Distrust Of Science Research Articles

Towards Equitable, Social Justice Criticality: Re-Constructing the "Black" Box and Making it Transparent for the Future of Science and Technology in Science Education.

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has resulted in the rapid emergence of vaccines, the dual benefits of both science and technology have been lauded, while dominant, deficit-based narratives of vaccine hesitancy and mistrust in science and medicine by the general public, particularly minoritized populations, run rampant. In this paper, we argue for a counternarrative, where instead of erroneously positioning communities of color as the problem, the problem is reframed to consider what the scientific, technological, and science education communities need to do to become more trustworthy and transgress the persistent shortcomings related to racism and injustice. Specifically, in this position paper, we (a) discuss the interactions of science, technology, and society from the perspective of the nature of technology; (b) engage an understanding of how bias, access, and racism operate in and at the intersection of science, technology, and technological systems; (c) discuss implications of these ideas in science education; and finally (d) pose recommendations to counter alienation and racism with an emphasis on a sixth dimension, equitable, social justice criticality, for science-technology education. In conclusion, we make recommendations by centering a more equitable, social justice criticality of science and technology.

Elementary Teachers’ Trust in Science and Scientists Throughout a COVID-19 SSI Unit

ABSTRACT Scientific knowledge is necessary to make informed decisions about many social issues, but some of the public is skeptical of science and scientific expertise. Teacher education programs are one way to address distrust in science in this generation and the next. Socioscientific issues (SSI) have been advocated as important for teaching about the nature of science, decision-making, and argumentation. This mixed methods case study sought to characterize 10 teachers’ trust in science and scientists in an online elementary science methods course for inservice and preservice teachers as they engaged in a COVID-19 inquiry unit. Data sources included Trust in Science and Scientist survey data gathered before and after the class and several course artifacts from a five-week COVID-19 SSI inquiry unit. Quantitatively, students demonstrated gains in their trust in science and scientists. Qualitatively, participants characterized their trust in science and scientists by attending to scientists’ credibility. Importantly, credibility perceptions were couched in participants’ perceptions of the nature of science, especially their understandings of empirical evidence, tentativeness, subjectivity, the nature of scientific models, and the sociocultural embeddedness of science. In the mixed methods analysis, participants were sorted by their quantitative trust profiles and showed different qualitative nature of science justifications for their trust and distrust. Participants’ trust in science and scientists were influenced by reading different sources about scientists during the COVID-19 pandemic as well as the use of media literacy tools. Implications for future research and teacher education are explored.

Vaccine Confidence and Hesitancy at the Start of COVID-19 Vaccine Deployment in the UK: An Embedded Mixed-Methods Study.

Background: Approval for the use of COVID-19 vaccines has been granted in a number of countries but there are concerns that vaccine uptake may be low amongst certain groups.Methods: This study used a mixed methods approach based on online survey and an embedded quantitative/qualitative design to explore perceptions and attitudes that were associated with intention to either accept or refuse offers of vaccination in different demographic groups during the early stages of the UK's mass COVID-19 vaccination programme (December 2020). Analysis used multivariate logistic regression, structural text modeling and anthropological assessments.Results: Of 4,535 respondents, 85% (n = 3,859) were willing to have a COVID-19 vaccine. The rapidity of vaccine development and uncertainties about safety were common reasons for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. There was no evidence for the widespread influence of mis-information, although broader vaccine hesitancy was associated with intentions to refuse COVID-19 vaccines (OR 20.60, 95% CI 14.20–30.30, p < 0.001). Low levels of trust in the decision-making (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.08, 2.48, p = 0.021) and truthfulness (OR 8.76, 95% CI 4.15–19.90, p < 0.001) of the UK government were independently associated with higher odds of refusing COVID-19 vaccines. Compared to political centrists, conservatives and liberals were, respectively, more (OR 2.05, 95%CI 1.51–2.80, p < 0.001) and less (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.22–0.41, p < 0.001) likely to refuse offered vaccines. Those who were willing to be vaccinated cited both personal and public protection as reasons, with some alluding to having a sense of collective responsibility.Conclusion: Dominant narratives of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy are misconceived as primarily being driven by misinformation. Key indicators of UK vaccine acceptance include prior behaviors, transparency of the scientific process of vaccine development, mistrust in science and leadership and individual political views. Vaccine programmes should leverage the sense of altruism, citizenship and collective responsibility that motivated many participants to get vaccinated.

