The era of scientific “fair facts” is failing democracy

When 819 different social media campaigns tried to increase the Covid-19-19 vaccination rate, they managed to shift public opinion by 1%.

The kind of serious failure documented in major analyses marks something profound: the traditional model of scientific communication – leaning towards facts and expecting “truth to prevail” – encounters a wall in our polarized information landscape.

A group of communication experts noted in the National Academy of Sciences that scientists must abandon their top-down approach to speech and embrace what they call a “collaborative model,” a model that views public attention, moral values ​​and community voices as equal partners in scientific discourse.

The issue of democracy behind scientific denial

“Scientists do a great job of answering technical questions they think are relevant, technical questions about risks and benefits, but that’s not a question raised by the community,” explained Dietram Scheufele, a researcher at the Moorgridge Institute and co-author of the report. “The community is asking what science means to their personal identity and the fear of their future means a very different future than what we have now.”

These numbers tell the terrifying story of the scientific credibility crisis. In 2000, Republicans and Democrats had nearly the same confidence in the scientific community, 47% and 46% respectively. By 2022, this consensus has ruined: Only 28% of Republicans have expressed high confidence, compared with 53% of Democrats.

It’s not just doubts about climate change or vaccine hesitation. It reflects how Americans view the deeper levels of expertise, and every political aspect greatly exaggerates the other’s anti-scientific stance.

Beyond the deficit model

The researchers believe that the current approach sees the public as an empty ship full of scientific knowledge. This “deficit model” assumes that people lack information at all, and facts naturally correct their misleading beliefs.

However, this pattern goes against modern reality:

• Scientific uncertainty is weaponized by bad actors, who use ambiguity to undermine expert consensus
• Pseudoscientists can behave as reliable experts in our scattered media landscape
• Political polarization means that people often judge science based on the partisans of the messenger, not information content
• When public policy always involves choosing between competitive values, scientists artificially position their work as “worthless”

Conversation Solutions

Alternatives include replacing one-way information dumps with real conversations. Scientists will not only try to “correct” public misunderstandings, but to equal communities, and acknowledge that scientific evidence and social values ​​must work together to shape policy decisions.

This participatory approach requires what researchers call “intellectual humility” – scientists acknowledge that they don’t have all the answers and that the community’s attention deserves serious attention, not firing.

“I think we’re starting to see how technologies like AI and Gene change our perspective on what it means to be human,” Scheufele observed. “We can help ensure that science stays at the forefront of the discussion, but also recognize that science alone does not determine the outcome.”

Trust through transparency

Counterintuitively, research shows that acknowledging uncertainty and sharing negative information about scientific interventions can actually build long-term trust, even if it reduces short-term compliance. For example, transparency about the limitations of the 19009 vaccine can be accepted immediately, but over time, confidence in scientific institutions has increased.

The study points to successful models such as the Transformation Evidence Funder Network, which established ongoing relationships between scientists, communities, and policy makers before the crisis emerged. This proactive infrastructure is very different from the current reactive approach, in which communicators strive for every new challenge.

The future of science bet

Schedule is not more critical. Science faces potential budget cuts while addressing increasingly complex challenges such as artificial intelligence, gene editing and climate change that raise fundamental questions about human identity and social values.

“Unless we do this, we will encounter more and more situations, such as now, science becomes a chess piece in political battles,” Scheufele warned. “Science is the most important mechanism for us to create, plan and disseminate knowledge.”

The study reveals how our current communication ecosystem expands the largest, most extreme voices while elevating pseudoscience to the same level as peer-reviewed research. In this environment, simply shouting out scientific facts will not restore public trust, which fundamentally reconceives how science and democracy itself interact.

Related