Rebuilding the Philippine Public’s Trust in Science
by Helene Shoshana Kong
“…the goal is to shift the discussion from proving scientific ideas are true to thinking of policies that will benefit everyone”
Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been an eroding trust towards the sciences. From people believing that they could “cure” autism and that the earth is flat, many would agree that there was already a problem with how people understand science. During the pandemic, the effects of public distrust towards the sciences are to a much higher degree, with people refusing to take vaccines and holding on to natural immunity instead. Despite how more knowledge is accessible today and that it is widely accepted that the virus can drastically affect lives, numerous countries are still struggling to rebuild their societies and economies. This situation shows the dangers of distrust. Distrust can mean a population is capable of thinking for themselves and holding people accountable for their actions, but it can also make it difficult for people to communicate and foster positive change.
Knowing how much this distrust affects human lives, solutions to rebuild trust are necessary to improve the quality of life. Many could say that it is possible to gain public trust through scientific communication from scientists. However, despite the efforts of the scientific community to share information in the best way they can, the issue cannot be merely solved by scientists alone. Because of this, it is vital to understand that there are varying specific ways people can distrust certain topics that relate to the sciences.
One way people can grow distrust is through the confusion on what to believe. An example of an instance that leads to confusion is when there are differing opinions from leaders, which leads to confusion as leaders try to persuade people to believe in them. Another that is especially seen in the COVID-19 pandemic is the public discussions of what is widely accepted by many scientists and how that can constantly change. One Forbes article written by JV Chamary discussed the conflicting statements on the chances of airborne transmission. Because the World Health Organization (WHO) believed there was not enough evidence, they expressed how unlikely that was the case. However, later on, they explained that it is possible, which in itself, could lead to much confusion. The real root of the problem, however, was that those working in the organization were unwilling to listen to other experts, specifically aerosol experts, assessing studies themselves. This caused conflict of ideas, especially since not all scientists would share the same knowledge on everything. In turn, this leads to a larger issue as information changes are inconsistent with how many perceive the sciences even if it is normal for the sciences to change claims based on new information.
It is also possible that this confusion is a consequence of how public trust in various respected entities is deteriorating. Because science is also political, another way that stirs up public distrust is the division caused by the difference in political standpoints. In the past years, there has been a rise in populist leaders. They took control of countries by exploiting public distrust and dividing people between the corrupt “elite” and everyone else. Distrust can also come from religion, which is usually believed to have views different from the sciences and is a known major contributor to this disconnect. Additionally, there has also been the presence of fake news that, with the help of various social media sites, reaches many people at such a fast pace. Fake news is further proliferated by the nature of these sites as algorithms try to give the best content to subscribers by assessing what people have previously interacted with, unknowingly forming echo chambers that make it difficult for users to receive information from those with different personalities, beliefs, and circumstances, which further strengthens their thoughts since no one would challenge them. Beyond the confusion of what is true or false, someone can also be more dismissive of the sciences because of a more personal standpoint. Typically, this happens when science is about health, which discusses what a person should do. This point is further supported by a survey conducted in America, showing that scientists and the public are more likely to see space and bioengineered fuels in the same way compared to other topics like genetically modified foods, vaccines, and climate change.
These reasons show that society needs to form more systematic change to solve this problem. One possible solution could be changing the educational system to make education more inclusive while also caring for the well-being of teachers and students. Making education more accessible helps people learn information on facts and on how to assess fact from fantasy. It would also be helpful for schools to focus on imparting knowledge on how to assess information critically, especially in social media, since using the internet requires the capability to filter out false information. Beyond education, another solution is through clamoring for more equality and for a government that can represent the interests of many to preserve trust towards various entities. This trust is essential as it can help people become less afraid of listening to the media or applying scientific inventions or ideas in their lives. It is also possible to form collaborations. One collaboration can be with religious leaders by supporting them whenever they share similar views, like the encyclical of Pope Francis, Laudato si’. It is also possible to communicate with businesses. An example would be considering the status of businesses when forming environmental efforts since they provide jobs and services to communities. This way, it is possible to lessen how controversial scientific topics are to those who do not belong to the scientific community. However, society also has to consider major changes in leadership. To help lessen public distrust not only on the sciences, but also on other powerful institutions of Philippine society, it would help that various scientists are a part of deciding on certain policies in the country. This way, people also understand that the purpose of the sciences is to help people and not just to work in laboratories. Being more nuanced to the problems of the Philippines, creating government projects has to be done carefully. They should be done with the input of scientists and other professionals and communication with the media to avoid miscommunication and fear, like what happened in the Dengvaxia controversy that increased vaccine hesitancy.
Therefore, although the dangers of the public distrust of the sciences are real, there are solutions, but rebuilding public trust does not only require changes in how people see the sciences. It is also a matter of how the institutions that lead society are perceived by the public. Bringing back that trust means changing how our society functions and treats the sciences. Overall, despite the complexity of the distrust, the goal is to shift the discussion from proving scientific ideas are true to thinking of policies that will benefit everyone. Even if these solutions seem to be on a large scale, as individuals, learning how to slowly change society through individual choices is always a move in the right direction.
