Science & Democracy Module III & IV Study Guide PDF

Science & Democracy Module III & IV Study Guide The Role of Scientific Expertise in Democratic Life & Attributes to the Political Process Readings include… Elizabeth Christopherson, Dietram Scheufele, and Brooke Smith, “The Civic Science Imperative” The Economist, “The Trials of Ge...

Science & Democracy Module III & IV Study Guide The Role of Scientific Expertise in Democratic Life & Attributes to the Political Process Readings include… Elizabeth Christopherson, Dietram Scheufele, and Brooke Smith, “The Civic Science Imperative” The Economist, “The Trials of Gene Therapy” Adam Levine, “Collaborate Now!” (Chapters 1, 5, & 6) Arthur Lupia, “Communicating Science in Politicized Environments” Naomi Oreskes & Erik M. Conway, “Merchants of Doubt” (Introduction, Chapters 1 & 2) Hiroko Tabuchi, “In the Fight Over Gas Stoves, Meet the Industry’s Go-To Scientist” Holden Thorp, “It Matters Who Does Science” Erica L. Green, “Longtime University President’s Legacy: A Diverse New Generation in STEM” Steven Epstein, “The Construction of Lay Expertise: AIDS Activism and the Forging of Credibility in the Reform of Clinical Trials” Abby S. Haynes, “Galvanizers, Guides, Champions, and Shields: The Many Ways that Policymakers Use Public Health Researchers” Shana Gadarian, Sara Goodman, and Tom Pepinsky, “Pandemic Politics: The Deadly Toll of Partisanship in the Age of Covid” Ezekiel J. Emanuel, Ross Upshur, and Maxwell Smith, “What Covid Has Taught the World about Ethics.” Franklin G. Miller, “Should Ethicists Be at the Table in Public Health Policy Deliberations?” Lectures include… Tuesday, November 5th, Key Historical Moments Thursday, November 7th, The Science Workforce/Election Results Tuesday, November 12th, Credibility, Expertise, and Power Thursday, November 14th, The Nature of Relationships Between Scientists and Non-Scientists Thursday, November 21st, Misinformation Tuesday, December 3rd, Polarization Thursday, December 5th, Ethics, Public Policy, and Course Wrap-Up Podcasts include… Public Health on Call Podcast, Episode 59, “Social Media, Scientific Uncertainty, and Political Polarization – Covid-19’s Misinformation Storm” Public Health on Call Podcast, Episode 178, ““How Covid-19’s Misinformation Storm May Impact the Election” 1  Science & Democracy Module III & IV Study Guide How Does Science Become Useful in Society? One piece is about what we choose to fund, and who sets the agenda. o Conventional idea: focus on basic science because it will create a reservoir of findings to draw on for health/wealth/security § Sarewitz/Parthasarathy challenge this idea Second piece is about how we choose to communicate scientific findings to decision-makers o Conventional idea: focus on information dissemination § Bogenschneider and Corbett challenge this idea, as does Sarewitz (the trans- science point!) Carol Weiss (1979): one of the earliest researchers on the limitations of only disseminating scientific findings and expecting them to be used by decision-makers Science of Collaboration Key point: New collaborative relationships between people with diverse forms of expertise are important o Important for setting the scientific agenda o Important for figuring out how to use scientific results o Recall Kumar example in Sarewitz o Recall cooking stoves example in Invisible Women podcast Adam Levine’s Views on the Science of Collaboration Collaborative relationships: Back-and-forth interaction between people who bring diverse, task- relevant expertise to understanding and solving problems in their community Two types of goals: o Informal collaboration: oriented toward knowledge exchange in which the decision- makers remain autonomous o Formal collaboration: oriented toward projects in which decision-makers have shared ownership, decision-making authority, and accountability But new collaborative relationships don’t always arise on their own as there can be unmet desire! o Examples of unmet desire (from Levine, Chapter 1) § Researchers and practitioners (research4impact 1.0) § Staff in federal agencies § State policymakers and researchers § Local policymakers and local researchers § Funders § Grantees within a foundation (e.g. new community of practice) Adam Levine’s Views on Unmet Desire Unmet desire to collaborate arises due to commonly cited barriers to voluntary civic activity o Lack of time/money o Lack of incentives within one’s organization o Lack of opportunity Also due to uncertainty about relationality, uncertainty about whether others relate to them in ways they would like, and will they be able to successfully relate to others o Includes both the information shared & the experience of interacting Two ways to overcome uncertainty about relationality are: o Third parties o Directly communicating relationality 2  Science & Democracy Module III & IV Study Guide Both involve making things explicit that are often left implicit Some Elements of Relationality Concerns about oneself (Will I be able to effectively relate to the other person?) o Self-competence o Script concerns Concerns about the other person (Will the other person relate to me in a way that I want?) o Will they enjoy the interaction? o Will they act like I’m bothering them? o Will they value my expertise on the issue? o Will