UC Essay Competition 2020: Read Iliyana Nalbantova's Winning Work

by Iliyana Nalbantova

We are publishing the first prize winner in the University Council Essay Competition 2020. Iliyana Nalbantova ('20), who also won last year, offers a thoughtful analysis on "how might we use what has been learned from the coronavirus pandemic to advance humanity," which was this year's topic.

The coronavirus pandemic hardly needs an introduction. Having started in late 2019 in Wuhan, China[1], COVID-19 has since turned into a global pandemic which has already cost over 200,000 lives[2] and continues to wreak havoc on the health and well-being of individuals and societies around the world. However, the current pandemic and the extent of the damage it has caused came as a surprise only to some: health experts have warned for years that national governments remain vastly unprepared for global outbreaks of infectious diseases.[3] In a way, the coronavirus has revealed many of the underlying, long-standing problems in today’s world which ultimately undermined governments’ and societies’ ability to respond to the crisis in an effective manner. This essay, therefore, sets out to explicate one of these problems in reference to democracies where, I argue, the ability of governments to address the pandemic has been compromised by the relative decline of public trust in science and medicine. A detailed examination of the origins of trend and its influence in the battle against COVID-19 will then provide the blueprint for the answer to one of the most important questions today: how we might use what has been learned from the coronavirus pandemic to advance humanity.

In philosophy, trust refers to a relationship we form with others which involves relying on them to do something and the belief that they will do it for the right reasons.[4] In this sense, trust also involves a risk. If there was a guarantee that others will go through with what we expect of them, there would be no need for trust on the first place.[5] Therefore, by trusting others, we risk losing that which we have entrusted to them.

In science, the concept of trust is fundamentally paradoxical. Modern science requires constant questioning and rigorous scrutiny by other researchers to readdress present findings. It is a matter of evidence, rather than trust.[6] When it comes to the relationship with the public, however, science relies on the trust of others. John Lisle eloquently describes this delicate situation in the Scientific American:

Science is supposedly based on evidence, but in reality, for most people, it is based on trust. Scientific evidence is mostly inaccessible. Scientific journals are difficult to obtain and their articles are written in a specialized language that is incomprehensible to all but a few experts in the field. We trust what those experts say about their results without having the ability to question the results themselves. We trust that some knowledgeable person would question them if necessary.[7]

Therefore, in the relationship between science (the trustee) and the public (the trustor), what the trustee provides to the trustor is knowledge, and the lack of truth or validity to that knowledge represents the risk.[8]

Following this definition, public trust in science among citizens of liberal democracies appears to be relatively high by conventional measures. For example, 39 per cent of Americans reported that they have “a great deal” of trust in scientists in 2018, while another 41 percent reported “a fair amount” of trust, according to data from Pew Research Center.[9] In Finland, 66 per cent indicated they trust scientific research and the scientific community, according to a survey from 2016.[10] However, other related indicators portray a more nuanced perspective on public trust in science. Despite their overall high confidence in scientists, only 13 per cent of Americans believe that medical researchers “admit and take responsibilities for their mistakes,” and that they “face serious consequences for misconduct.”[11] Another 35 per cent of US respondents think that “the scientific method can be used to produce any conclusion the researcher wants.”[12] The picture is even more mixed when we look at specific areas of scientific research which have gained notoriety in recent years such as vaccines, climate change, and genetically modified food. In the United States, vaccination rates among children have decreased due to misperceptions about vaccine safety, leading to outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases such as measles which was previously declared eliminated in 2000.[13] In the first four months of 2019 alone, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention reported the highest number of measles in the US cases since 1994.[14] The European region, where skepticism about vaccines is also growing, reported a record number of measles cases in 2018 resulting in 72 deaths among children and adults in that year.[15] Therefore, these tendencies demonstrate that even though overall public trust in scientists remains high, a closer examination of related factors reveals a more complex, troubling emerging trend in relation to science with dangerous implications for public health and safety.

