Academic Medicine Open Forum

Medical science faces a significant credibility crisis. I recently wrote about the forces sowing suspicion and distrust in this opening article in a series exploring that issue.

One interesting observation from my research-which I'll cover an upcoming article-is that telling people during COVID-19 to "follow the science" or "trust the science" might have backfired.

Sudip Parikh, PhD, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said, "I don't there's anybody who would say we should follow the science. It's terrible terminology. Anybody will say they want to follow the science. The question becomes whose science and does it fit with their believe system?"

And there's this from Holly Fernandez Lynch, JD, MBe, the John Russell Dickson, MD Presidential Assistant Professor of Medical Ethics in the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the Perelman School of Medicine: "The follow the science thing made sense on the face of it, but it has caused tremendous damage. Because it's this idea that there's not any decision-making, that we're just going to follow the science. It's caused people to question the science when really, they're questioning the policy judgments that have been around this. … We need to be able to rely on the science policymakers to issue clear statements that are not overstatements."

Do you think "follow the science" or "trust the science" backfired? If so, what should we tell the public instead when we face a public health crisis?

Medical science faces a significant credibility crisis. I recently wrote about the forces sowing suspicion and distrust in this opening article in a series exploring that issue.

One interesting observation from my research-which I'll cover an upcoming article-is that telling people during COVID-19 to "follow the science" or "trust the science" might have backfired.

Sudip Parikh, PhD, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said, "I don't there's anybody who would say we should follow the science. It's terrible terminology. Anybody will say they want to follow the science. The question becomes whose science and does it fit with their believe system?"

And there's this from Holly Fernandez Lynch, JD, MBe, the John Russell Dickson, MD Presidential Assistant Professor of Medical Ethics in the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the Perelman School of Medicine: "The follow the science thing made sense on the face of it, but it has caused tremendous damage. Because it's this idea that there's not any decision-making, that we're just going to follow the science. It's caused people to question the science when really, they're questioning the policy judgments that have been around this. … We need to be able to rely on the science policymakers to issue clear statements that are not overstatements."

Do you think "follow the science" or "trust the science" backfired? If so, what should we tell the public instead when we face a public health crisis?

Medical science faces a significant credibility crisis. I recently wrote about the forces sowing suspicion and distrust in this opening article in a series exploring that issue.

One interesting observation from my research-which I'll cover an upcoming article-is that telling people during COVID-19 to "follow the science" or "trust the science" might have backfired.

Sudip Parikh, PhD, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said, "I don't there's anybody who would say we should follow the science. It's terrible terminology. Anybody will say they want to follow the science. The question becomes whose science and does it fit with their believe system?"

And there's this from Holly Fernandez Lynch, JD, MBe, the John Russell Dickson, MD Presidential Assistant Professor of Medical Ethics in the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the Perelman School of Medicine: "The follow the science thing made sense on the face of it, but it has caused tremendous damage. Because it's this idea that there's not any decision-making, that we're just going to follow the science. It's caused people to question the science when really, they're questioning the policy judgments that have been around this. … We need to be able to rely on the science policymakers to issue clear statements that are not overstatements."

Do you think "follow the science" or "trust the science" backfired? If so, what should we tell the public instead when we face a public health crisis?

• The ease of Internet searching (vs. research) has certainly trained a lot of people to think of themselves as their own science experts.
• There are efforts to increase critical thinking skills with an eye toward online misinformation, and to help people better understand the scientific process. But some scientists behind those efforts admit that they can reach only a fraction of the population, and those they reach are probably the most interested in thinking critically in the first place.
• I think the five-step approach you lay out for communicating about a particular public health issue is a great framework. It would have to be followed not only by scientists, but by policy leaders who make decisions and announcements based on the science. Getting the latter group to consistently be that careful and nuanced is difficult.

Medical science faces a significant credibility crisis. I recently wrote about the forces sowing suspicion and distrust in this opening article in a series exploring that issue.

One interesting observation from my research-which I'll cover an upcoming article-is that telling people during COVID-19 to "follow the science" or "trust the science" might have backfired.

Sudip Parikh, PhD, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said, "I don't there's anybody who would say we should follow the science. It's terrible terminology. Anybody will say they want to follow the science. The question becomes whose science and does it fit with their believe system?"

And there's this from Holly Fernandez Lynch, JD, MBe, the John Russell Dickson, MD Presidential Assistant Professor of Medical Ethics in the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the Perelman School of Medicine: "The follow the science thing made sense on the face of it, but it has caused tremendous damage. Because it's this idea that there's not any decision-making, that we're just going to follow the science. It's caused people to question the science when really, they're questioning the policy judgments that have been around this. … We need to be able to rely on the science policymakers to issue clear statements that are not overstatements."

Do you think "follow the science" or "trust the science" backfired? If so, what should we tell the public instead when we face a public health crisis?