives funding from the National Science Foundation for his current work on COVID-19 and, among other things, trust in science.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stylianos Syropoulos 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>When the scientific establishment gets involved in partisan politics, surveys suggest, there are unintended consequences – especially for conservatives.Kevin L. Young, Associate Professor of Economics, UMass AmherstBernhard Leidner, Associate Professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences, UMass AmherstStylianos Syropoulos, PhD Student in Psychological and Brain Sciences, UMass AmherstLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1042002018-10-25T10:48:06Z2018-10-25T10:48:06ZOverhype and ‘research laundering’ are a self-inflicted wound for social science<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/242169/original/file-20181024-71026-1rxjnlj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=11%2C259%2C3733%2C2945&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Overselling slim results can get research findings into the hands of news consumers.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/vintage-newspaper-boy-shouting-latest-news-258824045">durantelallera/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Earlier this fall, Dartmouth College researchers released a study <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1611617114">claiming to link</a> violent video games to aggression in kids. The logic of a meta-analytic study like this one is that by combining many individual studies, scientists can look for common trends or effects identified in earlier work. Only, as a psychology researcher who’s long focused on this area, I contend this meta-analysis did nothing of the sort. In fact, the magnitude of the effect they found is about the same as that of <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/its-time-for-a-serious-talk-about-the-science-of-tech-addiction/">eating potatoes on teen suicide</a>. If anything, it suggests video games do not predict youth aggression.</p>
<p>This study, and others like it, are symptomatic of a big problem within social science: the overhyping of dodgy, unreliable research findings that have little real-world application. Often such findings shape public perceptions of the human condition and <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/08-1448P.ZO">guide public policy</a> – despite largely being rubbish. Here’s how it happens.</p>
<p>The last few years have seen psychology, in particular, embroiled in what some call a <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/03/psychologys-replication-crisis-cant-be-wished-away/472272/">reproducibility crisis</a>. Many long-cherished findings in social science more broadly have <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2018/08/27/researchers-replicate-just-13-of-21-social-science-experiments-published-in-top-journals/">proven difficult</a> to replicate under rigorous conditions. When a study is run again, it doesn’t turn up the same results as originally published. The <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1255484">pressure to publish positive findings</a> and the tendency for researchers to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1255484">inject their own biases</a> into analyses intensify the issue. Much of this failure to replicate can be addressed with more transparent and rigorous methods in social science.</p>
<p>But the overhyping of weak results is different. It can’t be fixed methodologically; a solution would need to come from a cultural change within the field. But incentives to be upfront about shortcomings are few, particularly for a field such as psychology, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023963">which worries</a> over <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0039405">public perception</a>. </p>
<p>One example is the Implicit Association Test (IAT). This technique is most famous for probing for unconscious racial biases. Given the attention it and the theories based upon it have received, something of a cottage industry has developed to <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/starbucks-ceo-plans-racial-bias-training-89ba69933de2/">train employees about their implicit biases</a> and how to overcome them. Unfortunately, a number of studies suggest the IAT is <a href="https://www.thecut.com/2017/01/psychologys-racism-measuring-tool-isnt-up-to-the-job.html">unreliable and doesn’t predict real-world behavior</a>. Combating racial bias is laudatory, but the considerable public investment in the IAT and the concept of implicit biases is likely less productive than advertised.</p>
<p>Part of the problem is something I call “death by press release.” This phenomenon occurs when researchers or their university, or a journal-publishing organization such as the American Psychological Association, releases a press release that hypes a study’s findings without detailing its limitations. Sensationalistic claims tend to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2017.0364">get more news attention</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/242170/original/file-20181024-71017-1u3rl6d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/242170/original/file-20181024-71017-1u3rl6d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/242170/original/file-20181024-71017-1u3rl6d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=705&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242170/original/file-20181024-71017-1u3rl6d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=705&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242170/original/file-20181024-71017-1u3rl6d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=705&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242170/original/file-20181024-71017-1u3rl6d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=886&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242170/original/file-20181024-71017-1u3rl6d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=886&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242170/original/file-20181024-71017-1u3rl6d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=886&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An easy tweak to get kids enthusiastically eating their veggies was too good to be true.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/happy-boy-carrot-healthy-food-concept-217315831">ilikestudio/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For instance, one now notorious food lab at Cornell experienced <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2018/09/20/this-ivy-league-food-scientist-was-media-darling-now-his-studies-are-being-retracted/">multiple retractions</a> after it came out that they tortured their data in order to get headline-friendly conclusions. Their research suggested that people ate more when served larger portions, action television shows increased food consumption, and kids’ vegetable consumption would go up if produce was rebranded with kid-friendly themes such as “X-ray vision carrots.” Mainly, lab leader Brian Wansink appears to have become an expert in <a href="https://slate.com/technology/2018/02/how-brian-wansink-forgot-the-difference-between-science-and-marketing.html">marketing social science</a>, even though most of the conclusions were flimsy. </p>
<p>Another concern is a process I call “science laundering” – the cleaning up of dirty, messy, inconclusive science for public consumption. In my own area of expertise, the Dartmouth meta-analysis on video games is a good example. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615592234">Similar evidence</a> to what had been fed into the meta-analysis had been available for years and actually formed the basis for <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12293">why most scholars</a> no longer link violent games to youth assaults.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/09/meta-analyses-were-supposed-end-scientific-debates-often-they-only-cause-more">Science magazine</a> recently discussed how meta-analyses can be misused to try to prematurely end scientific debates. Meta-analyses can be helpful when they illuminate scientific practices that may cause spurious effects, in order to guide future research. But they can artificially smooth over important disagreements between studies.</p>
