After years of politicians and media figures maligning scientific expertise as elitist, the COVID-19 pandemic has revived the public standing of science. But whether this crisis will spur the public and policymakers to heed the science on other global challenges, like climate change, remains to be seen.
URBANA, ILLINOIS – Science has been an indispensable guide for governments, policymakers, and ordinary people during the COVID-19 pandemic, whether they are making major decisions about closing or opening economies, or smaller ones about whether to go to the grocery store.
Owing to the urgent need for sound information about the virus, science journals have accelerated the process for publishing peer-reviewed research. And some top journals, including Nature, have been wading through new findings and summarizing the current scientific knowledge about the virus for use by policymakers. By disseminating new evidence as quickly as possible, the global scientific ecosystem has helped to slow the spread of the disease and save lives. Now, all eyes are on research to develop new treatments and vaccines.
These developments raise important questions for our engagement with other issues, not least climate change. Are rapidly changing publishing standards and streamlined peer-review processes something to worry about, given that they could increase the likelihood of bad science being published? Will politicians, corporations, and others misuse or abuse preliminary findings? Retractions of studies that lent support to the use of hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 suggest that such questions are not unwarranted.
It is no surprise that a mad rush for science-based solutions would lead to such mishaps. The fog of war and political pressure is more likely to lead to suppression or fabrication of evidence, corner-cutting, censorship or coercion of scientists, conflicts of interests, and politicization of various decisions, such as appointments to advisory boards.
These risks all pose real dangers. Distortion of scientific evidence makes effective decision-making much more difficult. Over the course of this year, there has been a surge in COVID-19 related manuscripts posted on preprint servers such as medRxiv and bioRxiv, and some of these doubtless contain questionable science. However, despite highly publicized retractions, scientific journals and preprint servers have been vigilant in blocking bad research.
Even more relevant for future crises like climate change are public perceptions of science. Given the degree of uncertainty about the coronavirus early on, the public had no choice but to listen to scientists, and particularly to epidemiologists, virologists, and immunologists. These voices were largely heeded in developed and developing countries alike, raising the prospect that the pandemic may have improved the public’s appreciation of scientific expertise.
At a time of escalating global turmoil, there is an urgent need for incisive, informed analysis of the issues and questions driving the news – just what PS has always provided.
Subscribe to Digital or Digital Plus now to secure your discount.
Subscribe Now
But so far there have been mixed signals. On one hand, when it became clear that the world was confronting an historic crisis, Italy, France, Spain, the United States, and other hard-hit countries created taskforces comprising well-respected scientists such as the immunologist Anthony Fauci, the now-famous director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. These experts sifted through the available scientific evidence and made recommendations about how to proceed, and most people followed their advice.
On the other hand, the US experience more recently has shown that an instinctive respect for science is no guarantee, even amid a deepening health crisis. Led by US President Donald Trump, state governors and other political leaders have denied, twisted, or simply ignored the science, and Trump’s own advisers have openly attacked Fauci in the press. In early July, the New York Times reported that a 30-year-old man in Texas had died from the virus after attending a “COVID party.” “I thought this was a hoax,” he reportedly told his nurse, “but it’s not.”
After months of suffering through the pandemic, the countries that have consistently followed the science have been able to minimize their COVID-19 death toll. These include Germany, New Zealand, Australia, Austria, South Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. By contrast, as of late July, the death rates in the US, the United Kingdom, and Brazil – whose president dismissed the virus as a “little flu” before catching it himself – have been increasing continuously since early April.
This record does not inspire confidence when it comes to tackling other global challenges. After all, the science on climate change has been clear for years, with climate scientists and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change urging governments to flatten the curve of greenhouse-gas emissions. So far, most countries have failed to respond with policies that take these warnings seriously.
The consequences of failing to heed the science on climate change will make the COVID-19 pandemic look like a mere bump in the road. Time and again, scientists have shown that climate change will act as a threat multiplier, increasing the likelihood of armed conflicts, floods, droughts, and extreme weather – not to mention zoonotic pandemics.
It is therefore critical that we strengthen a culture of respect for science and expertise. This will require both leadership and scaled-up efforts to improve scientific literacy. Particularly when it comes to highly complex systems like the climate, the public needs to know how to interpret scientific findings, not to mention forecasts based on probabilities. Catastrophic “tipping points” that could occur at a certain level of global warming should not be dismissed as distant possibilities. The fact that future disasters are possible at all is why we buy insurance.
Whether confronted by an acute disaster like the COVID-19 pandemic, or a silent, simmering crisis like climate change, science should be our guide. We have seen that the vast majority of people do indeed turn to the experts in the midst of a disaster. But if we ignore the warnings and wait until the last moment, not even the brightest scientific minds will be able to save us. Our survival depends on assessing the evidence carefully and using it as quickly as possible to inform policy.
