According to a recent Gallup survey, the general support for childhood vaccinations has decreased by 10% over the last 20 years, with 46% of Americans still “unsure” about whether or not vaccines cause autism, and about 10% saying they do. While this statistic appears low, especially considering the hysteria surrounding the current COVID-19 pandemic, 61% of those with some college education, a high school level education, or less answered that they would not get a COVID-19 vaccine if it were available today, while only 16% of postgraduates said the same. Clearly, the work and experiments being conducted by professors and scientists is not known to everyone, particularly those who are more likely to not have a strong background or education in the sciences.
The rise of social media and the increasing ease it has made for stories to go viral has also accompanied an increase in the amount of misinformation and disinformation about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. For instance, with regards to the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers from Carnegie Mellon University found that of the top 50 influential retweeters that discuss coronavirus, 82% were found to be bots– in this case, due to the global scale that COVID-19 has obtained, many countries and other organizations have been utilizing bots to spread information that would support their own political agendas. Naturally, it is unsurprising that CMU researchers have identified over 100, inaccurate stories and conspiracy theories that promoted potential cures or encouraged early protests for certain U.S. states’ stay-at-home orders and for the “reopening of America.”
Nevertheless, it is inconceivable to require every adult to obtain advanced degrees in the sciences in order to understand the subject. Thus, the responsibility of combating the deficit model of science communications comes down to the scientific community: we need to include concepts taught in humanities courses into science.
Although STEM and the humanities, particularly that of English, are often considered to be completely separate entities by their respective students, the subjects are not mutually exclusive. Regardless of research done in either the fields of STEM or of the humanities, all scholars depend on exchanges of ideas and of sufficient evidence to support a claim or hypothesis. In other words, there needs to be proper communication between scientists and the general public to explain the certain scientific principles associated with drugs, vaccines, treatments, etc.
At the same time, this article has no intention of criticizing the quality of the work being done by scientists; many scientists are masters at composing empirical research and that of scientific composition. However, their works are being presented to other like-minded scientists, an audience that does not need to be convinced on whether or not vaccines are beneficial or if climate change is real. Thus, the scientific community should concentrate their writing in a way that can be directed towards a community that will inevitably lack ubiquitous understanding for the sciences: the general public. Similar to how students in English courses are taught to shape their arguments in a manner that will be most effective and leave maximum understanding for a particular audience, the scientific community should educate the public through releasing various studies or reports in a manner– perhaps one that thoroughly explains scientific jargon or one that does away with such jargon in favor of simplified vernacular.
There is undoubtedly a clear information divide between the scientific community and the general public: the general public will naturally lack concrete background information in the sciences and they will naturally need different presentations and terminology for optimal understanding. However, the only way to bridge that gap is to recognize that the general public is, in fact, not another group of scientists, and that they must be persuaded in different ways.
By: Jenny Liao
Comments