Building Trust During Scientific Uncertainty: How Do We Better Respond to Outbreaks?
What does it mean to “trust in science”? Which messages have we chosen to trust in the age of COVID-19? How have we sourced these messages, and how have evolving messages shaped the decisions we’ve made throughout the pandemic? Who have we chosen as trusted advisers to deliver the messages upon which we rely? Since science evolves with new data and new results, what mixture of trust and skepticism is appropriate?
Last week, Boston University’s Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases Policy and Research (CEID, pronounced like “seed”) partnered with the Aspen Institute Science & Society Program to discuss these timely questions, as we approach 2022 with lingering uncertainty about the Omicron variant. Featured panelists included Nahid Bhadelia, MD, MALD, Founding Director of the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases Policy and Research (CEID) of Boston University, Lee McIntyre, PhD (Center for Philosophy and History of Science, Boston University), Cassandra Pierre, MD, MPH, MSc (Boston University School of Medicine, Boston Medical Center), and Clint Watts (Foreign Policy Research Institute, Alliance for Securing Democracy, Miburo Solutions). The event was moderated by Aaron Mertz, PhD (Science & Society Program, Aspen Institute). Some Key takeaways from the discussion:
1. Scientific uncertainty and evidence building is part of the response to new diseases, but it complicates public communication
During the first paired discussion, Dr. Bhadelia spoke with Dr. Pierre about the role of scientific uncertainty in response to emerging infectious diseases and the pair discussed the notion of “trust in science.” In general, science is about building a growing evidence base as you learn about a new problem. When that learning is happening in the middle of a public health crisis, it can cause confusion among those who may question why public health experts and scientists are changing their recommendations over time. She also focused on the importance of creating more equity within existing scientific institutions and the ways in which we ask research questions and who sets research agendas.
“To me, trust in science refers not to ‘trust blindly all information that scientists give you,’ it’s to trust in the process that when a consensus has happened and evidence base has been created that the data in front of us, which is now supported by many different sources is a better path forward compared to one that’s based simply on belief. -Dr. Bhadelia
2.When there is evolving data, it’s better to communicate scientific data in terms of likelihood & probability
Next, Dr. Bhadelia interviewed Dr. McIntyre about how to best communicate scientific evidence with the public. Dr. McIntyre reflected on his own experiences talking with “science deniers” and his takeaway that leaning into scientific uncertainty and humility can actually increase trust. He also spoke about the distinction between science and proof and the importance of presenting scientific data in terms of probability and likelihood given the evidence.
“My best advice is that scientists… lean into it: embrace uncertainty. Explain why it’s important to change your mind on the basis of evidence. And I think the other thing that’s hard to do when we’re getting criticized publicly (and worse sometimes) is to express the humility that scientists have — the humility to be able to change your mind on the basis of evidence – to be able to say we thought this was true and it turned out not to be true… I think it’s important to express not just what you found but how you found it.” -Dr. McIntyre
3. Disinformation is a threat to truth & we must work to combat it
Dr. McIntyre interviewed Clint Watts about information sharing in today’s society. Professor Watts spoke about the dynamic of information sharing within the world of social media, how the forces of mis- and disinformation can blur the lines between truth and falsehoods, how we can work to deplatform sources of disinformation, and the importance of measuring the public harms caused by false information.
“Misinformation is incorrect or false information that’s shared by people without them knowing or understanding that it’s false,” whereas those who spread disinformation “are people who deliberately push out false information with an intended objective to deceive an individual or an audience for some specific purpose. That is much more dangerous because very effective disinformation creates a cascading effect, with highly algorithmic explosive misinformation, to where the two in combination have an escalating effect ” -Clint Watts
4.Marginalized communities have earned distrust & we need to acknowledge their trauma & elevate trusted community messengers
The paired discussions wrapped up with Professor Watts interviewing Dr. Pierre about how we can restore trust to vulnerable communities. Dr. Pierre discussed the need to actively engage marginalized and structurally marginalized communities with trusted messengers and community leaders. She also stressed the ongoing need to address traumas and systemic racism that black and brown people are experiencing in the medical community today that gives way to earned distrust.
“…At least acknowledging that history and that understanding is important. Making sure that the tone is appropriate–not paternalistic and more collaborative in terms of thinking through ‘What are the barriers? What are you seeing? What are your concerns?’ while shaping and responding to crafting a message…”-Dr. Pierre
5. There’s hope
Following a broader Q&A, the event concluded with the panelists speaking about what gives them hope as we approach 2022, with regard to science and the dark chapter of the pandemic. Dr. Pierre was encouraged by “the fact that this uncertainty has uncovered a lot regarding inequities, bias, and how we are treating, diagnosing, and communicating to structurally marginalized communities.” Dr. Bhadelia focused on all that we’ve accomplished so far over the course of the pandemic, “kicking and fighting” and “how we came together as a global community” despite the challenges. She was hopeful that lessons learned will “help us identify new questions we need to answer, including the issue around equity, but also around disinformation, misinformation’s new challenges that we scientists need to take into integration as we’re thinking about pandemic preparedness.” For Dr. McIntyre, the course of the discussion identified three problems: “the creation of disinformation, the amplification of disinformation, and the uptake of disinformation.” His hope stemmed from the fact that we have the ability to work on combating all of these problems, including deplatforming disinformers and advocating to make social media algorithms more publicly transparent. Professor Watts found gratitude in working with a bright team of younger people working to actively solve some of our society’s challenges, noting that “the younger generation behaves better in the information environment than the older one.”
We at CEID will use this hope as fuel to carry our work and mission forward into the new year. We hope you’ll join us.
Interested in learning more? You can watch the full event here. To keep up with the latest information from CEID, sign up for our newsletter here.