The causes behind this ambivalent relationship between science and the public can be attributed to a multitude of factors. During times of global health crises, medical researchers are under huge pressure to review large numbers of manuscripts putting into question the quality peer reviews and research integrity. During less disruptive times, uncovering of academic fraud and scientific dishonesty casts further doubt on scientists’ own contributions to the erosion of the integrity of the scientific method. Yet, these cases remain the exception rather than the rule.[16] Instead, Michel Dubois, a research professor in the French National Center for Scientific Research, argues that there is a more important reason underlying the complex relationship between science and the public. He suggests that trust in science largely depends on “the perceived distance between scientists and political leaders.”[17] In other words, while the public has generally high trust in scientists, the knowledge and information they provide is often brokered through policy-makers, media outlets and other channels, often providing a more tangible, though not necessarily faithful, (policy) expression of scientific findings – a process which may dilute the level of public trust in science along the way. For illustration, while 39 per cent of Americans trust scientists a “great deal,” only 8 per cent say the same for the news media, and only 3 per cent for elected officials. Indeed, politicians in the US were responsible for a decrease in federal research funding, the organizations and funding of campaigns against climate science, and the outright rejection of findings uniformly accepted in the scientific community.[18] The Presidency of Donald Trump in particular was seen as a turning point[19] in these developments. What has now been dubbed “the war on science” has direct negative ramifications for the quality of scientific research at the federal level but also, perhaps more significantly, for the levels of public trust in science in general.[20]

Though the erosion of trust in science, brokered through political leaders and the media in democracies, has been gradually occurring over recent years, the extent of the consequences of this development – mostly a subject of speculation only five months ago – is tragically exemplified by the coronavirus pandemic. In an overall information space characterized by mistrust and suspicion, misinformation about the origins of the coronavirus and pseudo-scientific, dangerous and potentially deadly cures for the disease, such as drinking ethanol or bleach, have proliferated on the Internet and other social circles.[21] The situation has also been exploited and further exacerbated by other, external actors who intentionally spread large amounts of false information about COVID-19.[22] Again, the United States is an example of this polluted information space as multiple misinformation narratives about the coronavirus pandemic made their way to President Donald Trump. Widely criticized for the inaction of his government,[23] the President has continuously echoed and endorsed false information in public.[24] These ill-informed messages with little to no actual scientific basis have a very direct effect on public health and safety. Earlier in April, for instance, President Trump encouraged citizens to take the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine which has been shown to have dangerous side effects including death.[25] Therefore, the global developments related to the declining trust in science have hampered the crisis response in some democracies thereby endangering the well-being of their citizens.

Yet, there have also been successful examples of democratic responses to the crisis situation caused by COVID-19, and their experience offers critical insight into the lessons we can learn from the pandemic in regards to trust in science. One of these examples in Iceland. Pursuing policy of strict quarantines for those suspected of having contracted the virus and mass testing, Iceland has fewer than 2000 cases and has been praised for its efficient response.[26] Though critics have raised concerns whether a similar approach could work in larger countries, Iceland’s response was first and foremost characterized by the extensive use of good practices related to the relationship between science, society, government and other key actors – practices which arguably had greater influence than its size and relatively small population. For instance, the Nordic country has been preparing for a pandemic for years in collaboration with local actors including scientists and medical professionals, and the implementation of their plan as the coronavirus began to spread was driven by data.[27] The government’s approach towards crisis communication involved placing public health experts, rather than politicians, at the center, thereby exemplifying the extent of the collaboration between the two actors and reducing the perceived distance between science and politics. Alma Moller, the health directorate chief, has been praised for the qualities of her briefings, usually in the absence of politicians, occasionally involving outside experts to address other important topics such as childcare challenges and mental health.[28] In a recent interview, she emphasized the importance of fact-based decision-making. Thus, there is strong evidence to suggest that the relationship between science and the public as well as the role of government in brokering this relationship has the potential to positively impact public health and safety.

Despite Iceland’s successful response to the coronavirus, it should be noted that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to the problem of lack of trust in science due to the perceived distance between scientists and politicians which has characterized the responses of governments and societies to the current pandemic. Societies have different needs and preferences about information channels and the accepted level of involvement of scientists in policy discourse among other related issues including varying levels of trust in public institutions. Yet, what we can learn from Iceland’s example is that an awareness of the distance between science and politics as an underlying problem in virtually all crisis situations and an understanding of the most appropriate way to address that based on the needs and preferences of the given society is key in any emergency response. Equally importantly, such awareness and understanding can help to create more resilient societies not only in the face of crises, but at all times. In order to be able to achieve this, however, scientists should strive to reclaim their position in the information space in the most appropriate way for their environment in order to combat the declining trust in their discipline. Ideally, cooperation with government and other actors can reduce the distance between science and politics. However, in more hostile environments, there are still ways to get the right message across.

Experts suggest that there is a set of useful prescriptions to assist scientists in the challenge before them. Dorsamy Pillay, Deputy Chief Executive Officer leading the Research and Innovation Support and Advancement at the National Research Foundation, and Beverley Damonse, Group Executive of Science Engagement and Corporate Relations at the National Research Foundation argue that public participation in the institutions of science, and interactions between researchers, businesses, civil society and government are the key steps in rebuilding trust in science in order to craft an effective crisis response supported by the general public.[29] In particular, they believe that scientists themselves have a greater role to play in raising public awareness about science and encouraging debate about findings in social settings. One way to do this, Pillay and Damonse write, is to make scientific research more accessible. This refers not only to the publishing of publicly funded research with minimal or no access restrictions, but also public presentations of scholarship in a more accessible language through various channels.