The Sociology of Trust in Science: Evaluating and Predicting Levels of Scientism in Indiana Residents

While science is traditionally regarded as an enterprise based on evidence, objectivity, and empirical data, its image in the eyes of the general population depends largely on trust. Most nonscientists do not have the expertise to understand specialized scientific evidence. Without the ability to engage with scientific knowledge firsthand, individuals may reject scientific claims based on their trust or distrust of science, especially if that claim contradicts their thinking. Therefore, interpretations of science and its role as a credible decision- making cue vary among individuals. Th e objectives of this research were to evaluate levels of scientism, or public trust in science, in Indiana residents and to develop and test an empirical model to identify the factors predictive of this trust. Indiana residents were found to have high levels of scientism, with nearly 90% of respondents agreeing that they would be willing to accept new ideas if provided with sufficient scientific proof. Among the explanatory variables assessed, institutional trust and interest in science/technology had a significant positive association with scientism, while religiosity had a negative association. Respondents who identified as male were also associated with higher levels of trust in science. Th e model explained 23.2% of the variance, leaving over three- quarters of the variance unexplained. These findings demonstrate that trust in science can be explained not by one particular factor but rather by a complex range of underlying attributes. Results also indicate that dialogue with religious publics and building and maintaining credibility are important dimensions to consider in effective science communication and engagement.

Information Source Use and Social Media Engagement: Examining their Effects on Origin of COVID-19 Beliefs

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), a highly infectious virus transmitted through droplets from sneezes and coughs, was declared a global pandemic in 2020. Measures implemented by organizations as a result of COVID-19 were controversial among United States (U.S.) citizens. Perceptions of governmental and scientific information further divided U.S. citizens and distrust in science fostered conspiratorial thinking toward the origin of the virus. The purpose of this study was to determine if critical thinking style (CTS), the use of COVID-19 information sources, and social media connections were predictors of origin of COVID-19 beliefs. A survey was disseminated to 1,048 U.S. adults in May 2020 when most states were under shelter-in-place orders. Results indicated select COVID-19 information sources used and social media connections predicted origin of COVID-19 beliefs. CTS was not a significant predictor. Findings revealed a partisan divide between COVID-19 information sources. Implications for science communicators engaging the public during crisis were discussed.

Should the European Union have an office of research integrity?

Scientific misconduct is detrimental to both society and researchers, potentially resulting in a mistrust in science. When the results of a scientific publication are based on erroneous content or data, whether due to error or misconduct, the publication must be retracted. The retraction of a publication alerts the scientific community that its results and conclusions may not be valid [1]. Over the last 20 years, retractions due to misconduct have increased, surpassing the number of retractions due to honest error and becoming the leading cause of retraction at present [2].

Mistrust and Beliefs in Conspiracy Theories Differently Mediate the Effects of Psychological Factors on Propensity for COVID-19 Vaccine.

Vaccination is considered a key factor in the sanitary resolution of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, vaccine hesitancy can undermine its diffusion with severe consequences on global health. While beliefs in conspiracy theories, mistrust in science and in policymakers, and mistrust in official information channels may also increment vaccine hesitancy, understanding their psychological causes could improve our capacity to respond to the pandemic. Thus, we designed a cross-sectional study with the aim of probing vaccine propensity in the Italian population and explored its relationship with sociodemographic and psychological variables, and with misbeliefs in COVID-19. A battery of questionnaires was administered to a sample of 374 Italian adults during the first national lockdown (April 2020). The materials included an original instrument—Beliefs in COVID-19 Inventory—and questionnaires measuring perceived stress, anxiety, death anxiety, psychological distress, psychoticism, paranoia, anger, and somatization. The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on Beliefs in COVID-19 suggested the existence of three factors: belief in conspiracy theories, mistrust in medical information, and mistrust in medicine and science. These factors were positively correlated with female sex, age, religious beliefs, psychiatric conditions, and psychological variables, while negatively correlated with education levels. We conducted a mediation analysis by means of a structural equation model, including psychological factors as predictors, beliefs in COVID-19 scales as mediators, and vaccine propensity as an outcome. The model showed that death anxiety had a direct positive effect on the propensity to get vaccinated. It also showed that death anxiety reduced the propensity to get vaccinated through a mediated path in believing in conspiracy theories, whereas paranoia was linked to a reduction in vaccination adherence with the mediation effect of mistrust in medical science. Psychological distress reduced vaccination propensity by increasing both conspiracy beliefs and mistrust. On the other hand, anxiety increased the propensity to get vaccinated through a decrease in both belief in conspiracy theories and mistrust in science. Our results suggest that psychological dimensions are differentially related to belief in conspiracy theories, to mistrust in science, and to the propensity to get vaccinated. Based on this result, we propose an original interpretation of how conspiracy beliefs build on a paranoid and suspicious attitude. We also discuss the possible clinical implications of treatment for such pathological beliefs.

