Editor’s Note: This is the second in a series of articles on trust in science.
In the summer of 2021, employees at a Las Vegas pet shop put up a sign warning consumers that they would not buy antimicrobials unless they produced a photo of themselves with a horse. Reason: People were buying ivermectin with the false belief that it was proven to protect people from COVID-19, despite government warnings about side effects including diarrhea, hypotension and seizures.
“You need to show me you have a horse” to buy the drug, a store clerk told a TV station.
The ivermectin process – caused by misconceptions and made hundreds of people sick, some even hospitalized – was just one episode of the epidemic that highlighted the challenge of reliability of medical technology: The way scientists communicate research varies. according to the way most people use information about research.
“There is an inconsistent dialogue between us and the community,” Vera Donnenberg, PhD, associate professor of cardiac surgery at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, told attendees of the AAMC annual conference. Learn, Serve, Lead last year.
The result is that researchers struggle to manage records in relation to their work, largely because of old-fashioned anti-corruption practices: a recurring pattern of scientific discovery (full of diversity, no be sure, even flexible) against the ever-increasing appearance of that process. (with internet access to research and criticism) to a society that longs for clear decisions.
“Our department is too late to discuss whether our model for scientific communication is appropriate for the modern environment, or whether it continues to undermine public confidence in science,” Roger C. Schonfeld , vice-president of Libraries, Scholarly. The Communication Program, with the Museum in Ithaka S + R, a consultant for educational and cultural institutions, wrote last year.
Embracing uncertainty
Children learn the basics of “science” in school, but for adults who can’t remember it (that is, most of us), physicist Richard Feynman summarized the subject in a 1964 speech at the University of Cornell: See the article : Translating the hidden language of nature through science.
When the laughter stopped, Feynman went on to give a simple, one-minute explanation of how scientists develop a theory based on what they have observed, experimenting fairly with the results. , and then see if the experiments support the estimate. The results are often mixed, and even strong studies often contradict subsequent studies.
While complying with this fact teaches scientists to (continue) to continue with a humble mind – to keep doubts about what they think they know – may leave scientists puzzled by questions about and health issues. People are looking for clear answers: Can anyone tell us if coffee causes cancer?
“It’s very frustrating,” says Stephen Joffe, MD, MPH, chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine (PSOM) in Philadelphia. “Coffee is good, coffee is bad. A little alcohol is good; no, bad alcohol. I understand why people might think, ‘These scientists don’t know what they’re talking about.’ ”
(The nature of medical research was subverted in the 1973 comedy film “Sleeper,” when scientists laughed at the failure of their predecessors to discover that fatty, steak-and-cream pies were food. of health.)
Scientists are left with two basic modes of communication that are difficult to mix: conveying uncertainty about their findings, which may appear to be wrong, or expressing absolute confidence. , which destroys people’s faith in science if that trust is later revealed to be in violation.
“There’s a real tension if you’re a scientist trying to communicate with the public: you’re projecting certainty and confidence, while realizing you’re working in an uncertain way,” Joffe said.
“Scientists often caution, ‘Don’t overstate your results,'” notes Anita Desikan, MS, MPH, senior analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Center for Science and Democracy, in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Yet he acknowledges the pitfalls of this cautious approach: “If you’re an uneducated person and you hear a scientist sound skeptical about his findings, and you compare that to someone who sounds more confident, then you can I tend to believe the second person, despite the fact that they don’t have enough evidence to support their claims.”
One tactic you shouldn’t take: Tell people to “follow the science,” which some health leaders have done when people expressed doubts about how to avoid catching COVID-19 . Intended as an affirmation, the phrase came across as overconfident and dispelling doubt.
“I doubt that anyone could turn us down to science. It’s horrible, “said Sudip Parikh, PhD, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Washington, D.C.” Anyone would say he wants to pursue science. The question is what other science?
Openness sows confusion
The ivermectin case illustrates the scientific communication challenges and is reinforced by changes in how research results are reported. On the same subject : Women scientists aren’t getting authorship they should, new study suggests.
Ivermectin comes in a variety of dosages and dosages for the treatment of intestinal infections in animals and humans. After COVID-19 hit, it was one of many drugs that scientists thought could prevent or reduce the disease. That is the estimate of the scientific method.
Researchers at Benha University in Egypt then produced the best results of their study for anyone to see for free, without having to go through the usual process of testing by other scientists before they were published. That is where the problem began.
