Can’t You All Just Get Along? Effects of Scientific Disagreement and Incivility on Attention to and Trust in Science

Disagreement and incivility are increasingly common in science communication. While previous work has explored effects on issue attitudes, it has not examined how disagreement and incivility in news coverage influence attention to and trust in science. In this study, we investigate how civil and uncivil disagreement about non-politicized issues affects attention to science news, evaluations of research, and scientific trust. Results reveal that disagreement and incivility can not only lead to less attention to and acceptance of particular science issues, but also broader mistrust of scientists and scientific methods.

Assessing the origins of the European Plagues following the Black Death: A synthesis of genomic, historical, and ecological information

The second plague pandemic started in Europe with the Black Death in 1346 and lasted until the 19th century. Based on ancient DNA studies, there is a scientific disagreement over whether the bacterium, Yersinia pestis, came into Europe once (Hypothesis 1) or repeatedly over the following four centuries (Hypothesis 2). Here, we synthesize the most updated phylogeny together with historical, archeological, evolutionary, and ecological information. On the basis of this holistic view, we conclude that Hypothesis 2 is the most plausible. We also suggest that Y. pestis lineages might have developed attenuated virulence during transmission, which can explain the convergent evolutionary signals, including pla decay, that appeared at the end of the pandemics.

Learning from Scientific Disagreement

The article addresses the question of how should scientific peers revise their beliefs (if at all) upon recognized disagreement. After presenting the basics of peer disagreement in sections 1 and 2, we focus, in section 3, on a concrete case of scientific disagreement, to wit, the dispute over the evidential status of randomized control trials in medical practice. The examination of this case motivates the idea that some scientific disagreements permit a steadfast reaction. In section 4, we support this conclusion by providing a normative argument in the same direction; if we are correct, typical reasons for conciliation are absent in this kind of scientific disagreements.

Assessing the origins of the European Plagues following the Black Death: a synthesis of genomic, historical and ecological information

The Second Plague Pandemic started in Europe with the Black Death in 1346 and lasted until the 19th century. Based on ancient DNA studies, there is a scientific disagreement over whether the bacterium, Yersinia pestis, came into Europe once (Hypothesis 1), or repeatedly over the following four centuries (Hypothesis 2). Here we synthesize the most updated phylogeny together with historical, archeological, evolutionary and ecological information. On the basis of this holistic view, we conclude that Hypothesis 2 is the most plausible. We also suggest that Y. pestis lineages might have developed attenuated virulence during transmission, which can explain the convergent evolutionary signals, including pla-decay, that appeared at the end of the pandemics.Significance StatementOver the last few years there has been a great deal of scientific debate regarding whether the plague bacterium, Yersinia pestis, spread from a Western European reservoir during the Second Plague Pandemic, or if it repeatedly came to Europe from Asia. Here we make a synthesis of the available evidence, including genomes of ancient DNA, historical, archeological and ecological information. We conclude that the bacterium most likely came to Europe from Asia several times during the Second Plague Pandemic.

Face masks for the public during Covid-19: an appeal for caution in policy

As the Covid-19 crisis deepens, some researchers have argued for the widespread routine use of face masks in community settings, despite acknowledged gaps in the evidence base for the effectiveness of such a measure. We argue that such calls are premature, and risk neglecting important potential harms and negative consequences, known and unknown. We identify potential unintended consequences at multiple levels, from individual-behavioural to macrosocial, and suggest that it is far from clear that the benefits of widespread uptake of face masks, whether encouraged or enforced by public authorities, outweigh the downsides. Finally, we make the case for caution in communicating unequivocal messages about the scientific evidence for face mask use to policy, practitioner and public audiences, given continued scientific disagreement on the question.

Introduction to “Expert disagreement and medical authority”

Chapter 7 introduces the subject discussed in Chapter 8, ‘Expert disagreement and medical authority’, which addresses the ideas of consensus, dissent, division of cognitive labor, social epistemology, scientific disagreement, epistemic authority, decision vector, and agnotology.

Trust, dissent, and decision vectors

Chapter 9 is a commentary on Chapter 8, which discusses various topics around the ideas of consensus, dissent, division of cognitive labor, social epistemology, scientific disagreement, epistemic authority, decision vector, and agnotology as they relate to eExpert disagreement and medical authority.