Jane Qiu correctly indicates that public trust in science decreases at present times (The theory of Covid ‘leak’ leak ‘is not just a correct conspiracy – pretend it’s bad for science, 25 June), but he misses the reason for the reason.
Scientists and media often do not differ or explicitly difference between hypotheses, initializing findings and acceptable scientific information, leaving the reader information / listening information. Media get viewers, read or click (money); Scientists who can obtain interest leads to longer tenure or funds. The public was confused if a report was later rejected or turned off.
Universities and scientists used by them before most government funded and independent of industry and politics. Now they are competing for government funds and private and ready to raise the waters around hypotheses, initializing those who are known and peers. By doing so they play hands in anti-science groups.
Scientists are now like market-based people as any professionals, and do not do it in society. Why believe in climate science when boffins don’t agree with how to stand – 19 stood?
Steven Lee
Faulbridge, New South Wales, Australia
Jane Qiu makes many excellent points. But it is not fair to explain that the blame of scientific trust is with their scientists.
It lies in the populists on the right, and decades that are maintained and mostly unlimited attacks on science integrity. Climate refusal, anti-vaxxing and lockdown doubt three major examples. As well as the hesitation of doubt, these bad actors remove any nuance from public debate – reduced complex issues with a barry scream match.
Meanwhile, climate refusal teaches us that even private email statements can be obtained from the context and pass throughout the media, to improve a misunderstanding. In such an environment, any public communication with fighting issues is a mine, and no wonder many scientists have avoided it.
Scientists need to talk openly and faithfully in public, but we need support from the media, challenging anti-science voices instead of platlate them. At that time we reached the kind of thoughtful and faithful discussion of scientific evidence that the public was appropriate.
Dr Richard Milne
Edinburgh