<p>Let’s say we hypothesize that eating blueberries cures depression. We run 100 studies to test this hypothesis. Imagine about 25 percent of our experiments find small links between blueberries and reduced depression, whereas the other 75 percent show nothing. Most people would agree this is a pretty poor showing for the blueberry hypothesis. The bulk of our evidence didn’t find any improvement in depression after eating the berries. But, due to a quirk of meta-analysis, combining all 100 of our studies together would show what scientists call a “statistically significant” effect – meaning something that was unlikely to happen just by chance – even though most of the individual studies on their own were not statistically significant.</p>
<p>Merging together even a few studies that show an effect with a larger group of studies that don’t can end up with a meta-analysis result that looks statistically significant – even if the individual studies varied quite a bit. These types of results constitute what some psychologists have called the “<a href="http://goodsciencebadscience.nl/?p=471">crud factor</a>” of psychological research – statistically significant findings that are noise, not real effects that reflect anything in the real world. Or, put bluntly, meta-analyses are a great tool for scholars to fool themselves with.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/242098/original/file-20181024-71035-tvpd3d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/242098/original/file-20181024-71035-tvpd3d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/242098/original/file-20181024-71035-tvpd3d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242098/original/file-20181024-71035-tvpd3d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242098/original/file-20181024-71035-tvpd3d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242098/original/file-20181024-71035-tvpd3d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242098/original/file-20181024-71035-tvpd3d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242098/original/file-20181024-71035-tvpd3d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Nobody wants quality research to languish unseen in archives….</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/moonlightbulb/6307961852">Selena N. B. H./Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Professional guild organizations for fields such as psychology and pediatrics should shoulder much of the blame for the spread of research overhyping. Such organizations release numerous, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0732-118X(95)00025-C">often deeply flawed</a>, policy statements trumpeting research findings in a field. The public often does not realize that such organizations function to market and <a href="https://psychcentral.com/blog/why-the-apa-is-losing-members/">promote a profession</a>; they’re not neutral, objective observers of scientific research – which is often published, <a href="http://ar2016.apa.org/financials/">for income</a>, in their own journals. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, such science laundering can come back to haunt a field when overhyped claims turn out to be misleading. Dishonest overpromotion of social science can cause the public and <a href="https://doi.org/10.4065/mcp.2010.0762">the courts</a> to grow more skeptical of it. Why should taxpayers fund research that is oversold rubbish? Why should media consumers trust what research says today if they were burned by what it said yesterday?</p>
<p>Individual scholars and the professional guilds that represent them can do much to fix these issues by reconsidering lax standards of evidence, the overselling of weak effects, and the current lack of upfront honesty about methodological limitations. In the meantime, the public will do well to continue applying a healthy dose of critical thinking to lofty claims coming from press releases in the social sciences. Ask if the magnitude of effect is significantly greater than for potatoes on suicide. If the answer is no, it’s time to move on.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/104200/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christopher J. Ferguson 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>Breathless press releases, over-interpreted meta-analyses and other ‘crud factors’ mean that weak research results can get overhyped to the public. It’s time for a cultural change in the social sciences.Christopher J. Ferguson, Professor of Psychology, Stetson University Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/875662018-01-04T04:33:37Z2018-01-04T04:33:37ZTrust in digital technology will be the internet’s next frontier, for 2018 and beyond<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/199508/original/file-20171215-17857-cns8cs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Trust in online systems varies around the world.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/technologies-connect-people-mixed-media-588071525">Sergey Nivens/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>After decades of unbridled enthusiasm – bordering on <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/05/18/527799301/is-internet-addiction-real">addiction</a> – about all things digital, the public may be <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/11/insider/tech-column-dread.html">losing trust in technology</a>. <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/theworldpost/wp/2017/10/09/pierre-omidyar-6-ways-social-media-has-become-a-direct-threat-to-democracy/">Online information isn’t reliable</a>, whether it appears in the form of news, search results or user reviews. Social media, in particular, is <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/social-media-giants-are-vulnerable-to-foreign-propaganda-what-can-they-do-to-change">vulnerable to manipulation</a> by hackers or foreign powers. Personal data <a href="https://hbr.org/2017/12/what-would-you-pay-to-keep-your-digital-footprint-100-private">isn’t necessarily private</a>. And people are increasingly worried about automation and artificial intelligence <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/technology/ai-will-transform-the-economy-but-how-much-and-how-soon.html">taking humans’ jobs</a>.</p>
<p>Yet, around the world, people are both increasingly dependent on, and distrustful of, digital technology. They don’t behave as if they mistrust technology. Instead, people are using technological tools more intensively in all aspects of daily life. In recent research on <a href="https://sites.tufts.edu/digitalplanet/executive-summary/">digital trust in 42 countries</a> (a collaboration between Tufts University’s Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, where I work, and Mastercard), my colleagues and I found that this paradox is a global phenomenon. </p>
<p>If today’s technology giants don’t do anything to address this unease in an environment of growing dependence, people might start looking for more trustworthy companies and systems to use. Then Silicon Valley’s powerhouses could see their business boom go bust.</p>
<h2>Economic power</h2>
<p>Some of the concerns have to do with how big a role the technology companies and their products play in people’s lives. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/30/health/americans-screen-time-nielsen/index.html">U.S. residents already spend 10 hours a day</a> in front of a screen of some kind. One in 5 Americans say they are online “<a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/08/one-fifth-of-americans-report-going-online-almost-constantly/">almost constantly</a>.” The tech companies have enormous reach and power. <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/27/technology/facebook-2-billion-users/index.html">More than 2 billion people</a> use Facebook every month.</p>
<p><a href="http://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share">Ninety percent of search queries worldwide</a> go through Google. Chinese e-retailer, Alibaba, organizes the biggest shopping event worldwide every year on Nov. 11, which this year brought in <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/alibabas-singles-day-bigger-than-black-friday-cyber-monday-combined-2017-11">US$25.3 billion in revenue</a>, more than twice what U.S. retailers sold between Thanksgiving and Cyber Monday last year. </p>