Until recently, most of the research and challenges to them were limited to scientists and those who focused on their work – namely, policymakers, academics and journalists – especially through newspapers and scientific conferences. . The average citizen had limited access to these forums, for reasons that included exorbitant prices (institutions pay $ 20,000 per year for Journal of Coordination Chemistry), and they had and little interest in thick material. People were satisfied that the big scientific news was being screened in the mainstream media.
Today, however, anyone with an internet connection can read most of the latest scientific research at minimal cost or free of charge, as ever-increasing magazines offer access to literature. of them freely. On top of that comes the growing trend of media coverage on pre-published servers such as BioRxiv and MedRxiv, which sets out the first research findings. The original texts look and feel like newspaper articles, and they are often accurate, but sometimes they contain scientific errors that peer review is intended to handle.
The primary purpose of these movements, especially in the understanding of COVID-19, was to share the latest scientific research in front of large numbers of people.
Schonfeld observes: “One of the most successful stories in the last few years has been that scientists have been able to communicate, build ideas for others, and work together instantly.”
But immediate and widespread access is one-sided, causing confusion over medical research attacks. Although much of the media attention was focused on important, well-researched subjects, then any study, even if it is not peer-reviewed or seems to have serious flaws, can be taken. to anyone.
As a result, journalists, political activists, social commentators, and well-meaning citizens all write and comment on the most vague reports, often focusing on dramatic or contradictory discoveries. and previous reports. Very few in this extended audience are trained to analyze the lessons and explain the differences between them.
Research on Benha’s preprint was surprising: It stated that ivermectin could reduce COVID-19 mortality rate by 90%. After the study was taken up by media outlets around the world, people began to seek Ivermectin human form instructions from their doctors and buy animal models.
The publisher resumed the study after some scientists showed that it was indeed flawed. But the damage has been done: People continue to seek ivermectin from their doctors to prevent COVID-19, and some even offer it, pointing to online studies that contradict many unsubstantiated studies. show “significant effect on COVID-19 patient outcomes.”
Although scientists have been scrutinizing and exposing malicious research, the trend has also been changed by public access to the process. Collective study reviews have been conducted mainly outside the public eye, as in the cover pages of scientific journals. Today, scientists are making their mark on the web, television, and social media. One of the most controversial issues during the epidemic is whether the evidence supports the closure of schools and the need for students to wear masks. People can find online research to support any theory they rely on, with intelligent scientists on all sides.
In addition, the ill-intentioned actions of some people to pick up the cherry and distort the doctrinal aspects to undermine social and political objectives, which further confuse and further confuse hope in science. . It is easier to do this when the facilitators can find and connect the lessons online.
Joan Donovan, director of research at the Shorenstein Institute for Public Policy, Cambridge, said: “The way disinformation travels and how powerful it has been in our society is related to the way these products are made of it, which is for openness and clarity.” , Massachusetts, in a panel discussion on misinformation last year. “If the business model is open and in good shape, I can assure you that everything that is open will be exploited.”
The scientific system is exposed to the public eye, with its uncertainties, inconsistencies, errors and misuses.
“It has been shocking to people who are conditioned to think about science as fact and objective to see in detail how it changes and how scientists argue,” says Holly Fernandez Lynch, JD, MBE, associate professor. medical ethics in the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at PSOM. “It’s hard for people to understand that.”
Flaws in the process
Open access and preprints have not caused reliability problems in themselves; they have added to the flaws in how scientific research is encouraged, rewarded and promoted. This may interest you : The explosive ambitions of Kate the chemist.
Funding and career advancement incentives for scientific research have long favored the production of books that are relevant, informative, and engaging for academics and the public. This contrasts with research that, for example, repeats previous studies to confirm or question them, or tests offbeat hypotheses that are unlikely to produce eye-catching success stories.
Incentives have always encouraged other scientists and their corporate communications outlets to talk about their findings. The explosion of internet searches and social media has increased the opportunities and rewards of self-marketing.
“Scientists may feel that they are under a lot of pressure to publish their results because development standards have played a key role in scientific progress,” said Jevin West, an associate professor at the University. of the Washington Information School, and Carl Bergstrom, a biologist at the University of Washington. , wrote in a research article last year, “Misconceptions about science. “Researchers often misinterpret or exaggerate the meaning of their work … University media offices play a very important role in communicating with science – but they often do so in ways that lead to more web traffic than ever before. to be correct. “
That hurts all science, says Janet Woodcock, MD, deputy chief commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration. Woodcock states: “One of the things that has helped to undermine public confidence in medical science is the spread of epidemics.
False research is also painful, and scientific literature has always struggled with that danger. Many open-ended publications are peer-reviewed, but that review process “is far from a guarantee of fidelity,” science journalist Matt Ridley wrote in the Wall Street Journal about the studies. scientifically from this epidemic.