they be responsive to my needs/constraints? o Will they efficiently communicate what they know? o Will they just criticize everything? o Will it be weird? o Are they truly willing to share power? o Will they have useful information to share? o Will they have trustworthy information to share? Implications of Taking Uncertainty About Relationality Seriously People are more likely to engage in new collaborative relationships when they perceive others as having useful, task-relevant information that is trustworthy People are more likely to engage in new collaborative relationships when they perceive that the experience of interacting will be enjoyable People are more likely to engage in new collaborative relationships when (a) the potential collaborator directly communicates information to resolve uncertainty about relationality and (b) a third party creates an opportunity that resolves uncertainty about relationality Action Item: Surface Unmet Desire to Collaborate Developing an Unmet Desire Survey (done in Community Engagement Assignment): 3  Science & Democracy Module III & IV Study Guide Survey of Local Policymakers (Levine) Unmet desire for a more evidence-informed policymaking process? o Focus on local policymakers because they’re important o Focus on local researchers because new collaborative relationships are highly doable o N=541 Three Surveys of Local & State Policymakers (Levine) Unmet desire for a more ethics-informed policymaking process o Focus on three separate types of policymakers who make tough decisions related to the health of their community § Local govt elected policymakers (N=403) § Local govt managers (N=250) § State and local govt family support civil servants (N=305) Unmet Desire Among Sustainability Professionals (w/ Dr. Lia Kelinsky-Jones) Unmet desire among county/municipal sustainability policymakers adjacent to R1 universities around the US (e.g., Director of Sustainability, County Director of Energy and Climate Change, etc.) N=62 officials overall; 42 responded (68% response rate) 4  Science & Democracy Module III & IV Study Guide Fall 2022-Spring 2023 Key finding: 81% expressed unmet desire on one or more sustainability challenges A Reminder on Policy for Science Vs. Science for Policy “Policy for science” o What do we choose to fund? o Who sets the scientific agenda? “Science for policy” o How do those with science-related expertise choose to communicate with decision-makers o How, if at all, do decision-makers use science? Policy for Science at the Federal Level: Some Key Questions Who does Trump appoint (and Senate confirm) to lead National Institutes of Health? o And what about the Dept of Health and Human Services Secretary, who appoints institute directors? Who does Trump appoint (and Senate confirm) to lead the National Science Foundation and the National Science Board (6- year appointments)? Science for Policy at the Federal Level: Some Key Questions What regulations are pursued within departments/agencies? How are discretionary dollars spent? What laws are passed by Congress and signed by the President? What priorities are pursued in budgets? What judges are appointed to the federal bench? Do they want to limit the power of federal agencies? What statements do leaders make? o Importance of the bully pulpit Looking Beyond the Federal Level Federalist system of government divides power between federal government in DC, states, and localities Many headlines focus on the federal, but that’s not the entire story (and may not even reflect the issues you care the most about and/or feel like you have agency over) What can you do? 5  Science & Democracy Module III & IV Study Guide o One response: communicate with others § Fundamentals of persuasion o We should also be looking for opportunities for new collaborative relationships with those who bring diverse expertise to solving problems we care about § These don’t always arise on their own Fundamentals of Persuasion: A Product of Lupia Two main fundamentals: o Listeners’ attention is scarce, they are more likely to pay attention if it is clear why the topic is relevant to their goals/everyday life/well-being o Source credibility matters § Credibility: knowledgeable and trustworthy Knowledgeable: the speaker knows more about the consequences of certain decisions than the listener (the speaker has “relative expertise” on the topic) Trustworthy: speaker has common interests as the listener (i.e., they both benefit from the listener’s decision) Lupia: credibility is not a function of objective speaker attributes, but rather is granted by an audience; and so, it’s perceived credibility (whether the listener perceives that the speaker has relative expertise and common interests) that matters As a strategy for ensuring science is useful in society, there are limits to “information dissemination” (i.e., there are limits to the idea that the problem is that decision-makers are not aware of scientific findings, and so we just need to tell them) o Lupia’s climate example on page 14052 is another example of this o These communication fundamentals may seem “obvious” after the fact, but this climate example underscores why they are not Lupia adds other reasons of why “information dissemination” can be limited, and that motivates the need for collaborative