<p>This results in enormous wealth. All six companies in the world <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-21/tencent-s-292-billion-rally-ousts-facebook-from-global-top-five">worth more than $500 billion</a> are tech firms. The <a href="https://business.linkedin.com/talent-solutions/blog/employer-brand/2017/revealing-the-25-most-sought-after-employers-globally">top six most sought-after companies to work for</a> are also in tech. Tech <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/tech-boom-creates-new-order-for-world-markets-1511260200">stocks are booming</a>, in ways reminiscent of the giddy days of the <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-the-dot-com-bubble-began-and-why-it-popped-2010-12">dot-com bubble</a> of 1997 to 2001. With emerging technologies, including the “<a href="https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/12/13/2-tech-giants-are-teaming-up-for-the-internet-of-t.aspx">internet of things</a>,” <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/12/are-we-going-too-fast-driverless-cars">self-driving cars</a>, <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/future-of-bitcoin-blockchain-2018/">blockchain</a> systems and <a href="https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/jobs/by-2020-artificial-intelligence-will-create-more-jobs-than-it-eliminates-gartner/articleshow/62053363.cms">artificial intelligence</a>, tempting investors and entrepreneurs, the reach and power of the industry is only likely to grow. </p>
<p>This is particularly true because <a href="https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/service-provider/vni-network-traffic-forecast/infographic.html">half the world’s population</a> is still not online. But networking giant Cisco projects that <a href="https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/service-provider/vni-network-traffic-forecast/infographic.html">58 percent of the world</a> will be online by 2021, and the volume of internet traffic per month per user will grow 150 percent from 2016 to 2021.</p>
<p>All these users will be deciding on how much to trust digital technologies.</p>
<h2>Data, democracy and the day job</h2>
<p>Even now, the reasons for collective unease about technology are piling up. Consumers are learning to be worried about the security of their personal information: News about a data breach involving <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/6943d9ab-c91b-3718-928e-67a802a9c463">57 million</a> Uber accounts follows on top of reports of a breach of <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/business/equifax-breach.html">the 145.5 million consumer data records</a> on Equifax and every Yahoo account – <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/03/technology/business/yahoo-breach-3-billion-accounts/index.html">3 billion</a> in all. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/31/us/politics/facebook-twitter-google-hearings-congress.html">Russia was able to meddle</a> with Facebook, Google and Twitter during the 2016 election campaign. That has raised concerns about whether the openness and reach of digital media is a threat to the functioning of democracies.</p>
<p>Another technological threat to society comes from workplace automation. The management consulting firm, McKinsey, estimates that it could <a href="https://www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/future-of-organizations-and-work/what-the-future-of-work-will-mean-for-jobs-skills-and-wages">displace one-third of the U.S. workforce</a> by 2030, even if a different set of technologies create new <a href="https://www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/future-of-organizations-and-work/the-digital-future-of-work-is-the-9-to-5-job-going-the-way-of-the-dinosaur">“gig” opportunities</a>.</p>
<p>The challenge for tech companies is that they operate in global markets and the extent to which these concerns affect behaviors online varies significantly around the world. </p>
<h2>Mature markets differ from emerging ones</h2>
<p><a href="https://sites.tufts.edu/digitalplanet/executive-summary/">Our research</a> uncovers some interesting differences in behaviors across geographies. In areas of the world with smaller digital economies and where technology use is still growing rapidly, users tend to exhibit more trusting behaviors online. These users are more likely to stick with a website even if it loads slowly, is hard to use or requires many steps for making an online purchase. This could be because the experience is still novel and there are fewer convenient alternatives either online or offline.</p>
<p>In the mature digital markets of Western Europe, North America, Japan and South Korea, however, people have been using the internet, mobile phones, social media and smartphone apps for many years. Users in those locations are less trusting, prone to switching away from sites that don’t load rapidly or are hard to use, and abandoning online shopping carts if the purchase process is too complex.</p>
<p>Because people in more mature markets have less trust, I would expect tech companies to invest in trust-building in more mature digital markets. For instance, they might speed up and streamline processing of e-commerce transactions and payments, or more clearly label the sources of information presented on social media sites, as the <a href="https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/journalism-ethics/programs/the-trust-project/">Trust Project</a> is doing, helping to identify authenticated and reliable news sources.</p>
<p>Consider Facebook’s situation. In response to criticism for allowing fake Russian accounts to distribute fake news on its site, CEO Mark Zuckerberg boldly <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/01/facebook-says-costs-will-rise-to-go-after-fake-news.html">declared that</a>, “Protecting our community is more important than maximizing our profits.” However, according to the company’s chief financial officer, Facebook’s 2018 operating expenses could increase by <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/01/facebook-says-costs-will-rise-to-go-after-fake-news.html">45 to 60 percent</a> if it were to invest significantly in building trust, such as <a href="https://www.popsci.com/Facebook-hiring-3000-content-monitors">hiring more humans to review posts</a> and <a href="https://thenextweb.com/facebook/2017/08/03/facebook-enlists-ai-in-war-on-fake-news/">developing artificial intelligence systems</a> to help them. Those costs would lower Facebook’s profits.</p>
<p>To strike a balance between profitability and trustworthiness, Facebook will have to set priorities and deploy advanced trust-building technologies (e.g. vetting locally generated news and ads) in only some geographic markets.</p>
<h2>The future of digital distrust</h2>
<p>As the boundaries of the digital world expand, and more people become familiar with internet technologies and systems, their distrust will grow. As a result, companies seeking to enjoy consumer trust will need to invest in becoming more trustworthy more widely around the globe. Those that do will likely see a competitive advantage, winning more loyalty from customers.</p>
<p>This risks creating a new type of digital divide. Even as one global inequality disappears – more people have an opportunity to go online – some countries or regions may have significantly more trustworthy online communities than others. Especially in the less-trustworthy regions, users will need governments to enact strong digital policies to protect people from fake news and fraudulent scams, as well as regulatory oversight to protect consumers’ data privacy and human rights.</p>
<p>All consumers will need to remain on guard against overreach by heavy-handed authorities or autocratic governments, particularly in parts of the world where consumers are new to using technology and, therefore, more trusting. And they’ll need to keep an eye on companies, to make sure they invest in trust-building more evenly around the world, even in less mature markets. Fortunately, digital technology makes watchdogs’ work easier, and also can serve as a megaphone – such as on social media – to issue alerts, warnings or praise.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/87566/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bhaskar Chakravorti directs the Institute for Business in the Global Context that receives funding from Mastercard, Microsoft and the Gates Foundation. </span></em></p>Around the world, people are both increasingly dependent on, and distrustful of, digital technology. New research suggests ways this conflict could unfold.Bhaskar Chakravorti, Senior Associate Dean, International Business & Finance, Tufts UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/868652017-11-09T12:39:28Z2017-11-09T12:39:28ZScience’s credibility crisis: why it will get worse before it can get better<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/193759/original/file-20171108-26972-17v1ar7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Science itself needs to be put under the microscope and carefully scrutinised to deal with its flaws.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source"> Nattapat Jitrungruengnij/Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Science’s credibility crisis is making headlines once more thanks to a <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecoj.12461/full">paper</a> from John P. A. Ioannidis and co-authors. Ioannidis, an expert in statistics, medicine and health policy at Stanford University, has done more than anyone else to ring the alarm bells on science’s quality control problems: scientific results are published which other researchers cannot reproduce. </p>