How representative surveys measure public (dis)trust in science: A systematisation and analysis of survey items and open-ended questions

ABSTRACT Over the past several years, scholars have debated the public’s (dis)trust in science. Since the ‘science and society’ paradigm of science communication has defined the crisis of trust between science and the public as a major concern, this article is interested in how public (dis)trust in science is measured in representative surveys of public perceptions of science and technology. The goal is to systematise survey measures using a theoretical model of (dis)trust in science as a multidimensional variable that is relevant to the relationship between the public, (intermediaries) and science. A systematic review of items and open-ended questions (n = 736) used in 20 representative surveys from various countries was conducted. The results show that surveys rarely measure distrust in science, and instead focus on trust in science – mainly at the macro-level – rather than trust in scientists (micro-level) or scientific organisations (meso-level). Benevolence is the dimension of trust considered most frequently; the media is predominantly included as a general type of contact with science without a direct link to (dis)trust. Hence, representative surveys cover a number of different aspects of public (dis)trust in science. However, there is room for improvement. Thus, this paper concludes with recommendations for future measures.

Corona XXXIX – WTF?

Corona XXXIX – WTF?

Socioeconomic Correlates of Anti-Science Attitudes in the US

Successful responses to societal challenges require sustained behavioral change. However, as responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in the US showed, political partisanship and mistrust of science can reduce public willingness to adopt recommended behaviors such as wearing a mask or receiving a vaccination. To better understand this phenomenon, we explored attitudes toward science using social media posts (tweets) that were linked to counties in the US through their locations. The data allowed us to study how attitudes towards science relate to the socioeconomic characteristics of communities in places from which people tweet. Our analysis revealed three types of communities with distinct behaviors: those in large metro centers, smaller urban places, and rural areas. While partisanship and race are strongly associated with the share of anti-science users across all communities, income was negatively and positively associated with anti-science attitudes in suburban and rural areas, respectively. We observed that emotions in tweets, specifically negative high arousal emotions, are expressed among suburban and rural communities by many anti-science users, but not in communities in large urban places. These trends were not apparent when pooled across all counties. In addition, we found that anti-science attitudes expressed five years earlier were significantly associated with lower COVID-19 vaccination rates. Our analysis demonstrates the feasibility of using spatially resolved social media data to monitor public attitudes on issues of social importance.

Overcoming the discourse of science mistrust: how science education can be used to develop competent consumers and communicators of science information.

Science educators can provide learning experiences that challenge notions of mistrust in science, and provide students with the science skills necessary to obtain, evaluate, and communicate credible scientific information. As the COVID-19 pandemic persists, the American public continues to be inundated with messages reinforcing the importance of social distancing, hand-washing and the effectiveness of masks to slow the spread of the coronavirus. While most citizens diligently responded to these recommendations with compliance, there remained subcultures of the American public determined to resist these recommendations and engage in a discourse rooted in a mistrust of science. This discourse of science mistrust was perpetuated through the use of social media, as well as the modeling behaviors of government leaders, particularly as social media posts and news coverage were primary methods of social interaction during mandated stay-at-home orders. The discourse of science mistrust perpetuated during the COVID-19 pandemic reveals that a concerted effort is required by all science educators to aid with overcoming this discourse. Overcoming science mistrust begins in the science classroom by implementing pedagogical opportunities for science students to obtain, evaluate, and communicate scientific information. Allowing students to obtain and evaluate information are a critical skill to develop in the science classroom as science educators aim to produce competent consumers of scientific information. Furthermore, science students ought to also have experience with the skills associated with communicating scientific information. Communicating scientific information is a critical skill for science students to develop as it is through the effective communication of credible scientific information that the discourse of science mistrust can be overcome. Providing these learning opportunities to science students empower students to effectively evaluate social media and news coverage associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, and promote a future, wherein citizens are able to read, interpret, and critically consume scientific information to overcome discourses of science mistrust.

