Do scientists regret not sticking to the science?

In the summer of 2020, public-health experts decided that racism is a public-health crisis comparable to the coronavirus pandemic.  REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz (REUTERS)
In the summer of 2020, public-health experts decided that racism is a public-health crisis comparable to the coronavirus pandemic. REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz (REUTERS)

Summary

  • Taking political stands squanders the credibility of experts.

One distinguishing feature of our age is the use and abuse of scientific credentials to assert authority in unrelated political debates. The inevitable result is a loss of credibility among those who hold themselves out as experts. And at least some of these experts may have a new appreciation of this fact.

A journal called Nature Human Behaviour, which is affiliated with the flagship publication Nature, has published a study questioning the value of the flagship’s recent political activity. Floyd Jiuyun Zhang reports:

High-profile political endorsements by scientific publications have become common in recent years, raising concerns about backlash against the endorsing organizations and scientific expertise. In a preregistered large-sample controlled experiment, I randomly assigned participants to receive information about the endorsement of Joe Biden by the scientific journal Nature during the COVID-19 pandemic. The endorsement message caused large reductions in stated trust in Nature among Trump supporters. This distrust lowered the demand for COVID-related information provided by Nature, as evidenced by substantially reduced requests for Nature articles on vaccine efficacy when offered. The endorsement also reduced Trump supporters’ trust in scientists in general. The estimated effects on Biden supporters’ trust in Nature and scientists were positive, small and mostly statistically insignificant. I found little evidence that the endorsement changed views about Biden and Trump. These results suggest that political endorsement by scientific journals can undermine and polarize public confidence in the endorsing journals and the scientific community.

Yes, they certainly do. Unfortunately Nature has responded with an unpersuasive editorial defending its political activity, so not everyone has gotten the point. Oliver Traldi, a graduate student in philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, highlights this interesting event in journal publishing and writes at Quillette:

Should science be political?... The debate about whether or not an institution should be explicitly political is more often a debate between those who value that institution and who are cautious about changing its practices overnight and those who don’t particularly value the institution and who appeal to vague notions of complicity, solidarity, participation, or “speaking out" for support.

Mr. Traldi wisely observes:

... scientists don’t have any special expertise on questions of values and policy. “Sticking to the science" keeps scientists speaking on issues precisely where they ought to be trusted by the public. Mucking around in the messy business of political compromises and calculations puts them at a distance from what they really know.

In the summer of 2020, “public-health experts" decided that racism is a public-health crisis comparable to the coronavirus pandemic. It was therefore, they claimed, within their purview to express public support for the Black Lives Matter protests following the murder of George Floyd and to argue that the benefits of such protests outweighed the increased risk of spreading the disease. Those supposed experts actually knew nothing about the likely effects of the protests. They made no concrete predictions about whether they would in any way ameliorate racism in America, just as Nature can make no concrete predictions about whether its political endorsements will actually help a preferred candidate without jeopardizing its other important goals. The political action was expressive, not evidence-based...

So, as is often the case, a debate which appears to be about the neutrality of institutions is not really about neutrality at all... Rather, it is about whether there is any room left for soberly weighing our goals and values and thinking in a measured way about the consequences of our actions rather than simply reacting to situations in an impulsive and expressive manner, broadcasting our views to the world so that people know where we stand. Our goals and values might not be “neutral" at all, but they might still be best served by procedures, institutions, and even individuals that follow neutral principles.

 

Catch all the Politics News and Updates on Live Mint. Download The Mint News App to get Daily Market Updates & Live Business News.
more

MINT SPECIALS

Switch to the Mint app for fast and personalized news - Get App