The transparency has always been the cornerstone of building trust between scientists and the public. A team of philosophers and scientists believed that the more transparent research institutions in their reports, the more people’s confidence in science.
But a new study published by the University of Bangor in Wales reveals an unexpected phenomenon, as the study says that transparency may lead to reducing confidence in science instead of strengthening it.
According to the study published by Peron Hyde, a science philosopher at the university, in the journal “Science & Society”, under the title “Lying increases confidence in science”, it is not possible to view transparency as one factor that leads to a permanent increased confidence.
In fact, while transparency is a tool for enhancing confidence in science when universities publish news about a new detection, innovation or scientific achievement, disclosure of bad news such as failure in scientific experiments, conflict of interests or a review of a solid model or theory may reduce this confidence.
Transparency paradox
Hyde calls the term “paradox of transparency” on this matter, which is the phenomenon that indicates that transparency leads to increased confidence and its loss as well, according to the nature of the results of the operation.
According to the study, some realistic cases show how transparent contradiction can work. For example, in the “Climet Gate” scandal, emails from climate scientists were leaked at East Anglia University in Norwich, Britain, which led to accusations of manipulation of data.
Although the investigations showed that there is no mistake in scientific work, many audiences lost confidence in climate science, because they were carrying an ideal picture of science and when the “chaos” of the scientific process was found to them, their confidence was destroyed.
One example is also, when scientists reconsider an existing research model or have been firmly for decades, and for example, perceptions of “dark matter” or “dark energy” in physics within the current standard of cosmic science (Lamda-CDM), here people imagine that scientists are walking a footstep and then returning in it, as if that is the nature of science.
The above raises a pivotal question: Should scientific institutions avoid disclosing bad news to maintain confidence in scientific institutions? This is simply a kind of lying, whatever the context.
Hyde notes that the solution that hides the negative results is not sustainable and immoral, and then suggests that the solution lies in addressing the cause of the problem from its roots. According to Hayed, the problem is that the public exaggerates the assessment of the scientific process, due to the great achievements of science for decades.
Then the loss of confidence in science, according to the researcher, is due to the fact that people have a false perception of scientists, as they do not see scientists as people vulnerable to errors or affected by biases, but rather they believe that they are great people, of course, who always have decisive answers.
Image of fictional books
This ideal image, which can be called “the image of fictional books”, makes the audience lose confidence when the results of the flag are not in line with their expectations.
Hyde explains in his study that scientists and educational institutions must re -define the relationship between the public and science, it is important for people to be aware that science depends on accurate assumptions and analyzes, but it does not provide absolute answers, and that scientists are human beings, and they are exposed to external errors and influences, such as anyone else.
According to the study, instead of hiding the truth from errors, Hyde believes that the solution lies in teaching people about science, as the correct education on how science works and how scientists reach their conclusions may help to reduce this unrealistic expectation, and in this context we must understand that science is not an ideal process, but rather a continuous process of exploration and experience, including errors.
For example, at first glance you think that science is a regular entity in its itinerary, but here we can reflect a little say Peter, the world prize Nobel in medicine for the year 1960, equally with the Australian Sir Frank Brent to discover acquired immunosuppressive, scientific research is “a kind of fraud”!
Of course, the roundabout of the fraud that you understand is not intended, but rather it is intended to appear to us in an elegant and arranged form (introduction, mechanisms, results, discussion, conclusion, and references), but the real way in which scientists work relates more to imagination, confusion, error and continuous correction which is an emotional process in a part of it, and then the scientific paper leads us to think that the scientific process is completely cold, free of error.
In fact, what gives science its strength has nothing to do with a specific research paper or a specific error, but rather by the nature of the scientific process as a whole, there is always the ability to correct the error, and here we can consider a concept that the American sociologist Robert Merton is invented, which is “organized skepticism.”
When I tell you that I have analyzed the problem of the paradox of information in the black hole, you will not believe me until you see these ideas accompanied by proof or evidence of the validity of the prosecution. Scientists always need to verify all the facts, the possibilities offered, the mechanisms used, and experimental tools, everything should be subject to verification.
Based on the foregoing, the world can make mistakes, bias or lie, but not the world or its research paper is the criterion of the progress of science, but rather the overall image in which organized skepticism is practiced continuously, and then the scientific “paradigm” is broken, or the indicative models on which the scientific process was built during a period of time, no matter how long it takes time, and here the science advances forward.
The solution in education
“Scientists and governments are aware of the importance of the public’s confidence in science because it enables enlightened decisions, directs public policies, and supports collective action in critical issues such as health, climate and technology. If science does not give confidence, society becomes more vulnerable to misinformation and less able to respond effectively to complex challenges such as epidemics.”
He adds: “If we want the audience to trust the science to the extent that makes it worthy of confidence, we must make sure they understand it first.”
