Most Americans trust scientists and science-based policy-making. Here’s why freaking out about the minority who don’t isn’t helpful
John C. Besley, Ellis N. Brandt Professor of Public Relations, Michigan State University
Posted:
Updated:
Most Americans – 81% – think government investments in scientific research are “worthwhile investments for society over time,” according to the Pew Research Center’s latest survey on public perceptions of science.
A similar proportion said they have at least “a fair amount” of confidence that scientists act in the public’s best interests: 77% for all scientists, and 80% for medical scientists. As with previous surveys, this puts confidence in scientists at about the same level as in the military – 77%. It’s also much higher than for any other group pollsters asked about and, unlike most groups, fairly stable over time, despite recent increasing political polarization.
Science supporters want researchers to share their insights to help address societal problems. Scientists themselves want their research to have an impact. So public judgments like those identified in the Pew report matter because of what they suggest about how Americans might see evidence-based guidance on issues such as climate change and public health.
Don’t fixate on the negatives
It would be easy for the scientific community to look at this data and lament the 1 in 5 Americans who said they don’t think government investments in science are important or who said they do not have confidence in scientists.
Same with the fact that confidence in scientists has retreated from a small surge that Pew surveys previously identified starting in late 2018, or the reality that Republicans appear to have increasingly more negative views about scientists and scientific investments than Democrats do.
But I suspect there are more shades of gray behind the black and white numbers themselves.
For instance, while two-thirds of Democrat-oriented respondents said they supported scientists’ involvement in policy debates, less than a third of Republican-oriented respondents said they share this perspective, a further decrease from the proportion of Republicans who expressed this view in both 2019 and 2020.
But consider that this specific question only gave people two choices. Respondents could say they want scientists to take an “active role” in policy or “focus on establishing sound scientific facts.”
Given the choice, I suspect many respondents from across the political spectrum would have given a more nuanced answer. Even the biggest science boosters likely want scientists to devote most of their time to research and teaching.
Within this new survey, in fact, only about a third of Republicans said scientists currently have “too much” influence in public policy debates and about a quarter said scientists have “not enough” influence. The plurality – 39% – said they have “about the right amount.”
From my perspective, yes, it is disheartening that about 2 in 10 Republicans think scientists are “usually worse” at “making good policy decisions about scientific issues” than “other people” and that this proportion has doubled since 2019.
But about a quarter of Republicans still said scientists’ decisions are “usually better” than others, with about half saying scientists’ decisions are “neither better nor worse.”
And it seems possible that while current Republicans responded to the survey they were thinking about issues such as abortion or COVID-19 policies that involve medicine, but also ethics and economics and personal values. Additionally, many Republicans presumably recognize that most scientists oppose current directions in the party and may be using their poll answers to communicate their sense of alienation.
What could improve overall perceptions
Data such as those provided by the Pew Research Center point to potential problems; they don’t suggest a fix. Taking a positive view, though, puts the focus on potential solutions.
As Anthony Dudoand I argue in our new book on science communication strategy, anyone who wants to be trusted – including scientists – should consider social science research about what enhances trust and perceptions of trustworthiness.
Key among these findings: people perceive others as trustworthy if they appear to be caring, honest and competent.
Looking back at the Pew Research Center’s 2019 surveys on trust in science, which are consistent with other research, it seems that Americans largely perceive scientists as fairly competent. However, Americans tend to be less likely to believe scientists “care about people’s best interests,” are “transparent about conflicts of interest” or willing to take “responsibility for mistakes.”
These perceived characteristics help explain the chunk of the American population who don’t feel confident about scientists’ motivations. They are also perceptions that scientists, like others, can take responsibility for through their choices about how they behave and communicate.
Further, Americans tend to see “research scientists” less positively than science-focused practitioners such as doctors, suggesting that they feel more distant from academic researchers.
Focusing too heavily on the minority of people with negative perceptions is dangerous for those of us who want science to play a strong role in society because attacking one’s critics may exacerbate the problem.
Unlike politicians, science supporters probably can’t win by making others look bad. Just like the press, members of the scientific community want to ensure their field’s long-term place in society. Research suggests that for scientists, building real relationships with other members of the public will depend on communicating and behaving in ways that demonstrate caring, honesty and expertise.
Loud griping by scientists and their supporters about how too many people just don’t appreciate science’s place in society, or insults toward those who don’t see its value, are bound to be counterproductive.
The stakes are high as humanity confronts a number of science-related challenges, including climate change, infectious diseases and habitat destruction. Anyone who wants scientific evidence to have a seat at the table where solutions are being discussed may need to follow the evidence on how to make that happen.
___
John C. Besley has received funding from the Burroughs Wellcome Fund, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the David & Lucile Packard Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the John Templeton Foundation, The Kavli Foundation, the Rita Allen Foundation, SRI International, the United States Department of Agriculture, and the National Science Foundation.
