An excellent article. My father used to say a reputation is a hard thing to earn and an easy thing to lose, so guard yours carefully. The science community didn't guard theirs carefully. And, no, I don't know how we reverse this situation because the damage is done. It's going to take a long time to rebuild trust in institutions, and currently those institutions don't seem interested in taking an active role or even taking responsibility. They just want to whine about how no one trusts them. It will take a reckoning, and that will take time.
I used to do a lot of work with expert witnesses. First thing I told them was "you only have credibility once." Second thing was "always tell the truth." Third thing was "don't mistake your opinion for the truth."
Lawyer's words. And sage advice. But the problem with too many experts these days is that in their normal environs too many never hear that. They think because they are the expert there is no one to judge them. I think Fauci epitomizes that. It is one of the negative consequences of abandoning the belief in superior beings who see and judge us.
This is a vast problem, not only for scientists, but for high-level government officials with nonpolitical jobs - as well as journalists.
At any given time, at least 40% of the population will disagree with your political takes on anything that's at all interesting. If success in your profession requires that a larger percentage than that "take you seriously", you will have to decide whether you want to be an activist or a professional.
And yes, when public health people were basically saying "Screw COVID - get out in the streets!", their credibility vanished for at least half the population. Message: COVID and public health - and the megadeath we're supposedly trying to avoid - only matters when it doesn't get in the way of immediate political objectives.
What do you want to accomplish in life? Do you want your organization and its mission to be generally successful? Or do you want to be yet another "voice" online? Unless your organization and profession is already explicitly political, it's hard to do both successfully.
If you must opine publicly on something political, the tone of the participation also matters. If you write careful, measured statements online in support of particular positions, you'll be more respected - and lose less general credibility with opponents - than if you post vitriolic nonsense. Unfortunately, social media algorithms privilege vitriol over calm discussion.
No ideology should be seen as the sole holder of truth, and if scientists become servants of any political belief, they should no longer be seen as scientists.
This should come as no surprise to anybody who isn’t mentally defective. Ironically, this doesn’t include ALL scientists.
No, we live in a world of ideological capture where people like Neil DeGrass Tyson or Bill Nye “The Science Guy” can “scientifically” claim that there are more than 2 genders and call you a bigot or transphobe for disagreeing with their lunacy.
This is a great article, but the framing is interesting. Is the perception of credibility the sole issue, or is their credibility in and of itself an issue? We perceive scientists as less credible, but are they actually less credible? I would argue that, briefly speaking, both are true. Scientists skew heavily left at the moment, and that will undoubtedly bias their findings, not just the perception of their findings.
It's really bad that society are so politically polarising around occupation. We need more Republican scientists and Democratic farmers. This is where I say culture is the main determinant. A lot of scientists are really repulsed by the values of the Republican party and farmers feel the same way about Democrats.
When the medical establishment said we needed to take all these precautions including distancing and then turning around and telling everyone it’s ok to protest, my opinion of the medical establishment was forever changed. I no longer view these professionals as neutral and providing science and research based advice and care but instead promoting an ideology. I have forever since been judging potential doctors, dentists, etc., through this lense. They should kept their mouths shut and opinions to themselves. The trust lost is entirely on these medical people.
Yeah, that was extremely idiotic. It's one thing to insist that society be cautious about COVID, you could disagree with it but it's a valid view to hold when nobody knew anything about the virus. To then turn around and say, there's nothing wrong with protesting is just malpractice. It's fine to be sympathetic with the cause of the protestors, but what's good for the goose
"These studies add up the conclusion that being viewed as politically biased can limit the reach that scientists have on the world."
It should. There's a framing here that I take issue with: that the problem is primarily one of public perception. Yes, scientists putting their political and ideological bias on public display costs them their public credibility... But the implied recommendation here is that they simply should have kept their biases to themselves and everything would be fine if they had. That Scientific American or Nature or whatever other prominent publication becoming partisan activist rags would have been a non-issue if they didn't endorse a candidate or mouth off on social media. That's not quite right. It's not so much about "being viewed as politically biased" that should be the focus here, it's about scientists "being politically biased" itself. Politically biased scientists having reach on the world is a bad thing and it being limited by their loss of public trust is a good thing. Their loss of influence is a victory for transparency and public oversight.
Yes, scientists should not be engaging in activism, agreed. It undermines their profession. Yes, scientists are also private citizens with free speech rights who are entitled to give their private opinions publicly, even on topics unrelated to their professional expertise. No, everything would NOT be fine if scientists were merely better at hiding their political and ideological biases from the public. They do not have a credibility problem now simply because there is a public perception that they are biased. They have a credibility problem because they ARE politically and ideologically biased (and the public finally realized it).
