“Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not their own facts.” – former U.S. Senator Daniel Moynihan (1927-2003)
Opposing views are not difficult to come across whether online or in person. In the context of controversial scientific issues such as vaccines, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and climate change, differences in opinion are especially apparent. However, with the large amount of empirical evidence surrounding these issues, one’s opinions may either closely align with or be contrary to the scientific consensus. This seemingly modern conflict is hauntingly reminiscent of former Senator Daniel Moynihan’s statement from the mid-20th century that “everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not their own facts.” An opinion on a controversial science issue is valid, but it is also possible to conceive it from the wrong information.
This is a dilemma that directly affects fields such as public health, where misinformation and “facts” that do not align with the scientific consensus may lead to problematic policymaking, or worse, a dangerous outbreak. The science community has a responsibility to understand how the public receives and processes scientific results during this era of fake news and misinformation.
A growing field that is helping the scientific community to understand how the public processes research is science communication. Using cognitive psychological research methods, researchers would observe behavioral patterns and responses that may correlate with the subject’s reception of scientific research. Although most of these experimental methods, such as surveys and questionnaires, involve self-reporting, these results provide a telling picture of the state of public opinion and their views on controversial science issues. With these resources, the science community may be more cognizant of how it communicates scientific research to lay audiences of various political and cultural backgrounds.
Cognizant (adjective): having knowledge or awareness. “Science communication research shows that individuals are highly motivated to validate their own personal beliefs. Therefore, the science community should be cognizant of this when discussing controversial science topics such as vaccine safety.”
Image Source: Jose Luis Palaez
Across Party Lines?
A common presumption involving political affiliations and controversial science issues is that conservative members of the public (e.g. Republicans) are more inclined to reject empirical evidence, especially regarding climate change. Many individuals carrying the opposite political affiliation (e.g. liberals and Democrats) are likely to make that presumption. In 2018, Leaf Van Boven et al. published a research study that surveyed individuals of various political affiliations and asked how members of other political parties believed in anthropogenic (or human-driven) climate change. Individuals self-reported as Democrats or Independents rated Republicans’ belief in climate change lower than their own. Interestingly, Republicans also rated their own beliefs in climate change lower than Democrats.
In another 2018 study, Josh Pasek looked at the relationship of political affiliation and scientific consensus of various science topics. They found that both Republicans and Democrats aligned their personal beliefs with the science community on most topics, except controversial issues like evolution and climate change. In these topics, the beliefs were more polarized and most Republicans significantly strayed from the scientific consensus. However, these results alone do not provide a big enough picture of how the public processes scientific research. These findings only correlate political affiliations with certain science topics.
Image Source: Morsa Images
To determine patterns in how the public processes controversial science research, researchers should present subjects with a piece of scientific evidence before asking subjects about their belief and trust in the findings. Dan Kahan, a Yale Law professor and political scientist, performed this experiment in a key study to see how an individual’s beliefs affect how they perceive scientific research. Kahan presented subjects with a statement from a fictional scientist that either supported or disproved climate change. He then asked subjects to assess the expertise of the scientist. He found that both liberals and conservatives dismissed the statements and did not view the scientist as an “expert” when the statement did not align with the subject’s own beliefs.
Building on these earlier findings, another study found that both liberals and conservatives incorrectly interpreted empirical evidence when the findings did not align with their beliefs on controversial science topics. Even knowing the political affiliations of the scientist themselves can skew the public’s interpretations of scientific evidence and the credibility of the scientist. Therefore, patterns of science denial, alignment with scientific consensus, and interpretation of scientific research do not rely on political affiliation. There is no particular party that aligns itself with science.
So, what else might lead to deviating an opinion away from the scientific consensus? Continue to the second part of Controversial (Science) Issues.
Feature Image Source: Rawpixel.com – stock.adobe.com.