___
Canva
Millions of people get the flu every year during flu season, which is primarily during the fall and winter months with December through February being the peak point. Infection with the influenza virus, commonly known as the flu virus, can lead to all manner of symptoms from fever and congestion to fatigue or respiratory issues.
But while some people experience flu infection as little more than a "rough cold," the flu is a potentially serious illness. Complications from the flu can lead to hospitalization or even death—especially for older people, very young children, and those with chronic health conditions like heart disease, asthma, or diabetes.
The best way to reduce your risk of getting the flu is to get an annual flu shot. All flu vaccines available in the U.S. are quadrivalent, meaning they have been engineered to protect against four different strains of influenza. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that, with few exceptions, anyone aged 6 months or older get vaccinated against the flu with either a direct injection vaccine or an attenuated vaccine, which is administered as a nasal spray.
All flu vaccines administered in the U.S. are quadrivalent vaccines. They provide protection against four unique flu viruses: an influenza A(H1N1) virus, an influenza A(H3N2) virus, and two influenza B viruses.
The intravenous flu shot and the nasal spray flu vaccine are both typically produced by growing candidate vaccine viruses in fertilized hens' eggs and then purifying the viral antigen—or the virus particles that help the immune system mount its response to the virus. A flu vaccine can also be made by growing candidate viruses in mammalian cells and then purifying the viral antigen. The intravenous flu shot is an inactivated (or "killed") vaccine, containing dead strains of the viruses, while the nasal spray is a live attenuated vaccine, meaning the flu strains are alive but in weakened doses.
The egg-based process has been relied on by antivirus developers for more than 70 years, whereas the cell-based process was only approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2012. The advantage of the mammalian cell-based process is that it is much swifter than the egg-based process and is not contingent on there being enough eggs available for mass production.
A third development process, which uses recombinant technology, was approved by the FDA in 2013. Recombinant flu vaccines are manufactured without hens' eggs or mammalian cells and do not require candidate viruses. To produce recombinant flu vaccines, scientists first isolate the gene containing instructions for making the protein hemagglutinin, which is found on the surface of a flu virus and helps the immune system produce antibodies against the virus. Scientists insert this gene into a baculovirus, a virus that infects invertebrates. This baculovirus transports the instructional gene into a host cell line and instructs the host cells to produce hemagglutinin. The hemagglutinin is then collected, purified, and made into a recombinant flu vaccine.
For the 2022-2023 flu season, while the CDC makes no specific recommendation for which flu shot persons under the age of 65 should seek, it does recommend three different high-dose vaccines as best for those over 65.
Canva
There are four main criteria that help determine the direction research bodies will take in determining each year's vaccine: finding out which flu strains are making the most people ill in advance of a coming flu season and the degree of severity of those illnesses; the extent of those strains' spread; how successful the prior year's vaccine has been against those strains; and the ability of existing vaccine viruses to offer protection against a wider range of related viruses.
Members of the World Health Organization Global Influenza Surveillance and Response Team test thousands of samples from around the world. For human seasonal flu evaluation, samples are filtered through the WHO's Collaborating Centers for Influenza. The WHO then meets with the directors of the seven Collaborating Centers, along with WHO essential regulatory laboratories and thought leaders from national regulatory agencies to determine the composition of flu vaccines for the flu season in the Northern Hemisphere (which is done in February) and for the Southern Hemisphere (in September).
Scientists review data from clinical and laboratory studies, including epidemiological data that indicates what flu viruses are circulating and where; genetic data about the genomes of these circulating viruses; and antigenic data so the scientists can determine if vaccine virus-induced antibodies can effectively target circulating viruses. The CDC also tests serum from human blood after vaccination to see how well the antibodies from the flu vaccine neutralize circulating viruses.
Countries are then given the WHO's recommendations and determine for themselves which viruses to include in the coming season's vaccine for their respective populace.
One such myth is that flu vaccines can give you the flu. The vaccines are made from virus particles that are either inactivated (killed) or attenuated (weakened) so they cannot cause illness. While it is possible to catch the flu even if you are vaccinated, the vaccine itself is not the culprit.
Another misconception is that getting vaccinated twice can provide added immunity. Research has found no additional benefit from getting more than one flu vaccine during the same flu season. Getting more than one flu shot is also not recommended because there are some areas where vaccine shortage can lead to those in need having a difficult time getting their shot, a circumstance also seen widely in the early months of the initial COVID-19 vaccine rollout.
The COVID-19 pandemic gave rise to another false idea, namely that getting vaccinated against the flu increases one's risk of getting COVID-19. No scientific evidence exists to support this belief. One widely circulated study from 2020 seemed to suggest that this was, in fact, the case, but has since been debunked.
Finally, the idea that it is better to get sick with the flu than to get vaccinated is both untrue and potentially dangerous. The flu can be a particularly serious illness, especially for young children, those who are older, or people who have certain chronic conditions. It is much safer to get vaccinated than risk getting sick with the flu and lacking the immunity strength to combat it.