Kirsten Vanstone, Executive Director of RCIScience, reflects on science communication and trust in science during the COVID-19 pandemic.
During this strange time of pandemic, we have a rare opportunity to watch science in fast-forward mode, operating under a media spotlight, something it usually can’t get, even by jumping, naked, in front of a TV camera! In these strange days, we see scientists standing at the podium next to the world’s leaders. Scientists are sought after by journalists and are even becoming social media stars of 2020. But how long will this last?
You may have noticed that even your non-sciencey friends and neighbours can tell you what a nasopharyngeal swab does and may even be able to use the term reagent correctly in a sentence. I have recently acquired these skills myself, in fact. Remember the guy in your high school math class who complained that none of what he was learning would be of any use in real life? He’s now pouring over daily outbreak graphs, reading logarithmic scales and arguing with you on Facebook about whether it’s better to present cases per capita than simply the overall case number. But best of all, that guy understands the idea behind “flattening the curve” and is doing his best to make it happen.
Sure, there’s an epidemic of misinformation spreading like its own plague. Some have called this the “infodemic.” But I’m noticing more people calling out pseudoscience than I ever have before. And not just people in my science-aware bubble. Witness the outcry when an Ontario cottage country business declared that COVID-19 was a hoax and that it would welcome anyone with a cough and fever to its store. Is this outcry a signal that more people are putting their trust in science?
Maybe, but at the same time, a lot of people are frustrated that there are very few hard facts about this novel coronavirus. Not yet, anyway. As we watch the scientific process unfold under unprecedented scrutiny, the information we get evolves quickly at a time when people want answers - need answers - now!
Some argue that the general lack of appreciation of science as a process rather than a set of facts, particularly evident in the apparent flip-flopping on medical advice, is partly due to how science is most often communicated. That is, as a done deal with no context or as "scientists say" statements - as if scientists are lab coated tricorders that rapidly assess a situation and spit back information (a tricorder is a fictional, multi-purpose sensor used on the TV series, Star Trek).
Stripping science naked, as this crisis has done, also reveals some great science communication. You can read stories, many freed from newspaper paywalls, that reveal the process of science in all of its gory detail. Ivan Semeniuk’s stories in the Globe & Mail are a great example. In chronological order, they read like an unfolding detective story.
Even social media, that petri-dish of misinformation, is filling up with fantastic science. Dr. Samantha Yammine (aka Science Sam) curates content across a number of social media platforms, addressing questions like, “should I wear a mask?” and interviewing an ER doctor who can give us a look at a day in the life of a front-line healthcare worker. Prominent scientists are doing their part as well. David Naylor took to Twitter to present his views as a public health expert through a series of conversations with his dog, Oscar.
All of this helps to make science more relatable to non-scientists. It helps illuminate the process of science and, hopefully, to build trust in science. As Dr. Allison McGeer said in a 2015 RCIScience talk about vaccines, “A piece of what you believe in about anything scientific is about who you trust. And who you trust is about who’s in your community and what the chat in your community is and what other people in your community believe.”
The good news is that it seems to be working. A happy truth is emerging from this crisis: a lot of us think science is the best place to turn to for advice in this crisis. A survey conducted by York University reveals the extent to which Canadians have put their trust in science during this crisis. From the preliminary report, here’s what Canadians thought that the government was considering when making decisions about the Coronavirus:
Over half of Canadians selected “economic considerations” (56%), scientific evidence (53%), and advice from medical doctors (53%), although “international influences” and “political considerations” attracted a relatively high number of respondents as well (42% and 34%, respectively). In other words, Canadians identified a wide range of influences as currently affecting government decision-making.
Kennedy, Eric; Vikse, Jenna; Chaufan, Claudia; O'Doherty, Kieran; Wu, Cary; Qian, Yue; et al. (2020): Canadian COVID-19 Social Impacts Survey - Summary of Results #1: Risk Perceptions, Trust, Impacts, and Responses. Preprint. p12, Figure 6: Which of these considerations ARE affecting government decision-making?https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12121905.v2
That’s good! We trust that our government is considering science in its overall decision making around this crisis. But what’s really cool is who Canadians think our government should be listening to:
By contrast, Canadians were much more decisive on which influences should affect decision making. A vast majority of Canadians (82% and 78%, respectively) thought that “scientific evidence” and “advice from medical doctors” should be the primary influences on government-decision making…
Canadian COVID-19 Social Impacts Survey - Summary of Results #1: Risk Perceptions, Trust, Impacts, and Responses. Preprint. p. 13, Figure 7: Which of these considerations SHOULD affect government decision-making?
That is encouraging news for everyone who believes that science should have a seat at the policy table. The majority of Canadian citizens agree with us. This might be the biggest silver lining of the entire Coronavirus/COVID-19 crisis.
That and I haven’t read the name ‘Kardashian’ in my news feeds in over a month!
Now our challenge as science communicators is to make sure this outlasts the pandemic.