relationships o Decision-makers may not pay attention to the scientists o Decision-makers may not perceive the scientists to be credible o Example: Let’s say you wanted to build a new constituency to keep public health/prevention on the policy agenda post-covid. How might you leverage these insights? Upshot: Making Science Useful in Society Communicating with others is important o Be mindful of the fundamentals of persuasion Also, look for opportunities for new collaborative relationships with those who bring diverse expertise to solving problems we care about o Be mindful that these don’t always arise on their own Something else to consider: o Who are the scientists? Who is doing the science? Echoes Oreskes, Warren et al Trustworthiness Before Trust Thorp (editor of Science): ”Science has had enormous trouble building a workforce that reflects the public it serves.” 6  Science & Democracy Module III & IV Study Guide Oreskes & Conway: Merchants of Doubt “Merchants of doubt” refers to fighting research and manufacturing doubt conducted by independent (non-industry) scientists Uses the language of science to fight science How did they do it? o Use famous scientists as messengers § They conduct studies themselves, serve as expert witnesses during court cases, etc. o Leverage lack of scientific literacy in the mass public § What it means to say that x causes y (cannot typically say that smoking causes cancer in a particular individual) § Also highlights uncertainty in any new findings to try to create sense that everything is uncertain o Leverage “fairness doctrine” from the 1940s § Idea that tv and radio programs with FCC licenses are required to give equal time for opposing views (see example, page 57) § Inside lobbying (to Congress via reports/staff seminars) and outside lobbying (to the public via training seminars for journalists, op-eds, etc.) § Question motives of scientists (see Star Wars debate; page 60) Examples of Merchants of Doubt Examples: o Tobacco industry fighting scientific research showing that smoking causes cancer o Strategic Defense Initiative supporters fighting official intelligence assessments in support of détente (Nixon cold war policy of mutual deterrence) o For Jastrow, what mattered most was responding to a perceived Soviet threat, and not “whether it worked” Merchants of Doubt: Some Questions to Consider Questions to consider: o This book is not just a catalogue of events, it is also part biography -- Oreskes and Conway spend a lot of time talking about biographical details of the scientists involved with manufacturing doubt. Why do you think that’s important? o Some of the critiques of the science really were valid (e.g., nuclear winter research; concerns about innovation leading to academic fraud (p62)) o General claims on page 64-65 – that the anti-science turn was motivated by scientists (and their business/ideological allies) who were committed to freedom and capitalism, and they didn’t like how many scientists were criticizing capitalism for failing to protect the natural environment o But aren’t we supposed to be skeptical of scientific findings? How do you distinguish between a Merchant of Doubt, versus a reasonable skeptic? § Key difference: What are their motivations? § Are they motivated to get the science, right? § Or do the science challenge more fundamental values/interests that they hold? § We might need to dig deeper to assess what the disagreement is about Oreskes p132: “If people are attacking science, there is something at stake, but it is not necessarily something scientific. Indeed, it is probably not.” 7  Science & Democracy Module III & IV Study Guide Either way, note this is about how we assess the scientific evidence – Is it trustworthy? Is it solid? – which is NOT equivalent to saying that it will be/should be the basis for public policy!!!! Credibility We are talking about credibility because: o It matters for whether scientists are persuasive to an audience o It matters for whether non-scientists are credible to scientists o Scientists do not automatically have it Recall definition of credibility from Lupia: knowledgeable and trustworthy Oreskes: Examples of achieving knowledgeableness, and being trustworthy, in several settings o Underscores importance of engaging non-scientists o But adds: “How do we judge if non-experts have relevant, useful, and accurate information?” (130) [by non-experts, she means hose without conventional scientific credentials on a topic] § Professionals with relevant information § Those with relevant daily experience § Independent scholars/those from other fields § Citizen scientists (e.g., Cornell Lab of Ornithology) Credibility According to Epstein (not the bad one…) Epstein: Example of how scientific credibility can be gained over time by non-scientists o Engaging lay expertise is not just a matter of scientists being more humble; lay activists have agency themselves and can build credibility over time o How did AIDS activists in the US establish their credibility as legitimate sources of knowledge of medical science, so, they could speak re: design/conduct/interpretation of AIDS drug trials? o He is focused on “treatment activism” – treatment activists wanted to assume the risk of experimental HIV treatments, which meant challenging the