Image: purplejavatroll [CC BY-SA 2.0], via Flickr
Shifting public attitudes to expertise and information might lead to better science advice and policy, says Emma Woods
While the post-truth phenomenon is hardly new (see historical debates around climate change and alternative medicine) its encroachment into the heart of public life (see Brexit and Trump) continues to grab our attention.
In the scientific and political circles I move in, that attention tends to take the form of regret mixed with indignation. The enduring challenges of brokering relationships between scientists and policymakers and translating evidence are even more challenging in a post-truth world.
I would argue that, for those giving and receiving scientific advice, an era when—to quote the Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of post-truth—“objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief” could present an opportunity.
The post-truth phenomenon is forcing a healthy degree of introspection and is nudging us to adopt better modes of evidence-informed policymaking.
The post-truth lens shifts how people and information interact. The volume of information is increasing faster than our capacity to make sense of it. There are new forms of online noise, from fake news to alternative facts to echo chambers. All this increases the risk that public debate and policy are swayed by misrepresented or overhyped information.
Another post-truth hallmark is eroding trust in science and expertise, and a suspicion of institutions grounded in evidence-based policies. Experts find themselves accused of presenting facts selectively, confusing the public with complexity, and conflating values and evidence. Also in the mix is the increasing realisation that ‘non-expert’ voices should not be marginalised and that the legitimacy of policymaking relies on broad and genuine engagement.
Science and policy have arguably been complicit in getting us to this point, and both are under attack. But there are positives to be found, too.
In many ways, shifts in how people interact with information and expertise simply reflect how knowledge is becoming democratised with problems being expressed in more diverse ways. Rather than rail against the challenges, I suggest we focus on the opportunities for upgrading science advice for a post-truth world.
Evidence synthesis
My first suggested upgrade is evidence synthesis—ensuring that trustworthy synthesised evidence is available across all areas of science and policy.
Decision-making and public debate are best served if policymakers have access to all the relevant evidence relating to an issue. Evidence synthesis is a crucial step here, linking research and decision-making. Synthesised evidence that is inclusive, rigorous, transparent and accessible is arguably one of the most valuable contributions the research community can offer to policymakers.
Synthesis is even more valuable in a post-truth world. It has the potential to cut through the noisy and confusing information landscape and to reduce the risk of misinformation taking hold. With experts under heightened scrutiny, synthesis presents information transparently, recasting experts from being sources of specific knowledge to being impartial curators and presenters of the consensus in a scientific or political field.
My second suggested upgrade is public dialogue—engaging the public in order to articulate questions in new ways and boost the legitimacy of public policy.
Public opinion is being recognised as an important contribution to more inclusive policymaking. When it comes to science advice and policy, scientists can tell us what’s possible. But everyone needs to be involved in debating what should be done, why, and for what purposes. This is not to downplay the importance of technical evidence, but rather to say that it can only take us so far.
By inviting new voices into the conversation, approaches that are taken for granted in particular circles, such as those originating from scientists and their research agendas, can be critiqued and recalibrated. This aligns with long-standing calls for a new social contract for science that ensures that scientific knowledge is socially robust and that its production is seen to be both transparent and participatory.
I fully accept that evidence synthesis and public dialogue alone might not put too great a dent in stubborn challenges such as the anti-vaccination movement or climate change denial. But what they do represent is the ushering in of more rigorous and socially intelligent modes of policymaking. And what they can do is catalyse other forms of innovation to enable more people to engage with evidence, and to engage in new ways. Let’s not give up on this post-truth thing just yet.
Emma Woods is head of policy at the Royal Society. She writes here in a personal capacity. This article is based on her chapter in Risk and Uncertainty in a Post-truth Society (Routledge, 2019)
This article also appeared in Research Fortnight and also in Research Europe