Hey, it's Flora, Happy Science Saturday. Today we're bringing you a special bonus episode from our friends at the live call and show The Middle hosted by the great Jeremy Hobson. They invited me on last week because they were doing a show about something we loved to yak about here on Science Friday and that is Trust in Science and how to restore it. It was a really interesting conversation and I think you might enjoy it. Here's Jeremy. The pandemic and the response to it, people telling us to wear a mask, stand six feet apart, get the vaccine. That actually led to a significant drop in trust in science in America in part because COVID almost instantly became political. Here is Florida's Republican Governor Ron DeSantis speaking in 2021. I think it's very important that we say unequivocally, no two lockdowns, no two school closures, no two restrictions and no mandates. Florida famously had very few rules during the pandemic and ended up with a death rate that was actually about the same as states with a lot of rules. That was then, now the president of the United States who by the way calls climate change a hoax has appointed science skeptics throughout his administration including health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who's been whittling away at vaccination recommendations in the United States and more worrying for scientists, the federal government overall has sought billions of dollars in cuts to scientific research. So our question to you this hour, how can trust in science be restored? Joining me this hour, Flora Lichtman, who is host of Public Radio Science Friday, Flora, welcome to the middle. Thank you for having me. Glad to be here. People are going to think it's like a different time of day right now if they're listening to you. I'm very confused personally. Yes. And joining us as well is Priya Natarajan, who is a theoretical astrophysicist and chair of the Yale Astronomy Department. Priya, welcome to you. Delighted to join in on this conversation. Well, let's talk about where we are on trust right now. Flora, I'll start with you. How much did COVID and the response to COVID from politicians who were bringing what they were hearing from scientists to the public have to do with the drop in trust in science. Do you think? You know, Jeremy, I don't... I'm going to make a mess with this question right off the bat. I feel like this is not a tidy story, at least from my vantage point. And I'll just bring up a couple of things. Like for one, you know, trust in science has varied over history and it's varied depending on what community you are in and what your personal experience with science and medicine has been and what your communities experience with science and medicine has been. And so there are communities with that have had lower trust for lower trust in science for, you know, obvious reasons. The pandemic too feels complicated to me too because, you know, I was talking to a pediatric infectious disease doctor this morning about this and she said, yeah, there are things that we would have done differently. But also remember, information was changing very rapidly and it wasn't just science. I think people sometimes talk about the pandemic is like, oh, this is science in action. We get new information and we revise it and the public isn't aware of that. But this was like science meets a public health emergency on a scale that we really haven't seen. So that's one piece of it at the end. And at the same time, you know, I remember during the pandemic, just sort of moments of immense pride in science, like when those the vaccine, for example, the vaccine, I mean, from the Trump administration in as well and just the emotional people, uh, connection people had to getting it. Sort of like wave of relief. And one more complication and I'll hand it off. But I, I think when we talk about trust in science today, it's also hard to broad strokes it because like what science are we talking about? Like we have the American Academy of Pediatrics suing the CDC for their back, you know, over the vaccine schedule. So like when we say science, are we talking about who, you know, these are the researchers or is it the science officials? Right. What do you think you're, you're a very accomplished scientist yourself? What do you think about where the lock, lack of trust came from? Or is this new what we're seeing now? Well, I mean, I think this is not new. In fact, this is a long standing sort of paradox in American society and culture. Like we're at the, and you know, we've been a scientific superpower. We're at the cutting edge of research discoveries and breakthroughs in many, many fields. But all alongside, we've had this sort of real sort of denialism of science that has been a very, very strong thread in our society. So it's a real paradox that these two things kind of coexist in America. And I actually think that there are some very deep profound reasons for this kind of building distrust. And in particular, I actually think that the pandemic was an opportunity where trust could have been restored because, you know, as I said, this is a long standing deterioration. And I think we lost that opportunity. So I feel a little unhappy about that. And so my take is that, you know, from the scientist's point of view, one of the things that we as scientists have not done all that well is sort of demystify the process of science, right? So the process of science as Flora mentioned, right, is actually messy. It's not linear, you know, the way in which scientists figure stuff out. It's complicated. Systems are complex. We're studying complex problems. We pair them down, try to understand them. And you know, there are dead ends, there are mistakes, whatever. And that process is not clean. However, it's still extremely rigorous. And why is it rigorous? Because, you know, somebody proposes a scientist, a domain expert who has trained, who understands the basics of science, doing research, proposes a brand new idea, what happens? All other domain experts in the field interrogate the idea, right? They really push and they scrutinize it. And after sort of lengthy critical look, you know, it eventually, if the evidence is compelling and is supporting the claim that's made, then those domain experts actually validate the idea. So that process is complex, but it's really