Anti-Science Violence, Psychology, and Science Communication

Researchers in psychology are encouraged to engage in knowledge translation and science communication. Science-driven recommendations have changed behaviors and improved outcomes in several domains such as public health, education, employment, relationships, and rehabilitation; in addition to the obvious domain of mental health. Although the value of knowledge translation in psychological science has been demonstrated, there are growing social trends that are creating new barriers to knowledge translation. Dr. Peter Hotez labels these trends collectively as anti-science violence.

Anti-science violence is the culmination of several social trends. There is a historical foundation of anti-intellectualism in the American social fabric that runs in parallel with positive national attributes of individualism, self-reliance, and skepticism. As noted by Tom Nichols in his book, The Death of Expertise, healthy and productive skepticism has mutated into the rejection of any expertise, science, or knowledge espoused by authorities. The problem does not concern the positive aspects of being skeptical, but the rejection of knowledge solely because experts in the field express this knowledge.

In some cases, powerful financial and political interests use their well-financed megaphones to denounce inconvenient science. Sometimes it is simply a matter of distrust of experts, who have been wrong before. In other cases, there is an epistemology that leads people to believe that any information deriving from science that contradicts previously held beliefs is an attack on their identity. When people feel attacked, they tend to defend their identity aggressively.

Dr. Hotez is co-director of the Texas Children’s Center for Vaccine Development, among other positions he holds. His life’s work concerns the development of low-cost vaccines. He has been on the frontlines of anti-science violence since his knowledge translation work reporting the lack of a link between vaccines and autism spectrum disorder.

Dr. Hotez has also arguably been the most effective translator of science promoting vaccines for harm reduction for COVID-19. Yet as COVID-19 has become increasingly politicized, the anti-science attacks have increased. Likewise, Dr. Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and former chief medical advisor to the president has also been attacked and threatened.

In fact, nearly all public health officials, translators of vaccine science, and other experts have been verbally attacked and threatened at some point during the most recent pandemic. Although over 200,000 people died of COVID-19 after refusing available vaccinations, the expertise of public health experts continues to be attacked.

Dr. Hotez continues to be relentless in his warnings of the influence of anti-science violence on society. His outstanding book, The Deadly Rise of Anti-science: A Scientist’s Warning, outlines the nature of the attacks on science and what it means for the future.

Anti-science violence is not only about COVID-19, ASD, and public health. Psychologists experience similar responses. There are hostile reactions concerning findings related to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, personality disorders, social justice, intelligence and aptitude testing, issues concerning psychotropic medications, and even methods of teaching reading (see the "Reading Wars").

The era of threatening scientists and knowledge translation specialists has had a chilling influence on psychologists in the public sphere. Despite the calls to share psychological research with the public, hostility and threats over even the most innocuous discussions present new barriers to the science of psychology as a public good.

Science communication and knowledge translation remain among the most important duties of scientists in psychology. Expecting information to be received completely unchallenged is unreasonable. Attacks are far more likely to be virulent for women or minoritized scholars. Discussing how science is relevant to the public requires courage and a tolerance for criticism and attacks.

Career Essential Reads

How Being Happy at Work Can Make You Happy at Home

Why HR Doesn't—Can't—Work

Recommendations for science communication include:

• Stay close to the evidence and avoid over-generalization of research findings.
• Avoid prescriptions or simple instructions for life. Avoid words such as “should,” “ought,” or “must” concerning recommended behavior change as they tend to be interpreted as overly judgmental and likely to be rejected.
• Be modest. Identifying weaknesses in research or limitations of research is OK. Spectacular findings with strong research methods are rare.
• Engage skeptics. But do not engage with violent, hostile, abusive, or bad faith arguments.
• Personal and ad hominem attacks are common and expected. Stay focused on the information that you want to present and why it is important and relevant.
• Specific threats of violence need to be taken seriously and law enforcement may be contacted.
• Say “no.” Although science communication to the public is important, it is not for everyone. Radio, podcasts, television, live discussions, print interviews, social media, or community forums all require different skills. If you are uncomfortable or are not willing to be a target of anti-science violence, then it is reasonable to decline such requests.

The frustration, hostility, and violence towards experts and science is growing. Despite these problems, science communication and knowledge translation are among the most important aspects of being a professional scientist in the field of psychology.