Is There A General Distrust Of Science And Scientists?

[jim360]

And if so, why, and what should be done about it?

I asked having just watched Thursday's Question time where once again the MMR row raised its ugly head, but the media representative defended the story as "reporting the facts". This is not even close to the truth, and the way media reports science is something that seriously should be made far better.

But the scandal itself is part of something more general. By and large the public went along with the story, despite just about every other scientist or expert who was asked going against it, and presumably doctors continued to advise taking the vaccine. So why did this turn into something so large? Is it because people distrust Scientists?

[mibn2cweus]

Where precisely does trust figure into the scientific method? The purpose of science is not to instruct but rather to inform.

Those who seek, require and/or demand trust find it necessary for a reason, that being the benefit they hope to derive from those who provide it without reason. A trust not fully earned is destined to become payable . . . with interest.

[jim360]

Trust comes into it, surely, when it comes time to make certain decisions. On the one hand you have a large body of Scientists who have reached a conclusion via the Scientific method (at least, most of the time), and therefore whose advice is likely to be sound. On the other you can have someone whose knowledge of a subject is based on five minutes of background reading and not much else, or in some other way doesn't really have any basis for his position. Then the question is, why despite this do some people still listen to the lone voice, who is known to be wrong? Why in so many debates is the Scientific view, where a consensus does exist, overlooked?

[jomifl]

jim, if the public understood the scientific arguments then they too would be scientists. Some people particularly politicians think that the truth is that which suits them best and /or supports their irrational beliefs.

[Canary42]

Why do we distrust science ?

Well :-

1. Thalidomide
2. Asbestos.
3. DDT.
4. Mercury dental fillings
5. Lead in paint/petrol etc.
6. X-rays unshielded
7. CFCs

and so on............

[woofgang]

Consensus was that stomach ulcers were caused by stress and infection played no part.....sometimes the lone voice is right.

[jim360]

Yes, woofgang, but not often.

One of the odd things about your list Canary is that all of them were later shown by Scientists to be dangerous -- so that while yes they were mistaken is was Science that showed them to be bad.

There are no better self-correcting schemes around.

[woofgang]

Indeed Jim but the question in part was why are scientists distrusted, and this is why, because in the past when they have been trusted they have been wrong and when there is a lone voice it is often shouted down before being accepted....as I said earlier, I trust the scientific method when it is rigorously applied but individual scientists, or even groups....not so much.

[woofgang]

What to do about it...well have you read bad pharma and bad science? It's all in there.

[LazyGun]

@Canary - I look at your list, and I do not understand the point you are trying to make.

How is "science" to be distrusted over Asbestos? or Lead in paint/petrol, or unshielded X-Rays? or mercury amalgam fillings?, or CFCs? Just reciting a list of things people have some concerns about is hardly evidence that science is to be distrusted...

Thalidomide was badly handled, the regulatory testing was shoddy, granted. Guess what though? Turns our Thalidomide is actually pretty darn useful -and is being used effectively in medicine now.

@Woofgang - Yes, consensus might- occasionally- be wrong. That does not automatically mean the lone wolf is right. The lone wolf was and is badly wrong when it comes to Wakefield and the MMR vaccine, for instance. Linus Pauling was wrong about the benefits of massive doses of Vitamin C - turns out we excrete most of it.

Can you give me examples, woofgang, where the lone wolf has "often" been shouted down, then proven to be right, against the consensus of the time? Without going back to medieval times, since there was not much scope for consensus and plenty of opportunity for rival theories....

I can think of one - Igor Semmelwiess, but it was science and the scientific method that finally vindicated him.

I have read both Bad Pharma and Bad Science - Do you think Ben Goldacre mistrusts science, or the scientific method, or consensus? The champion of the cochrane collaboration and meta-analysis of clinical studies?

There are definitely areas that could be improved - a global all-trials register would help, for a start.... but when the public blame science or the scientists, it is usually because they have believed some media misrepresentation or overhyped nonsense that is actually at fault....

[jim360]

I have read Bad Science and it made me so angry. Not what Ben Goldacre was saying, but his point was sad and very true. But yes, he was never fighting Science in general. Just when it was done badly, which happens occasionally (and far too often), and when it was covered badly by the media, which is usually.

Lone wolves are usually wrong, too, but not always. However most of the main examples of that are in the past -- it's been a while since a single person has been right, and usually if he is shouted down it's not by Scientists but by corporations and the media.