When it comes to environments which are more hostile to scientists, Robin Lloyd, a writer for the Scientific American, has another set of suggestions based on the discussion between panelists at a session at the American Association for the Advancement of Science.[30] In the context of the “war on science” in the US, science historian Mark Largent of Michigan State University argued that “scientists should shift away from an embattled position […] and acknowledge that they have tremendous power over various social arenas,” the article reports. Largent further added that “a defensive stance misrepresents science’s influence and can alienate people already mistrustful of vaccines or other socially relevant findings.” Panelists at the session clarified that different opinions on polarizing issues such as vaccines, climate change and GM foods often arise from different interpretations of the significance of specific findings, rather than the findings themselves. For this reason, they maintained that throwing more scientific data at people is a counter-productive approach likely to create more public resistance and mistrust. Instead, science historian and philosopher Roberta Millstein of the University of California, Davis encouraged scientists to attempt to “address people where they are” in order to avoid potentially harmful disconnects. Steve Strauss, Oregon State University professor of forestry, suggested that another way to mitigate public mistrust in science is to advocate putting new scientific discoveries and technology at the service of the public, rather than big corporations or governments. In doing so, however, the panelists agreed, scientists should address publics with empathy and humility.

In conclusion, the coronavirus pandemic has dramatically revealed the disastrous consequences of years-long developments related to the declining trust in science in democracies. The experience of successful and less successful national approaches to the COVID-19 global health crisis demonstrates that the distance between politics and science is a key factor in the effectiveness of emergency responses. I have argued that one of the most important lessons we can learn from this to advance humanity is the need for awareness of the challenge to the credibility of science and the necessity of collective action led by scientists themselves in order to address it. Such an action would ensure that governments around the world are more prepared to address future pandemics, and other disasters and emergencies. Perhaps more crucially, however, it would also help to build more resilient societies and establish stronger foundation for good governance and informed decision-making, leading to a world which is on the whole better equipped to address the big and small issues of the day. Greater cooperation between scientists and members of the public, governments and other actors can advance humanity by promoting scientifically informed solutions to climate change, hunger, poverty, global health, and many pressing global and local problems. This is by no means an easy task. However, as Yuval Noah Harari, author of “Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind” articulately put it: “Normally, trust that has been eroded for years cannot be rebuilt overnight. But these are not normal times. In a moment of crisis, minds too can change quickly.”

[1] Taylor, Derrick Bryson. “How the Coronavirus Pandemic Unfolded: a Timeline.” The New York Times. The New York Times, February 13, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/article/coronavirus-timeline.html.

[2] “COVID-19 Situation Reports.” World Health Organization. World Health Organization. Accessed May 2, 2020. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports/.

[3] McVeigh, Karen. “Experts Warn World 'Grossly Unprepared' for Future Pandemics.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, September 18, 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/sep/18/a-deadly-virus-could-kill-80-million-people-in-hours-experts-warn.

[4] Goldberg, Sanford. “The Philosophy of Trust: Key Findings.” The Philosophy of Trust: Key Findings | The Trust Project. Accessed May 2, 2020. https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/trust-project/videos/goldberg-ep-2.aspx.

[5] McLeod, Carolyn. “Trust.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University, August 3, 2015. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trust/.

[6] Lisle, John. “Our Trust in Science Is Complicated.” Scientific American Blog Network. Scientific American, April 2, 2020. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/our-trust-in-science-is-complicated/.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Hendriks, Friederike & Kienhues, Dorothe & Bromme, Rainer. (2016). Trust in Science and the Science of Trust.

[9] “Americans' Trust in Military, Scientists Relatively High; Fewer Trust Media, Business Leaders, Elected Officials.” Pew Research Center. Pew Research Center, March 22, 2019. https://www.pewresearch.org/ft_19-03-21_scienceconfidence_americans-trust-in-military/.

[10] “Chapter 7: Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding.” NSF. Accessed May 2, 2020. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/report/sections/science-and-technology-public-attitudes-and-understanding/public-attitudes-about-s-t-in-general.

