Science denial: a guide for scientists

There are several ways to address an alarming trend of intentional misinformation and character assassination targeting the scientific community.

EMBO reports

In spite of fast and continuous progress in science, general education, and easy access to highquality information, many non-scientists are surprisingly uninformed, or misinformed, about the state of expert consensus on scientific debates and technologies. A sizeable number of laypeople in the USA are still skeptical of global warming or the theory of evolution, and a significant proportion of people in the West believe that genetically modified foods are dangerous, that vaccines are not safe, or that nuclear power plants release significant amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Not only does misinformation about scientific facts contribute to feeding unnecessary anxieties, it also has hazardous political and economic consequences. Public policies are partly oriented by moral choices about which values society should pursue or uphold, but their implementation critically relies on factual beliefs about how the world works and which technology can achieve what. The accuracy of these beliefs conditions the policies' success. Whether they are in the position of voters, journalists, or policy makers, it is therefore crucial that citizens be informed about the state of the art if they are to make decisions that effectively achieve stated goals.

Global Environmental Change, 2015

Annals of The American Academy of Political and Social Science, 2022

Most democracies seek input from scientists to inform policies. This can put scientists in a position of intense scrutiny. Here we focus on situations in which scientific evidence conflicts with people's worldviews, preferences, or vested interests. These conflicts frequently play out through systematic dissemination of disinformation or the spreading of conspiracy theories, which may undermine the public's trust in the work of scientists, muddy the waters of what constitutes truth, and may prevent policy from being informed by the best available evidence. However, there are also instances in which public opposition arises from legitimate value judgments and lived experiences. In this article, we analyze the differences between politically-motivated science denial on the one hand, and justifiable public opposition on the other. We conclude with a set of recommendations on tackling misinformation and understanding the public's lived experiences to preserve legitimate democratic debate of policy.

PLOS ONE, 2021

Since the 1970s, there has been a growing interest in how individuals appropriate scientific knowledge, which has recently been reinforced by societal issues such as vaccine releases and skepticism about global warming. Faced with the health and social consequences of the mistrust of scientific knowledge, there is an urgent need for tools to measure the acceptance or rejection of scientific knowledge, while at the same time gaining a more detailed understanding of the processes involved. This is the purpose of this article. Thus, we conducted 4 empirical studies to provide a validation of the Credibility of Science Scale from the perspective of a French population, which aims to assess the credibility that individuals attribute to science and to empirically evaluate the link that may exist between the different levels of credibility attributed to science and the social representations of science. Studies 1a and 1b demonstrated good structural validity, the good fidelity (homogeneity...

Sustainability

Despite significant growth in interest and investment in science communication, the field has demonstrated some high-profile failures in recent years—exemplified by anti-vaccine and anti-climate change beliefs—supported by interest groups that are often highly effective at promoting anti-science messages. This paper looks at five key areas where science communication research and practice need to do better, and offers some solutions, in order to achieve the impact that science communicators strive for.

2021

Explanations of science denial rooted in individual cognition tend to focus on general trait-like factors such as cognitive style, conspiracist ideation or delusional ideation. However, we argue that this focus typically glosses over the concrete, mechanistic elements of belief formation, such as hypothesis generation, data gathering, or hypothesis evaluation. We show, empirically, that such elements predict variance in science denial not accounted for by cognitive style, even after accounting for social factors such as political ideology. We conclude that a cognitive account of science denial would benefit from the study of complex (i.e., open-ended, multi-stage) problem solving that incorporates these mechanistic elements.

Nature Climate Change, 2019

Nowhere has the impact of scientific misinformation been more profound than on the issue of climate change in the United States. Effective responses to this multifaceted problem have been slow to develop, in large part because many experts have not only underestimated its impact, but have also overlooked the underlying institutional structure, organizational power and financial roots of misinformation. Fortunately, a growing body of sophisticated research has emerged that can help us to better understand these dynamics and provide the basis for developing a coordinated set of strategies across four related areas (public inoculation, legal strategies, political mechanisms and financial transparency) to thwart large-scale misinformation campaigns before they begin, or after they have taken root.

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

In the current paper, we argue that to get a better understanding of the psychological antecedents of COVID-related science skepticism, it is pivotal to review what is known about the (social) psychology of science skepticism. Recent research highlighting the role of ideologies and worldviews in shaping science skepticism can inform research questions as well as pandemic responses to COVID-19. It is likely that the antecedents of general COVID-19-related skepticism substantially overlap with the antecedents of climate change skepticism. Additionally, skepticism about a potential vaccine in particular will likely be fueled by similar worries and misperceptions to those shaping more general antivaccination attitudes, of which conspiracy thinking is particularly worth highlighting. We conclude by reflecting on how the COVID-19 crisis may shape future social-psychological research aimed at understanding trust in science and science skepticism.