Investigations on past epidemics have found that people who have experienced epidemics between the ages of 18 and 25 have significantly less trust in scientists, especially those with lower levels of scientific education. People who experience epidemics in other age groups or who have a high degree of scientific education are relatively less vulnerable.
After the outbreak, related research progress has been exposed by a large number of media, and the public hopes that scientists will develop effective drugs and vaccines as soon as possible. Some people believe that the epidemic will let the public see the importance of public health and even science, but a report released today by the London School of Economics (LSE) pointed out that people who have experienced epidemics between the ages of 18 and 25 have significant trust in scientists. decreased.
This report combines the 2018 "Wellcome Global Monitor" (Wellcome Global Monitor) survey of more than 70,000 people in 160 countries on scientific attitudes, as well as international epidemiological records since 1970, and analyzed the experience of epidemics (epidemics). ) How the incident affected public attitudes towards science and scientists. The report also found that experiencing an epidemic does not reduce the public’s trust in science, and the attitudes of people experiencing epidemics at other age groups towards science and scientists have not changed significantly; while the 18 to 25-year-old population is in a period of value formation. (Formative years), experiencing pandemics at this age will reduce their trust in scientists, and people with less scientific education are more likely to be affected.
Believe in science, but not in scientists?
How will the epidemic affect public perceptions of science and scientists? The LSE report pointed out that science is more likely to be questioned when scientific advice conflicts with economic interests. For example, past research cases have shown that the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization once recommended for the economic benefits of fishermen to open up the fishing of a variety of cod regardless of scientific ecological assessment. Decisions like this "either slander science or ignore science". During this epidemic, similar phenomena can also be seen in the debate on the closure of cities in the United States.
Scandals in scientific research may also undermine public trust in science. Earlier this month, after the two leading medical journals of The Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) withdrew their hydroxychloroquine-related research on the same day, many internationally renowned experts expressed this concern to the Guardian. Peter Collignon, a professor of infectious diseases at the Australian National University (ANU) and a former World Health Organization (WHO) consultant, pointed out that the peer review process should have been rigorous. “These seem suspicious and may even be fake. Someone’s materials passed this procedure, which would indeed damage trust. This is a real problem. Some people don’t believe in science at first, and now they’re going to say,'How do we know this is not fabricated?'”
In order to distinguish between the public's attitudes towards science and scientists, different questions were set up in the survey. Questions related to scientific views include: whether you have confidence in science; whether you think that science can help improve the quality of life; whether you think that studying disease is part of science.
Questions related to the views of scientists include: whether they have confidence in scientists; whether they believe that scientists working for private companies are honest and beneficial to the public; whether they believe that scientists working for universities are honest and beneficial to the public.
The survey found that the general public may believe in science as a whole, but questioned the scientists involved. The report concludes that experiencing an epidemic "will not affect the public’s view of science as a cause, nor will it affect the public’s view of research on disease as an aspect of science, but this will significantly reduce the public’s trust in and trust in scientists. Recognition of work value". Specifically, “They continue to believe in the importance of disease-related scientific research. However, their trust in the honesty and ethics of individuals involved in scientific undertakings has diminished.” In addition, this impact is only directed at scientists and the general public on medical staff. His attitude has not changed.
People aged 18-25 are more vulnerable to shocks
Specifically, people between 18 and 25 years of age are more susceptible to impact on their trust in science and scientists, especially those with less scientific education. In contrast, people who have experienced epidemics at other ages have less changes in concepts from those who have received more scientific education.
Previous sociological studies believed that people are most likely to change their ideas at the end of adolescence and early adulthood, after which their ideas tend to be fixed and last a lifetime. This view is called the impressionable years hypothesis, and is supported by neuroscience research and investigations. For example, a 2014 study by Giuliano and Spilimbergo found that people experiencing economic recession between the ages of 18 and 25 are more likely to think that luck is more important than hard work, and this concept will last a lifetime.
Studies have also shown that people’s attitudes towards science and scientists are related to science education. The LSE report further subdivided the 18 to 25-year-olds. One group had a science education level of elementary school or below, and the other group had a science education level of high school level or above. The comparison found that the changes in scientific attitudes of this age group are mainly driven by groups with less scientific education. Additional analysis shows that this difference cannot be attributed to the disruption of education caused by the epidemic.
In addition, changes in people's perceptions are also related to the scale of the epidemic. The scale of the epidemic here is defined as the proportion of the number of cases in the population in the country where the respondent is located. People who have experienced a large-scale epidemic have more confidence in scientists.
Science education helps shape trust
The new crown epidemic will have an all-round impact on human society, and science cannot stay aloof. The research team pointed out in the press release that although it is currently impossible to judge how the new crown epidemic will affect people’s perception of science and scientists, from past data, the epidemic may make the public more distrustful of scientists as individuals, including questioning their honesty , And the value of their work to the public. Those young people who are in the "sensitive period" of concept formation will be more affected. So, how to solve this problem?
"At least, our findings indicate that scientists in the field of public health and others who are concerned about science communication should work harder to think about how to convey a trustworthy and honest image to the public, and how the young generation who is currently in a sensitive period will view (Science) In addition, our results show that science education can be helpful on this issue," the research team wrote.
Comments
Post a Comment