[11] Funk, Cary, Courtney Johnson, and Meg Hefferon. “5 Key Findings about Public Trust in Scientists in the U.S.” Pew Research Center. Pew Research Center, August 5, 2019. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/05/5-key-findings-about-public-trust-in-scientists-in-the-u-s/.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Bednarczyk, Robert A, Adrian R King, Ariana Lahijani, and Saad B Omer. “Current Landscape of Nonmedical Vaccination Exemptions in the United States: Impact of Policy Changes.” Expert review of vaccines. U.S. National Library of Medicine, February 2019. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6386772/.

[14] Patel M, Lee AD, Redd SB, et al. Increase in Measles Cases — United States, January 1–April 26, 2019. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2019;68:402–404. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6817e1.

[15] “Measles in Europe: Record Number of Both Sick and Immunized.” World Health Organization. World Health Organization, February 7, 2019. http://www.euro.who.int/en/media-centre/sections/press-releases/2019/measles-in-europe-record-number-of-both-sick-and-immunized.

[16] “Case Summaries: ORI - The Office of Research Integrity.” ORI. Accessed May 2, 2020. https://ori.hhs.gov/case_summary.

[17] Dubois, Michel. “Could Covid-19 Affect Public Trust in Science?” CNRS News, 2020. https://news.cnrs.fr/opinions/could-covid-19-affect-public-trust-in-science.

[18] Lloyd, Robin. “Is There Really a War on Science?” Scientific American. Scientific American, February 15, 2016. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-really-a-war-on-science/.

[19] Milman, Oliver. “Trump Administration's War on Science Has Hit 'Crisis Point', Experts Warn.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, October 3, 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/oct/03/science-trump-administration-crisis-point-report.

[20] Plumer, Brad, and Coral Davenport. “Science Under Attack: How Trump Is Sidelining Researchers and Their Work.” The New York Times. The New York Times, December 28, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/28/climate/trump-administration-war-on-science.html.

[21] “Myth Busters.” World Health Organization. World Health Organization. Accessed May 2, 2020. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/myth-busters.

[22] “Coronavirus Disinformation Cases.” EU vs DISINFORMATION. Accessed May 2, 2020. https://euvsdisinfo.eu/disinformation-cases/?disinfo_keywords%5B%5D=106935.

[23] Wallach, Philip A., and Justus Myers. “The Federal Government's Coronavirus Actions and Failures.” Brookings. Brookings, April 1, 2020. https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-federal-governments-coronavirus-actions-and-failures-timeline-and-themes/.

[24] McCarthy, Tom. “'It Will Disappear': the Disinformation Trump Spread about the Coronavirus – Timeline.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, April 14, 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/14/trump-coronavirus-alerts-disinformation-timeline.

[25] Wong, Julia Carrie. “Hydroxychloroquine: How an Unproven Drug Became Trump's Coronavirus 'Miracle Cure'.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, April 7, 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/06/hydroxychloroquine-trump-coronavirus-drug.

[26] McLaughlin, Kelly. “Iceland Is Allowing Everyone in the Country to Be Tested for the Coronavirus. The Government Says It Spent Years Perfecting Its Approach.” Business Insider. Business Insider, April 2, 2020. https://www.businessinsider.com/iceland-coronavirus-pandemic-approach-could-help-other-countries-2020-4.

[27] Ibid

[28] Daragahi, Borzou. “Iceland's Key to Success to Fighting Coronavirus Has Been Keeping Politicians off the Stage.” The Independent. Independent Digital News and Media, May 1, 2020. https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/world/coronavirus-iceland-cases-deaths-lockdown-covid-19-a9494061.html.

[29] Pillay, Dorsamy, and Beverley Damonse. “Coronavirus Shows the Urgency of Ensuring That Research Gets into the Public Domain.” The Conversation, April 28, 2020. https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-shows-the-urgency-of-ensuring-that-research-gets-into-the-public-domain-136726.

[30] Lloyd, Robin. “Is There Really a War on Science?” Scientific American. Scientific American, February 15, 2016. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-really-a-war-on-science/.

Bibliography

“Americans' Trust in Military, Scientists Relatively High; Fewer Trust Media, Business Leaders, Elected Officials.” Pew Research Center. Pew Research Center, March 22, 2019. https://www.pewresearch.org/ft_19-03-21_scienceconfidence_americans-trust-in-military/.

“Case Summaries: ORI - The Office of Research Integrity.” ORI. Accessed May 2, 2020. https://ori.hhs.gov/case_summary.

“Chapter 7: Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding.” NSF. Accessed May 2, 2020. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/report/sections/science-and-technology-public-attitudes-and-understanding/public-attitudes-about-s-t-in-general.

“COVID-19 Situation Reports.” World Health Organization. World Health Organization. Accessed May 2, 2020. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports/.

