It was infectious. The laughter of a tiny Russian grandmother, loud, unabashed, unceasing, first made me smile, then laugh as well. I was standing next to her and her family, all of us marveling at the antics of an Orangutan who was trying on various blankets to protect himself from the rain, finally settling on a tartan throw. I so miss laughter. I so miss regular interaction with strangers, if only via glances or smiles or a kind word. That whole social scenario when you take the bus, or stand in line, flirt with the waiter or encounter people in museums.

In any case, I had made it to the zoo, now requiring on-line tickets for a particular time-slot to be reserved in advance, and I happened to be standing at the primate enclosure outside when the family with young kids and grandma in tow arrived. I relished the laughter. I also admired how the dad was reading and sometimes translating for the kids the signs that describe scientific information about the animals, their habitat, their characteristics and so on.

Here is a question: why do people unfailingly accept scientific knowledge presented to us by some experts, zoologists for example, learn about it with pleasure and expose our kids to it? Yet invariably reject other scientific information that happens to be in domains equally unfamiliar as the mating rituals of the rhinoceros, but could save our lives if we only listened? Virologists’ insights, for example?

This question looms particularly large when scientists are thrown into the middle of political conflict, unable to avoid their unfortunate position because their knowledge is required to make administrative decisions. How do scientists not loose the public trust, how do they avoid becoming targets of aggression because their claims collide with vested interests or different world views? Issues in which these conflicts have become quite visible concern everything from the danger of tobacco consumption, the safety of nuclear power, the long term predictions for the climate crisis if fossil fuel use is not reduced, and, of course, the approach to handling the current pandemic.

For every you and I who think scientific input should shape policies, there are two others out there (if not more) who do not believe scientists, or assume they have nefarious motives, or believe in a different “scientific” truth. Public opposition to science-based governing can come in one of two versions. There are those who are motivated by disinformation or plain old conspiracy theories, disseminated by crack pots or those who have a political ax to grind (or both…) There are, however, also those who offer justified opposition on the basis of legitimate value judgments. The trick is to know the difference and react, as a scientist, accordingly. (I am summarizing today a longish article by a group of scientists that is in press Ref.)

The tobacco- and fossil fuel industries aside, we have individuals in, for example, the U.S. Senate who are torpedoing household resolutions to protest against scientifically recommended mask or vaccination mandates by the administration. Do they have vested interests, signaling to their constituencies who have been blasted by misinformation from partisan media sources that they are on their side, or signaling to their (former) leader that they still toe the line? Are they correct in claiming that scientific proscriptions created policies that limit individual liberties and impair economic activities in unprecedented ways, without proof that public health required it?

Isn’t it also true (spoiler, science agrees it is) that social restrictions like lock-downs have also negatively impacted mental health at scale and have disproportionately impacted women, single parents, young people, minority groups, refugees and migrants, and poor people who cannot afford to buy basic personal protective equipment? (Not that said senators would care.)

“Frustration with, and opposition to, social restrictions are therefore potentially legitimate grievances that deserve to be heard in democratic public discourse.”

The problem is how to distinguish between science denial due to politically motivated misinformation, and legitimate disagreement with governmental policies. One way is to spot how people diverge from a scientific consensus. Here are some pointers of what is usually present for those motivated by ideology:

Fake experts: Using doubtful/questionable/discredited/fake experts.

Logical fallacies: patterns of reasoning that are invalid due to their logical structure.

Impossible expectations: The act of demanding undeniable proof beyond what is scientifically feasible.

Cherry-picking: Regarding and disregarding pieces of evidence such as to advance one’s point.

Conspiracy theories: Explaining evidence by means of an evil conspirator, while consecutively expanding the theory to defend against challenging evidence.

A FLICC of the tongue, and you have your misinformation….

Contrast this with people whose lived experiences might make them averse to accepting scientific insight. If the history of your people was one where scientists harmed you or lied to you (see experimentation on POCs,) why should you trust science? If “denial” of the severity of Covid outcomes helps you not to lose your mind, but remain optimistic, shouldn’t scientists take that into account? Denying the effectiveness of social distancing might be an adaptive strategy if isolation would increase your sense of loneliness and depression. Denial can also be a protective mechanism against fear. If you HAVE to use public transportation and work surrounded by sick people, denial of Covid facts might be the only move you have not to break down in fright for what might happen to you.

In short, before we condemn any and all people who question science and scientists’ motives, let’s look a bit closer and figure out how to help those who are not conspiracy theorists to overcome their hesitation to accept scientific knowledge. If it could just be as easy as outlining the dietary habits of the Rocky Mountain goats….

Accosting scientists is, of course, not new under this sun.

Music reminds us. Some clips from the Galileo project concert.