rigorous. And that's where the rigor of science really comes from, right? And I think that we scientists have presented, unfortunately, a rather sanitized view of science. And the public has not understood, you know, this process. You know, anything we know in science is provisional. Well, in that process that you're talking about, Priya, doesn't work well with our social media driven society, where everything has to be very quick. And we have no attention spans anymore. Let me just ask another thing before we get into the phone calls and I see that the lines are starting to light up. Flora, we've heard about these cuts coming from the Trump administration. In part, maybe because they feel that it's politically possible for them to do this now to make cuts in science. We've heard about these cuts coming, but now it sounds like maybe Congress is starting to push back in a bipartisan way against the cuts. What do we know right now about what's happening with the cuts to federal funding of scientific research? Yeah, I mean, I think this is a really kind of like good news surprise story of the new year. So there have been bills that have been winding their way through Congress, so they're not done yet, but they have had bipartisan support that keep funding levels for most of the science agencies at about what they were last year. There have been even some minor increases, I think, two days ago. And NIH and NIH budget came out that had like a 1% increase or something, which is not huge gains, but so much different than the 40% cut that we were expecting to see. I was, you know, I was really hopeful and I talked to the president, sorry, the CEO of the triple A S last week. So to Parik, who was, you know, who said also this wasn't an accident. This has been the work of people behind the scenes all year long to make sure this happens. Let's go to Christina, who's calling in from Hendersonville, North Carolina. Hi, Christina, go ahead with your thoughts about restoring trust. I'm a public health nurse and there are new goals outbreaks in every surrounding county. I'm just a sitting duck in mind for now until we get our first case that I'm sure will blow up because our vaccination rates are abysmal right now. But the problem with science right now is that they are not speaking and communicating clearly and concisely and directly. For instance, they know they never say things like measles is the most infectious disease known to man that affects humans right now. There is no other disease, including smallpox or chickenpox or influenza that is more contagious. So just being able to say something with being direct and concise and not trying to make sure that they cover all the possibilities in their statement and make sure they're being so objective because they're scientists. Well, who's the day that you're talking about? Are you talking about scientists or are you talking about politicians trying to explain it? No, scientists, public health officials, people of the thought doctors, you know, that it's there you trained to be skeptics. And so to ask someone to say a direct thing like could this kill me? Yes, this could kill you. You know, instead saying well, you know, there's a good chance about 57% of us. No, this could kill you, right? Right, right. Yeah, Christina is a very good point and Flora just kind of reminds me of years of covering climate change. And even when you get a climate scientist on sometimes they're like, well, we can't say that this giant hurricane that's hitting Texas right now is actually a result of climate change, but it could be made worse by it. Anyway, what do you think about that comment? Yes, 100%. I think Christina is hitting on a real thing. And part of it, I think that that could change is there's no media training. There's no for for scientists as far as I know, at least it is not required in most cases, right? And we feel this unscience right all the time, you know, we talk to scientists constantly. And I think that's a problem. I mean, scientists should have to explain what they do and why they're doing it if they're getting public funding. If we are paying for that research, I think that should be, you know, part of the mandate is to be able to talk about what you do. So I think Christina is hitting on something. Yeah, really real. Alex is in Madison, Wisconsin. Alex, go ahead with your thoughts. Hi there. So as a tinder professor and times as myself, I've seen how our community sometimes undermise and so credibility not through bad research, but through tone. And what we lead with certainty and dismiss questions as ignorance, I think we shut down the very dialogue that will trust. So I think that humility is in science. It is the heart of the scientific method and science is fundamentally a process of questioning, revising and, you know, meaning that we don't yet know everything. And that epistemic humility is what makes kind of trustworthy in the first place. But somewhere along the way, we started communicating as if we had arrived at a final answer and rather than as fellow travelers in an ongoing inquiry. And I think that people can sense that difference between a scientist who says, well, let me help you understand what I know. And one who says, here's what the evidence currently shows. Here's what we're still working to figure out. I think that first one closes the doors, but, but that second one can open them. And I think that trusted will. And we really need to focus on that relationship through curiosity and humility first. Alex, thank you very much. And I'll just let you know that both of our guests were nodding for those people that were watching on YouTube. They said they're both nodding as you were saying what you were saying. So tell us why were you nodding? Such a good comment. I really think that's a wasn't. But transparency and not certainty is really, I think, invaluable. And kind of, you know, as you, you know, I'm nodding like really in great agreement. The process of science is something that, you know, we really should be laying there. I think you said you mentioned paradoxes. And I feel like this is like the ultimate scientific paradox. It is a discipline that is about knowing and not knowing at the same time. And it's beautiful. Let's go back to Pittsburgh and Samir, who's calling in from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Hi, Samir. What