Science-denial trend not obvious in NZ, says Gluckman
People rejecting facts is a problem around the world — but New Zealand’s pre-eminent scientist is not aware of any hard evidence to show it’s on the rise here.
In its annual report, the Environmental Protection Agency pointed to a “groundswell” of opposition to perceived bureaucracy and “a growing scepticism” about science and the role of experts.
New Zealand had its share of science-deniers, the EPA stated, who opposed fluoride, 1080, vaccination, genetic modification and much more, with their views reinforced and nurtured in the “unmoderated milieu” of the internet.
The Prime Minister’s chief science adviser, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, has been giving talks overseas and has published discussion papers about the “post-truth” issue.
Is anti-science really now a big problem? “I think that is true,” he said.
“But whether it’s true in New Zealand or not, beyond that general statement, it’s difficult to know.
“Where is the formal evidence of it? Beyond the work that’s been done by internet scientists around this, I’m not sure there is any specific data on New Zealand. But I think there’s no doubt that our society is vulnerable to the same pressures that have been well documented in other countries.”
Gluckman noted the term “alternative facts” had been coined by United States President Donald Trump’s Administration, which much of the global concern has centred on, but he couldn’t say whether worries were greater among his American counterparts than others.
He agreed people were being polarised by social media “rather than being pulled to the centre”.
Mainstream media, too, had become more polarised.
“There always will be a group of people who think there are conspiracy theories about fluoride, or 1080, or GM, and so on, and I think climate denial has gone a long way backward in the last eight years, as far as I can see.
“I mean, post-truth has always existed. What is different is the speed of it, and the ease of it.”
At the time scientists took to the streets as part of April’s global March for Science, several leading Kiwi scientists told the Herald of concerns about anti-intellectualism, but said they hadn’t encountered any heightened public push-back themselves.
Public surveys have shown Kiwis still understood the value and importance of science, but also that many still found it difficult to understand.
A 2014 survey conducted for the Government by Nielsen found one in three Kiwis agreed science and technology was too specialised to understand — and 51 per cent agreed there was too much conflicting information about science and technology “making it hard to know what to believe”.
Sixty-two per cent agreed scientists needed to listen more to what ordinary people think, suggesting a disconnect between the work scien- tists are doing and the priorities of average New Zealanders.
And 42 per cent of people said they got too little information about science, indicating a big deficit in knowledge, based on lack of access to information about science and technology in a suitable format.
“As scientists, we need to understand that the primary role we have to do is explain to the public what we are doing, why we are doing it, and what it means, without hype or exaggeration,” Gluckman said.
But should scientists wade into political debates or align themselves to certain views?
“I think there’s a danger if science actually becomes a public contestation of ideas between scientists with different views — then we just end up with confusion and the public losing trust in science.”
Science commentator Professor Shaun Hendy said science denial was a problem and it continued to dog our attempts to grapple with issues like global warming.
But he pointed out the Nielsen survey also suggested Kiwis’ trust in science was actually growing, not diminishing.
“While social media does enable disinformation to be distributed more widely, I think that the EPA’s discomfort with social media has more to do with its democratisation of scientific expertise,” said Hendy, a former president of the NZ Association of Scientists and author of the 2016 book Silencing Science.
“It is no longer sufficient to simply say ‘trust me, I’m a scientist’. We have learned the hard way that scientific findings can be biased by industry funding and political agendas, so the public now have much higher expectations of transparency.
“Indeed, many of the EPA’s critics are fellow scientists — social media means that debates between scientists no longer take place behind closed doors.
“While it can be frustrating for scientists that the public will no longer take our findings or decisions on faith, ultimately increased transparency leads to better science and is good for society.” 90 per cent of those surveyed agreed that science was an important subject for people to study at school and 83 per cent agreed that it was a worthwhile career to pursue. 59 per cent consider science important to their daily lives. 42 per cent of people say they get too little information about science, suggesting there is still a significant deficit in knowledge based on lack of access to information about science and technology in a suitable format. A reasonable proportion (35 per cent) agreed that science and technology were too specialised to understand and 51 per cent agreed there was too much conflicting information about science and technology “making it hard to know what to believe”. 62 per cent agreed scientists needed to listen more to what ordinary people think, suggesting a bit of a disconnect between the work scientists are doing and the priorities of average New Zealanders.