In this context, Hyde stresses the necessity of changing the way science is teaching in schools and universities, as well as the way in which scientific information is transferred to the public, saying that education that focuses on the basic values of science such as experimentation, continuous testing and interaction with errors may be the key to enhancing confidence.
The nature of science
This is not the first time that philosophers and scholars have referred to the turbulent relationship between science and the public, despite all the efforts that are transmitted. For example, in his book “The Nature Nature of Science”, Louis and Laret, the honorary professor at the Department of Cellular and Development Biology at the University College of London, refers to two basic points that the audience cannot understand, the first is the amount of knowledge different from what we imagine is self -evident, and the second is that science does not solve all problems, and it cannot sign the future accurately.
The wrong perceptions of these two points are what drives people to take contradictory positions of science, which includes our fears of this strange, incomprehensible and very strong thing, and related to disasters have already occurred such as Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or another expected such as machine control and artificial intelligence and creating human monsters through biotechnology and chrisper techniques to liberate DNA.
This situation mixes with a feeling of prestige and extreme confidence towards science, for example, you trust that what the doctor prescribes to you is the appropriate medicine for you, despite your knowledge that this disk contains a chemical that may be fatal.
Wallber and Hayd agrees that the relevant attempts to bring science closer to the public, despite the great successes achieved, the matter must be deeper than that, and it enters boldly to teach the public about the nature of the scientific process, and clarify that despite its intense accuracy, they have falls, experiences fail, and scientists may be biased to understand human beings undoubtedly, this comes in the context of an era in which false news and conspiracy theories spread fiercely For science, he takes advantage of the “Image of Fictional Books” to pass its narration.
Reference begging
This type of education is necessary, because at least people teach to separate science and scholars, and it is a very important point, because people usually fall into a famous fallacy called “pleading with reference”.
The fallacy takes place as follows: A person says that the claim “x” is correct, this person is an expert in the scope that specializes in the study of “x”, so the claim “S” is valid, there is no doubt!
For a while, you think that these words are free from error, but in science, the ruling on claiming what is honest is based on the facts and the consensus of the scholars, and not through science or experience.
People usually equal between the “scientist” and “science”, but the scientist is a person like you, can make mistakes, and can bias for dozens of reasons that may be political, religious, or even a personality in search of media fame.
You will find this clearly in cases such as Andrew and Wickfield, for example, a former British doctor and researcher in the diseases of the digestive system who led a campaign that relied on false sciences against vaccines, and Linus Pauling, the scientist who obtained a Nobel but he promoted completely wrong ideas about the role of vitamin C in our lives, and other scientists who believed in myths, but some of them promoted the towers, treatments with energy – Not supported by evidence – with the presence of aliens that live between us.
Rather, Paul Nairs, who holds a Nobel in Medicine for the year 2001, warns his Nobel comrades of “Nobel disease”, which is that the Nobel – because of the confidence given to him – is ready to express opinions on most issues with great confidence, from climate science to energy issues and refugee problems, is protected by the authority granted to him by the Nobel Prize.
The reality is completely in contrast to that, or as Richard Final, the physicist, is widespread and has a Nobel one once: “If a physicist speaks without physics, then he is foolish with the same amount of the person sitting next to him.”
Science is effective .. but it may be slow
This takes place in the context of a wrong understanding of the power of science. For example, when we try to make a new drug, we need a period of 3 to 6 years of scientific research and its development on choosing the active substance from among others that can serve the goal itself.
Then, it is necessary to determine which of these substances we will start using it in initial experiments, then we need a period close to the year in order to do the initial chemical tests and animal experimentation.
Experimental experimentation on humans needs about 7 years, and after the release of the medicine, we need to monitor the development of the human response to this drug, which means that one effective substance, such as paracetamol found in the two tablets in Nadol, needs approximately 10 years in order to reach your hands.
Also, the disease is complex and cannot be understood easily. Take cancer for example. People ask: Why do scientists not treat cancer after decades of research and billions of dollars?
In fact, cancer is not a single disease but rather 200 different disease, as it starts from one cell and may affect multiple types of cells in the body, which makes it very complicated and each type of cancer is specialized in a specific type of cell.
In addition, cancer cells may be similar even inside the tumor itself, and that cancer cells develop over time and gain the ability to resist treatments. Therefore, cancer treatment is not simple, but rather requires multiple and varied techniques to combat cell resistance to drugs.
When people learn about this, they often reduce their motivation against science, and it usually stimulates conspiracy ideas that state companies manipulate the results “to control cancer patients” and that “treatment exists but they hide it.”
But on the other side, when people learn about the complexity and difficulty of the scientific process, and the possibility of errors and biases, they reduce their conspiracy view of science, and their confidence may increase it.