<p>When the crisis erupted in the media in 2013 The Economist devoted it’s <a href="https://www.google.es/search?q=economist++science+goes+wrong&client=firefox-b&dcr=0&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-uu-D2JrXAhWFOhQKHYcZDF0Q_AUICigB&biw=1920&bih=971#imgrc=6VLfyJMejNEoVM:">cover</a> to “<a href="https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong">Wrong Science</a>”. Ionannidis’s <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124">work</a> was an important part of the background material for the <a href="https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-think-science-self-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble">piece</a>.</p>
<p>In previous papers Ioannidis had mapped the troubles of fields such as <a href="https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7391/full/483531a.html">pre-clinical</a> and <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002049">clinical</a> medical studies; commenting how, <a href="http://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(16)00147-5/pdf">under market pressure</a>, clinical medicine has been transformed to finance-based medicine.</p>
<p>In this new <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecoj.12461/full">work</a> he and co-authors target empirical economics research. They conclude that the field is diseased, with one fifth of the subfields investigated showing a 90% incidence of under-powered studies – a good indicator of low-quality research – and a widespread bias in favour of positive effects. </p>
<p>The field of psychology had gone through a similar ordeal. Brian Nosek, professor of psychology at the University of Virginia and his co-workers ran a <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/aac4716">replication analysis</a> of 100 high-profile psychology studies and reported that only about one third of the studies could be replicated. </p>
<p>Several other instances of bad science have gained attention in the media.
The problems in <a href="https://replicationindex.wordpress.com/2017/02/02/reconstruction-of-a-train-wreck-how-priming-research-went-of-the-rails/comment-page-1/">“priming research”</a>, relevant to marketing and advertising, prompted Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman to issue a publicised statement of <a href="https://www.nature.com/news/nobel-laureate-challenges-psychologists-to-clean-up-their-act-1.11535">concern</a> about the wave of failed replication. </p>
<p>And a study on “power poses”, which claimed that body posture influences a person’s hormones level and “feelings of power” went first viral on <a href="https://www.ted.com/talks/amy_cuddy_your_body_language_shapes_who_you_are">TED</a> when it was published – then again when its replication <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/magazine/when-the-revolution-came-for-amy-cuddy.html?_r=0&utm_content=bufferab1e2&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer">failed</a>. </p>
<p>We are observing two new phenomena. On the one hand doubt is shed on the quality of entire scientific fields or sub-fields. On the other this doubt is played out in the open, in the media and blogosphere.</p>
<h2>Fixes</h2>
<p>In his <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecoj.12461/full">newest work</a> Ioannidis sets out a list of remedies that science needs to adopt urgently. These include fostering a culture of replication, data sharing and more collaborative works that pool together larger data sets; along with pre-specification of the protocol including model specifications and the analyses to be conducted.</p>
<p><a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001747">Ioannidis</a> has previously proposed additional remedies to “fix” science, as have <a href="http://orca.cf.ac.uk/97336/">other investigators</a>. The list includes better statistical methods and better teaching of statistics as well as measures to restore the right system of incentives at all stages of the scientific production system – from peer review to academic careers. </p>
<p>Important work is already being done by committed individuals and communities, among them Nosek’s <a href="https://osf.io/ezcuj/">Reproducibility Project</a>, Ioannidis’ <a href="https://metrics.stanford.edu/">Meta-research innovation centre</a>, Ben Goldacre’s <a href="http://www.alltrials.net/">alltrials.net</a> and the activities of <a href="http://retractionwatch.com/">Retraction Watch</a>. These initiatives – which attracted <a href="https://www.wired.com/2017/01/john-arnold-waging-war-on-bad-science/">private funding</a> – are necessary and timely.</p>
<p>But what are the chances that these remedies will work? Will this crisis be solved any time soon?</p>
<h2>Methods, incentives and introspection</h2>
<p>Ioannidis and co-authors are aware of the interplay between methods and incentives. For example, they say they’d refrain from suggesting that underpowered studies go unpublished, “as such a strategy would put pressure on investigators to report unrealistic and inflated power estimates based on spurious assumptions”.</p>
<p>This is a crucial point. Better practices will only be adopted if new incentives gain traction. In turn the incentives will have traction only if they address the right set of science’s problems and contradictions. </p>
<p>Ethics is a crucial issue in this respect. And here is where research effort is lacking. The broader field of economics is aware of its ethical problems after Paul Romer – now chief economist of the World Bank – coined the new term “<a href="https://paulromer.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Mathiness.pdf">Mathiness</a>”, to signify the use of mathematics to veil normative premises. Yet there seem to be some hesitation to join the dots from the methodology to the ethos of the discipline, or of science overall.</p>
<p>The book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Rightful-Place-Science-Verge/dp/0692596380">Science on the Verge</a> has proposed an analysis of the root causes of the crisis, including its neglected ethical dimension. The formulation of remedial measures depends on understanding <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328717301969">what happened to science</a> and how this reflects on its <a href="https://theconversation.com/to-tackle-the-post-truth-world-science-must-reform-itself-70455">social role</a>, including when science feeds into <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328717300472">evidence based policy</a>. </p>
<p>These analyses are indebted to philosophers Silvio O. Funtowicz and Jerome R. Ravetz, who spent several decades studying the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_and_quality_in_science_for_policy">science’s quality control arrangements</a> and how quality and uncertainty impacted the <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/001632879390022L">use of science for policy</a>.</p>
<p>Ravetz’s book “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Knowledge_and_Its_Social_Problems">Scientific knowledge and its social problems</a>” published in 1971 predicted several relevant features of the present crisis.</p>
<p>For Ravetz it is possible for a field <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Knowledge_and_Its_Social_Problems">to be diseased</a>, so that shoddy work is routinely produced and accepted. Yet, he notes, it will be far from easy to come to accept the existence of such a condition – and even more difficult to reform it. </p>
<p>Reforming a diseased field or arresting the incipient decline of another will be delicate tasks, adds Ravetz, which calls for a </p>
<blockquote>
