What to do with misinformation about science and health

The continued spread of anti-scientific sentiment, disinformation, and disinformation about science has become a very dark business, so to speak. So it would make sense to hear what astrophysicist, author and science communicator Neil deGrasse Tyson has to say about it.

After all, Tyson has been involved in science communication in recent decades about, well, space – and about other scientific areas as well. For example, he has written a monthly column ‘Universum’ for the Natural history magazine and 17 books such as Death by black hole And Astrophysics for people in a hurryand also hosted the television shows NOVA science And Cosmos: a spacetime odyssey. Tyson has also been director of the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History since 1996.

An opportunity to hear what Tyson had to say came on April 29, when he was honored at the 25th Annual Stars of Stony Brook Gala in New York City. The Gala was part of the Stony Brook Foundation efforts to raise money for scholarships to enable students to study STEM (that’s science, technology, engineering and mathematics), especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds. There, Tyson shared his thoughts with me on how science is doing in the US. And spoiler alert: science is not doing so well. There are problems.

“The problem is that many people don’t know what science is and how and why it works,” Tyson said. “It is missing from the standard educational background. When I see how science is or is not taught, as an educator I have a little sympathy for them.”

He emphasized that science is about understanding how the world works and “if you don’t know science, you don’t really know how the world works.” He went on to say, “You have to put the burden back on the shoulders of education and educators. When science is taught in school, it’s a lot of vocabulary, problem, and regurgitation tests. At no point are most people told how fundamental science is to what we do and what we care about.” This can make science feel disconnected from everyday life, as something you can watch to nerd out on rather than something you can use in everything you do.

The lack of scientific understanding can make people very susceptible to what Tyson described as “personal testimony.” One person with a YouTube channel can say I’m right, while everyone else is wrong. We can respond as much as possible to these types of personal testimonies.” Psychologically speaking, it can be very different when someone tells you something with a name and face instead of graphs and charts. He added: “Scientific consensus, on the other hand, can seem like a faceless data point, a faceless statistic.”

Tyson further emphasized the lack of proper training in probability and statistics. He talked about how much science is about understanding the chances of something happening and how “a large part of the training in any scientific discipline is some form of statistics classes.” If you don’t have a good sense of the likelihood or probability of an event, chances are you’re either over- or under-emphasizing the wrong things.

He gave an example as food for thought: “When you read about a type of food being associated with a 20% increase in cancer risk, that may sound like a lot. But what if the baseline risk of cancer is one percent? That would mean that we should go to 1.2%, and not to 20%.”

Another example was when he talked about people writing books about such and such diets. “Suppose someone has cancer and follows a diet, thereby rejecting standardized medicine. Once the problem is solved, that person can write a book about how good that diet is.” But such books do not necessarily use science. If-it-happened-to-me-it-should-happen-to-you is not science. Otherwise, everyone on a reality TV show should expect to become President of the US one day, right?

Tyson interrupted our conversation about science with a theoretical question, a conspiracy theory question: “Can you allow me one conspiracy theory?” Why not, since he’s spent a lot of time combating a range of conspiracy theories and asked politely? When I gave him permission, he offered, “Most of the revenue from lottery tickets goes to education. You have gambling because it offers such income benefits. And most education curricula do not have any class in probability and statistics.” In other words, would people be less likely to buy lottery tickets or gamble if they knew the actual odds of winning, which is not a good thing? It’s probably not a good idea if your long-term financial plans depend on winning the lottery. But today people can base their hopes and dreams on many things that are unlikely to happen because of their inability to think statistically. It was an interesting conspiracy theory from Tyson, but who knows what the chances are of it being true?

Regardless, Tyson urged, “We need to revamp the education system so that science is taught as a way to interrogate nature, to determine what is objectively true versus objectively false, so that we can set aside what is objectively false. ”

Tyson also talked about how he communicates science and the importance of understanding the audience and the communication platform. He explained: “I discovered what works on social media by working with people a third of my age.” He added: “Try to make the medium fit your message. Before I go on a talk show, I study the presenter and his approach to the subject.”

For example, Tyson, who has appeared on The Joe Rogan Experience podcast, indicated that “Joe Rogan will have almost anyone as a guest, no matter how marginal the guest is. He has never said his show is balanced and often won’t say it leans one way or the other. In contrast, prior to his appearance on Ben Shapiro’s show, he knew “that Shaipro’s audience would be very conservative. It was a platform to attack the liberal left.”

While he can tailor his approach to the specific platform and audience, Tyson keeps some things the same: “I make sure I get my facts straight. I make sure the tone is calm. My father always said that it is not good enough to be right and to be effective.”

And it can be difficult to be effective in science communication with all the heavy politicization of what should be science issues, like climate change, vaccines and the pandemic. There is also a bevy of political and business leaders who seemingly want to pick fights and stir up conflict all the time. Many scientists who just want to talk about what is objectively true can quickly find themselves inadvertently in an MMA-style ring where they become victims of attacks, false accusations, and even death threats. These days it seems that science communication is not for the faint of heart. Nevertheless, as Tyson pointed out, “I don’t hesitate to go to shows. I have nothing to fight about. In my day, if you disagreed with someone, this was my opinion, we’d go out and have a beer.

The planets don’t exactly line up with science in the US these days, which is bad news for our country in general. If you’re not using enough real science to make effective decisions, it means you’re not using reality. And you can only get away with that for a limited time. As Tyson emphasized, a lot needs to change, starting with the way science is taught in this country. If people don’t understand basic scientific concepts like statistics and probability, they’re likely not to make the right decisions.