If only person X / government body X / company X / community X had all the scientific information...then they would make good decisions...right?

Dr Naomi Oreskes calls this "the supply side model of science," in which scientists supply robust, high-quality information, and governments, businesses, etc., will use that information to make decisions.

You don't need to be a scientist to know that this "supply side" model doesn't actually work like that in the real world.

But why doesn't it work? Dr Oreskes highlights three key assumptions this way of thinking makes that just don't hold up to scrutiny:

⚠️ People understand what scientists are saying.

Oreskes highlights that scientists assume their audience has a stronger scientific background than they do. She says it is not uncommon for scientists to speak as if the audience has a college-level education. She points to one study which suggests American adults generally don't remember much about their science and math education beyond primary school level.

⚠️People will want to hear what scientists are saying.

People don't reject or deny science "because the science is weak, unsettled or too uncertain to inform decision-making, but because they don’t like the actual or perceived implications of that science." Oreskes says whether scientists like it or not, science often has political, philosophical, or economic implications (or perceived implications).

⚠️We're all "operating on a level playing field."

Time to talk about disinformation - messaging created to mislead and confuse the audience. Disinformation campaigns (oil and climate change, tobacco and cancer, for example) typically receive much more funding than programs aimed at improving science literacy, helping scientists become better communicators, etc. This is not a level playing field.

So what does this mean for science communication? Oreskes offers some thoughts:
✅Facts do matter but remember, facts alone aren't enough.
✅Be mindful of your audience and tailor your message.
✅Acknowledge there are often political and ideological implications to science. Don't be afraid to address those implications.
✅Don't be afraid to tackle disinformation. Exposing people to disinformation and explaining that it is disinformation can help "inoculate" people against disinformation in general.

Read the science

Oreskes, N. The trouble with the supply-side model of science. Proc.Indian Natl. Sci. Acad. 88, 824–828 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43538-022-00121-1

How can I help you today?