Resisting the Suppression of Science

The following text is a translation of Dr. Lisa Rosenbaum’s article “Resisting the Suppression of Science,” published in the leading medical journal NEJM on 1 March 2017.

“All doctors encounter patients seeking a cure for blocked coronary arteries or cancer through a special diet or detoxification method. Personally, I have never encountered an effective result. I always present facts, and if they are unpersuasive, I present more facts. Although I tell patients I understand their beliefs, my body language says otherwise. In truth, I am not very successful at overcoming unscientific thinking. Many physicians encounter the same situation despite taking different approaches. Whether the subject is vaccination, climate change or gun control, we tend to keep emphasizing evidence-based facts.

The new United States administration brought not only conflict between science and belief but also  fear that science could be openly suppressed. President Donald Trump called climate change a “hoax,” expressed skepticism about vaccines and appointed someone with a problematic record to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. As a result, the American Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently postponed plans for a Climate and Health Summit, jeopardizing preparations in this area.

When Science Is Suppressed, Should Scientists Resist or Quietly Continue Their Work?

Resistance appears necessary. The CDC postponement seems likely to lead to an alternative meeting and financing to keep science moving. But our concern should not be merely a climate of disbelief resulting from suppression; it should be a culture becoming accustomed to these practices. The real question is therefore how to resist effectively and persuade a public skeptical of science.

First, We Must Avoid Assuming That Misconceptions Reflect a Lack of Knowledge and Can Be Eliminated Only by Facts

When skepticism arises from cultural identity or emotion, facts cease to persuade and can increase skepticism. This is called  biased assimilation . It occurs in every area of life. One study found that families hesitant to vaccinate their children did not change their decisions despite evidence that vaccines do not cause autism.

The Tendency to Ignore Evidence Threatening Beliefs Is Independent of Ideology

For example, liberals are more inclined than conservatives to ignore evidence that genetically modified foods are safe. Ideological effects appear even in medical debates over mammography screening, statins and pharmaceutical-sponsored research. Particularly in climate science, people with extensive scientific knowledge have also been observed ignoring evidence that challenges their views.

In highly polarized times, care must be taken not to politicize science. Experts studying this issue say culturally opposing beliefs shape how people interpret apparently neutral scientific subjects. For example, recent stories have attributed Zika virus to global warming or migration. Researchers examined how such stories affect perceptions of the Zika threat. When climate-change skeptics were told global warming caused Zika, they became more skeptical of the threat. When advocates of globalization and open borders were told of links with migration, they considered Zika less risky.

Such perspectives subtly provoke cultural conflict and push society toward distrust of science. They force people to choose between recognizing what science is and protecting their identity, and the latter often wins.

The main task in protecting identity is to explain why vaccines are foolishly viewed with skepticism or as dangerous, and to help address cultural reactions against elite academics. While correcting misinformation, we must avoid skepticism under the cover of political identity. The best approach is measured resistance even on polarizing topics.

But this measured approach can be perceived as self-interest and harm science. Generalizing the right response is difficult. We must understand more than just the difficulty of communicating.

Perhaps there is a glimmer of hope that many Americans will move away from  alternative facts. Scientists are not alone in making facts believable again. In medicine, scientific communication is approached in unscientific ways. Medical schools teach eye contact, nodding and cultural competence. If communication aims to turn science into policies improving public health, we must urgently focus on attacks on factual, accurate information through an experimental and effective method.”

It would not be an exaggeration to say science saves millions of lives every day, and reaching this point was far from easy. Why do humans seek knowledge? Science results from the desire to learn about the future, secure ourselves within our circumstances, guarantee comfort and live more easily. Asked the most important feature of scientifically obtained knowledge, I would say “reliability.” Such knowledge is generally applicable, systematic, orderly, sustainable and, above all, reliable. We are saddened and concerned to see information we could call pseudoscience—mostly based on personal experience and reasoning—gain wider public acceptance. Why are we concerned? Because it endangers society’s health and our future. Pseudoscience refers to claims, information and practices advanced using scientific arguments but lacking standards required by scientific research, such as materials, methods and testability (verifiability), or sufficient supporting research. It is typically characterized by vague, contradictory, often personal and unverifiable claims, with exaggerated supporting data, and  operates around subjects thought to provide users with social, financial or spiritual gains. We thank Dr. Lisa Rosenbaum for her excellent article on this subject.