<p>sense of integrity, and a commitment to good work, among a significant section of the members of the field; and committed leaders with scientific ability and political skill. No quantity of published research reports, nor even an apparatus of institutional structures, can do anything to maintain or restore the health of a field in the absence of this essential ethical element operating through the interpersonal channel of communication.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Ravetz emphasises the loss of this essential ethical element. In later works he notes that the new social and ethical conditions of science are reflected in a set of <a href="http://www.andreasaltelli.eu/file/repository/Maturing_Contradictions_2011_1.pdf">“emerging contradictions”</a>. These concern the cognitive dissonance between the official image of science as enlightened, egalitarian, protective and virtuous, against the current realities of scientific dogmatism, elitism and corruption; of science serving corporate interests and practices; of science used as an ersatz religion. </p>
<p>Echoes of Ravetz’s analysis can be found in many recent works, such as on the <a href="http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674046467">commodification of science</a>, or on the present problems <a href="https://theconversation.com/science-in-crisis-from-the-sugar-scam-to-brexit-our-faith-in-experts-is-fading-65016">with trust in expertise</a>. </p>
<h2>A call to arms?</h2>
<p>Ioannidis and co-authors are careful to stress the importance of a multidisciplinary approach, as both troubles and solutions may spill over from one discipline to the other. This would perhaps be a call to the arms for social scientists in general – and for those who study science itself – to tackle the crisis as a priority. </p>
<p>Here we clash with another of science’s contradictions: at this point in time, to study science as a scholar would mean to criticise its mainstream image and role. We do not see this happening any time soon. Because of the scars of “science wars” – whose spectre is <a href="https://theconversation.com/science-wars-in-the-age-of-donald-trump-67594">periodically resuscitated</a> – social scientists are wary of being seen as attacking science, or worse helping US President Donald Trump. </p>
<p>Scientists overall wish to use their <a href="https://theconversation.com/forcing-consensus-is-bad-for-science-and-society-77079">moral authority</a> and association with Enlightenment values, as seen in the recent <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-scientists-march-on-washington-is-a-bad-idea-heres-why-73305">marches for science</a>. </p>
<p>If these contradictions are real, then we are condemned to see the present crisis becoming worse before it can become better.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/86865/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrea Saltelli does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>We are observing two new phenomena. On one hand doubt is shed on the quality of entire scientific fields or sub-fields. On the other this doubt is played out in the open, in the media and blogosphere.Andrea Saltelli, Adjunct Professor Centre for the Study of the Sciences and the Humanities, University of Bergen, University of BergenLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/637972016-10-26T03:23:33Z2016-10-26T03:23:33ZWhat’s at risk if scientists don’t think strategically before talking politics<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/143171/original/image-20161025-4714-137isv3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Scientists have a lot to contribute – and a lot to lose. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=146113088">Mic image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Earlier this fall, the nonpartisan nonprofit <a href="http://sciencedebate.org/20answers">ScienceDebate.org</a> released Donald Trump’s and Hillary Clinton’s responses to a set of questions about science policy. Shortly after, a group of 375 scientists wrote an <a href="http://responsiblescientists.org/">open letter</a> focused specifically on the United States honoring commitments around climate change. Seventy Nobel laureates then penned a more general Clinton endorsement; <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/us/politics/70-nobel-laureates-endorse-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0">President Obama had garnered similar numbers</a> of Nobel winners’ support in the previous election cycles.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"788469224456978432"}"></div></p>
<p>As someone who both studies science communication and thinks of himself as a part of the scientific community, I applaud scientists’ desire to engage with our broader society. The scientific community has substantial expertise to share and a responsibility to share it. </p>
<p>On the other hand, I worry that doing things like asking candidates to weigh in on scientific questions in the context of a “debate” may have unintended consequences that need to be thought through as a community. </p>
<p>None of the below should be taken as a rebuke. Rather, the point is to honestly consider whether the scientific community is making strategic communication choices when it comes to this election. Poor choices could give the dangerous impression that scientific questions can be debated like policy choices – while also cutting into the public’s overall trust in science. </p>
<h2>What happens when scientists engage politically</h2>
<p>I’m very hesitant to suggest that scientists bite their tongues about things such as the threat of a political candidate who doesn’t believe in climate change. But I also worry that the scientific community’s tendency to respond to many Republicans’ unhelpful views about science policy with continued feigned surprise, and occasional <a href="http://www.salon.com/2016/09/13/trumps-no-einstein-but-his-ignorant-illiterate-answers-to-the-campaign-science-quiz-reflect-a-non-stupid-strategy/">derision</a>, might have negative consequences for the continued strong place of science in society.</p>
<p>As might have been predicted, the ScienceDebate.org efforts, for example, showed that one of the major party candidates has limited interest in reassuring the scientific community that its <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/grading-the-presidential-candidates-on-science/">views are respected</a>. The climate change open letter similarly reiterates that our best scientists know the Republican candidate for president doesn’t care what they think and find it (understandably) disheartening.</p>
<p>It would be one thing if there was an opportunity for a real debate – in the sense of a meaningful exchange of ideas – between the candidates or parties about how to best use scientific evidence or best support science. And it’s not that political leaders don’t need to know about science; it seems clear that our top leaders should know a lot about many things, science included.</p>
<p>But did people really learn anything they didn’t already know about the candidates from recent, prominent science communication efforts? Many partisans used these releases to <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/09/14/presidential_candidates_including_clinton_and_trump_answer_science_questions.html">further</a> <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-clinton-science-debate_us_57d71cd0e4b0fbd4b7baff78">deride</a> the <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/09/13/media-call-out-trump-dodging-key-science-questions/213045">Republican presidential nominee</a> about his views on science. </p>
<p>On the flip side, there’s no evidence a meaningful number of people who aren’t already broadly supportive of science pay much attention to open letters or were influenced by them.</p>
<p>If few people learned anything that would increase their support for science, then any benefits of scientists entering into the political debate aren’t obvious. But thinking of risks isn’t hard.</p>
<h2>Scientists currently enjoy good social standing</h2>
<p>At present, the <a href="https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161/#/report/chapter-7/public-attitudes-about-s-t-in-general">scientific community is unique</a> in experiencing both consistent and high levels of public confidence. In 2014, only 8 percent of Americans said they had “hardly any” confidence in the scientific community. “Confidence” in this regard should be understood as a measure of trust.</p>
