This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2015/sep/28/can-you-handle-the-truth-some-ugly-facts-in-science-and-sensibility

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Can you handle the truth? Some ugly facts in science and sensibility Can you handle the truth? Some ugly facts in science and sensibility
(5 days later)
This evening (Monday 28 September) I’m giving a lecture at the British Library to a group of researchers, policymakers, journalists, and representatives from NGOs, community groups and other societies involved in the work of Sense About Science. They all know us as the evidence people, so they’ll be expecting me to talk about my favourite subject: the need for evidence and accountability in public life. What they might not be expecting is to be told that they’re part of the problem.This evening (Monday 28 September) I’m giving a lecture at the British Library to a group of researchers, policymakers, journalists, and representatives from NGOs, community groups and other societies involved in the work of Sense About Science. They all know us as the evidence people, so they’ll be expecting me to talk about my favourite subject: the need for evidence and accountability in public life. What they might not be expecting is to be told that they’re part of the problem.
The ugly truth is that all of us – however informed, however good our intentions – end up letting things slide once in a while. We overlook, overstate or understate the evidence behind research, claims, or policies, for a number of reasons.The ugly truth is that all of us – however informed, however good our intentions – end up letting things slide once in a while. We overlook, overstate or understate the evidence behind research, claims, or policies, for a number of reasons.
At the most basic level: the truth can sometimes be hurtful and awkward to share. Who wants to be the person to tell the parents of a terminally ill child who are raising funds for treatment overseas that the cure they’re saving for is a sham? And if you call out that sham treatment, will you end up getting a letter from the clinic’s lawyers?At the most basic level: the truth can sometimes be hurtful and awkward to share. Who wants to be the person to tell the parents of a terminally ill child who are raising funds for treatment overseas that the cure they’re saving for is a sham? And if you call out that sham treatment, will you end up getting a letter from the clinic’s lawyers?
Then there’s the issue of the public good. Often we over-simplify evidence to make a point when we consider it to be in the public’s best interests. Many public health campaigns are based on sparse or outdated evidence. But they have good outcomes. Should it be five a day or 10 a day? Who cares as long as people eat more vegetables? Sometimes we overstate the truth – or understate the evidence – because we like what that “truth” brings to society.Then there’s the issue of the public good. Often we over-simplify evidence to make a point when we consider it to be in the public’s best interests. Many public health campaigns are based on sparse or outdated evidence. But they have good outcomes. Should it be five a day or 10 a day? Who cares as long as people eat more vegetables? Sometimes we overstate the truth – or understate the evidence – because we like what that “truth” brings to society.
When public good is not an issue, but the rule or claim seems reasonable, we often just accept it because it’s the status quo. We assume someone has done the research. No tweezers allowed in hand luggage at airport check-in? Fine, there’s bound to be a reason.When public good is not an issue, but the rule or claim seems reasonable, we often just accept it because it’s the status quo. We assume someone has done the research. No tweezers allowed in hand luggage at airport check-in? Fine, there’s bound to be a reason.
Related: Science and sensibility: on the untrustworthy nature of truth - podcast
The reasons for letting these slide are pretty straightforward. The more complex and interesting reason is the one that lies at the heart of science itself. The reality is that, in the world of science and research, the “truth” is messy, and evolving. There’s this moment in an interview that every researcher dreads: “Yes, Dr Knowitall, but are you certain?” But researchers say to me: “The problem is Tracey, people with no scientific discipline can say what they like. They can say we need more prisons to reduce crime, the HPV vaccine is causing chronic fatigue or the climate has warmed by more or less than it has. And in response what do we have? Caveats, probabilities and error bars!”The reasons for letting these slide are pretty straightforward. The more complex and interesting reason is the one that lies at the heart of science itself. The reality is that, in the world of science and research, the “truth” is messy, and evolving. There’s this moment in an interview that every researcher dreads: “Yes, Dr Knowitall, but are you certain?” But researchers say to me: “The problem is Tracey, people with no scientific discipline can say what they like. They can say we need more prisons to reduce crime, the HPV vaccine is causing chronic fatigue or the climate has warmed by more or less than it has. And in response what do we have? Caveats, probabilities and error bars!”
