Trust in science must be restored in ‘anti-science America’

Trust in science must be restored in ‘anti-science America’

Written by Matt Motta

Former President Donald Trump has vowed to “fire” those who are said to have “Marxist lunatics” controlling university education and its leadership. President Trump campaigned on a promise to deaccredit universities and suggested that “academics are obsessed with indoctrinating America’s youth.”

Ahead of the 2016 election campaign, he regularly called climate scientists politically motivated “hoaxers.” He described his country’s public health officials as “idiots” and called National Institute of Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci a “disaster” responsible for pandemic-related deaths.

Although President Trump’s efforts to smear scientific experts have been laced with his signature conspiracy theories and drama, many Americans may still share his views.

About supporting science journalism

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting our award-winning journalism. Currently subscribing. By subscribing, you help ensure future generations of influential stories about the discoveries and ideas that shape the world today.

President Trump’s personal attacks on experts represent a dangerous and politically consequential form of anti-intellectualism that has long been present in American life. in my new book anti-science Americans Based on historian Richard Hofstadter’s Pulitzer Prize-winning work Anti-intellectualism in American lifeby conceptualizing anti-intellectualism as an emotionally arousing dislike and distrust of scientists, university professors, and other experts. Anti-intellectualism is much more than a mere rejection of the scientific method or rational thinking. It’s personal.

Here’s what I found from nearly 80 years of public opinion data that tracks the prevalence, political origins, and consequences of anti-intellectualism in the United States: He held anti-intellectual views at every point during the decade. Republicans were particularly prone to these views in the wake of the Tea Party movement of the 2010s, which used a lot of anti-expert rhetoric to challenge President Obama’s health and environmental goals. The politicization of the coronavirus response will only exacerbate this trend, which can be attributed in part to President Trump’s smearing.

Fundamentally, anti-intellectualism threatens evidence-based policymaking by motivating dangerous opposition to scientific consensus on important issues related to public health, climate change, and economics. Americans with anti-intellectual views were more reluctant to get vaccinated against the coronavirus early in the pandemic. They are more likely to believe that climate change is not human-caused. and are more likely to express incorrect perceptions about macroeconomic performance. Conspiratorial claims of “fake” good economic news by voices like Elon Musk, rumors that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will be elevated to former President Trump’s chief health adviser, and unrestricted claims about government-made hurricanes. And so on, we’re seeing this now. From Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene.

Worse, anti-intellectualism is so prevalent among the American public that policymakers believe they should reject experts. I believe that during periods of relatively high public anti-intellectualism (possibly due to media attention to attacks on scientific expertise), Congress may We showed that the frequency with which scholars are convened (within each parliamentary session) tends to be several dozen times lower.

Anti-intellectualism is a pervasive force in American public life. But I believe change is possible.

One way to increase Americans’ trust in experts might be to stimulate curiosity about science. Over time, people who show a high level of interest in new discoveries, space exploration, and technology are less likely to have negative attitudes toward scientists and other professionals.

Social psychology provides some clues as to why stimulating interest in science plays a uniquely powerful role in restoring trust in experts. In theory, people who are interested in scientific topics tend to be more interested and open to exploring new ideas. Even if those ideas challenge their previously held beliefs. Psychologically, people who are more motivated to consume scientific information tend to be more “cognitively open.”

Recent research shows that cognitive openness resulting from heightened scientific curiosity may encourage Americans to accept the scientific consensus on climate change. It is different from partisans who already have a scientific education. A peer-reviewed study by Dan Kahn and colleagues at Yale Law School found that the more knowledgeable people are about basic scientific facts and methods, the more likely they are to use that information to confirm (rather than challenge) their beliefs. ) was found to be frequently used to affirm. For example, knowledgeable Democrats are more likely to believe that climate change is man-made, whereas knowledgeable Republicans are less likely to believe the same (but not). On the other hand, people who simply have a strong scientific curiosity tend to be more accepting of climate science, regardless of party affiliation.

in anti-science Americans I show that this basic psychological process extends to public perceptions of scientific experts. While some may feel skeptical about scientists’ purported political and economic motivations, curiosity about their work appears to suppress such negative attitudes. As we have shown in previous research, stimulating curiosity can be particularly impactful for young people, who are at a critical stage in the formation of their attitudes toward science.

One powerful way to restore trust in experts in an “anti-science America” ​​may be to expose young children and teens to the wonders of scientific progress. Efforts like Boston Mayor Michelle Wu’s initiative to make the Boston Museum of Science free to all public school children each month could give students more access to the wonders of scientific achievement. This can stimulate lifelong curiosity about scientific topics and correspondingly increase trust in scientific experts.

Efforts like Wu’s highlight the role of experts in the policy-making process and how protecting the evidence they bring that impacts the important issues of the day may itself be a matter of public policy. Suggests. I look forward to further efforts to make scientific advances more accessible to America’s youth, and I remain hopeful about the role these efforts will play in restoring America’s trust in our experts.

This is an opinion and analysis article and the views expressed by the author are not necessarily those of the author. scientific american.