Ideological monocultures are quite literally handicapped from doing science properly. They share the same unquestioned priors and blind spots, so they don't ask certain questions that need to be asked, don't consider certain plausible answers, don't apply adversarial review to conclusions that fit their confirmation bias, often don't publish findings that won't support their activism, frequently move to discredit or censor findings that contradict their activism, and (via influence over funding, tenure, publishing, and citations) sabotage the careers and reputations of dissident scientists who do transgress against their monoculture's beliefs. Lost public trust is only a symptom, the much bigger problem is that our scientific institutions genuinely are not credible, do not deserve the public trust, and will require drastic changes to earn that trust back.
When nominally 'scientific' institutions and prominent scientists push policies without strong evidentiary basis, hide contrary evidence and cover up conflicts of interest, suppress review and debate, OUTRIGHT LIE TO AND ATTEMPT TO MANIPULATE THE PUBLIC and the worst consequence they suffer for that egregious professional malpractice is that ordinary people are less likely to read or listen to them... Why is that framed as a mere public relations misstep? Why isn't the underlying rot, the ethical violations, the professional misconduct, the deeply unscientific nature of so many activist claims, not the bigger concerns. Why, in the domain of science, is perception being treated as more important than reality?
I think it is true that overt politicization destroys objectivity. And not just of scientists. As for the you need to be six feet apart unless you are protesting social injustice that gives the lie to the six feet apart requirement. Nobody, and I mean nobody, would join large densely packed in- person protests of the most egregious human rights violations ever if you believed you were going to be infected with a viral pathogen by doing so. Rather you would find another way to to make your demands known. And a large part of the problem with perceptions of scientists is not just overt politicization but also the appearance of impropriety caused by serious conflicts of interest.
Another reason scientists lose credibility is via corruption by special interest groups such as the pharma or oil industry. As the public becomes aware of the the studies that have been paid for by x or y interest to have a particular outcome, people become much more distrusting of scientists. I find myself having to check for conflict of interest before taking most studies seriously. The only cure for that is more transparency.
"Scientists have to have the trust of the public if they want us to do things that benefit society, like vaccinating our kids."
Is there any evidence that vaccinated children are healthier than those not vaccinated? The question is sincere, although not long ago I would have thought it absurd.
Yes, they are immune to dangerous diseases. Other health parameters, no. They don't prevent obesity. They stimulate antibody production against pathogens.
Vaccines, particularly the covid variety, do not necessarily grant immunity, they mitigate the effect of the virus. As to Tim's question, it seems as though people who never experienced the severe repercussions of former epidemics are unable to make the connection of the virtual eradication of some diseases to public health success stories. Smallpox, polio, measles may have eventually reached "herd immunity" status. How many millions would have died, who knows. With all public health benefits there is a cost benefit trade-off.
"Yes, they are immune to dangerous diseases." That's exactly what I believed for most of my life. Now, not so much. Do you remember when we were promised that the covid vaccine was safe and effective? I won't even touch the "safe" part, but clearly it's not effective (when defined as providing immunity). It makes me wonder about other vaccines.
Once you think about it, it seems strange that this one particular class of meds needed the protection of The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.
Much more concerning is how the childhood vaccine schedule exploded once that act was in place.
I don't claim to be certain about vaccines, but I won't be taking them any time soon. I do sincerely hope they work well for those who take them.
Define "effective". Condoms are way better than pullouts but pullout is better than nothing. Effectiveness is a scale, not a hard limit. Safety is also a scale, planes are safer than cars but they can crash.
Multiple groups have vast immunity from lawsuits, Presidential immunity, qualified for public servants, gun manufacturers have immunity against their guns used in illegal activities, prosecutorial immunity, judges also have immunity from lawsuits, sovereign immunity. This really isn't uncommon.
It's not like scientists have been cloistered robots this whole time. Religion and philosophy have been a part of this as far back as we can go. I think this speaks to both the observer and the observed.
If there's a modern difference, it's the Internet. Few would deny that scientists can't be personally political (or religious or whatever). But if they go online and become "political voices", the credibility of their professional work can't help but take a hit with those who disagree with their politics, and if the success of their work requires agreement or at least non-obstruction by the larger population, their credibility outside their immediate professional circle will matter.
If you are a prominent climate scientist, think human-caused climate change is a thing, and favor ways to fight Co2 emissions, it won't help your cause to write screeds online - or participate in online discussions - about how capitalism and white men/etc are evil and must be destroyed or whatever to save the planet, even if you personally believe it.
