Over the past few years, and especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, attacks on science and scientists have been escalating to an alarming degree. Health officials and the broader scientific community have pleaded with policymakers and the public to “follow the science.” Yet such slogans fall flat with those who have little regard for scientific authority, not least because science proponents have been using the same blanket term as those who attack it.
When we encapsulate all of science in a single word, we implicitly equate it with truth.
However, many fields of science are still undergoing constant revision. The importance of this distinction became all too clear during the early stages of the pandemic, when health authorities were charged with providing guidance to the public before all the details about COVID-19 were known.
Science has always come under attack. From Galileo’s demonstration that the Earth is not at the center of the universe to Charles Darwin’s argument that humans descended from earlier apes, scientists have long been seen as a threat to religious authority and its own claims of true knowledge.
One might have thought that modernity would have finally given science a decisive advantage, leading inexorably to more general acceptance of its findings, but a constantly evolving process is not a sure-footed competitor to those trafficking in timeless absolutes. Although it might feel counterintuitive, scientists themselves should resist the popular characterization of science as a body of knowledge.
In his 2019 book The Crisis of Expertise, sociologist Gil Eyal argues that the appeal to “science” and the moral panic about the “assault on science” are beside the point, because not all of “science” is in fact under assault. No one, for example, “disputes quantum mechanics, nor, for that matter, is any solid-state physics discipline under assault.”
Indeed, most of science is widely seen as “settled,” whether formally in terms of fundamental theories and understandings, or informally in the sense that most people assume that planes can fly, gravity is real and hydrogen peroxide can bleach your hair.
And yet, while most people trust medical professionals with everything from annual checkups to cancer therapies, they also subscribe to a wide range of idiosyncratic notions about health, pharmaceuticals and medical procedures.
What science journalist Michael Specter calls “denialism” is reflected in a broad array of biomedical issues, from fear of vaccines to belief in the effectiveness of nutritional supplements and, sometimes, miracle cures.
Eyal points out that most debates about science concern “what is called ‘regulatory science’ and ‘policy science,’ a collection of sub-disciplines, research programs, and techniques that have in common the need to arrive at a policy recommendation.”
These debates tend to reach a fever pitch when contentious public policy issues are inextricably linked with ongoing science — as in the case of vaccine mandates, masks, drug approvals and decarbonization (which entails massive allocations of resources).
In all these cases, the peril arises after experts have made their views known. When the process moves into realms beyond the purely scientific — legal disputes, public policy, even electoral politics — trouble frequently ensues. If expertise is seen to be associated with one side in legal proceedings, political debates and cultural questions (such as diet and lifestyle), that perception tends to undermine rather than buttress the authority of science and scientists more generally.
The dilemma is that the scientific fields most relevant to policy debates are in a constant state of testing, revision and debate by scientists themselves.
However, that is exactly how it should be. As philosopher John Dewey argued in the early 20th century, science proceeds not as a single truth or set of truths, but as a method; it is not a body of knowledge, but a process for developing more reliable knowledge.
This focus on method is meant to ensure that scientific research and discovery proceeds in a rigorous and transparent fashion. The distilled version of the scientific method taught in grade school hardly captures the wide range of ways that scientists practice their disciplines and test their hypotheses.
As important as it is to ensure that science advances methodically, we must also not lose sight of the possibilities opened up by thinking outside the box. Historically, we owe some of the most important scientific discoveries to the imaginative brilliance of visionaries such as Galileo, Darwin, Albert Einstein and Jennifer Doudna, the 2020 recipient of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for her work on genome editing.
Just as good science requires a balance between creativity and method, so, too, building trust in science requires scientists and their public advocates to communicate their findings and processes more effectively. That includes being open about the uncertainties — and serendipities — that are inherent to scientific discovery, and drawing clear distinctions between what is and is not considered settled science.
We must accept, and impress upon the public, that science owes its greatest achievements not only to its expansion into new frontiers, but also to its abiding by humility. Otherwise, the public will continue to be disappointed — and disillusioned — by many scientific claims.
Nicholas Dirks, a former chancellor of the University of California, Berkeley, is president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
As the war in Burma stretches into its 76th year, China continues to play both sides. Beijing backs the junta, which seized power in the 2021 coup, while also funding some of the resistance groups fighting the regime. Some suggest that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is hedging his bets, positioning China to side with the victors regardless of the outcome. However, a more accurate explanation is that China is acting pragmatically to safeguard its investments and ensure the steady flow of natural resources and energy for its economy. China’s primary interest is stability and supporting the junta initially seemed like the best
The US election result will significantly impact its foreign policy with global implications. As tensions escalate in the Taiwan Strait and conflicts elsewhere draw attention away from the western Pacific, Taiwan was closely monitoring the election, as many believe that whoever won would confront an increasingly assertive China, especially with speculation over a potential escalation in or around 2027. A second Donald Trump presidency naturally raises questions concerning the future of US policy toward China and Taiwan, with Trump displaying mixed signals as to his position on the cross-strait conflict. US foreign policy would also depend on Trump’s Cabinet and
Numerous expert analyses characterize today’s US presidential election as a risk for Taiwan, given that the two major candidates, US Vice President Kamala Harris and former US president Donald Trump, are perceived to possess divergent foreign policy perspectives. If Harris is elected, many presume that the US would maintain its existing relationship with Taiwan, as established through the American Institute in Taiwan, and would continue to sell Taiwan weapons and equipment to help it defend itself against China. Under the administration of US President Joe Biden, whose political views Harris shares, the US on Oct. 25 authorized arms transfers to Taiwan, another
Navy Commander Admiral Tang Hua (唐華) said in an interview with The Economist that the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has been implementing an “anaconda strategy” to subdue Taiwan since President William Lai (賴清德) assumed office. The Chinese military is “slowly, but surely” increasing its presence around Taiwan proper, it quoted Tang as saying. “They are ready to blockade Taiwan at any time they want,” he said. “They give you extreme pressure, pressure, pressure. They’re trying to exhaust you.” Beijing’s goal is to “force Taiwan to make mistakes,” Tang said, adding that they could be “excuses” for a blockade. The interview reminds me