In this day and age of misleading statements regarding scientific findings, confusion about the tenets and methods of science, and politically motivated attacks on basic scientific facts, reasoned debate has become a rare form of communication. Can the book entitled The fight against doubt: How to bridge the gap between scientists and the public be a breath of fresh air in this caustic atmosphere?

The book, which is written by Inmaculada de Melo-Martin (Professor of Medical Ethics in Medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College) and Kristen Intemann (Professor of Philosophy at Montana State University), ventures into the controversial issue of fair reporting of scientific findings. Technically, there should be no controversy. The primary responsibility of the media is to deliver balanced reports and the primary goal of scientists is to develop theories based on reliable and valid evidence. If there is dissent among scientists on a specific issue, different viewpoints can be adequately described by informed and competent reporters until additional research can resolve the issue. At any point in time, the risks of inaction versus those of action can be objectively estimated and sensible solutions can be put forth.

Unfortunately, the interactions of scientists, public policy agents, and affected human communities do not follow a linear progression of rational events. A key factor is the working of science. Consider that quantitative methods of science are based on statistical analyses that minimize Type I errors (i.e., reports that a phenomenon exists when the opposite is true) and, to a lesser degree, Type II errors (i.e., failures to detect a phenomenon when in fact it does exist). They rely on probability distributions and laws to support or fail to support predictions regarding the existence, magnitude, and properties of phenomena of interest. Scientific evidence is not only probabilistic in nature, but also open to interpretations, making it vulnerable to political agendas. Thus, the ideal scenario is a public made of laypersons who have a clear knowledge of the working of the scientific enterprise so as to make informed decisions regarding key issues. Yet, because this scenario does not reflect the current state of affairs, a confusing array of opposing claims and heated discussions is portrayed in the media and delivered to audiences across the globe. Furthermore, even respectful and constructive dissent in science, which is the cornerstone of scientific progress, can easily degenerate into personal and politically motivated charges whose aggressive nature tends to overshadow the positivistic principle that evidence speaks for itself.

According to the authors, when “proper dissent”, which is evidence-based and unbiased, becomes “problematic dissent”, serious consequences arise. On the one hand, the effectiveness of institutions that serve the public good is weakened by stalled policies and wasted resources. On the other hand, misconceptions and confusion foment diminished trust in science and, at times, an outright rejection of its principles. Examples of inappropriate dissent may be manufactured doubts about the existence of a phenomenon (see the debate regarding global warming), and artificially created controversies regarding an established scientific position (see the polemic about childhood vaccination for measles and pertussis). In this arena, it is not unlikely to observe particular personal, social or cultural values trigger people’s resistance to science-based policy recommendations. Then, in the name of balanced reporting, journalists may convey to the public two viewpoints without clearly outlining that one is just a viewpoint and nothing more.

The authors of The fight against doubt: How to bridge the gap between scientists and the public point out that the adverse effects of problematic dissent cannot be easily rendered moot by acts of explicit prohibition, willful ignorance, or overt confrontation. Their analyses, however, mostly focus on the conditions that foster problematic dissent. The picture they summarize is not comforting. Notwithstanding the challenges of distinguishing proper from improper/problematic dissent, the authors repeatedly stress that proper dissent is at the core of the scientific enterprise. Thus, they propose that it is in the interest of the scientific community and of the public at large not only to safeguard its existence, but also to explicitly seek contradictory evidence and pursue views that deviate from the established ones. Their proposal echoes Karl Popper’s views. This message resonates in an age when evidence collected by competent and responsible journalists is discounted as “fake news”, and attempts are made to silence the voices of journalists and scientists whose facts and theories do not agree with one’s values or interests. The authors’ work is a must-read for all who are interested in the health of human communities around the globe. Reasoned debate may not be easy to pursue but solutions to the current status quo are nevertheless conceivable. Perhaps a reminder of the importance of reasoned debate is the criticism that Jon Stewart, then host of The Daily Show, expressed of the format of Crossfire, a popular television program that aired on CNN from 1982 to 2005. Steward noted that the program, which purportedly offered informed discussions of relevant issues, instead reduced complex issues to talking points, and unfairly shaped public discourse into irreconcilable and simplistic confrontations.

© 2019 Maura Pilotti

Maura Pilotti, Ph.D.