“Discrediting science is a political strategy”

In an interview published by The GuardianHarvard professor Naomi Oreskes discusses the theme of her most recently published book, "Why Trust Science?", in which she argues that if more people heard about the personal values of scientists, we would be better able to counter the anti-science sentiment that has been growing in recent years. As a scholar of the history of science, Oreskes has even brought this issue to the U.S. government by presenting an analysis of the oil industry and its attempt to suppress the truth about climate change.

In her previous book, "Merchants of Doubt," Oreskes presented the tactics used by professionals who deny climate change, which she also presented in her public lectures. However, the professor confesses that after revealing this information, she would often be asked why people should trust science. "I thought that was a legitimate question," says the researcher, who nevertheless believes that the alarm over the loss of faith in science is greater than what is actually happening. "Public surveys in the United States have consistently shown that people still trust science, much more than they trust the government or industry. However, there are certain areas, for example regarding climate change, vaccination, and evolution, where there is a high level of public suspicion. In these areas, people resist accepting what the evidence shows because of their values. Science can be seen as conflicting with their political, moral, or religious views, or even their economic interests," Oreskes explains.

Beyond that, the professor also states that, ultimately, discrediting science is also a political strategy, especially when we take into account the issue of fossil fuels and how that industry is creating the impression that climate change science is incorrect. In this sense, one can even observe this in the stance of President Donald Trump, whose dismissal of science Oreskes considers deeply problematic, as it demonstrates that it is acceptable for individuals and companies to reject science as well. "This is also proof that it is not just about people who do not have good access to scientific information. The president probably has more access to scientific information than anyone in the world, but he actively rejects it in various spheres because science conflicts with his own interests," the researcher argues.

So how do we convince people to trust science and the scientific method? Oreskes says there is no secret formula to guarantee results, but one of the reasons we should trust science is the fact that there are rigorous processes to be followed to prove a hypothesis. This includes the peer review of articles submitted for publication and presentation at conferences, which is, after all, a social practice, since the goal is to reach a consensus among reviewers that a scientific subject has been presented with confidence and support. "We should also trust science because it is done by people who are experts in studying nature. It is very tempting to be skeptical of experts, but we trust trained people in all kinds of things we do daily: dentists fix our teeth and plumbers unclog our sinks. Science also has a substantial number of successes: think of medicines and technologies, which suggests that scientists are doing something right," says Oreskes.

Even so, as in the case of movements like flat-earthers or anti-vaxxers, there are always arguments that attempt to counter scientific claims, such as the idea that scientists once assumed eugenics was scientific, when today we know it is not. So, why couldn't scientists also be wrong about climate change? Oreskes counters by saying that if you look closely at the issue of eugenics, there was never, in fact, a consensus among scientists on this issue, especially if you take into account British geneticists and evolutionary biologists like J.B.S. Haldane and Julian Huxley. These two cases, for example, were scientists who happened to be socialists and who looked at eugenics as a kind of bias against the working class. According to Oreskes, this case shows how diversity in science (and, in this case, political diversity) can point to other paths that would not have emerged otherwise.

On the other hand, another issue raised by Oreskes in her books is that there is often a problem of poor journalism rather than scientific failure, as was the case with the dental floss controversy in 2016. This all happened because the U.S. government decided to focus only on diet and remove the use of dental floss from its recommendations. An Associated Press journalist noticed this discrepancy and decided to look for the scientific basis for the use of dental floss against gum disease and cavities. "He discovered that if you looked for evidence using the gold standard of evidence (randomized double-blind controlled trials), there was nothing. But you can't do that kind of test: you can tell if you are flossing or not. If you do that kind of test, there will necessarily be no 'hard' evidence to support flossing," explains Oreskes, who also says there is a certain fetishism about these methods, especially when it comes to nutrition and exercise—areas where it is not possible to conduct such tests or where it would be unethical. "In these cases and in other types of studies, such as population or animal studies, this method can be valuable. But if you have other types of information, for example from dentists and our own experience that flossing is very good for our teeth and gums, we should not ignore it."

How, then, should we act so that people trust scientists and science more? For Oreskes, it is not about giving people more scientific information, but rather having scientists talk more about the values that motivate them to do science. "In many cases, the values of scientists are much less different from those of the people who are rejecting science than one might think. You might think of people who reject vaccination as being 'on the other side,' but we all love our children. What for a scientist is 'biodiversity' might be 'Creation' for believers, but they are all talking about the same thing," says the professor, who also reinforces that it is possible for a scientist to talk about their research and also their personal motivations. "In my book, I talk about something deeply personal: my own experience with birth control pills and depression. It may not be convincing to everyone, but people are much more likely to believe factual information when there is identification or human connection."

But more than that, Oreskes also talks about the importance of amplifying discussions that are often restricted to academia, which calls into question outreach and the invitation to reflection. For this reason, Oreskes argues that academics should be very clear about their purposes and never accept a non-disclosure agreement: "It is essential in science that we let things spread as they should."