Public trust in science has been eroded, from Covid-19 to climate | Science
Jane qiu rightly identifies that public confidence in science has decreased lately (the theory of the leak of “laboratory” covid is not only a right -wing plot – claiming that this is the case is bad for science, June 25), but it lacks some deep causes.
Scientists and the media often do not differentiate themselves or often do not distinguish between hypotheses, initial results and scientific understanding accepted during the publication of information, leaving the reader / confused earphones. The media obtain viewers, readers or clicks (money); The scientist potentially arouses an interest which leads to a mandate or to longer funding. The public is confused when a report is then refuted or reversed.
The universities and scientists employed by them were largely funded by the government and independent of industry and politics. Now they are competing for government and private funds and are ready to muddle the waters around hypotheses, preliminary results and peer assessments. In doing so, they play in the hands of anti-scientific groups.
Scientists are now as oriented towards the market as all other professionals, and that does not do a good company. Why believe climate science when Boffins cannot even agree on how COVVI-19 appeared?
Steven Lee
Faulconbridge, New South Wales, Australia
Jane Qiu makes a lot of excellent points. But it is not fair to involve that the blame of mistrust in science lies in the scientists themselves.
It resides in the populist right and decades of sustained attacks and largely without foundation against scientific integrity. Climate denial, anti-VAXXING and LOCKDOWN skepticism are three major examples. In addition to the doubt of manufacturing, these bad players suppress any nuance of the public debate – reducing the complex problems to a match of binary cries.
Meanwhile, climate denial has taught us that even declarations in private emails can be torn from their context and splashed from the world media, to promote a false story. In such an environment, any communication with the public on disputed issues is a minefield, and it is not surprising that many conscientious scientists avoid it.
Scientists must communicate openly and honestly with the public, but we need the media support, which questions anti-science voices instead of placing them. It is only then that we can achieve the kind of thoughtful and honest discussion on the scientific evidence that the public deserves.
Dr Richard Milne
Edinburgh
