Why nobody believes your science
Scepticism and science communication
Shutterstock / Bob Korn / A crowd of young scientists with protest signs in support of science and research
Communicating scientific ideas effectively is a really hard gig. From science sceptics to science lovers, it all comes down to how people respond to and process evidence.
Dan Kahan, a researcher at Yale, found that when people are faced with non-controversial issues (such as the discovery of a new medicine that can save lives), they tend to agree with the science and believe in it. On the other hand, when people are faced with issues that they already have a strong opinion on (such as climate change), they tend to discount evidence that runs counter to their beliefs and seek out supporting evidence instead.(1)
The American multinational company 3M, known for their investment in research and development, conducted a survey called the State of Science Index to measure people’s opinions on science and scientists.(2) They found that 28% of people surveyed ‘somewhat agree’ and 7% ‘completely agree’ with the statement ‘I am skeptical of science’. One-third of respondents were science sceptics!
Aside from questioning the ethics of scientists, or feeling that scientists are elitists, a lot of science scepticism comes down to human nature. We all have a pre-existing set of core values and beliefs that are laid down over a lifetime. We learn them from our friends and families, from our education, from our politics, from religion, and even from what we read on social media. When our beliefs are challenged, our first response is often to dig in and defend our opinions rather than listen to the evidence. Science asks us to question and be sceptical about our pre-existing knowledge, our beliefs and sometimes even our values. This is hard to do, and sometimes it can be scary.
So how can scientists communicate their messages in ways that foster public belief? The answer, in large part, comes down to trust. And trust is fostered by good communication.
The 3M study found that over 80% of those surveyed agree that ‘Scientists should be sharing their results in easy to understand language’.(3) This suggests that people may be more likely to believe the science if it is presented in a way they can understand. That makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it? We are more likely to believe something if we can understand it.
Another aspect of good communication, of any sort, is establishing common ground. When we meet someone for the first time, we usually chat about inconsequential things until we have established a rapport. One way that science communication can find common ground with the public is by focusing on the outcome of the science. After all, most of us want to find ways to solve problems in our world, whether it is by using science or technology, or through other means.
“Highlighting the outcome, or ‘why you should care’, presents the science in a way that you and the readers both feel is important. ”
Once you’ve made that connection, you can discuss the details.
The banning of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the late 1980s is a good example of science communication successfully raising awareness about the causes and potential consequences of the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica. Strong public support helped bring about rapid changes to behaviour and legislation.
Scientists around the world warned of the impacts of CFCs and other ozone-depleting substances, and explained how the ozone layer in the atmosphere blocked harmful UV wavelengths. The science linked the implications of a thin or missing ozone layer with negative outcomes for everyone: increasing risk of skin cancers, increasing frequency and severity of sunburn and increased risk of developing cataracts.
The public didn’t necessarily want to give up spray deodorants and move to roll-ons, or use more expensive gases in their refrigerators, but they understood ‘why they should care’. Public demonstrations and pressure led to a ban on CFCs and the Montreal Protocol was created and signed in record time.
As Rudolf Ludwig Karl Virchow, the ‘father of modern pathology’ said in 1929, ‘Belief begins where science leaves off and ends where science begins’.(4)
(1) Chris Volpe, ‘Who cares what science says? Chris Volpe on why some of us care and some don’t,’ interview by Alan Alda, Clear and Vivid with Alan Alda, Episode 4, 25 June 2019.
(2) ‘State of Science Index Survey’, 3M, https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/state-of-science-index-survey/interactive-3m-state-of-science-survey/.
(3) 53% ‘somewhat agree’ and 35% ‘completely agree’.
(4) Fielding Hudson Garrison, in An Introduction to the History of Medicine, (London: WB Saunders Co., 1929), 14.