<iframe id="datawrapper-chart-tAn6N" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/tAn6N/1/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="534"></iframe>
<p>In recent years the public has reported higher levels of “confidence” in the military than scientists, but that’s fluctuated over time. The medical community used to enjoy the highest average level of confidence but has seen declines. Politicians and the media have long elicited less confidence than scientists, and have seen their standing further diminish over the years.</p>
<p>However, looking at the overall standing of the scientific community does hide the reality that conservatives appear to have gone from a group with <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0003122412438225">relatively high to relatively low confidence</a> in what researchers are up to. There are also efforts by <a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenterstore.org/collections/frontpage/products/the-black-book-of-the-american-left-volume-v-culture-wars">some conservatives</a> to make an issue of academics’ political leanings (alongside a warning that scholars need to recognize the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/opinion/academias-rejection-of-diversity.html">dangerous position</a> we’re in as academia becomes more liberal).</p>
<p>Unfortunately the best available, over-time measure of confidence in the scientific community relies on a single survey question that doesn’t clearly differentiate between the idea of trust as perceived warmth versus trust as competence. On this set of metrics, there is some evidence that scientists come off as <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317505111">competent, but cold</a>. Other studies have also found, however, that most Americans believe scientists have their <a href="https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/index.cfm/chapter-7/c7s3.htm#s3">motives in the right place</a>.</p>
<p>So, if we accept that scientists are already held in high regard, do they run the risk of tarnishing their current strong reputation by engaging in electoral politics when there are limited potential benefits? Even well-meaning reports like the one ScienceDebate.org produced could seem to suggest that relying on scientific evidence is up for debate and that scientists are political actors.</p>
<h2>What is the risk of political engagement?</h2>
<p>It seems important to differentiate between various kinds of public engagement. On the one hand, scientists may engage with the public around issues that have policy relevance in nonpartisan contexts. For instance, based on their expertise they might advise communities or policymakers, or talk about their work in public forums. Alternatively, they might get directly involved in the electoral process through endorsements and pushing candidates to take positions.</p>
<p>My particular worry is that by being too vocal about specific issues and candidates at election time, the science community might increase the risk of communicating to conservatives, in particular, that only a small proportion of scientists share conservative views.</p>
<p>In both 2009 and 2014, 64 percent of Americans said they <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/09/majority-of-americans-say-scientists-dont-have-an-ideological-slant/">didn’t think of scientists as politically liberal or conservative</a>. </p>
<p>In reality, the available evidence suggests that most scientists do lean toward the liberal end of the spectrum. In 2009, the Pew Research Center reported that 55 percent of the scientists they surveyed from a prominent scientific society <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/">identified as Democrats</a> with another 26 percent leaning toward the Democratic Party.</p>
<p>We don’t really know what the effect would be if more people began to see science as something that politicians seek to shape and use selectively. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/poq/nft044">It doesn’t seem like it would help</a>. The limited available evidence, for example, seems to suggest that framing a topic such as nuclear energy as a political issue decreases support for that technology. </p>
<p>More generally, can we really expect conservatives to come back to science by further pointing out, and sometimes belittling, their candidate’s rejection of science? </p>
<p>The risk of <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1547">pushing conservatives away</a> seems larger than most potential benefits. There’s a well-known tendency to process information in ways that support one’s existing views, known as motivated reasoning. It seems doubtful there are swing voters or center-leaning conservatives that could be “science shamed” into voting for a political candidate.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/143136/original/image-20161025-4721-18mhsi2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/143136/original/image-20161025-4721-18mhsi2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/143136/original/image-20161025-4721-18mhsi2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143136/original/image-20161025-4721-18mhsi2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143136/original/image-20161025-4721-18mhsi2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143136/original/image-20161025-4721-18mhsi2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143136/original/image-20161025-4721-18mhsi2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143136/original/image-20161025-4721-18mhsi2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Climate scientist James Hansen speaks out before Congress about the political ramifications of his research.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:James_Hansen.jpg">NASA</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We’ve seen what happened when climate change became politicized; do we want to head down that road with science in its entirety? It’s unlikely to aid science’s cause if there are more issues (like evolution) for which people tend to <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2016.1148067">use their political ideology</a>, rather than their overall positive views about science and scientists, to <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/01/americans-politics-and-science-issues/">decide their stance</a>. </p>
<p>And how researchers choose to communicate their work and views matters. Colleagues and I recently found in a set of experiments that in nonelection contexts, a scientist who <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2016.1223159">aggressively attacks those with whom he disagrees</a> – for example, on either genetically modified food or nuclear energy – received lower ratings of writing quality and likability. The aggressive tone seemed to violate subjects’ expectations for how a scientist should communicate, contributing to negative perceptions.</p>
<p>On the positive side, in previous surveys that other colleagues and I have done around the issue of genetically modified crops, for example, we’ve found that people can still <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.02.006">accept as legitimate</a> science-related outcomes they disagree with if they believe the decision-makers listened to and treated others with respect.</p>
<h2>Considering the goal</h2>
<p>Open letters and requests for science debates are a long way from aggressiveness. But the point is that our communication choices matter. The challenge is figuring out how to communicate strategically on behalf of science.</p>
<p>Being strategic means figuring out what you want to achieve through communication and what, realistically, you can expect to accomplish through the channels and resources available. It means not just saying or doing what feels right in the moment but thinking through, <a href="http://www.thevictorylab.com/">even testing</a>, expected cause and effect.</p>
