Letters: July 2020

Philip Robinson rightly observes the need to ensure that the public can (and do) trust scientific advice (Chemistry World, June 2020, p6). Science is a uniquely authoritative and effective problem-solving tool. But to deserve public trust, it must be used correctly.

Robinson criticises politicians for their ‘oversimplified’ approach to science policy. Yet scientists themselves often favour such messages. On topics as varied as childhood vaccination, climate change and pandemic management, scientists publicly argue that science mandates particular actions.

Science alone, however, is insufficient to answer questions that begin ‘What should…’. Science cannot choose objectives. Science cannot make value judgements. Science cannot make moral and ethical decisions. Science rarely even provides all the evidence on a question (policy questions usually require economic evidence, for example).

To lead by example and cultivate trust, we must clearly and honestly separate science from opinion. Our arguments should be of the form ‘since science says vaccines prevent disease and I want my children to be healthy, I should vaccinate them’, not ‘science says I should vaccinate my children’. The former is clearer and more compelling, and means people who distrust the conclusion need not automatically distrust the science. For political decisions, it differentiates the science (the advisors’ domain) from the policies (the politicians’ domain).