[woofgang]

lazygun you and i appear to be in violent agreement. For the third time, I do not distrust the scientific method rigorously applied.
The OP asked if there was general distrust of science and scientists, if so why and and what could be done about it. I never said that i agreed with the distrust, I did say (as did Canary) why I thought there might be that distrust. I also said that Ben Goldacres books had some good suggestions about what could be done.
Please read what I have written, not what you think I have written.

[LazyGun]

@Woofgang. Ok then. Always good to be in violent agreement with someone :)

I would be curious though to see some examples of "when there is a lone voice it is often shouted down before being accepted".
I do not believe there are many instances of this, and we do need to challenge that trope, because I do think the public think that way. I blame the X-Files :)

I cannot think of many at all. About the best example I can think of would be Semmelweiss...

[jomifl]

Canary, I think most of the items on your list can be attributed to industry and technology driven by shareholders who want a return on their investment. The discoveries may have been made by scientists but you cannot blame them for the applications since the applicatons necessarily came later.

[woofgang]

jomifli yes you can. Scientists have a duty, not to us but to the scientific method itself to ensure that it is applied rigorously and to yell loudly when it isn't.
It doesn't take many instances of failure of the scientific method, for whatever reason for "science" to be distrusted. For many of my generation it was thalidomide that did it. The failures don't have to be multiple if they are big enough and shocking enough.

[jim360]

Quite a few -- indeed the majoity -- of Scientists and doctors and assorted sensible people were shouting about how badly Wakefield's research stood up as a Scientific document. But certainly the media didn't seem to listen, and as a result neither did a lot of the general public.

I'm not sure what went on with Thalidomide. It was before my time and I've not looked into it nearly enough, but I've seen some of the effects still. One man with dangling arms, goodness knows how he lives.

Perhaps the original question is a bit unfortunate, since it's really two questions. It's easier to see why people might distrust Scientists, because some of them do end up wrong and, worse, get large egos that stop them from focusng on the truth. Science as a whole, I hope, should remain trustworthy as evidence for its sucess can be found everywhere.

[Clanad]

Although I can't cite statistical chapter and verse, it seems to me that science and "the scientific method" is actually fairly simple. Granted, the gathering of the information may be complex to the layman... but in the end it's only data gathering. Something that all of us do on a daily basis at one level or another.

Where the problem generally arises, as seen in the listing earlier (Thalidomide, etc.) is in the interpretation of that data. In that respect, there's always... always, disagreement among "scientists".

This difference in intrepretation can always... always, be laid at the feet of biases on the part of the interpreter.

"As some degree of bias is nearly always present in a published study, readers must also consider how bias might influence a study's conclusion..." (Source: Identifying and Avoiding Bias in Research
Christopher J. Pannucci, MD and Edwin G. Wilkins, MD MS).

Additionally, having friends that are "scientists" of one ilk or another, each will admit to the old adage in such nearly closed circles as scientific research that states "Publish or die". The need to be "published" and recognized by peers and/or the public at large is inherently contributory to errors introduced into the intrepretation of data.

This is offered only to instill a healthy dose of scepticism when, as a layman, one elevates one intrepretation above another... value wise.

[jomifl]

woofgang, whilst it is arguable that weapon manufacturers should be apportioned part of the blame for the crimes committed with their products, I cannot see how an 18th century monk can be blamed for genetic engineering. If scientist are going to be blamed for what others do with their discoveries then we might as well blame them for everything (including earthquakes).

[woofgang]

jomifli, Canary's examples are largely (and mine, thalidomide) not intended example as where a discovery was used to hurt or damage but where something was mistakenly declared "safe" by "science", or at least where "science" knew the risks and did not declare them. In many cases, "science" later realised the risk and took action. In the case of thalidomide, the reason for the failure of the scientific method was that it wasn't applied with sufficient rigour. It wasn't tested on pregnant animals so the teratogenic effect wasn't realised. I don't recall whether the omission was deliberate or accidental.
I repeat (again) that I am not posting on here to "fault" science or scientists, just to answer the OP's question.

[jomifl]

Woofgang, having worked in 'commercial' science I can assure you that even if scientist are as pure as the driven snow, their reports will be modified and ignored as and when necessary by the commercial interests. In this case you generally have to blame the messenger who has a forked tongue as well as a forked stick.

[jomifl]

Jim, what went wrong with thalidomide was that drugs were then only tested for their short term lethality using 'LD50' assays from which a safe dose could be deduced. This form of testing could not have detected the harmful effects of thalidomide because the procedures laid down by the government experts did not take them into account.