I keep thinking about the cows.
On May 19, a small Swiss village was evacuated — including about 300 people, plus sheep and cows — after scientists warned a nearby glacier was at risk of collapsing. The scientists were right: The village “was largely wiped out on Wednesday after a massive glacier carrying rock and debris detached and roared down the mountainside, destroying everything in its path,” NPR reported. A search for one man was suspended, but otherwise, it seems that most of the villagers were physically unscathed, even if they have no homes to return to.
I’ve been trying to imagine what would have happened if the village was located in the U.S. Would the residents have listened to scientists? Would they have evacuated their cows? What about themselves?
On Thursday, I had the opportunity to moderate a panel discussion hosted by Issues in Science and Technology on the erosion of trust in science — and what can be done about it. The conversation was inspired by a recent Issues piece by M. Anthony Mills and Price St. Clair of the American Enterprise Institute. They wrote, “We suggest that a central, though often overlooked, factor driving these dynamics is the wariness a growing share of the public exhibits toward powerful institutions—scientific and otherwise—they perceive as insensitive, unresponsive, or even hostile to their own priorities and concerns.” In the panel, the experts discussed how engagement with local communities can help overcome this distrust.
That rhymes with an op-ed I published this week in STAT, in which Josh Gryniewicz and Sandy Tibke write about how they worked to defeat several anti-vaccination bills in North Dakota. This is a long quote, but a good one: “We started by holding listening sessions in community spaces: church basements, community organizations, and town halls. We invited everyone — outspoken anti-vaxxers, pro-vaccine parents, skeptical neighbors — and we didn’t come armed with PowerPoints and the intent to persuade. Instead, we came with questions. What are you worried about? Who do you trust? What would it take for you to feel safe?”
By listening, rather than starting from lecturing, they found that they were able to zero in on concerns and then address them without shaming. They wrote, “We knew we were making progress when one rancher, initially an outspoken critic of vaccine requirements, told us he had seen what happens when disease is allowed to run unchecked, which the U.S. can’t afford for our animals or our kids, and agreed to testify against the anti-vaccine bills.”
Cows are coming up all over the place.
I think my imaginary American mountain village would have evacuated if the scientists warning them were engaged with the community. As Josh and Sandy’s piece notes, too often, researchers come to a community — especially an Indigenous one — extract data, and then are never heard from again. The scientists don’t even send the finished paper. Maybe they think that the residents won’t care, or that they won’t understand it anyway. But the ghosting sticks with communities, building that sense of distrust.
I’m looking for more pieces along the lines of what Josh and Sandy wrote. What kinds of initiatives actually can restore trust? As always, you can find the First Opinion submission guidelines here.
**
Also: This week marks the end of this season of the First Opinion Podcast. I spoke with Paul Knoepfler, author of the new STAT+ First Opinion column Lab Dish, about the biggest questions facing regenerative medicine, sketchy stem cell clinics, and the overwhelming marketing that pregnant women get for cord-blood banking services. The podcast will be back in the fall. If you have thoughts on the show and what we can do differently, please email me.
Recommendation of the week: I’m obsessed with “Sirens” on Netflix, a show about two sisters from a troubled family and the billionaires they end up entangled with. It’s got some soapy “White Lotus” vibes but also digs into the lack of support for people with dementia and their caretakers.
