Can Science Speak Truth to Power?

Since the onset of COVID-19, government messaging has been scattershot at best. In the meantime, epidemiologists, public health experts, and other members of the scientific community have struggled to communicate accurate information to the public — sometimes without adequate data (see Figure 1). To further complicate matters, many of these same scientists are paid with public money in the form of grants or beholden to corporate funding. Additionally, the priorities of civil leaders do not always align with those of public health efforts, and scientists themselves are not apolitical machines and thus have their own biases.

These conflicts and confusions are particularly problematic during a global pandemic, but it doesn’t take a virus to reveal the presence of fissures in a world where people perform both science and public policy. Climate change, nuclear weapons, space exploration, deep-sea mining, endangered species protections, and garbage disposal are only a small sample of areas in which scientific issues overlap—or conflict—with governmental priorities.

“More scientists these days acknowledge that we are not those who are elected by the public,” Jim Al-Khalili of the University of Surrey said. “We understand that the policy decisions that politicians and governments make depend on more than just the scientific evidence that we present.”

At the 2022 American Association for the Advancement of Science Annual Meeting, which took place virtually in February, Al-Khalili—who is a physicist, broadcaster, and author—participated in a panel discussion that addressed the question “Can scientists successfully speak truth to power?” This question is clearly far too weighty to answer in a single conference session or article, but defining the breadth of its implications can help researchers determine how to best address it. What does it mean to “speak truth to power” when scientists aren’t really in the business of “truth,” and the “power” in question often controls their funding?

“It’s not ‘truth,’” Al-Khalili said. “It’s speaking what we currently understand about a particular issue; it almost certainly is not the entire truth. All we can do when we speak truth to power is say, ‘This is the evidence as far as we understand it today.’ Of course, the other aspect—which in a sense probably even has to be done beforehand—is to communicate how science works.”

Kendra Pierre-Louis, a journalist and climate reporter for a Gimlet/Spotify podcast called “How to Save a Planet,” offered additional thoughts. “The phrase ‘truth to power’ is about institutions, whether it’s a university or our government that is behaving in ways that are oppressive or antidemocratic,” she said.

Yes, But

Many problems that are associated with the communication of science to governments or corporations come down to a conflict of cultures. The practice of science is iterative and tentative by nature, requiring new experiments or data sources to continually refine conclusions. Power, whether in the form of a state or capital, typically prefers immediately actionable results.

“Power ultimately isn’t about facts,” Max Krummel, a pathologist at the University of California, San Francisco, said. “Power is about appealing to the emotions and minds of the people you’re trying to rule. And so the powers pick the ‘facts’ that they want to support their emotional decisions.”

This is not to say that scientists are unemotional; rather, the usual methods of scientific communication emphasize fact over emotion. “Scientists don’t tend to speak as humans,” Krummel continued. “[They] speak on facts, and facts can be dismissed. If scientists speak against power, they’re pretty powerless against the powerful who don’t use facts.”

More specifically, people—scientists and non-scientists alike—primarily base their decisions on their own values. Individuals typically do not change their minds upon encountering new information that contradicts their personal belief systems, including political opinions. As a result, many politically conservative scientists reject scientific evidence of climate change because its implications about the world contradict their beliefs [1]. Similarly, many people across the political spectrum have rejected recommendations on COVID-19 mitigation measures for reasons that are independent of the facts.

Though evidence itself often does not sway people, the desire to be taken seriously sometimes can. This drive may cause scientists to soften their conclusions for particular audiences, downplay risks, or even omit certain information when speaking to hostile crowds. “If you call someone biased enough, they will become biased in your favor,” Pierre-Louis said. “Criticism of prestigious institutions falls on blocked ears because they feel you should be grateful.”

Who Owns You?

The problem worsens considerably when specific governments or industries have agendas that explicitly oppose science. “If you work for industry, big pharma, or a government-funded body that has ideologically-driven motives, then it’s very hard to be objective,” Al-Khalili said. This subjectivity in turn disrupts trust between scientists and the general public. “It’s difficult for wider society to say, ‘Do we trust this scientific advice?’,” he added. “You hope that your leaders are principled, and you hope that scientists [are too]. But scientists are people, so they have their own biases and vested interests like anyone else.”

Krummel concurred with this sentiment. “Scientists are no different than other people in almost every respect,” he said. “They need a roof over their heads and heat, water, and food. So they can be absolutely can be bought. Their days are paid for by other people.”

In her profession, Pierre-Louis witnesses the challenges of both science and the media attempting to speak truth to power. “As a journalist, holding truth to power would mean being able to point out the contradictions,” she said. “But especially in national media, that rarely happens.” This disjoint is partly because of information access, which is as much of a currency as money in media circles. Speaking truth to power can thus have consequences, like the loss of funding or access to necessary information. Either of these outcomes can damage a career — as well as one’s ability to make a living. 

“Back Off, Man, I’m a Scientist”

“It’s difficult when those in power are so ideologically removed from one’s own principles or worldview,” Al-Khalili said. “The model of just saying, ‘We are the experts, you are the empty vessels to be filled with our knowledge and wisdom,’ is not going to work.”

Instead of the Ghostbusters “Back off, man, I’m a scientist!” approach, Al-Khalili argued that scientists must explain their methodologies and expose their own humanity. Krummel expanded upon this viewpoint. “[Media] has popularized the scientist as white coat-wearing, bespectacled, and very precise,” he said. “And there are realities to that. But many of us love the outdoors, many of us go to church and are spiritual — all of this stuff is not part of the popular perception.”

Such commonalities can help bridge the divide. Krummel added that scientists should speak from the heart, verbalize how they feel about the issues at hand, and acknowledge that audiences respond to who they are as people, not just to their facts.

In short, science can provide the necessary evidence to oppose ideologically-driven assaults on climate change, LGBTQ+ rights and healthcare, the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent leaked stance on abortion, and other important issues. At the same time, the shared humanity between scientists and non-scientists may be a more effective way for science to speak truth to power.

References

[1] Oreskes, N., & Conway, E.M. (2010). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. New York, NY: Bloomsbury.