Struggling in a fake-news world
Scientists must help the public and governments understand evidence-based realities
At the age of 52, I had thought my days of joining protest marches were left in my student youth, but even middle-aged professors need to take a stand. On April 22, I will be at Hamilton City Hall waving my placard at noon in the March for Science because I am deeply worried.
I study the effects of radiation and toxic metals on people, and in recent months I have wondered if there is any point, if ‘facts don’t matter.’ I see people believing conspiracy theories or dismissing good science as ‘fake news.’ I am frightened that my work, studying toxins like lead and fluorine in Canada, will be rendered meaningless.
Of course, the scientific facts won’t change. People who are exposed to high levels of lead do get ill, and not using sunscreen increases your risk of skin cancer. People can choose not to believe these research findings and eat lead paint chips, or go lie in the sun for hours, but belief won’t change the outcomes. The paint chips will make them deathly sick. The sunburn will hurt.
But policies can change. A new scientific reality has slowly appeared in the U.S. In this new ‘alternate facts’ America, climate change is a hoax, the World Health Organization is wrong about vaccination, and industry is overregulated in regards to environmental protections.
We think alternative facts can’t dominate science in Canada, but we didn’t think it would happen in the world’s leading science nation, either.
‘Alternate facts’ exist precisely because facts do matter. Science matters. The spin happens when facts are inconvenient. Politicians can only change laws and policies if the public doesn’t accept the science. Facing climate change might mean restraint in exploiting coal and gas. Preventing lead poisoning in the children of Flint might have meant a hike in water distribution costs. If mine waste harms people, plants and animals, then this means higher waste management costs.
Denying science will hurt people. The spin on science may yield short term gains: reduced manufacturing costs, extra jobs, a rising stock market. Some industrialists might make a lot of money. But in the long term, a refusal to listen to experts in science and engineering about the risks will be dangerous. Children will die from diseases now nearly eradicated, people and animals will be poisoned by pollution, health-care costs will skyrocket, and trade will diminish because innovation has slumped.
I will March for Science, but I believe it is also time to talk about changing the way scientists communicate. While scientific evidence is important, effective policies that use the science are only put in place when the public and governments believe the evidence. Scientists need to learn new methods and use new tools. Scientists need to learn that facts may matter, but in communication, facts don’t work.
Scientists need to learn to connect with people in a meaningful way. Let’s start the conversation.
Fiona McNeill is the Director of the Radiation Sciences Graduate Program and a Professor of Physics and Astronomy at McMaster University. She has organized a free public event called ‘Risky Business? Communicating risks in science’ at 7 p.m. on April 20 in Council Chambers, Gilmour Hall at the McMaster campus. Please come and join the conversation and follow on @Radgrad_Mac on Twitter and RadGradMac on Facebook.