Written by Bailey Cho
Grist / AL DRAGO / AFP via Getty Images
Science raises prominent social and political issues for society. The Internet has democratized information, but it has also made it possible to live in a “filter bubble”, where users only process information aligning with their personal beliefs. Although there is scientific consensus on highly-debated topics, what has caused the rise in “anti-science” attitudes among Americans? Amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, the choice not to follow CDC guidelines can have far-reaching, fatal consequences.
Science tells us the truth rather than what we’d like the truth to be.
According to geophysicist Marcia McNutt, “Science is not a body of facts. Science is a method for deciding whether what we choose to believe has a basis in the laws of nature or not”. Even if we intellectually accept science, we still cling onto our pre-existing beliefs, never eliminating them entirely. Our brains are programmed to find pattern and meaning, and we often rely on personal experiences and anecdotes, rather than statistics. Baastian Rutjens, social psychologist at the Psychology Research Institute of the University of Amsterdam, is currently researching the idea of reliance on intuition, following one’s gut feeling about the topic. Individual intuition is different from traditional religion and science — domains where people ascribe truth. “Instead of looking for truth outside your system, truth is coming from within, which may explain vaccine rejection among people with various ideologies”, says Rutjens.
Skepticism is the heart of the scientific method: it considers evidence then comes to a conclusion. Denial, on the other hand, comes to a conclusion then denies evidence. The latter has fostered opinions, such as “vaccines cause autism” or “climate change is not real”, among a large amount of Americans (10% and 14%, respectively). People attribute more expertise to those they agree with, resulting in a distorted perception of scientific consensus, and increased scientific knowledge does not appear to be a solution either. Higher literacy is associated with stronger viewpoints, at both ends of the spectrum, promoting polarization on scientific issues — not consensus.
To what extent do Americans trust science and scientists?
There is an increasingly common assumption that science is losing its authority and credibility. However, polls conducted by The Harris Poll and Pew Research Center suggest that Americans trust scientists and highly respect them.
“It’s not that simple because the concept of trust is multifaceted”, according to Anthony Dudo, science communicator and program director for science communication in the UT Center for Media Engagement. According to a study he published in 2017, determining trustworthiness is a product of two evaluations: one’s intent and one’s competence. As human beings, we constantly identify whom to trust, allowing us to determine who is our friend or competitor. Our willingness to listen is linked to how warm and authentic we find the speaker, and we can detect intent within milliseconds of seeing someone’s face. Americans consider lawyers, engineers, and scientists as highly competent but also as cold. As a result, “people report envy toward these professions”, states Dudo. These feelings of resentment have risks: it’s hard to trust and appreciate someone you resent, or who is a target of your jealousy.
Understanding how citizens form attitudes is thus necessary for effective public communication about science. “We have to understand that people aren’t idiots”, writes Dudo. Science skepticism isn’t just about ignorance — the public can distinguish science from nonscience, and they know more about climate change causes than ever before. People’s beliefs and emotions inform their attitudes, and trust is an automatic cue to validity. According to Dudo, “the public trusts impartiality, not persuasive agendas”. Most scientists stress persuasion when sharing scientific information, but deliberation is a better approach. Scientists need to have a real dialogue with members of the public and listen to their concerns, while also conveying the uncertainty of science itself.
Political affiliation doesn’t necessarily determine distrust in science.
Another misconception is that political ideology is the main culprit of science skepticism. While research has shown that trust has been declining among American conservatives since the 1970s, there is more to science skepticism than just political affiliation.
Confirmation bias — the tendency to look for and only see evidence that confirms pre-existing beliefs — is one psychological mechanism that shapes science skepticism. However, “it is crucial not to lump various forms of science skepticism together”, says Bastiaan Rutjens. Many science skeptics suffer from confirmation bias, but people have different worldviews that contribute to their beliefs, depending on the domain of science. With climate change skepticism, for example, it is mainly politically conservative people who are skeptical, whereas vaccine skepticism stems from a variety of places — the morality of vaccinations (spiritual beliefs), the “naturalness” of vaccines, or the lack of knowledge about what vaccines actually do.
In terms of childhood vaccination, there are generally two types of skeptics — religious orthodox skeptics and modern vaccine skeptics. “Here in the Netherlands, we still have a geographical Bible Belt,” says Rutjens, and “it aligns with pockets of measles outbreaks that occur periodically”. Orthodox skeptics have issues with vaccination because it speaks against their religious teachings. Trust in science, more generally, is by far the lowest among religious people. Modern vaccine skeptics, on the other hand, are more spiritual, New Age types of people — those who endorse homeopathic medicine and the presence of spiritual energy in physical objects. They believe vaccines are “unnatural” and go against their spiritual beliefs about nature. Unlike orthodox skeptics, modern vaccine skeptics tend to be highly educated and slightly more on the left side of the political spectrum.
An exception: how the COVID-19 vaccine has become politicized.
Traditional childhood vaccine skepticism is primarily correlated with religion, not political affiliation. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has challenged this finding. Attitudes about Covid vaccines likely align with politicized beliefs about the virus more generally.
At the beginning of the pandemic, the uncertainty of COVID-19 created a vacuum allowing fake experts to underplay the transmission and fatality rate of the virus. Physicist Neil Johnson of George Washington University published a report about the spread of COVID-19 misinformation among online communities, especially among extremist, far-right groups. According to Johnson, a “hate multiverse” is exploiting the pandemic to spread racism and other malicious agendas, such as blaming immigrants for starting the virus, or asserting that it is a weapon being used by the “Deep State” to control population growth.
Instagram has tried to curb the spread of misinformation by directing users to authoritative health sources on Covid-related posts. However, the platform’s algorithm still allows false narratives to circulate within certain communities. “Recommended” posts are curated based on what photos users like, who they follow, and what they search for. In a study conducted by the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), misinformation was most frequently shown to new users who followed accounts including anti-vaccination personalities or wellness influencers.
Many scientific issues represent a tragedy of the commons — they require collective action that runs counter to individual desires. Anti-science attitudes arise from what sources people trust, so we must focus on how scientific issues are conveyed, particularly during a global pandemic. In the words of astronomer Phil Plait, “facts don’t speak for themselves; they need advocates. And these advocates need to be passionate."
1) https://kar.kent.ac.uk/87366/
Comments