An excellent article. My father used to say a reputation is a hard thing to earn and an easy thing to lose, so guard yours carefully. The science community didn't guard theirs carefully. And, no, I don't know how we reverse this situation because the damage is done. It's going to take a long time to rebuild trust in institutions, and currently those institutions don't seem interested in taking an active role or even taking responsibility. They just want to whine about how no one trusts them. It will take a reckoning, and that will take time.
I used to do a lot of work with expert witnesses. First thing I told them was "you only have credibility once." Second thing was "always tell the truth." Third thing was "don't mistake your opinion for the truth."
Lawyer's words. And sage advice. But the problem with too many experts these days is that in their normal environs too many never hear that. They think because they are the expert there is no one to judge them. I think Fauci epitomizes that. It is one of the negative consequences of abandoning the belief in superior beings who see and judge us.
This is actually excellent life advice.
This is a vast problem, not only for scientists, but for high-level government officials with nonpolitical jobs - as well as journalists.
At any given time, at least 40% of the population will disagree with your political takes on anything that's at all interesting. If success in your profession requires that a larger percentage than that "take you seriously", you will have to decide whether you want to be an activist or a professional.
And yes, when public health people were basically saying "Screw COVID - get out in the streets!", their credibility vanished for at least half the population. Message: COVID and public health - and the megadeath we're supposedly trying to avoid - only matters when it doesn't get in the way of immediate political objectives.
What do you want to accomplish in life? Do you want your organization and its mission to be generally successful? Or do you want to be yet another "voice" online? Unless your organization and profession is already explicitly political, it's hard to do both successfully.
If you must opine publicly on something political, the tone of the participation also matters. If you write careful, measured statements online in support of particular positions, you'll be more respected - and lose less general credibility with opponents - than if you post vitriolic nonsense. Unfortunately, social media algorithms privilege vitriol over calm discussion.
No ideology should be seen as the sole holder of truth, and if scientists become servants of any political belief, they should no longer be seen as scientists.
Everyone has political beliefs. There's nothing you can do about it.
Yes, and everyone has an asshole, too. But why let that control your thoughts and actions?
This should come as no surprise to anybody who isn’t mentally defective. Ironically, this doesn’t include ALL scientists.
No, we live in a world of ideological capture where people like Neil DeGrass Tyson or Bill Nye “The Science Guy” can “scientifically” claim that there are more than 2 genders and call you a bigot or transphobe for disagreeing with their lunacy.
This is a great article, but the framing is interesting. Is the perception of credibility the sole issue, or is their credibility in and of itself an issue? We perceive scientists as less credible, but are they actually less credible? I would argue that, briefly speaking, both are true. Scientists skew heavily left at the moment, and that will undoubtedly bias their findings, not just the perception of their findings.
It's really bad that society are so politically polarising around occupation. We need more Republican scientists and Democratic farmers. This is where I say culture is the main determinant. A lot of scientists are really repulsed by the values of the Republican party and farmers feel the same way about Democrats.
When the medical establishment said we needed to take all these precautions including distancing and then turning around and telling everyone it’s ok to protest, my opinion of the medical establishment was forever changed. I no longer view these professionals as neutral and providing science and research based advice and care but instead promoting an ideology. I have forever since been judging potential doctors, dentists, etc., through this lense. They should kept their mouths shut and opinions to themselves. The trust lost is entirely on these medical people.
Yeah, that was extremely idiotic. It's one thing to insist that society be cautious about COVID, you could disagree with it but it's a valid view to hold when nobody knew anything about the virus. To then turn around and say, there's nothing wrong with protesting is just malpractice. It's fine to be sympathetic with the cause of the protestors, but what's good for the goose
"These studies add up the conclusion that being viewed as politically biased can limit the reach that scientists have on the world."
It should. There's a framing here that I take issue with: that the problem is primarily one of public perception. Yes, scientists putting their political and ideological bias on public display costs them their public credibility... But the implied recommendation here is that they simply should have kept their biases to themselves and everything would be fine if they had. That Scientific American or Nature or whatever other prominent publication becoming partisan activist rags would have been a non-issue if they didn't endorse a candidate or mouth off on social media. That's not quite right. It's not so much about "being viewed as politically biased" that should be the focus here, it's about scientists "being politically biased" itself. Politically biased scientists having reach on the world is a bad thing and it being limited by their loss of public trust is a good thing. Their loss of influence is a victory for transparency and public oversight.
Yes, scientists should not be engaging in activism, agreed. It undermines their profession. Yes, scientists are also private citizens with free speech rights who are entitled to give their private opinions publicly, even on topics unrelated to their professional expertise. No, everything would NOT be fine if scientists were merely better at hiding their political and ideological biases from the public. They do not have a credibility problem now simply because there is a public perception that they are biased. They have a credibility problem because they ARE politically and ideologically biased (and the public finally realized it).
