Is there a way to counteract distrust in science?
Where science touches people’s lives, such as climate, corona and nitrogen, distrust is highest. How does science communication deal with these topics? “People judge knowledge by what it means for their own situation. When that situation is threatened, people start interpreting facts differently.”
After thousands of angry farmers questioned RIVM’s measurement model in the fall of 2019, the Mesdag Dairy Fund asked UvA researchers to clarify how much nitrogen dairy farms are actually emitting. The report that came out two months ago had the opposite effect: Instead of agreement, interpretations ranged from “the report is in line with the RIVM model” to “study kills peak emissions policy.”
This is not surprising, according to Noelle Aarts, former associate professor of strategic communication at the University of Amsterdam and current professor of socio-ecological interaction at Radboud University. “People judge knowledge by what it means for their situation. When that situation is threatened, people start interpreting facts differently. So it’s not so much about distrust in science, but distrust in scientists making judgments about people’s lives.”
Distrust in science is one reason universities engage in science communication. Last week we published part one of a series on science communication, which looked at a proliferation of initiatives. This week it’s about the state of trust in science, and what communication can do about it.
Hot topics
Science skepticism comes up especially in subjects that touch people’s personal lives, agrees UvA psychologist Bastiaan Rutjens, who specializes in science skepticism. “These include hot topics such as corona and nitrogen policy, but also genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and the theory of evolution. It is precisely on those specific topics that confidence in science scores relatively low.”
But general trust in science has been increasing slightly in recent years. The Dutch rate their trust in science at an average of 7.4, according to the most recent survey by the Rathenau Institute. But that figure does not tell the whole story, according to Rutjens: “If you zoom in a bit more, you see some more problematic developments. Now the child vaccination rate for mumps, measles, and rubella is going down again. In some neighborhoods in big cities, that creates a problem for immunity. You also observe political parties saying that climate change is not such a big deal.
Knowledge is soft
Why is it that people cannot agree on objective scientific knowledge? A fact is a fact, right? It’s pretty disappointing, according to Aarts. “Scientific knowledge is about the softest component of all human thought. For every fact there is another fact available in the huge supermarket called the Internet.”
The fact that it is 19 degrees in a room is not likely to be discussed. But they will discuss whether it is too hot or too cold and whether people should put on a sweater or open a window. Says Aarts: “The latter are values and that is what scientists often discuss. After all, a discussion purely about facts is not interesting at all.”
In the case of nitrogen policy, the relationship between agriculture and the RIVM has already been disrupted to such an extent that figures have long since ceased to be the solution, according to Aarts. “We should have figures, but no longer use them to beat each other up.”
Motivation
But even in general, more knowledge alone does not help reduce distrust in science. The idea of an information deficit was big in the 1990s but is now obsolete. Exceptions aside, in the case of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and sometimes vaccinations, a lack of knowledge of the subject does tend to be the best predictor of science skepticism. A new variant has taken its place, which is that there is a lack of analytical skills to override one’s intuition and understand science well, called cognitive sophistication. A third theory is that motivation and ideology play a role in not believing science.
Rutjens sees the latter theory reflected in his data. “Sometimes science doesn’t fit a certain worldview or interests. Put very simply, people who drive a Hummer and barbecue every weekend do not benefit from accepting climate change as truth. Then motivation and ideology come into play and it’s not about people not believing in science but about people not wanting to believe in it.”
Motivation for not believing science varies by group, Rutjens says. “Climate skeptics are often political conservatives. With the theory of evolution, religion often gets in the way. With vaccinations, it’s a combination of a lack of knowledge about science but also a spiritual belief in life.”
In the case of nitrogen, one factor is that farmers feel their image is being damaged. In their perception, they are labeled time and again as nature haters and destroyers of the environment. Aarts, who conducted many conversations with people from the agricultural sector, understands this. “It would almost be the same as if people were to say to me, listen, what you as a teacher have done to those students over the past 30 years has done more harm than good. Then I would get caught up in denial, too.”
More than an understandable message
Scientists are working on methods to reduce science skepticism. One method is to reduce psychological distance toward science, which is one reason people are more skeptical of science in general, regardless of the subject. Rutjens says: “You could invite people to a debate about Crispr-cas, a kind of molecular scissors that can be used to make very precise small adjustments to DNA, or show how scientists are working in the lab on a new vaccine to show how technology impacts life.”
A model by Australian professor Matthew Hornsey also provides clues to a communication strategy. By looking for the root of the negative attitude toward science and talking about it, people can come around. Rutjens says: “When it comes to vaccinations, for example, you sometimes see a fear of needles. You have to discuss that. But the scant empirical evidence for Hornsey’s model so far is about climate skepticism.”
Aarts stresses the importance of listening. “Science communication is much more than just making the message understandable. That’s where it starts, but you’re still far from your goal.” If you really want to involve citizens in science, you will have to take them seriously, according to Aarts, and abandon the attitude that “we have the knowledge and you have the emotions - but they are the lesser gods.” ‘If scientists are willing to engage with citizens and listen to the backgrounds of their experiences and ideas, then you will see that that also does something for trust.”
This is part two in a series on science communication.