In 2020, two prominent newspapers, The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine, deleted two peer-reviewed papers on the drug COVID-19 over questions about data integrity.
Leaders in medical science continue to explore ways to communicate research more clearly and to reduce the spread of misinformation. These ideas include educating scientists on how to best explain their work to the public, how to handle open access and first-time illustrations, and to change the way research is funded and reported. (Ways to meet the challenges of integrity will be presented in the following article.)
In an article last year, Why We Need to Rebuild Trust in Science, Parikh at AAAS warned that “it is not enough to say that the public should trust scientists because we know them well or because we know more. Hope must be found. “
To find it necessary to communicate honestly and in ways that are relevant to human life, he wrote: “We must find new and better ways to link the method and application of science to the knowledge and creation of our societies. us, our country and our world. ”
What is science Wikipedia?
Science is an organized business that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of experimental interpretations and assumptions about the universe.
What is the complete scientific answer? Science is the pursuit and application of the knowledge and understanding of the natural and human world in accordance with a systematic approach based on evidence. The scientific method includes the following: Objective test: Measurement and data (perhaps although it is not necessary to use numbers as a tool)
What is science simple Wikipedia?
Science uses mathematics and logic, sometimes called “formal sciences”. Natural science makes expectations and experiments. Science produces accurate facts, scientific principles and theories. ‘Science’ also refers to the large amount of knowledge gained using this method.
What is the science in definition?
science, any system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and involving unbiased observations and systematic experiments. In general, science involves the search for knowledge that covers general truths or the operation of fundamental laws.
Can a PhD student be called a scientist?
Usually, it is. It is possible but still rare to work your way up to a research scientist from a lab bench scientist without a PhD, but research scientist positions are often advertised with a PhD as a requirement.
Does a scientist have a PhD? Research scientists need a bachelor’s degree in a closely related field for most positions. Usually, a master’s degree or Ph. D.
What should I call a PhD student?
During the studies leading to the degree, the student is called a doctoral student or a PhD student; a student who has completed all their studies and comprehensive examinations and is working on their thesis/dissertation is sometimes known as a doctoral candidate or PhD candidate (see: everything but dissertation).
Is a PhD student called scientist?
All awards are given. So not all PhD holders are scientists. Furthermore, it is not necessary for a scientist to have a PhD. A scientist is anyone who conducts scientific research.
Who can call themselves a scientist?
The Oxford Dictionary defines the word scientist as “a person who studies or has expertise in one or more natural or natural sciences.†What about computer engineers, architects or doctors? By the definition of the book, they are indeed scientists!
What is the highest degree in science?
Doctor of Science (Latin: Doctor Scientiae), often abbreviated Sc. D., D.Sc., S.D., or D.S., is an academic research degree awarded in many countries around the world. In some countries, "Doctor of Science" is the degree used for a regular science doctorate; elsewhere Sc.
What is a PhD in science? The PhD in Science Education​is designed to prepare science professors to work as science professors in universities engaged in research and teaching science courses or to guide the preparation of science teachers at primary and secondary levels.
Is PhD the highest level of education?
In general, however, a PhD is the highest degree a student can achieve (with some exceptions). It usually follows a master’s degree, although some institutions also allow students to progress directly to a PhD from their bachelor’s degree.
Is PhD higher than doctorate?
Is a PhD Higher Than a Doctorate? No, a PhD is not a higher degree than a doctorate. If you are wondering what is better than a PhD, PhDs and professional doctorates are the highest level of college education that can be obtained. Both degrees are doctoral degrees.
How many years does it take to be a scientist?
That degree can take 4 to 7 years. Then you do research for another two to three years until you get a job. So if you add it all up, it takes 4 years for college, 5 years for a doctorate, and 3 years of post-doctorate research for a total of 12 years to become a professor.
How hard is it to be a scientist? For many people the hardest part of being a research scientist is finding a steady job. Most research work comes in the form of short projects, so people often look for a new job every two or three years. Many young scientists find this very difficult.
What does it take to become a scientist?
Get a bachelor’s degree and a master’s degree in science that fascinates you. It will also be very useful if you get a doctorate degree in your field. Gain experience in your field by contacting other scientists. This will give you practical experience and will help you to learn what it is like to be a scientist.
How many years do it take to become a scientist?
But, if you want to get paid to be a scientist, you have to have at least four years of college. It would be great to get a Masters degree, which takes 2-3 years more than after school after college. If you want to do some kind of research published in well-read journals you should probably have a PhD.
