Science communication is essential: scientists and institutions must address and counter misinformation from lobbyists and extremist groups.

Scientific communication is becoming increasingly important, and scientists and institutions must acknowledge the need to confront dangerous ideas and counter misinformation spread through multiple sources, including commercial lobbies and fundamentalist groups. A significant example of the public’s poor understanding of science comes from a Wellcome Trust study from a few years ago, which found that only 9% of respondents correctly understood the meaning of antibiotic resistance.

Communicating effectively requires us to understand why a message may encounter resistance. And this is our main point: understanding why scientific messages are met with resistance and, therefore, not understood. Although there are debates over who is responsible for this ignorance — scientists, communicators, journalists, or the public itself — reducing it to a mere lack of knowledge is simplistic. If ignorance were the only problem, the solution would be simple: increase education and information. Unfortunately, there are deeper obstacles related to trust, emotions, and organised disinformation.

The problem runs even deeper: according to some scholars, it has roots in psychology and human evolution. One study analysed the motivations of parents who refuse to vaccinate their children and found that, to avoid cognitive dissonance and preserve bonds with their social group, people tend to align their perception of risk with that of their group. These biases can even become stronger as scientific literacy increases, which clearly explains the effectiveness of pseudoscience.

Then there’s individual psychology, which affects how we perceive risk and receive messages. Risk, for example, is difficult for all humans to assess. If you want to understand how easily our judgement can be influenced by seemingly trivial factors, try reading “Thinking, Fast and Slow” by Daniel Kahneman. In the book, Kahneman presents numerous examples of cognitive bias in the evaluation of risk and data, especially those related to science. There is no single solution, but developing critical thinking from early childhood could be a crucial step for the future.

Source: Newsletter EAAP n. 275