Ideological monocultures are quite literally handicapped from doing science properly. They share the same unquestioned priors and blind spots, so they don't ask certain questions that need to be asked, don't consider certain plausible answers, don't apply adversarial review to conclusions that fit their confirmation bias, often don't publish findings that won't support their activism, frequently move to discredit or censor findings that contradict their activism, and (via influence over funding, tenure, publishing, and citations) sabotage the careers and reputations of dissident scientists who do transgress against their monoculture's beliefs. Lost public trust is only a symptom, the much bigger problem is that our scientific institutions genuinely are not credible, do not deserve the public trust, and will require drastic changes to earn that trust back.
When nominally 'scientific' institutions and prominent scientists push policies without strong evidentiary basis, hide contrary evidence and cover up conflicts of interest, suppress review and debate, OUTRIGHT LIE TO AND ATTEMPT TO MANIPULATE THE PUBLIC and the worst consequence they suffer for that egregious professional malpractice is that ordinary people are less likely to read or listen to them... Why is that framed as a mere public relations misstep? Why isn't the underlying rot, the ethical violations, the professional misconduct, the deeply unscientific nature of so many activist claims, not the bigger concerns. Why, in the domain of science, is perception being treated as more important than reality?
Excellent article.
I think it is true that overt politicization destroys objectivity. And not just of scientists. As for the you need to be six feet apart unless you are protesting social injustice that gives the lie to the six feet apart requirement. Nobody, and I mean nobody, would join large densely packed in- person protests of the most egregious human rights violations ever if you believed you were going to be infected with a viral pathogen by doing so. Rather you would find another way to to make your demands known. And a large part of the problem with perceptions of scientists is not just overt politicization but also the appearance of impropriety caused by serious conflicts of interest.
Another reason scientists lose credibility is via corruption by special interest groups such as the pharma or oil industry. As the public becomes aware of the the studies that have been paid for by x or y interest to have a particular outcome, people become much more distrusting of scientists. I find myself having to check for conflict of interest before taking most studies seriously. The only cure for that is more transparency.
"Scientists have to have the trust of the public if they want us to do things that benefit society, like vaccinating our kids."
Is there any evidence that vaccinated children are healthier than those not vaccinated? The question is sincere, although not long ago I would have thought it absurd.
Yes, they are immune to dangerous diseases. Other health parameters, no. They don't prevent obesity. They stimulate antibody production against pathogens.
Vaccines, particularly the covid variety, do not necessarily grant immunity, they mitigate the effect of the virus. As to Tim's question, it seems as though people who never experienced the severe repercussions of former epidemics are unable to make the connection of the virtual eradication of some diseases to public health success stories. Smallpox, polio, measles may have eventually reached "herd immunity" status. How many millions would have died, who knows. With all public health benefits there is a cost benefit trade-off.
"Yes, they are immune to dangerous diseases." That's exactly what I believed for most of my life. Now, not so much. Do you remember when we were promised that the covid vaccine was safe and effective? I won't even touch the "safe" part, but clearly it's not effective (when defined as providing immunity). It makes me wonder about other vaccines.
Once you think about it, it seems strange that this one particular class of meds needed the protection of The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.
Much more concerning is how the childhood vaccine schedule exploded once that act was in place.
I don't claim to be certain about vaccines, but I won't be taking them any time soon. I do sincerely hope they work well for those who take them.
Define "effective". Condoms are way better than pullouts but pullout is better than nothing. Effectiveness is a scale, not a hard limit. Safety is also a scale, planes are safer than cars but they can crash.
Multiple groups have vast immunity from lawsuits, Presidential immunity, qualified for public servants, gun manufacturers have immunity against their guns used in illegal activities, prosecutorial immunity, judges also have immunity from lawsuits, sovereign immunity. This really isn't uncommon.
It's not like scientists have been cloistered robots this whole time. Religion and philosophy have been a part of this as far back as we can go. I think this speaks to both the observer and the observed.
If there's a modern difference, it's the Internet. Few would deny that scientists can't be personally political (or religious or whatever). But if they go online and become "political voices", the credibility of their professional work can't help but take a hit with those who disagree with their politics, and if the success of their work requires agreement or at least non-obstruction by the larger population, their credibility outside their immediate professional circle will matter.
If you are a prominent climate scientist, think human-caused climate change is a thing, and favor ways to fight Co2 emissions, it won't help your cause to write screeds online - or participate in online discussions - about how capitalism and white men/etc are evil and must be destroyed or whatever to save the planet, even if you personally believe it.