about you? What do you think can be done to restore trust in science? I think that there needs to be more scientific breakthrough, especially for research that is funded by the American taxpayer. We sell out a lot and we don't get very much in return. We do get innovation and breakthrough, but that is an extra cost to us. We're taxed for the research to fund the research. And then on top of that, we're taxed or charged for premiums and out of pocket pay for medications that, you know, we've already, we've already funded for. We've asked for us to fund cancer research for a decade now. And there's very little breaks wrong that. So I just think that there needs to be some kind of we cancer, we cured cancer, we cured diabetes, something massive needs to happen. A little impatience from Samir. What do you think about that, Flora? Because some people would say we've made huge advances in things like cancer research, not to mention technology and all the things that came out of our NASA funding. But good point, we still have to pay for these things when they come along, even though the American taxpayer did help fund the research in the first place. Yeah, I mean, I think this is where you see that the breakdown in science communication is happening because. You know, there's an off quoted stat that it's like for every dollar you put in, you get two or three dollars back when it comes to, to basic research. And you know, when I think about the advances just in my 20 years of covering science, especially in medicine, you know, I'm odd. I'm really odd by the progress we have made for some diseases. So I don't see it that way, but I think. What it shows is that we're not doing the best job connecting the dots for people. Actually, one as when Samir was speaking, actually picked up my iPhone and I was waving it to remind people I totally agree that we need to talk about and, you know, share the story. So, you know, you would not without all the research in fundamental quantum mechanics, who would have fun? You would not have had this phone. In fact, you wouldn't have had any electronics whatsoever. And without, you know, Einstein's theory of general relativity, you would not have had GPS satellite. So you would not have, you know, a lot of the things that we take for granted. I think, you know, I respond again that, you know, we really need to connect the dots and show people what the returns are. And especially with basic sciences, it's trickier because the arc, how long it takes or something to really translate into a product is unpredictable. So sometimes it can be quite long. And sometimes it's very easy to see. I mean, I think in medicine, it's been much faster than, for example, feels like quantum mechanics or general relativity. It's hard to sort of see how it's completely transformed our life. But science has, and I think the returns are actually quite high. I think we need to, you know, understand that, you know, when it comes to medication translation of research, right, we are again, the corporate world is in there. It's not that the scientists are involved in pricing the drugs, right? They're not doing the research. They're publishing it. And then you have corporate interests that want to make money that are pricing the drugs. Let's go to Aaron, who's in Thornton, Colorado. Hi, Aaron. What do you think about restoring trust in science? I think it's a very, very tall, tall order. Scientists are logic and evidence results. And people don't even think that way. I think it's interesting how we structure approach people with so many things that they don't even use for how they process information like logic and reasoning and evidence. And it's shown through their counter argument and the complete weakness of it that they're amazing using those things. You have a better chance of getting Joe Rogan to say something that you want to say so that they like him and now they believe it because most of us are wired that we can only really accept what you say if we like you to begin with me personally individually. I don't have to like you for you to be right, but for most of us that is very true. I need to like you for you to be right. And it doesn't matter what it is. Yeah, very interesting point, Aaron. And it actually brings up something that I saw in that Pew poll that Priya you were mentioning earlier, which is that I think 90% of Democrats have at least some confidence in scientists, but right now it's like 65% of Republicans. And I think that's a great breakdown on the political, which gets to the point that we just heard Flora from the caller. Yeah, I mean, I think there's clearly there has become now an identity component to your perspective on this. And I think that is really hard. I mean, maybe I am naive or polyanna, but I do think people can process information with logic and reason. I do have hope for that I have to partly because it's my job, but but also I do. What have you learned about America from hosting science Friday on the issue of what we're talking about here? A little big question, but okay, here's here my thoughts on that. I think basically the answer is that I have restored faith and humanity through this show partly because we talk to people like Priya who are obsessed with their thing who are dogged in the world. They're dogged in this pursuit of finding something out and who sometimes make discoveries that make our lives better because we learn about how the universe was formed or because they find a gene that is tied to breast cancer, but I also feel like our listeners every day remind me that the world is filled with funny, kind, thoughtful, curious people. Yeah, good, a very hopeful note to end on Flora Lichten, the host of Science Friday and Priya not to rogion theoretical astrophysicist and chair of the Yale astronomy department. Thank you so much to both of you. Thanks Jeremy. Thank you. Thank you for having us. That's from the middle with Jeremy Hobson. Check out their podcast for more of this conversation and many others. They do this every week asking listeners from across the country and across the political spectrum to weigh in on the most important questions we face. Check them out wherever you get your podcasts or at listentothemittle.com. See you Monday. Thanks for listening. I'm Flora Lichten. Thank you.
