The growing distrust among Americans towards scientists and their work is well documented. In an era in which scientific output doubles nearly every nine years, it is hard for even trained professionals to keep up with the latest scientific breakthroughs and developments in their own field, let alone in separate fields. The amount of research done is so extraordinary that distinguishing real science from “junk” science is a daunting task for even the most experienced researchers, and some studies suggest that because scientists cannot devote enough time to each paper many good studies are slipping away into obscurity.
Amidst this backdrop, it is perhaps unsurprising that many Americans are losing faith in an institution that has been a sizable engine of economic growth, the driver of technological advancement, and solution to medical quandaries that have saved countless lives over the last century. While a healthy amount of skepticism and fact checking is prudent and necessary to promote useful, accurate research, the focus of much of the public’s discussion of science today is counterproductive cynicism that fails to recognize a scientific consensus as valid when it is.
Perhaps the most prominent example of Americans failing to recognize a well-tested and proven scientific consensus is in the field of climate change and global warming. According to over 18 different scientific bodies and 97 percent of peer-reviewed climate studies, scientists agree that climate change is happening and is very likely due to human activity.
Despite the overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus amongst experts in the field, climate cynicism persists. According to the 2015 Harvard Public Opinion Project, 23 percent of young adults when asked to describe their view on climate change selected the choice: “Global warming is a theory that has not yet been proven.” Among self-described Republicans the proportion is even higher, at 42 percent of respondents.
Presumably, many of these respondents doubt the ability of scientists to honestly report the data and trends they observe in the climate. Some Republicans have gone farther than just saying climate change is not a proven, settled theory and said that those who believe in man-made climate change are decidedly wrong. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), for instance, argued in a March interview with the Texas Tribune that those concerned with the effects of climate change are “equivalent to flat-Earthers,” and he compared himself and other climate-deniers to Galileo Galilei, saying, “You know it used to be it is accepted scientific wisdom the Earth is flat, and this heretic named Galileo was branded a denier.”
Cruz’s remarks are not only bold in the face of modern climate data, but they also reveal a deeper distrust of scientists and the work they produce. While it might be easy to believe that this cynicism has an ideological flavor, Republicans doubting climate change is not the entire problem. According to the HPOP 2015 data, only 56 percent of respondents trusted scientists to do the right thing most or all of the time. The remainder of respondents answered that they trust scientists only some of the time (34 percent) or never (10 percent).
The entrenched mistrust amongst Americans for science and scientists extends far beyond climate change. According to a recent Pew survey, there is a large opinion gap between the American public and scientists on the factual accuracy of issues ranging from the safety of GMOs to Darwinian evolution to the safety of childhood vaccines.
The scientific consensus regarding all of these issues is clearly not shared amongst a large number of Americans. Bridging the gap in these opinions will largely be the responsibility of scientists, who must restore faith in the public that science can answer—and not simply theorize—whether the Earth is warming, GMOs are safe, or childhood vaccines are a responsible public health measure. If this year’s HPOP data is any indicator, the scientific community still has a lot to do to convince young Americans to be real skeptics, not cynics.