Do you trust science? This is the question asked by The Aspen Institute Science & Society Program during 2023. This is a question I have tried to address here in Theology and Science.Footnote1 I am ready to raise it again.
Actually, the question is a bit more complicated. Here is what the Aspen Institute asks: “How can we design and implement systems and structures to foster dialogue, collaboration, and co-creation about issues related to science across diverse sectors and publics?” Such research questions are pursued with five core values in mind:
Integrity: Science offers methodical pursuits to understand the natural world
Ethics: Scientists and the public share responsibility to implement science for the benefit of humanity
Hope: Scientific innovation will make the world safer, healthier, and more connected
Trust: The rigor of data and evidence leads to confidence in discovery
Equity: A diverse and inclusive scientific workforce is essential to solve the world’s complex problemsFootnote2
I served as one of a couple dozen consultants to analyze, criticize, visualize, and formulize the problem: How can we encourage public trust in science? You may expect results from our sapientizing in a few months. Watch for the Aspen report, Building Bridges, Earning Trust: The Why and the How of Public Trust in Science.Footnote3
Does the Aspen Institute trust science?
Specifically, the Aspen Institute’s concern over trust in science was informed by the recent successes and perceived shortcomings of the scientific community with regards to the COVID-19 pandemic. At least according to a preliminary working document.
On the one hand, scientists diverged from historical practices of biospecimen work and garnered the trust of American Indian, Alaska Native, Black, and Latino/a/x communities during clinical trials and vaccination efforts through the National Institutes of Health (NIH)’s Community Engagement Alliance Against COVID-19 Disparities. On the other hand, vaccine hesitancy persisted into the later Delta and Omicron waves of the virus—a time when immunizations were freely available—translating to over 234,000 preventable deaths. These deaths were concentrated in specific areas of the country, disproportionately occurring in the South. People died unnecessarily.
Did science fail? Did science communication fail? Did misinformation and disinformation fail all of us?
Misinformation and disinformation
Most Aspen Institute consultants agreed that critical aspects of the science ‘infodemic’ can be traced to intentionally bad actors. Bad actors caused pain through disinformation. Not just misinformation. But outright disinformation.
According to the American Psychological Association, “Misinformation is false or inaccurate information—getting the facts wrong. Disinformation is false information which is deliberately intended to mislead—intentionally misstating the facts.”Footnote4
Disinformation can be deadly. The “point of disinformation is not just to get you to believe a falsehood,” it was said. “It’s to polarize you, to make you think that the people on the other side—the people who are telling the truth, are your enemy, even to hate them, to make physical threats against them.” Again, disinformation in the case of the pandemic turned out to be deadly.
Tragically, it is the disinformation and not the unnecessary deaths that have led to the public’s mistrust of science. Targeted disinformation, when combined with ambient misinformation, makes for a cocktail of mistrust.
Though disinformers have impacted trust in a range of scientific disciplines, Aspen consultants noted that actors from flat-earthers to evolution objectors and from climate change deniers to vaccine opponents all employ similar (flawed) reasoning strategies. In specific reference to COVID-19 vaccine disinformers, one Aspen participent summarized these disinformers as cultivating an “organized, well-financed, and politically motivated ecosystem that deliberately targeted individuals.” Using the public health crisis to their advantage, such campaigns managed to strengthen their influence at a time when federal science agencies were faltering.
Can we trust our scientists in the future?
The Aspen Institute conversants presumed without objection that the globe-wide scientific community is trustworthy. We should all celebrate the fact that the scientific method soberly renders judgments only when the evidence supports them. This constitutes the scientific morality of knowledge.
I, for one, trust the ideals with which scientists work. And most scientists I have come to know and respect are trustworthy people. When faced with a pandemic outbreak, medical scientists are the first ones I would turn to.
What do we want to see happen in the future? Communities ought to have access to trusted information so that they are well-equipped to address societal problems such as environmental justice. That is what the Aspen Institute recommends. I do too.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Ted Peters
Ted Peters is Distinguished Research Professor Emeritus in Theology and Ethics at Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary and the Graduate Theological Union. He is founding co-editor of the journal Theology and Science. See his website, TedsTimelyTake.com.
Notes
1 Ted Peters, “Allies in the Struggle Against the Post-Truth Swarm,” Theology and Science 17:4 (November 2019) 427–430; https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14746700.2019.1670927. See also: Jennifer Baldwin, ed., Navigating Post-Truth and Alternative Facts (Lanham: Lexington, 2018).
2 Aspen Institute Science and Society Program, https://www.aspeninstitute.org/programs/science-society/.
3 Aspen Institute, Building Bridges, Earning Trust: The Why and the How of Public Trust in Science, https://www.aspeninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/WHY-and-HOW-of-Public-Trust-in-Science-Aspen-Institute.pdf.
4 American Psychological Association, “Misinformation and Disinformation,” https://www.apa.org/topics/journalism-facts/misinformation-disinformation (accessed October 17 2023).