<p>None of this is to suggest that members of the scientific community shouldn’t speak their conscience or that recent efforts such as those by ScienceDebate.org were ill-considered. The point is only to encourage all of us who may sometimes want to communicate on behalf of science to systematically think through whether what we’re doing might help.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/63797/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Besley has received funding to study goal setting in the context of science communication from the National Science Foundation (NSF, Grant AISL 14241214). He also receives funding from the NSF through a contract with SRI International to help write a biennial Science and Engineering Indicators chapter on public opinion about science on behalf of the National Science Board that is cited in the article. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF or the NSB.</span></em></p>The scientific community enjoys one of the highest levels of trust among American institutions. But engaging in the political arena during a contentious election season comes with dangers.John C. Besley, Associate Professor of Advertising and Public Relations, Michigan State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/666262016-10-17T01:05:29Z2016-10-17T01:05:29ZWhy do science issues seem to divide us along party lines?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/141672/original/image-20161013-3944-2e6h1d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">There's more to it than political beliefs.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-323678543.html">Buttons image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Much has been made about the <a href="http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/10/10/13227682/trump-clinton-climate-energy-difference">predictable partisan split</a> between presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump on <a href="http://sciencedebate.org/20questions">issues of science and public policy</a>. But what about their supporters? Can Americans really be that far apart in terms of science?</p>
<p>That liberals and conservatives have different opinions toward science is taken as a given. Typically, <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/left-science-gmo-vaccines">conservatives are painted as anti-science</a>, with some studies suggesting their <a href="http://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412438225">mistrust of science is increasing</a>. Liberals, on the other hand, are usually assumed to be more <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/left-science-gmo-vaccines">receptive to science in general and more supportive of using science to shape policy</a>. </p>
<p>Noting that party affiliation is different than political ideology – not everyone who identifies as liberal is a Democrat and not everyone who identifies as conservative is a Republican – these characterizations certainly seem to be true when we look at major leaders of the political parties. <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/02/26/jim-inhofes-snowball-has-disproven-climate-change-once-and-for-all/">Many</a> <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/03/marco-rubio-had-some-really-dumb-things-say-about-climate-change-last-nigh">Republican</a> <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/01/ted-cruz-satellite-date-climate-change">politicians</a> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/15/sarah-palin-bill-nye-climate-change-hustle-film">have</a> <a href="http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/kathie-obradovich/caucus/2015/05/05/ben-carson-climate-change-renewable-fuel-standard/26945261/">publicly</a> <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/rick-perry-climate-change-skeptic-oops">expressed</a> <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/paul-ryan-whos-to-blame-climate-change/">doubts</a> over the scientific consensus on climate change, for instance. At the top of the Republican presidential ticket is Donald Trump, who has <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/03/hillary-clinton/yes-donald-trump-did-call-climate-change-chinese-h/">called climate change a Chinese hoax</a> and is on the record as supporting any number of <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-rise-of-a-conspiracy-candidate-65514">other conspiracy theories</a>. Conversely, Hillary Clinton’s line at the Democratic National Convention – “<a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2016/07/hillary_clinton_believes_in_science_that_shouldn_t_be_noteworthy.html">I believe in science</a>” – was met with resounding applause.</p>
<p>Assuming that the stated views of outspoken politicians reflect the personal beliefs of voters within their parties is tempting. After all, voters elect politicians, presumably on the basis of having comparable worldviews. But research suggests that the <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/02/politics-science-and-public-attitudes-what-we-re-learning-and-why-it-matters">link between partisanship and views on science may not be so cut and dried</a>. Buried in the data is a much more nuanced relationship that’s well worth examining. As a sociologist who focuses on ways to communicate science issues to the public, I’m interested in how a more clear-eyed view of this connection could be used to help combat anti-science attitudes.</p>
<h2>Quantifying the science trust gap</h2>
<p>In 2015, researchers asked 2,000 registered voters <a href="http://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214554756">how deferential they felt politicians should be to science</a> when creating public policy on a variety of issues. On a 10-point scale, participants ranked whether politicians should follow the advice of scientists (10), consider scientific findings in conjunction with other factors (5) or ignore scientific findings completely (1). Issues included climate change, legalizing drug usage, fetal viability, regulating nuclear power and teaching evolution, among other topics.</p>
<p>The participants then responded to questions about their political affiliation and ideological views, religious beliefs and other demographic variables.</p>
<p>Most people supported trusting the recommendations of scientists on policy issues, even politically contentious ones. The average score for all participants across all issues was 6.4, and the lowest-scoring issue (letting same-sex couples adopt children) was 4.9. The results suggest, in other words, that even on divisive issues, Americans think that politicians should take scientific recommendations into consideration when making public policy.</p>
<p>Breaking down responses based on political leanings did reveal some partisan differences. When it comes to deferring to scientific experts on policy issues, conservatives and independents look a lot alike. Averaged across issues, independents said policymakers should weigh science and other factors more or less evenly (5.84), only slightly more than conservatives did (5.58). Liberals, on the other hand, expressed much higher rates of deference to science – across issues, they averaged 7.46.</p>
<p>These findings are interesting because we tend to think of independents as the middle-of-the-road in American politics. If conservatives and independents are on the same page, though, it means that liberals are the outliers, so to speak. In other words, rather than most people putting an emphasis on science while conservatives steadfastly ignore it, the truth is that many people want other factors included in policy discussions. It’s liberals who are further from the pack on this issue, wanting more emphasis on science than their peers. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/141688/original/image-20161013-3944-11x94ia.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/141688/original/image-20161013-3944-11x94ia.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/141688/original/image-20161013-3944-11x94ia.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141688/original/image-20161013-3944-11x94ia.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141688/original/image-20161013-3944-11x94ia.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141688/original/image-20161013-3944-11x94ia.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=630&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141688/original/image-20161013-3944-11x94ia.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=630&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141688/original/image-20161013-3944-11x94ia.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=630&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Do these stem cells strike you as more liberal or conservative?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/pennstatelive/8972110324">Penn State</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>It’s not their politics, it’s their values</h2>
