SoylentNews

stormwyrm [soylentnews.org] writes:

Dr. Lisa Rosenbaum M.D. has an article [nejm.org] (DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1702362 [doi.org]) in the New England Journal of Medicine [nejm.org] about resisting the suppression of science.

In the face of suppression of science, should scientists resist, or quietly proceed with their work? Resistance seems essential. That the CDC postponement prompted a coalition to form and organize an alternative meeting (see article by Hunter et al.) reminds us that resistance is as much about ensuring effective dissemination of findings as about continuing to conduct science. But it’s critical to recognize that suppressing science does not cause disbelief; rather, disbelief, particularly of science pertaining to highly politicized topics such as climate change, creates a cultural environment in which suppression of science is tolerated. So the real question is how do we resist effectively? How do we convince a skeptical public to believe in science?

First, we need to stop assuming that disbelief necessarily reflects a knowledge deficit and can thus be remedied by facts. When doubt is wrapped up in one’s cultural identity or powerful emotions, facts often not only fail to persuade, but may further entrench skepticism.[…]

Second, in this highly polarized moment, we have to be careful not to inadvertently politicize science that has not already been pegged to a particular worldview.[…]

This risk of adding an identity-laden valence to otherwise neutral scientific matters makes resisting science denialism in the Trump era particularly tricky. Because we pay far more attention to contested than to generally accepted science, it’s easy to forget that most scientific facts, and related policies, don’t induce tribalism. You don’t see partisan battles over treatment for myocardial infarction, say, or the dangers of radiation exposure. But as Kahan points out, Trump thrives on making nonpartisan issues polarizing. The indication that he might appoint a vaccine skeptic to head a commission to review vaccine safety is a worrisome example, since vaccine skepticism has thus far been limited to a minority, albeit vocal, fringe. “I have never seen someone so aggressively intent on just increasing the number of issues that feature that sort of antagonism,” Kahan told me. “He is our science communication environment polluter in chief.”

[…]

Yet perhaps there is a silver lining in the unmooring of many Americans by the widespread embrace of “alternative facts”: scientists are not alone in their determination to make the truth believable again. As a medical community, we have long approached the communication of science unscientifically. We are taught in medical school to make eye contact, nod our heads, and demonstrate cultural competence. But if the purpose of communication is to translate science into public policy that can improve the health of our population, then we ought to focus as well — and urgently — on empirically and effectively navigating assaults on truth.

Orac [scienceblogs.com] at Respectful Insolence [scienceblogs.com] has his own take [scienceblogs.com] on the subject as well.

Original Submission