“Disinformation Cases.” EU vs DISINFORMATION. Accessed May 2, 2020. https://euvsdisinfo.eu/disinformation-cases/?disinfo_keywords%5B%5D=106935.

“Measles in Europe: Record Number of Both Sick and Immunized.” World Health Organization. World Health Organization, February 7, 2019. http://www.euro.who.int/en/media-centre/sections/press-releases/2019/measles-in-europe-record-number-of-both-sick-and-immunized.

“Myth Busters.” World Health Organization. World Health Organization. Accessed May 2, 2020. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/myth-busters.

Bednarczyk, Robert A, Adrian R King, Ariana Lahijani, and Saad B Omer. “Current Landscape of Nonmedical Vaccination Exemptions in the United States: Impact of Policy Changes.” Expert review of vaccines. U.S. National Library of Medicine, February 2019. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6386772/.

Daragahi, Borzou. “Iceland's Key to Success to Fighting Coronavirus Has Been Keeping Politicians off the Stage.” The Independent. Independent Digital News and Media, May 1, 2020. https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/world/coronavirus-iceland-cases-deaths-lockdown-covid-19-a9494061.html.

Dubois, Michel. “Could Covid-19 Affect Public Trust in Science?” CNRS News, 2020. https://news.cnrs.fr/opinions/could-covid-19-affect-public-trust-in-science.

Funk, Cary, Courtney Johnson, and Meg Hefferon. “5 Key Findings about Public Trust in Scientists in the U.S.” Pew Research Center. Pew Research Center, August 5, 2019. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/05/5-key-findings-about-public-trust-in-scientists-in-the-u-s/.

Goldberg, Sanford. “The Philosophy of Trust: Key Findings.” The Philosophy of Trust: Key Findings | The Trust Project. Accessed May 2, 2020. https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/trust-project/videos/goldberg-ep-2.aspx.

Hendriks, Friederike & Kienhues, Dorothe & Bromme, Rainer. (2016). Trust in Science and the Science of Trust.

Lisle, John. “Our Trust in Science Is Complicated.” Scientific American Blog Network. Scientific American, April 2, 2020. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/our-trust-in-science-is-complicated/.

Lloyd, Robin. “Is There Really a War on Science?” Scientific American. Scientific American, February 15, 2016. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-really-a-war-on-science/.

McCarthy, Tom. “'It Will Disappear': the Disinformation Trump Spread about the Coronavirus – Timeline.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, April 14, 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/14/trump-coronavirus-alerts-disinformation-timeline.

McLaughlin, Kelly. “Iceland Is Allowing Everyone in the Country to Be Tested for the Coronavirus. The Government Says It Spent Years Perfecting Its Approach.” Business Insider. Business Insider, April 2, 2020. https://www.businessinsider.com/iceland-coronavirus-pandemic-approach-could-help-other-countries-2020-4.

McLeod, Carolyn. “Trust.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University, August 3, 2015. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trust/.

McVeigh, Karen. “Experts Warn World 'Grossly Unprepared' for Future Pandemics.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, September 18, 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/sep/18/a-deadly-virus-could-kill-80-million-people-in-hours-experts-warn.

Milman, Oliver. “Trump Administration's War on Science Has Hit 'Crisis Point', Experts Warn.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, October 3, 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/oct/03/science-trump-administration-crisis-point-report.

Patel M, Lee AD, Redd SB, et al. Increase in Measles Cases — United States, January 1–April 26, 2019. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2019;68:402–404. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6817e1

Pillay, Dorsamy, and Beverley Damonse. “Coronavirus Shows the Urgency of Ensuring That Research Gets into the Public Domain.” The Conversation, April 28, 2020. https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-shows-the-urgency-of-ensuring-that-research-gets-into-the-public-domain-136726.

Plumer, Brad, and Coral Davenport. “Science Under Attack: How Trump Is Sidelining Researchers and Their Work.” The New York Times. The New York Times, December 28, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/28/climate/trump-administration-war-on-science.html.

Taylor, Derrick Bryson. “How the Coronavirus Pandemic Unfolded: a Timeline.” The New York Times. The New York Times, February 13, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/article/coronavirus-timeline.html.

Wallach, Philip A., and Justus Myers. “The Federal Government's Coronavirus Actions and Failures.” Brookings. Brookings, April 1, 2020. https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-federal-governments-coronavirus-actions-and-failures-timeline-and-themes/.

Wong, Julia Carrie. “Hydroxychloroquine: How an Unproven Drug Became Trump's Coronavirus 'Miracle Cure'.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, April 7, 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/06/hydroxychloroquine-trump-coronavirus-drug.