Global S&T Development Trend Analysis Platform of Resources and Environment
“Making Decisions is not a Scientist’s Job” | |
admin | |
2020-03-25 | |
发布年 | 2020 |
语种 | 英语 |
国家 | 法国 |
领域 | 地球科学 |
正文(英文) |
Researchers in the high-security laboratory of the Institute of Virology, at the University of Marburg (Germany), are working on a coronavirus vaccine.
Rarely have scientists been so sollicited and praised by journalists and politicians, who seek their support in confronting the current health crisis. A consensus to be viewed with caution, warns sociologist and communication specialist Dominique Wolton.
As we face the dangers stemming from the Covid-19 pandemic, everyone is looking to the scientists. This includes the general public, but also the political powers, who rely on scientific expertise to justify their actions and decisions. What image of research does this situation convey? First of all, scientists are not physicians, even those in disciplines like virology and epidemiology. They study relatively abstract questions over the long term, whereas physicians are in the thick of the action. They deal with matters of life and death, with the immediacy of pain, anxiety and risk, as well as with social and cultural differences in human relations and behaviours – Chinese and Europeans are not the same… Secondly, researchers are not always in agreement. They argue and can engage in controversies and rivalries that are not all scientific. It is only natural that politicians and the public should want to be reassured, and imagine there is a kind of unanimity that will help find a solution to the crisis. But it’s more complicated than that. Lastly, we live in a democracy, and ultimately it’s down to the political leaders to make the decisions and shoulder the responsibility within the framework of our institutions. It’s not the scientists’ job, however difficult it may be for the politicians. Could researchers, paradoxically, be held responsible in this health crisis? In this case, it has little chance of shedding a more objective light on the actions of researchers, health professionals, political leaders and some members of the public, who are not always irreproachable. At some point, the demand for transparency shifts into an illusion of complete control of the situation, bordering on voyeurism. Trust does not necessarily arise from ever-greater transparency. In practice, crisis communication, whether from political leaders or traditional media sources, tends to conform to a “question-and-answer” format. This is clearly obvious on the social networks or the news channels, for example: journalists and politicians endeavour to provide factual, objective information, presumaby based on science, for a public riddled with doubt and sometimes anxiety. This is reassuring, but it has little to do with a scientific approach, which is usually not so categorical. We will no doubt need to re-examine the concept of “crisis communication” and the conditions under which it can be transposed from one crisis to another. Could the scientific, political and media narratives be more coherent? The capacity for the peaceful coexistence of these incommunications is the essence of society and democracy. It’s also what allows us to progress: if we all said the same thing, if we all had the same point of view, we’d be trapped in an endless loop. Our disagreements and divergent perceptions are a driving force for our societies. Is this pluralism also necessary within the scientific world? In short, we will also need social science, political science and anthropology in order to understand the unfolding of this crisis. But for that to happen, it is important for now to avoid giving the illusion of unanimity. Giving the impression that everyone is in agreement or is privy to scientific truth means running the risk of fuelling disappointments and bitter criticisms, as well as accusations of conspiracy in six months’ time, when the epidemic is behind us. Paradoxically, more information and freedom of information leads to increasing – and more cataclysmic – conspiracy theories. Sadly, there is no direct relation between the quantity of news in circulation and trust, or even truth. In a world flooded with information, communication does not become any easier. Footnotes
Go further
0 comment
|
URL | 查看原文 |
来源平台 | Centre national de la recherche scientifique |
文献类型 | 新闻 |
条目标识符 | http://119.78.100.173/C666/handle/2XK7JSWQ/229391 |
专题 | 地球科学 |
推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714 | admin. “Making Decisions is not a Scientist’s Job”. 2020. |
条目包含的文件 | 条目无相关文件。 |
个性服务 |
推荐该条目 |
保存到收藏夹 |
查看访问统计 |
导出为Endnote文件 |
谷歌学术 |
谷歌学术中相似的文章 |
[admin]的文章 |
百度学术 |
百度学术中相似的文章 |
[admin]的文章 |
必应学术 |
必应学术中相似的文章 |
[admin]的文章 |
相关权益政策 |
暂无数据 |
收藏/分享 |
除非特别说明,本系统中所有内容都受版权保护,并保留所有权利。