FDA approval process, and the NIH clinical trials further upstream Goal of treatment activists is to acquire ”cultural competence” of experts; they did it via 4 tactics: o “Learning the language and culture of medical science” (417) o Present themselves as representatives of people with AIDS or HIV infection o Argue that it was methodologically sound and morally superior to make sure that clinical trial populations were more representative o Seizing on pre-existing lines of debate within the mainstream research community; in this case, arguing in favor of pragmatic perspective of clinical trials General point: what’s happening here is challenging the hierarchical relations between experts and laypeople, activists ultimately joined scientific advisory committees, co- authored reports, etc. o This example underscores how the processes Oreskes laid out are possible, but also difficult (and how generalizable is this example?) Misinformation: What Is It? Misinformation: information that is false, inaccurate, or misleading according to the best available evidence at the time Concern among top government officials 8  Science & Democracy Module III & IV Study Guide Motivation matters -- Sometimes those who share misinformation aren’t deliberately trying to misinform, but may share it in the process of trying to make sense of conflicting information or seeking answers to well-intentioned questions Disinformation: misinformation that is spread intentionally (e.g., for financial or political gain) Just like with Merchants of Doubt, it can sometimes be hard to know motivations of speakers in any given case o Key is recognizing that intentionally spreading misinformation (just like intentionally using science to create doubt about science) is a strategic decision that actors may make Democracy Perspective: Why Worry About Misinformation? Recall that science is supposed to provide a bedrock of reliable knowledge For democracy to work, everyone needs to share an understanding about facts (e.g., what problem do we face) and fundamental principles (e.g., a belief in the US Constitution). Then they can argue for specific solutions and policy responses based on that. o If everything is always up for grabs, then social stability is threatened (e.g., right after the 2020 election) Example: “Should we mandate Covid-19 vaccines in elementary schools if those vaccines have been proven to be safe and effective for children between the ages of 5 and 12?” o Second part: science has the competence and authority to answer o First part: democratic processes involving diverse groups of stakeholders need to answer this, and they likely disagree § One point of disagreement: How much weight to give to what scientists have to say about the benefits and costs of vaccine mandates, versus what others have to say? § If misinformation clouds the science, we never get to this debate Misinformation (April 2020 Podcast) How does misinformation spread? o Bottom-up: people trying to make sense of new distressing situations o Top-down: elites with incentives to mislead o Either way, social media makes it easy to amplify false claims o When science is changing quickly, and uncertain, it’s an easy target Does politics make things worse? o Early worries about the science of Covid-19 becoming polarized like other scientific issues (e.g., climate) o Elite messaging can either contribute to the spread of misinformation or help prevent it Misinformation (October 2020 Podcast) By the time it’s October 2020: o Misinformation recognized as a severe challenge to public health, including not only the virus and how it spreads but also vaccines and treatments o Elites greatly amplifying misinformation; public health leaders are being directly contradicted by president/governors/etc. o Things we think might operate in the domain of consensus has already become a target for misinformation 9  Science & Democracy Module III & IV Study Guide How Can Scientists/Public Health Professionals Combat Misinformation? A few strategies: o [Disclaimers: No single playbook! And key democratic question we always face: How much are we willing to tolerate false claims in our public square?] o Avoid it in the first place with public health guidance that is clear, consistent, and frequent from the beginning (sometimes easier said than done when the science is truly uncertain like in early Covid) o Anticipate misinformation and engage in “pre-buttal”, along with warning audiences about the existence of misinformation claims o Ensure that science-related claims resonate with an audience’s values (as we’ve talked about) o Don’t only rely on one-way communication; also foster collaborative relationships with communities (and do so *before* crisis happens, so that trust already exists) o Monitor Internet for misinformation and rebut right away Takeaway: Scientists/public health professionals can’t necessarily prevent misinformation, but should be aware of its existence and possibility Political Polarization Political polarization: increasing distance between Democrats and Republicans over time What is changing? How are they growing apart? o Issue-based/ideological (what issue positions Democrats and Republicans hold) o Affective (how Democrats and Republicans feel about each other) Political Polarization (Gadarian et al) Why the increasing distance? o Partisanship has become a “mega-identity” (Lilliana Mason from Agora Institute) § Candidates you choose/policies you support § Social identity that has become increasingly aligned with other social identities, such as gender, religion, class, rural/urban, race, and education Upshot: arguments about policy are partly about the issues and partly about which side is winning/smart/right o Not just accuracy motivations about “getting it right” Fundamentals of Understanding Politically Polarized Settings Recall uncertainty about relationality: New collaborators often begin as strangers, who may be uncertain about their ability to relate to each other Among other things, political divides heighten that uncertainty Why? One reason is that settings with political divides elevate group/identity motivation over accuracy motivations New collaborators often begin as strangers, who may be uncertain about their ability to relate to each other Political divides heighten that uncertainty Why? One reason is that settings with political divides elevate group/identity motivations over accuracy motivations. o Two upshots: § Confirmation bias § Disconfirmation bias 10  Science & Democracy Module III & IV Study Guide Strategies for Working in Politically Polarized Settings Build new collaborative relationships in advance before political divides take over In the moment, emphasize other shared identities if they exist Find in-group members to correct misperceptions and communicate messages Example of pro-active building of new relationships: Covid response Example of finding new in-group members: attending country legislative meetings in person Strengthening Connections Between Science and Society (Role of Ethicists) Throughout this class we have talked about how policy depends upon technical information as well as values (recall, for example, Bogenschneider and Corbett) o Values: judgments about what is important or of worth o Examples of common values in policymaking: equity, fairness, solidarity, trust, security, transparency One thing that bioethicists do is provide frameworks that help decision-makers think through the value trade-offs that they confront in their work (including the values that do underpin choices, and the values that should underpin choices) o Example: allocation of scarce resources like vaccines Challenge: bioethicists are not automatically engaged in the policy process (Emanuel et al/Miller) Key Question of this Class: How Does Science Become Useful in Society? Conventional view of “policy for science”: Bush’s linear model o Government funds basic research in universities and institutes, scientists are free to pursue their agenda, and that will provide a reservoir of scientific findings that applied researchers and policymakers can use to solve problems Conventional view of “science for policy": deficit model o When decision-makers don’t know the relevant science, we just need scientific experts to tell them; there’s a deficit and we just need to fill it, and that will resolve political conflict Yet there are several reasons why the conventional wisdom is challenging: o Science may conflict with audience’s values/interests/knowledge o Decision-makers may not perceive scientists as trustworthy; Scientists themselves have values/interests (and thus their science may be questioned) o Scientists themselves may disagree o Scientific findings rarely provide specific policy guidance (e.g. Once you know that a virus spreads via aerosols, is there an obvious policy response that everyone would agree upon?) o We have many instances in which more directed science has been successful o Attention is scarce and people may not want to pay attention to them or interact with them o Not everyone is accuracy motivated o Non-scientists have essential information for solving problems/improving communities (and/or have different values, which is important for democratic decision-making) Therefore, the fundamentals of collaboration & science communication are essential (not a cure- all, but an improvement) 11  Science & Democracy Module III & IV Study Guide Another Question: What Should the Role of Scientific Experts be in a Democracy? What should the role of scientific experts be in a democracy? o There’s a tension: Issues we face (environmental/health/defense/etc.) demand increasing degree of technical knowledge that broad citizenry cannot be expected to have, but at the same time citizens have knowledge and expertise that is needed for solving problems o We need scientific experts, but democracy depends on an active, educated citizenry; achieving the latter requires combatting misinformation and more debate/discussion § We can’t only call upon citizens to vote and that’s it; we need an active citizenry that engages in constant democratic practice (i.e., we need a robust civic life) Final Thoughts Science and democracy are inextricably linked “Just following the science” is more complicated than it initially appears o Close cousin of that: evidence-based policy is also far more complicated than it initially appears What should you do? There is often no magic bullet; instead you want to be armed with a set of questions to ask as you are working to use science to improve communities you care about. 12