We write about science every day, why isn’t it getting through to the public consciousness?
This opinion piece presents the opinions of the author. It does not necessarily reflect the views of BioSpace.
Science denial seems like a relatively new thing, but Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen wrote about it way back in 1882. His classic play, An Enemy of the People describes a town’s response when a local doctor tries to shut down contaminated (but also quite profitable) bathhouses. Science is on his side, but economics is a powerful motivator.
Fast-forward to 2017, and we seem to be living in an age of science denial. No matter how strong the science may be, a chorus of voices on social media is eager to drown out the evidence with obfuscation.
These topics came up repeatedly at the World Conference of Science Journalists, which was held recently in San Francisco. There were more than 1,300 journalists from six continents and many were wrestling with these issues. We write about science every day, why isn’t it getting through to the public consciousness?
This is not an abstract question, there are consequences to failure. In a sobering plenary, John Holdren, who directed the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy during Obama’s presidency, outlined many of the rhetorical arguments used to downplay climate change and the science that refutes them. It was a great talk, but not uplifting. The science points to a world in which climate change amplifies famine, drought, mass migration and war.
Similar points about science denial were made when discussing vaccines, GMOs, pseudo-drugs and other arenas. The science clearly outlines what we should do, but a lot of people are simply not heeding it.
For the attending journalists, the frustration was palpable. Some wondered if we may be partially at fault. Does two-sidedness elevate false arguments or is it simply good journalism?
Many of these concerns were given voice during an interactive “House of Commons” debate, in which participants had to choose sides based on how they would answer a question.
For example: All stories on wildfires and storms should also highlight climate change.
Some were concerned that constantly harping on climate would sound like propaganda. Others thought leaving out any piece supported by evidence would be irresponsible.
Here’s another one: Science journalists should work to rebuild people’s trust in science.
Again, some thought that, because scientists can be bad communicators, it’s up to journalists to clarify. Many said that’s actually a science journalist’s job, regardless of the political and social climate. Others noted that journalists must be better at minimizing the hype associated with a “groundbreaking” study. Every paper has caveats in the discussion section, maybe those should be mentioned before paragraph nine.
There were two major schools of thought throughout, and journalists were hardly consistent in their adherence (myself included). The world faces some dire issues, and we need to be more vocal in how we present the science. Or, we need to minimize our personal biases as best we can, be good journalists and report the science as honestly and dispassionately as possible.
Discussing science can be difficult, but it’s too important to be limited to journalists. We all have opportunities to speak intelligently about a scientific consensus. Quite often we choose not to.
Is it awkward to share evidence about vaccines or GMOs at a Santa Monica dinner party? No doubt. But perhaps it’s necessary.
Josh Baxt has been a science and healthcare writer for more than 18 years, working at Scripps Health and the Sanford-Burnham Medical Research Institute before going freelance in 2011. He writes about molecular biology, genomics, pharmaceuticals, emerging medical technologies, regulation and public policy. He is based in San Diego.
