Science under attack

Scientists feel threatened and under attack for simply stating what the science is revealing to us all. Or is that a misrepresentation, is the attack attributed to some other causes?

Science under attack, or is it?

Attacks on Science That is the bold headline by the Union of Concerned Scientists with links to many stories of US Government attacks on science through politicization and misinformation. (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2021)

Expertise Under Assault: Is skepticism toward scientists and other experts growing? A statement by CQ Researcher with the opening lines:

Distrust of government and scientific experts has taken disturbing forms recently — from the violent attack on the Capitol by a mob that refused to believe election results, to conspiracy theories about the supposed dangers of vaccines. A society that does not believe the same set of facts cannot hold together, some experts warn. (Glazer, 2021)

And finally, Challenging Expertise: A research paper comparing differing views of scientific authority and democracy raises interesting and challenging questions:

Is the legitimacy of democratic decisions threatened by the unquestioned authority of scientific advice? Or does, on the contrary, science need protection from too much democratic participation in technical decisions?(Sorgner, 2016)

There is no shortage of similar articles or publications, while simultaneously social problems such as substance abuse, COVID-19 pandemic, or climate change continually fill our news stream. Regardless of the social issue, it appears to be getting worse with social media and online news and we are more aware of such problems with diverging opinions being freely expressed regardless of “the science”.

A major question

Is it that science or scientists are under attack and being challenged; or are there some other causes at play? One common belief has been, and still is for many, that the public lack scientific understanding and require education in the sciences to overcome their ignorance. This typically comes under the topic of the Information Deficit Model. There are some who understand the major limitations of such an approach and that it may actually inflame the problem.

The deficit model has been highly criticized for being overly simplistic and inaccurately characterizing the relationship between knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, particularly for politically polarized issues like climate change. Even so, it continues to be an integral part of climate change communication research and practice. (Suldovsky, 2017)

There are several researchers and authors who have proposed more open and inclusive method of engaging with the public, see Further Reading below. This is a short list of available publications which explains why continually restating the scientific facts (whatever they may be!) falls drastically short of expected results.

One very long ongoing social issue is climate change. The Information Deficit Model has been used extensively for over 30 years with the end result most notably captured by the following:

The solutions pushed by many environmental organizations have become part of the problem. . . . This is very evident in most attempts to communicate climate science to the public. When people aren’t convinced by hearing the scientific facts of climate change, then the facts have been repeated and multiplied. Or shouted in a louder voice. Or with more pictures of drowning polar bears, still-bleaker facts, even more studies. (Stoknes, 2015)

A different perspective of “the problem”

Taking a step back from how best to communicate “a problem” and its “solution” is to recognize that problems have different traits with vastly differing approaches in arriving at a solution. One line of research introduced the concept of a wicked problem as a fundamental key to understanding why tackling social problems are typically fraught with frustrations and lack of progress. The term wicked problem was coined by researchers in 1973 with the opening line of their abstract was: The search for scientific bases for confronting problems of social policy is bound to fail, because of the nature of these problems. They are “wicked” problems, whereas science has developed to deal with “tame” problems. (Rittel & Webber, 1973)

Looking at an historical example of a social issue may assist in understanding the point Rittel and Weber were making. Using an issue that is over 70 years old to determine what makes a wicked problem – wicked and what makes a tame problem – tame. A contemporary issue such as climate change or substance abuse may invoke automatic or emotional barriers to openly see the true extent of the context of what a wicked problem means as posed by Rittel & Weber.

An historical event that was faced over 70 years ago and still has major ramifications today was the Manhattan Project during World War II which illustrates a clear distinction between wicked problems and tame problems within this historical event. Recognizing and having an appreciation for the differences between tame problems and wicked problems and the fact that they are tightly interwoven, may open some insight in how to progress forward in realistic ways. Currently many social issues which have a major wicked component are being tackled by “trying to tame the wicked” leading to frustrations.

This is clearly evident in an issue such as climate change. Failing to understand and treat climate change as a ‘wicked problem’ has led to the construction of a global solution-structure that possesses elements that appear either inadequate or inappropriate given the intractability of climate change. (Hulme, 2009)

Is it that science and scientists are under attack?

That is not a yes/no answer. There definitely are people who do not trust or believe the science or scientists in some controversial area or possibly even not trust the scientific methodology at all. Others may have other motivations to publicly question or dispute a scientific area. Though a major area of dispute for many people is that many scientists, technologists, government or business people are attempting to “tame the wicked”. That is treat major social issues as if scientific and technology are the solutions where this may not be the case. Technology may be a factor in a solution but ignoring the social wicked aspect of the problem can subsequently be transformed into disrespect and even antagonism towards the scientists even thought they believe they are doing “the right thing”.

References

Glazer, Sarah (2021); Expertise Under Assault [Online] CQ Researcher
Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Science (4 (1973), 155-169).
Sorgner, Helene (2016); Challenging Expertise: Paul Feyerabend vs. Harry Collins & Robert Evans on democracy, public participation and scientific authority; Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A; Volume 57, June 2016, Pages 114-120; [Online Abstract]
Stoknes, Per Espen. 2015. What We Think About When We Try Not To Think About Global Warming.
Suldovsky, Brianne (2017); The Information Deficit Model and Climate Change Communication; Climate Science, 26 Sept 2017 [Online]
Union of Concerned Scientists (2021), Attacks on Science [Online]