To have unlimited access to our content including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, PS OnPoint and PS The Big Picture, please subscribe
URBANA, ILLINOIS – Science has been an indispensable guide for governments, policymakers, and ordinary people during the COVID-19 pandemic, whether they are making major decisions about closing or opening economies, or smaller ones about whether to go to the grocery store.
Owing to the urgent need for sound information about the virus, science journals have accelerated the process for publishing peer-reviewed research. And some top journals, including Nature, have been wading through new findings and summarizing the current scientific knowledge about the virus for use by policymakers. By disseminating new evidence as quickly as possible, the global scientific ecosystem has helped to slow the spread of the disease and save lives. Now, all eyes are on research to develop new treatments and vaccines.
These developments raise important questions for our engagement with other issues, not least climate change. Are rapidly changing publishing standards and streamlined peer-review processes something to worry about, given that they could increase the likelihood of bad science being published? Will politicians, corporations, and others misuse or abuse preliminary findings? Retractions of studies that lent support to the use of hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 suggest that such questions are not unwarranted.
It is no surprise that a mad rush for science-based solutions would lead to such mishaps. The fog of war and political pressure is more likely to lead to suppression or fabrication of evidence, corner-cutting, censorship or coercion of scientists, conflicts of interests, and politicization of various decisions, such as appointments to advisory boards.
These risks all pose real dangers. Distortion of scientific evidence makes effective decision-making much more difficult. Over the course of this year, there has been a surge in COVID-19 related manuscripts posted on preprint servers such as medRxiv and bioRxiv, and some of these doubtless contain questionable science. However, despite highly publicized retractions, scientific journals and preprint servers have been vigilant in blocking bad research.
Even more relevant for future crises like climate change are public perceptions of science. Given the degree of uncertainty about the coronavirus early on, the public had no choice but to listen to scientists, and particularly to epidemiologists, virologists, and immunologists. These voices were largely heeded in developed and developing countries alike, raising the prospect that the pandemic may have improved the public’s appreciation of scientific expertise.
Winter Sale: Save 40% on a new PS subscription
At a time of escalating global turmoil, there is an urgent need for incisive, informed analysis of the issues and questions driving the news – just what PS has always provided.
Subscribe to Digital or Digital Plus now to secure your discount.
Subscribe Now
But so far there have been mixed signals. On one hand, when it became clear that the world was confronting an historic crisis, Italy, France, Spain, the United States, and other hard-hit countries created taskforces comprising well-respected scientists such as the immunologist Anthony Fauci, the now-famous director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. These experts sifted through the available scientific evidence and made recommendations about how to proceed, and most people followed their advice.
On the other hand, the US experience more recently has shown that an instinctive respect for science is no guarantee, even amid a deepening health crisis. Led by US President Donald Trump, state governors and other political leaders have denied, twisted, or simply ignored the science, and Trump’s own advisers have openly attacked Fauci in the press. In early July, the New York Times reported that a 30-year-old man in Texas had died from the virus after attending a “COVID party.” “I thought this was a hoax,” he reportedly told his nurse, “but it’s not.”
After months of suffering through the pandemic, the countries that have consistently followed the science have been able to minimize their COVID-19 death toll. These include Germany, New Zealand, Australia, Austria, South Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. By contrast, as of late July, the death rates in the US, the United Kingdom, and Brazil – whose president dismissed the virus as a “little flu” before catching it himself – have been increasing continuously since early April.
This record does not inspire confidence when it comes to tackling other global challenges. After all, the science on climate change has been clear for years, with climate scientists and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change urging governments to flatten the curve of greenhouse-gas emissions. So far, most countries have failed to respond with policies that take these warnings seriously.
The consequences of failing to heed the science on climate change will make the COVID-19 pandemic look like a mere bump in the road. Time and again, scientists have shown that climate change will act as a threat multiplier, increasing the likelihood of armed conflicts, floods, droughts, and extreme weather – not to mention zoonotic pandemics.
It is therefore critical that we strengthen a culture of respect for science and expertise. This will require both leadership and scaled-up efforts to improve scientific literacy. Particularly when it comes to highly complex systems like the climate, the public needs to know how to interpret scientific findings, not to mention forecasts based on probabilities. Catastrophic “tipping points” that could occur at a certain level of global warming should not be dismissed as distant possibilities. The fact that future disasters are possible at all is why we buy insurance.
Whether confronted by an acute disaster like the COVID-19 pandemic, or a silent, simmering crisis like climate change, science should be our guide. We have seen that the vast majority of people do indeed turn to the experts in the midst of a disaster. But if we ignore the warnings and wait until the last moment, not even the brightest scientific minds will be able to save us. Our survival depends on assessing the evidence carefully and using it as quickly as possible to inform policy.