AndrewJewettScience Under Fire: Challenges to Scientific Authority in Modern AmericaHarvard University Press, 2020, 356 p., $39.95

Rejection of science—or what is labeled as rejection of science—is a notorious feature of the contemporary cultural and political landscape in the United States. Highly visible instances are dismissals of evolutionary theory, climate change denial, and antivaccine movements. In this deeply researched and thoughtful book, Andrew Jewett describes tensions about science over the past century, with a focus on the 1920s, the 1960s and 1970s, and the present. Jewett argues that the 1920s witnessed the first intense and widespread disputes in the United States over scientific authority. The controversies in this period concerned not only evolutionary theory (e.g., Scopes Trial) but also, and more importantly, modern psychology, which became a fixture in widely read newspapers and periodicals, to the dismay of those attached to religiously grounded understandings of human personality and what constitutes proper child socialization. The second period of tension about science Jewett identifies and examines in depth was the post-WWII decades, especially the 1960s and 1970s. Ironically from the standpoint of the present, it was if anything public intellectuals on the left who expressed dismay and distrust of science. “scientism” was viewed as intrinsically hostile to humanistic values, with soulless technology and an implicitly materialistic worldview posing at least as much risk to the achievement of a just and compassionate society as conservative religious institutions. The final period that Jewett considers is the first two decades of the twenty-first century. The tensions he describes are entirely familiar, but they take on a fresh appearance with the historical backdrop he provides, and his nuanced portrait of the positions of the key protagonists produces a welcome respect for the complexity of ongoing intellectual and political controversies. Over the entire century from the 1920s to the present, the unifying theme in the questioning of scientific authority has been the allegation that scientists, while ostensibly value-neutral, have injected social philosophies into American life that have damaged the social and moral order. Jewett concludes with a plea to approach science more matter-of-factly. Scientific tools can be credited with producing tremendous gains in human well-being but within rather circumscribed domains. Much that is highly valued in the human experience lies outside the reach of modern science.

Challenges to Science Communication in a Post-Truth World

The communication of scientific hypotheses, and more broadly of the provisional and non-absolutist nature of science in general, to a lay audience is being increasingly compromised by the public's distrust of experts. This distrust frequently takes the form of hyperskepticism, expressed in unfounded fears and moral panics, and is amplified by a clickbait driven media. Clickbait is a text or a thumbnail link that is designed to entice users to follow the link, where the linked piece of content is often simplistic, salacious or misleading. The sensational headlines and summaries are then widely shared on social media by users with pre-existing political and psychological biases. This “attention economy” can result in the “wisdom of the crowd” – as expressed on social media and clickbait driven websites – drowning out the views of subject experts, and allowing for fearmongering and skepticism or distrust of science to take precedence. This article discusses ways in which scientists and communicators of scientific and other complex topics can help laypersons to understand the ways in which they might be prone to being misled. It also introduces concepts that will contribute to their better understanding and communication of scientific claims in a polarised and politicised digital age.

“Rugged individualism” and collective (in)action during the COVID-19 pandemic

“Rugged individualism”—the combination of individualism and anti-statism—is a prominent feature of American culture with deep roots in the country’s history of frontier settlement. Today, rugged individualism is more prevalent in counties with greater total frontier experience (TFE) during the era of westward expansion. While individualism may be conducive to innovation, it can also undermine collective action, with potentially adverse social consequences. We argue that America’s frontier culture hampered responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Across U.S. counties, greater TFE is associated with less social distancing and mask use as well as weaker local government effort to control the virus. We argue that frontier culture lies at the root of several more proximate explanations for the weak collective response to public health risks, including a lack of civic duty, partisanship, and distrust in science.

Long-Term Cultural Barriers to Sustaining Collective Effort in Vaccination Against COVID-19

This study attempts to shed light on long-term cultural barriers to strengthening collective action in COVID-19 vaccination. I propose that rugged individualism, characterized by emphasis on self-reliance and strong antipathy to government intervention, is linked to a greater prevalence of resistance to inoculation against the novel coronavirus across American counties. The main hypothesis of this paper rests upon the premise that a culture of rugged individualism is conducive to the emergence and persistence of mistrust, political polarization and distrust in science, which undermine collective effort in vaccination. Using subnational data for the United States, I consistently find evidence that rugged individualism, captured by long-run exposure to the westward-moving frontier in American history, has a positive influence on the predicted share of the population that is hesitant towards voluntary vaccination against COVID-19. In addition, individualistic counties tend to suffer from under-vaccination, measured by lower rates of the population that has been fully inoculated against COVID-19. More broadly, the findings suggest that rugged individualism is an impediment to resolving collective action problems, notwithstanding the widely acknowledged positive impact of individualistic cultures on innovation and long-run economic performance.

