During the COVID-19 pandemic, terms like “public engagement” and “accessible science” became buzzwords in conversations surrounding the way health officials communicated with the public. It’s a difficult spot to be in. We recognize that communication with the public and the ability to summarize complicated scientific jargon for a lay audience is an important part of scientific communication. However, what happens when this is taken advantage of and scientists’ own words are used against them to fuel mistrust and false information? Are scientists causing more harm than good by attempting to communicate with their audience so readily? Who gets to know what’s going on, and should the public be included?
Issues of mistrust between the public and scientific community have always been an issue, but the COVID-19 pandemic really brought them to light. While it was great for the scientific community that new COVID-19 research was being conducted and published so readily, it also meant that from the public’s point of view, there was a constant barrage of new information, some of which did not align with each other. Perhaps one of the largest-scale examples of this was the issue of hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 therapeutic. In 2020, a group in France published a small study suggesting that hydroxychloroquine had potentially therapeutic benefits for COVID-19 treatment. Many scientists immediately spoke out against using this drug as an anti-viral, citing the potential adverse effects. However, it was too late. There were already enough prominent figureheads who had picked it up for it to gain traction. As hydroxychloroquine gained popularity, pharmaceutical companies and private practitioners took advantage of this, increasing the drug’s production. Some studies also showed an increase in prescriptions for hydroxychloroquine from private healthcare practitioners after this article was published. Not long after, multiple follow-up studies were published to show that this drug had little to no positive impact in the context of COVID-19, with one study even indicating that it had potentially very harmful effects. However, by this point, the damage had been done. There was a shortage of hydroxychloroquine in 2020, directly impacting the health of patients with arthritis and other inflammatory immune disorders who relied on this drug. There have also been many people who took advantage of the hype and subsequent retraction of this drug to begin conspiracy theories or say that the scientific community cannot be trusted.
Issues surrounding miscommunication in science are not new. For example, concerns surrounding genetically modified foods have been a global conversation piece for decades. On the one hand, scientists and those in the food production industry are avid proponents of using biotechnology to help meet the growing food demands of an ever-growing global population. On the other hand, a sizeable proportion of the general public believes that these genetically modified foods are unsafe to eat. In fact, a 2020 survey revealed that 67% of adults believe that scientists don’t fully understand the impacts of GMOs on our health.
Another topic which often brings forth issues of trust in science is climate change. The interesting thing about climate change is that we are able to see it. Unlike other sciences, people all over the world can see with their own eyes the negative impacts of a rapidly changing atmosphere. However, when it comes to supporting policies that will help stop or reverse the impacts of climate change, a large proportion of people do not support such endeavours. One study conducted by the World Economic Forum found that there has been a steady increase in the amount of research paid for by private industries in the last decade. However, people are already skeptical of research paid for by the private sector. This puts scientists in a position where they need to work even harder at creating transparency and developing trust. There is also the issue of political and social identity. Particularly in more heterogenous countries such as Canada and the United States of America where identity politics is pervasive, it is difficult for people to reconcile science that disagrees with the political alliance they have set themselves up with.
One would think that the most logical way to create trust would be increased openness and transparency by sharing information. However, scientists are human, and when inevitably, an error is made, this may only harm the mission of creating trust. There is a catch-22 scientists find themselves in. Information and important scientific breakthroughs must be shared in order to influence political mandates that will aid in rectifying issues such as climate change and the transmission of a deadly virus. However, the more information that the public is given, the more ammunition they have to throw at scientists as evidence of their untrustworthiness when inevitably there is a change in the literature. Perhaps the answer is not to bombard the public with information but rather to encourage the public’s engagement in the scientific process. Public engagement in science differs from science communication in that it encourages the public to participate from the beginning. Rather than conducting the research and disseminating the results, public engagement encourages the communities and individuals that are impacted by the issue at hand to form meaningful relationships with the scientists that are studying them. This gives the public a sense that they are involved in the scientific process and encourages conversation about the benefits and risks involved in research. It also ensures that the public and scientists are on the same page, and that people are aware that research may not necessarily answer the question at hand, but that it will provide more information. The public’s view of scientists will not change overnight, and it definitely won’t change if scientists are not willing to adjust the way they interact with the public. This is a relationship that is crucial to the health and safety of us all.
The COVID-19 pandemic was an opportunity for a reset, and we must be willing to learn from our previous mistakes if we hope to change anything in the future.
Salma Sheikh-Mohamed
Latest posts by Salma Sheikh-Mohamed (see all)
- Popular Science: Who gets to have an opinion? - June 5, 2023
- The Era of Sustainable Investing: ESG and Corporate Responsibility - January 30, 2023
- Mental Health in the Workplace - April 17, 2022
