be framed to align with cherished values, such as arguing that vaccination helps preserve the sanctity of life. SCIENCE SEEN AS OVERREACHING There are, of course, some instances of even the best communicator struggling because the use of science is seen as simply inappropriate. Conversely, many people have a bias towards natural treatments and products, preferring those over ‘synthetic’ (or scientifically formulated) options. Together, these contribute to perceptions of scientific overreach. For example, when science is used to clone celebrities’ dogs or develop elaborate cosmetic procedures, most people would agree this qualifies as overreach. There are also more mundane domains where people see science as incompatible. People see science as having no place in the making of indulgent foods or personal care products, and its use in these domains can make people uncomfortable. To address this discomfort, we can educate people about the need for science, even where it may seem incompatible. In one example, an intervention involving participants reading that baking requires chemistry was effective at increasing interest in scientifically formulated baked goods. Taken together, such findings suggest that by altering how scientists are portrayed and how findings and recommendations are communicated, we can work to rebuild trust in science to improve public health outcomes. ▪ Scientists ought to have a greater public presence so they can communicate that they are, in fact, selfless, warm people who are trying to develop the best treatments, technologies and practices to improve public health” “
BREAKDOWN IN TRUST OF SCIENTISTS AND OTHER INSTITUTIONS Perhaps the most apparent source for anti-science sentiment is the breakdown of trust in scientific institutions over the last several years. Although scientists have historically been viewed as objective, trusted experts, this has shifted over the last decade. Scientists are generally stereotyped as cold and unfeeling, which reduces trust in them and their recommendations. This lack of trust in scientists has been coupled with a general distrust in public institutions, such as government and education. Those in political power have exacerbated this distrust in scientists by deliberately undermining their credibility, asserting that scientists have financial interests in health treatments and repeating false claims about critical treatments such as vaccines. To combat this, scientists need to engage directly with the public, so they can reclaim how they (and their findings) are portrayed. Scientists ought to have a greater public presence so they can communicate that they are, in fact, selfless, warm people who are trying to develop the best treatments, technologies and practices to improve public health. WHEN SCIENCE GOES AGAINST VALUES AND BELIEFS Even if scientists are viewed as credible, their recommendations will be met with resistance if they are seen as contradicting cherished values, such as religious beliefs. Many religious individuals dismiss scientists as being biased against their religion’s values. Although not inherently contradictory, many religious people view scientists as being opposed to religion. Indeed, some scientific findings do brush up against some religious beliefs, such as creationism versus evolution. When people see their beliefs as stemming from moral conviction, they can be difficult to persuade. Of course, science and religion are not inherently contradictory, but rather reflect two different approaches to acquiring knowledge. Science requires testing a hypothesis and obtaining evidence, whereas religion relies on faith. Importantly, most scientific findings are not sacrilegious. There is nothing heretical about vaccination, sunscreen or pain killers,
AVIVA PHILIPP-MULLER Aviva Philipp-Muller is an assistant professor of marketing at the Beedie School of Business at Simon Fraser University. She has won several awards, including making SFU’s Top 20 Scholars list for 2024. Her research focuses on how helping consumers make decisions that better society. It has been published in leading academic journals, such as the Journal of Consumer Research, Psychological Science and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. She is a contributor to the Wall Street Journal .
but nonetheless the perception that religion and science conflict persists. The remedy for this is to meet people where they are, so to speak, and tailor scientific messages to people’s values. Most public health messaging is one size fits all, a weak strategy when there is such wide variance in the reason for public health resistance. Public health messaging should instead
Health: A Political Choice – The Future of Health in a Fractured World 83
Made with FlippingBook Annual report maker