Pandemics, Power, and Conspiracy Theories

Pandemics, Power, and Conspiracy Theories

Human Health and Economic Costs of Air Pollution in Utah: An Expert Assessment

Air pollution causes more damage to health and economy than previously understood, contributing to approximately one in six deaths globally. However, pollution reduction policies remain controversial even when proven effective and cost negative, partially because of misunderstanding and growing mistrust in science. We used an expert assessment to bridge these research–policy divides in the State of Utah, USA, combining quantitative estimates from 23 local researchers and specialists on the human health and economic costs of air pollution. Experts estimated that air pollution in Utah causes 2480 to 8000 premature deaths annually (90% confidence interval) and decreases the median life expectancy by 1.1 to 3.6 years. Economic costs of air pollution in Utah totaled $0.75 to $3.3 billion annually, up to 1.7% of the state’s gross domestic product. Though these results were generally in line with available estimates from downscaled national studies, they were met with surprise in the state legislature, where there had been an almost complete absence of quantitative health and economic cost estimates. We discuss the legislative and personal responses of Utah policy makers to these results and present a framework for increasing the assimilation of data into decision making via regional expert assessment. In conclusion, combining quantitative assessments from local experts is a responsive and cost-effective tool to increase trust and information uptake during time-sensitive policy windows.

The Political Branding of COVID-19: A Narrative Explained by President Trump’s Five Stages of Grief

COVID-19 was particularly deadly and widespread in the United States because of political incompetence at both state and federal levels, a non-compliant public that flouted prescribed safety measures, and a distrust of science and expertise. At the heart of all of these issues was the branding of the disease as a partisan problem. In 2019, I published the book "Political Brands," which described the hardening of partisan information silos among the American electorate. I wrote this book before the novel SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus (“COVID-19”) pandemic erupted in the United States. A coronavirus cannot pick a side of a political fight. But the way the American public processed COVID-19 fell into the same information silos described in "Political Brands" that facilitated partisan differences of opinion on the presidency of Donald Trump, the legality of his actions, and the appropriateness of his impeachment. To over-simplify, the disease itself became branded politically, and how the individual responded to the deadly pandemic was determined by which silo they occupied.

Emotions and Distrust in Science

ABSTRACT In our interactions with science, we are often vulnerable; we do not have complete control of the situation and there is a risk that we, or those we love, might be harmed. This is not an emotionally neutral experience. There has been an outpouring of philosophical literature on trust in science as the consequences of distrust become clear. This has exclusively focussed on epistemic and value-based dimensions of trust. In this paper, I advocate for taking the emotional aspects of distrust in science seriously.

5.G. Round table: Influencers or Followers? The Role of National Public Health Institutes in LMIC

Abstract Objectives To discuss the added value of locally developed health policies and strategies in the context of Global Sustainable Development Goals. To discuss the capabilities, opportunities and limitations of public health institutes in low- and middle-income countries in contributing to health policies and strategies in their countries vis-à-vis the global policies, promoted by multilateral and UN institutions. To formulate recommendations for strengthening the role of local health research institutions in low- and middle-income countries in formulating evidence-based policies and strategies for achieving Sustainable Development Goals, in their countries and beyond their borders. Five panellists from public health and research institutes in Bangladesh, Laos, DR Congo, Uganda and Haiti, and one representative from the European Commission, discuss their experiences in the Support to Public Health Institutes Programme (financed by the European Union), and what they have achieved in influencing policy and practice. Have they been able to leave their ivory tower of science, and have they been able to enter into real dialogue with politicians, practitioners and users of health services? How have they dealt with scepticism in the era mistrust in science? How did they bridge the gap between science and politics, and what tangible products did they deliver to make an impact on health of the population through policy advice or strategy formulation? Did they really make a difference and if yes, how? How did the public health institutes relate to the global giants in health policy and strategies? Did they get support or encouragement for following a local route? Have the public health institutes been able to contribute to global development? Has an international exchange facilitated by the European Commission contributed to strengthening the institutes? After short introductions by the panelists about their work in the last five years, there will be answers to questions from the panel leader and the delegates in the workshop. Delegates are invited to share experiences from their countries. Most of the time of the workshop will be used for a discussion among all participants in the workshop: how can public health institutes and research institutions play a stronger role in policy advice and strategy development in the health sector in their country? What should change within the institutions? How can they demonstrate their added value? What should change in ministries of health and parliaments? What should change in decision-makers in health services? Which best practices do we know, can serve as an example? At the end of the workshop the participants will formulate concrete recommendations, to be presented to the global health community. Key messages Public health institutes and research institutions in low- and middle-income countries have a hidden potential to contribute to local solutions for global health problems. A paradigm shift in relations between academic institutions is needed to unleash the potential of public health institutes.