So we keep the messy bits to ourselves. We flatten out uncertainties because we’re afraid that scientific uncertainty will be used against us. Co-opted by extremists. Used as fodder for headlines. Or we stay silent while others do. Because in reality researchers work always with uncertainty. It’s the nature of the beast.So we keep the messy bits to ourselves. We flatten out uncertainties because we’re afraid that scientific uncertainty will be used against us. Co-opted by extremists. Used as fodder for headlines. Or we stay silent while others do. Because in reality researchers work always with uncertainty. It’s the nature of the beast.
Now let’s do an “Imagine if …” Imagine interacting with a world where uncertainty was understood as an integral part of scientific enquiry. Where not being 100% certain was OK. The radio interview question was not “are you sure?” but “do we know enough?” and decisions about public health, the environment or crime policy could be taken with the uncertainty out in the open instead of pushed into a side room with the constant threat of it being “outed” by a critic.Now let’s do an “Imagine if …” Imagine interacting with a world where uncertainty was understood as an integral part of scientific enquiry. Where not being 100% certain was OK. The radio interview question was not “are you sure?” but “do we know enough?” and decisions about public health, the environment or crime policy could be taken with the uncertainty out in the open instead of pushed into a side room with the constant threat of it being “outed” by a critic.
Tonight I’ll be asking the research community to trust the public – yes and politicians and journalists – with their uncertainty. To open up on the areas that have become immune from scrutiny and probing, and to help people to ask searching questions about the claims and policies and stories that affect our lives. Because without that public scrutiny, accountability and respect for evidence is impossible. Politicians, public bodies, companies, NGOs and news organisations will only feel obliged to explain their reasoning and respect what evidence does and does not tell us if that’s what they think is expected of them – and not just by their own community, but by the public.Tonight I’ll be asking the research community to trust the public – yes and politicians and journalists – with their uncertainty. To open up on the areas that have become immune from scrutiny and probing, and to help people to ask searching questions about the claims and policies and stories that affect our lives. Because without that public scrutiny, accountability and respect for evidence is impossible. Politicians, public bodies, companies, NGOs and news organisations will only feel obliged to explain their reasoning and respect what evidence does and does not tell us if that’s what they think is expected of them – and not just by their own community, but by the public.
Instead of fearing what people will make of tentative knowledge and uncertainty, our role – our challenge – must be to give them the tools to make sense of it. We have to be honest. There are so many answers that research doesn’t have, and even where there is evidence, it often cannot suffice. Some decisions will have to be taken on the basis of uncertain, incomplete and conflicting evidence. That’s the ugly truth.Instead of fearing what people will make of tentative knowledge and uncertainty, our role – our challenge – must be to give them the tools to make sense of it. We have to be honest. There are so many answers that research doesn’t have, and even where there is evidence, it often cannot suffice. Some decisions will have to be taken on the basis of uncertain, incomplete and conflicting evidence. That’s the ugly truth.
Sense About Science was founded 13 years ago to tackle misrepresentation of scientific inquiry. We were the go-to group for people who were confused or misled by stories and issues that ranged from detox diets to radiation and crime policy. And we’ve tackled hundreds of issues over the years and encouraged others to do the same (see askforevidence.org). But there’s only so much we can do. Only so many cases and issues we can take on. A wider cultural change is needed.Sense About Science was founded 13 years ago to tackle misrepresentation of scientific inquiry. We were the go-to group for people who were confused or misled by stories and issues that ranged from detox diets to radiation and crime policy. And we’ve tackled hundreds of issues over the years and encouraged others to do the same (see askforevidence.org). But there’s only so much we can do. Only so many cases and issues we can take on. A wider cultural change is needed.
That’s why our core mission has evolved. We can’t just correct misinformation. We need to engage the public in asking tough questions, calling for evidence, and understanding it, in particular the role and nature of uncertainty. It’s a mission I will be inviting hundreds more people to join us in this evening. I believe it’s possible. Yes the truth is ugly, messy, uncertain, and uncertainty will be misrepresented. Yes, people may well turn round and disagree with your favourite social project or a public health measure you approve of. But if we want a world where evidence can’t be ignored, that is what it looks like.That’s why our core mission has evolved. We can’t just correct misinformation. We need to engage the public in asking tough questions, calling for evidence, and understanding it, in particular the role and nature of uncertainty. It’s a mission I will be inviting hundreds more people to join us in this evening. I believe it’s possible. Yes the truth is ugly, messy, uncertain, and uncertainty will be misrepresented. Yes, people may well turn round and disagree with your favourite social project or a public health measure you approve of. But if we want a world where evidence can’t be ignored, that is what it looks like.