Science: ally or enemy?

After such a long break from this blog, I have decided that today's topic is going to be one I care very much about, which happens to also be one of the main reasons behind the very existence of this virtual space: science communication.

Shortly after the start of the pandemic, the crack between "scientists" (to include anyone working/studying/researching in the sciences) and the public was devastatingly clear. I suppose that the rise of a multitude of other, different "points of view" (usually labelled as "alternative") was a hint regarding the direction that the common sense was taking. Unfortunately for us, all of that rumble kept growing behind the scenes, and just exploded into a massive racket right when the state of emergency became unavoidable.

I don't know if it was because all of a sudden I had all this free time to notice, or because I've unluckily "met" the wrong people, or because all those that were whispering before now felt somehow entitled to sell their own opinions about the world out loud, but during those first months (and way longer after that), I did hear some of the craziest things ever. And I am sure you did too. Only to recollect a few of them, we heard about the malicious involvement of Bill Gates, we heard of the 5G theory, of the vaccines giving autism, and so so many more.

Umberto Eco, one of my favourite intellectuals (and writers), apparently once said that people believe in conspiracies because they don't want to accept reality. And honestly, during and after a pandemic as tragic as the one we went through, I get that. I really do. I think it is perfectly normal to feel frustrated and angry, especially when the situation is not clear, and the need to understand what is going on and to give yourself a logical explanation becomes of the utmost importance. However, we do live in what is supposed to be "the future" with all our accumulated knowledge and technologies, and yet, instead of feeling comforted and reassured by this, we felt threatened.

If I were a cultural anthropologist (rather than a biological one), I'd be researching into this bizarre behaviour, wondering what makes people that do rely on so many "byproducts'' of science (e.g. your mobile phone, laptop, car, videocalls, only to mention the obvious), so sceptical of the same kind of science they enjoy so much. And the more I think about it, the more I see it as a failure of the educational system both during the formative years of the individual and after, in that above mentioned "crack" between academia and the public.

Scepticism is quite a word. It was born as a philosophy and it is, by definition, "the attitude of doubting claims", challenging an hypothesis, a theory, and so on. It is sort of ironic, because this very attitude is also at the basis of science. We progress, confirming or disconfirming a theory, by challenging it. Interestingly, if you look it up in a dictionary, another definition for scepticism is "a lack of belief". And I think this is the crucial point.

It's a trick of the language. But we don't need to believe in science, because in science we move on evidence.

People that believe in conspiracies, on the other hand, move only on beliefs and a sprinkle of confirmation bias.

As I said, I'm very passionate about this topic and have, therefore, been listening/reading/watching quite a lot about it. A last note I would like to add regarding the current scepticism, is about an episode of my favourite podcast on biological anthropology (The AnthroBiology Podcast) where Dr. Cara Ocobock shared her view on this matter. Dr. Ocobock was saying that, to worsen the situation, there is a general misconception of science for which it seems like people don't understand that "science is a process and not a promise." And yet, this is a very basic principle of learning for which when we don't know something, we need to try, learn from our mistakes and eventually stick with the original idea or have a completely different one. Why is this considered normal in school but not in academia, then? Isn't academia still a school for much older scholars that have to deal with much bigger and more complex problems?

So here comes the absurdity of expecting the academic/scientist to be super confident and to be right at the start of their learning process, someone to completely believe in, but at the same time, the very first person to blame and publicly shame if something goes wrong.

Finally, while I do agree with Dr. Ocobock's words, I also believe that many people don't realise the pace at which discoveries are made nowadays. COVID-19 once again showed that too, with the creation of vaccines of unprecedented technology for a disease of which we knew nothing and all in the timeframe of a year. I am not sure how many people actually realise what a massive achievement this has been. And yes, there have been mistakes, there's still room for improvement, but it is undeniable that after the release of the vaccines, the situation did improve significantly and we are now allowed to go back to our normal lives.

I understand that for whoever is not in the world of academia and research, to have a grasp on this is incredibly difficult and hard to "believe". That is why it is really key for scientists worldwide to try and communicate better what they know to whoever is willing to have an open mind and an open ear to what they have to say. It is crucial to have everybody understand what is going on in the laboratories and in the classrooms, especially now that we know that other, even more challenging times (e.g. climate crisis), might be coming our way.

For more thought-provoking resources about this topic, I strongly suggest the episode I've mentioned above, but also on Netflix:

- The Mind from the docuseries Explained, episode: Brainwashing

- Behind the Curve (documentary)

- Don't Look Up (movie).