The Lancet editorial | the state of science and society in 2022

The first editorial in The Lancet in 2022 points to the need to strengthen scientific literacy among the public and leadership and to communicate science's warnings and restrictions honestly and transparently. Medical journals have a role to play by facilitating scientific dialogue, providing transparency and the means to review evidence, and defending scientists. Trust is not the same as obedience. Trust is earned. Trust stems from a relationship that is sometimes fragile and often tense, but at the same time rooted in an open, tolerant and respectful foundation.

2022 is the third year of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the pressure on the scientific community and the public at the beginning of the new year continues to be put into account the state of science and society. The headline of the Global Monitor 2020: Covid-19[1] survey released by wellcome in the UK is that public trust in science and scientists has increased during the pandemic. The largest of its kind, which covered 119,000 people in 113 countries, appears to suggest that after more than a year of closer contact with scientists, and with the first COVID-19 vaccines hailed as a scientific triumph, the value of science may not have been as badly eroded as suggested by shared narratives – the spread of information epidemics, vaccine hesitancy, protests against public health measures, and populist politicians. Or does this interpretation portray the relationship between science and society as too beautiful and simplistic?

In fact, science is often attacked. In a survey of 300 scientists in Nature[2], dozens of researchers shared stories of death threats, physical violence, or threats of sexual violence from talking about COVID-19. Anti-science rhetoric has been escalated by a coordinated disinformation campaign by anti-vaccine lobbyists and direct action by politicians in many countries. A newsletter by Brazilian scientists outlines how President Bolsonaro's government has cut budgets, attacked scientific autonomy and become hostile to science, thereby jeopardizing the country's future scientific development and causing damage to education, public health and the environment. Relying on the Brazilian people to vote in this year's presidential election, the budget cuts may be reversed, but the damage they have done could be long-term. How does this damage coincide with increased global trust in science?

Wellcome Foundation data also shows huge regional differences in trust in science and scientists. The percentage of respondents in East Asia (mainly China), Latin America, Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia who expressed strong belief in science rose sharply, with no change in Russia, the Caucasus and Central Asia, while declining in sub-Saharan Africa. Therefore, it is completely wrong to think that the public generally holds a high level of trust in science.

It is now difficult to discern where trust in government disappears and where trust in science comes from. The Wellcome Foundation found that trust in scientists is closely related to trust in national governments. With the exception of Brazil, science and politics are often not opposed, but closely intertwined. In fact, in some countries with high levels of trust in governments, science is seen as a tool for social progress, and even as a vision of a superpower, and scientists are hailed as national heroes. In China, for example, research budgets have grown throughout the pandemic, with chief scientists promoted to top political positions dominating the country's response to the pandemic. In some countries with low levels of trust in governments, governments try to gain public trust in scientists (and overcome public distrust of politicians) by slogans like "following the science," even if they don't themselves. The lines between science policy and government have become blurred.

However, nearly a third of respondents still believe that their governments do not pay enough attention to the opinions of scientists or ignore them completely. Whether this reflects rising expectations for science-led, evidence-based policies is unclear. As demonstrations against public health measures such as compulsory vaccinations and COVID-19 passes have sprung up, scientific opinion often seems to contradict broader societal and individual freedoms. However, during the pandemic, the public has shown great interest in scientific evidence and understanding – from R-values to vaccine development. This interest is not always eroded by acknowledging the nature of the unknown, uncertainty, and the evolving nature of scientific knowledge. Take infection model predictions, for example, which may help in policy development. However, when catastrophic infection numbers are predicted and are not actually met, public trust can be undermined.

It is necessary to strengthen the scientific literacy of the public and leadership, and to communicate the warnings and restrictions of science honestly and transparently. Having more scientists in governments, parliaments and the civil service would help. Ensuring diversity and inclusion in the scientific community helps to weaken the image of science's elite and alters the dynamics of power in the process of knowledge generation. Medical journals can also play a role by facilitating scientific dialogue, providing transparency and the means to review evidence, and defending scientists. Trust is not the same as obedience. Trust is earned. Trust stems from a relationship that is sometimes fragile and often tense, but at the same time rooted in an open, tolerant and respectful foundation. END

题图 Copyright 2022 Beata Zawrzel NurPhoto Getty Images

Chinese translations are for reference only, and all content is based on the original English text.