<p>Other research has similarly found that science denial can run the political spectrum. For instance, <a href="http://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013518932">another study examined</a> attitudes about climate change, evolution and stem cell research and found that partisan identification was not necessarily a good predictor of how someone will feel about these controversial issues. In fact, very few participants were found to be skeptical of science across the board. And reactions to these specific issues were more tightly linked with religious attitudes than with political ones. </p>
<p>Other scholarship <a href="http://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214554756">echoes these findings</a>. Indeed, <a href="http://doi.org/10.1177/0003122414558919">research does suggest</a> that a certain segment of the population places more trust in religion than in science for understanding the world. But even among this group, science and religion are seen as conflicting only on certain topics, including the Big Bang and evolution.</p>
<p>One area in which political beliefs do have an impact is the <a href="http://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/044029">kinds of scientists that liberals and conservatives are likely to trust</a>. A 2013 study of 798 participants found that conservatives put more faith in scientists involved in economic production – food scientists, industrial chemists and petroleum geologists, for instance – than in scientists involved in areas associated with regulation, such as public health and environmental science. The opposite was true for liberals. Again, this suggests that it’s not simply a matter of conservatives being skeptical of science in general; there’s a much more nuanced relationship between political leanings and trust in scientific expertise.</p>
<p>So why does it appear that liberals and conservatives are living in different worlds when it comes to issues of science? Partisanship clearly plays some role in how people view science and their willingness to trust scientific information. And because these disagreements tend to come on high-profile issues like climate change and evolution, about which there is already so much controversy, it’s easy to get the impression that the liberal and conservative divide on science must run incredibly deep.</p>
<h2>Comes down to cultural cognition</h2>
<p>To help explain why people fall in line with their fellow partisans on these high-profile issues, consider the theory of <a href="http://www.culturalcognition.net/browse-papers/cultural-cognition-as-a-conception-of-the-cultural-theory-of.html">cultural cognition</a>. This social sciences concept suggests it’s hard for people to <a href="http://doi.org/10.1038/488255a">accept new information that poses a threat to their values system</a>. Addressing climate change, for instance, is <a href="http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/9256/Campbell%20et%20al._Solution%20Aversion.pdf">often talked about in terms of government regulation</a> of carbon pollution. For conservatives who oppose government involvement in the economy, this poses a threat to an idea they hold very dear.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/141682/original/image-20161013-3958-flsylr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/141682/original/image-20161013-3958-flsylr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/141682/original/image-20161013-3958-flsylr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141682/original/image-20161013-3958-flsylr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141682/original/image-20161013-3958-flsylr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141682/original/image-20161013-3958-flsylr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141682/original/image-20161013-3958-flsylr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141682/original/image-20161013-3958-flsylr.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">People like to stick together and share beliefs commonly held within their group.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=390406471">Sign image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>No one likes to be wrong, of course. <a href="http://doi.org/10.1038/463296a">Cultural cognition theorists take this a step further and argue</a> that there are social consequences to taking a position about a political issue that runs counter to what your community believes – just ask conservative former congressman <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/24/bob-inglis-advocates-action-to-fight-climate-chang/">Bob Inglis</a>, who was defeated by a primary challenger in 2010 after speaking out on climate change. </p>
<p>From loss of business to strained interpersonal relationships, being the black sheep is hard. Rather than changing their beliefs about government regulation, then, it’s cognitively more comfortable for conservatives in conservative social circles to maintain skepticism about climate change. It’s less an inherent distrust of science, then, but rather a need to discount the science that supports policies that threaten a deep belief.</p>
<p>Everyone is subject to this effect. There are studies that suggest <a href="http://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214555474">it’s stronger for conservatives</a>, but liberals, too, come to mistrust scientific information when it challenges their worldviews. For instance, a 2014 study found that <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037963">liberals will display the same sort of evidence-ignoring behaviors</a> as their conservative counterparts when faced with arguments that go against their beliefs about policies like gun control. (Claims about <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/11/the-republican-party-isnt-really-the-anti-science-party/281219/">liberals exhibiting anti-science bias</a> on the issues of vaccination and genetically modified organisms are increasing, though they <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/01/26/the-biggest-myth-about-vaccine-deniers-that-theyre-all-a-bunch-of-hippie-liberals/?utm_term=.2b8dad5caf78">are challenged by recent</a> <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/06/do-liberals-oppose-genetically-modified-organisms-more-than-conservatives/">studies</a>.)</p>
<p>In other words, these divides may not reflect Americans’ attitudes toward science so much as other cultural and personal beliefs.</p>
<h2>Get past assumptions to common ground</h2>
<p>Having a more complete understanding of when and why liberals and conservatives trust science helps avoid oversimplifications. It’s an important stopgap using oversimplified assumptions to denigrate those who disagree with us politically.</p>
<p>None of this is to suggest that the <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/07/12/gop_party_platform_claims_coal_is_clean.html">anti-science viewpoints</a> exhibited by Republican politicians on issues such as climate change should be ignored. Nor is it an argument that since “both sides” can fall for anti-science rhetoric, it can be waved away. </p>
<p>Rather, these findings indicate that, in theory, it’s possible liberals and conservatives could work together to encourage politicians to base policy recommendations on sound science, at least on some issues.</p>
<p>Maybe even more importantly, understanding the social and cultural issues surrounding the acceptance or rejection of science is a first step toward crafting messages that resonate with members of the public who question the science on hot-button issues. Research suggests <a href="https://vimeo.com/121145322">using the right kind of messenger</a> – someone who is trusted within the community – can be key to moving the needle. Science communications scholars have been <a href="http://frank.jou.ufl.edu/frankology/14532/">hard</a> <a href="http://frank.jou.ufl.edu/frankology/vaccine-myths/">at</a> <a href="http://frank.jou.ufl.edu/frankology/climate-change-science/">work</a> devising other tactics to help reach people on issues of science. Hopefully they’ll trust the growing body of social science evidence to help guide their efforts.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/66626/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lauren Griffin 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>Social scientists investigate when and why liberals and conservatives mistrust science. The apparent split may be more about cultural and personal beliefs than feelings about science itself.Lauren Griffin, Co-Director of Research for frank and Manager of the Journal of Public Interest Communications, College of Journalism and Communications, University of FloridaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.