Revere the scientific messengers — don’t intimidate them

The Earth revolves around the sun and is not the center of the universe — and yet the Italian astronomer and physicist Galileo Galilei was imprisoned and died under house arrest for claiming this. A lesser-known Hungarian physician named Ignaz Semmelweis was ridiculed for suggesting that handwashing is a key tool in public health. Public vilification drove him to alcoholism and eventually he was sent to a mental asylum. Similarly, the surgeon Joseph Lister’s claims that the use of antiseptics would reduce post-surgical mortality were rejected by the medical establishment and saw him marginalized within his own scientific community.

These scientists — like so many others on the receiving end of derision, public shaming, physical abuse and incarceration until the validity of their work and their brilliance were eventually, if belatedly, recognized — at least had the last laugh from beyond the grave.

Nevertheless, all these years later, despite so many more advancements in science that have brought enormous benefits to humanity, and despite the broadening of universal education that has enabled a greater proportion of the world’s population to understand these unparalleled contributions and how they came about, we still witness a hostile environment for science and scientists in some quarters.

This hostility to scientific activity, which sometimes includes physical aggression, is currently focused on the two issues that at present and in years to come will determine humanity’s quality of life, not to mention its very existence: Climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic. It raises deep concern that, in increasingly educated societies, where scientific knowledge is advancing with visible and obvious benefits for our well-being, there are still those who go beyond raising legitimate queries about scientific work and display a fear and a hatred of it, to the point of harming those who adhere to the scientific method with the common purpose of improving and prolonging human lives.

The obvious answer, though it fails to offer a full explanation, is that those who do not like the messages are turning against the bearers of news they dislike.

The pandemic and climate change have made the issue of relations between the scientific community and the rest of us even more pertinent. Both topics underline the fact that our very existence in the short and long term — and how we live if we would like to prevail — depend on science, and the ability and agility of science to address fast-moving changes and for us to change and adapt in accordance with scientific evidence that we don’t necessarily have sufficient tools to understand in depth.

This inexorably leads to frustration and resistance. While the nature of scientific work is one of constantly testing hypotheses and making the necessary adjustments to improve our understanding of nature and how to interact with it, most of us are creatures of habit and are reluctant to part from what we know, enjoy or are at least comfortable with in its familiarity.

It is particularly in times of crisis, such as global warming and the coronavirus pandemic, that we expect science to be our guide and for society to mobilize to support scientists and respect their work. Admittedly, globally, most people express at least some trust in scientists, as a Pew survey’s findings demonstrated recently (and one needs to trust science, of course, to trust the survey’s validity).

The vast majority of respondents across the globe support investment in science or aspire for their countries to be a leading force in world science. However, there is a persistent and vocal minority that doubts, even rejects, scientific evidence. This minority is fueled by populism and vested interests, and enabled by social media. Its manifestations vary from verbal and even physical abuse, to dismissiveness and utter disregard for scientific advice.

Science, as any other aspect of human and social activity, is not above scrutiny or the need to constructively engage with other parts of society and build trust with it. As a matter of fact, the very nature of scientific knowledge is that it is a process that is based on empiricism that is constantly reevaluating itself by further experimentation through collecting and analyzing data. It is a process rather than a one-off outcome, whose major strength is the ability to continuously improve.

However, this very quality also opens itself up to unwarranted criticism from those who fail to fully grasp this. In its most simplistic form, it raises the question: Why should we follow advice given by those who, by their own admission, might later change their mind? After all, alternative sources of knowledge, empowered by populist leaders and spread like wildfire on social media, are promising us eternal, everlasting truths, and they also spare us the complex mathematical equations, formulae and terminology that most of us simply do not understand.

However, in the cases of both health and climate change, the alleged and misrepresented “vacillations” are what give scientific outcomes their strength. As new data comes to light, along with innovative methods of understanding new or already available information, so our knowledge is improving. It is this dynamic that makes science so powerful, but nevertheless feels threatening to considerable numbers of people, who feel comfortable with the status quo while ignoring the consequences of adhering to it. Among them there is also a mindless minority who are ready to verbally and even physically attack scientists.

While those who are abusive toward scientists in any shape or form should face the full force of the law, with those who are merely skeptical there is a need for genuine dialogue aimed at building trust and removing walls between science and people wherever such barriers exist. Recklessly, the encouragement to disregard science and scientists draws on those who do not understand science, fear it, or even see it as patronizing or having no relevance to their lives.

The result is disastrous, as we can see from the many lives that could have been saved from the current wretched pandemic if only more people had not fallen for the baseless propaganda of anti-vaxxers and, instead, taken the jab or at least worn a mask in public as a minimum precaution. Similarly, regardless of how negligent many countries are being in their half-hearted efforts to contain global warming, we as individuals can play our part in a much more proactive way.

Nevertheless, for the scientific community to become more effective, it must build trust with wider parts of society, be seen as more engaging and less elitist, and find a way to even popularize science without resorting to populism, as is done by their would-be nemeses.

* Yossi Mekelberg is professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. He is a regular contributor to the international written and electronic media. Twitter: @YMekelberg