Whenever I talk to the general public about my book and the content in my book, there's two questions that almost always pop up in one form or another. The first question is, how do I evaluate scientific information so that I can make scientific decisions? The second question is, how do I engage with a family member or a friend who has very anti-scientific views? What's perhaps a bit disturbing is that I've been asked the first question by people with PhDs in science disciplines. You'd think somebody with a PhD in science would have this figured out. So if some with an advanced degree in the sciences has trouble figuring this out, what on earth are layman's supposed to do about it? How do we teach this skill to students? It takes time to do the digging that are necessary to fully vet a scientific article. So for example, when I'm asked to peer review a paper, it takes me hours to carefully go through that manuscript. I'm going to do my best to tackle these two questions and give you evidence-based advice, for tackling both of these issues in your life. So to start, what's the best way to evaluate scientific information, to make informed science decisions? I Have developed an acronym to help you remember. BESST. B-E-S-S-T, where the B is for bias, E for evidence, S for knowledge structure and knowledge source, and T for truth. So let's start with the B for bias, evaluate your biases, the place where we have to start. We all have them, I have them, you have them, your friends have them, your parents have them, your favorite political party has them. Don't feel bad being bias is normal, is what you do with your biases that's important. So first question, why are you looking for information? Is it because you have a bias in a claim that you want to support or because you're trying to examine both sides of an issue and make an informed decision about your next steps? Research from cognitive psychology and motivated reasoning tells us that people are more likely to pay attention to whatever it is that supports their biases and ignore that which does not. This can actually be done subconsciously. Or not so subconsciously. It's really easy in social media to hit the mute or the Unfollow button when we don't like what someone else has to say. So it's important as a first step to check your biases and continue checking for them as you look for information. Here's an exercise you can do, you put something into Google, when that Google search result comes back, where do you go to first? What headlines stick out? Are you ignoring any even subconsciously? Take a moment to reflect, and writing it down is a really good way to follow through with this exercise. What biases do you have? When you're thinking about this question think about your political affiliations, your religion, your gender identity, your career, your racial or ethnic background. What biases do you have? Now let's pursue the E for evidence. This is related to the justification of science knowledge. So evidence, we look at claims and if evidence supports those clams. So a claim is for example, something that you'll see in a headline. Then the first question you need to ask is what evidence supports this headline, if any? Sometimes these headlines are just intended to be inflammatory to get you to click on them. For example, you might look at, is there evidence and how is that evidence generated? Can you find a link to the original study or quotes from the study authors? If the original study is cited, which Journal published the article? If you look at the original article, which in the case of research funded by the National Institutes of Health is always freely available to the public, who was the editor? What's the editors affiliation? How many times was the article sent back to the authors for revision and was it peer reviewed? Who funded the study? Was it federally funded? Was it privately funded? Or is it some private organization that may have ulterior motives that could bias the study? Who reviewed the study? This information isn't widely available yet, but it is becoming available. What kind of study was it? We talked earlier in the course that randomized controlled trials who produce the best evidence. However, making claims that something found in cell lines as it relates to human health is a huge jump. Is there a causal link between the evidence and the claim or is correlation being confused for causation? Now let's move on to the two S's, Source and structure. Source, where is the information coming from? Are you at a public talk given by a scientists? Are you listening to a podcast given by a scientist? Is the scientist, a real scientist? Is this scientists reputable, for example? Everybody knows Bill Nye the Science Guy. I watched Bill Nye the Science Guy growing up and I loved it. However, even though he's a very famous faces of science communication, he doesn't actually have an advanced degree in the sciences. He's a television superstar with a bachelor's degree in engineering. Maybe you're reading an article published by a scientist in a scientific journal. Maybe it's a blog, sometimes scientists write blogs, sometimes people with no credentials write blogs. Maybe you're getting it from your favorite news channel, or maybe it's the local paper, maybe it's New York Times, maybe you're at a rally at the town square in your town, or maybe it's just a meme on social media with no verification whatsoever. So it's really important that we evaluate the source of our information and it's also critical time when our biases might start to creep up again as well. So be careful you don't fall into the trap of gravitating towards sources that support whatever biases or conclusions that you've already come to, at the expense of evaluating if the source of that information is actually any good. How about structure now? This requires a bit of self reflection too. Think about something you know or want to know about. If you were to draw it out, would it be a linear trajectory or there will be multiple lines of evidence coming into it? Let's talk about mask wearing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Do you or did you wear a mask outside during the pandemic? Why or why not? What does your reasoning look like? Is it simple like this, ''Should I wear a mask? No, God will protect me.'' Someone actually said that to me. ''Should I wear a mask? Yes, a mask will protect me from getting sick.'' Or does it looks something like this? Should I wear a mask? Mask protect me, mask protect others. Wearing a mask makes me feel awkward and I really don't want to. Cloth masks aren't as good as medical grade variety, so why should I bother? Interesting, but tight weave cotton mask provide more protection than masks made out of synthetic fibers. You can see that there's a little bit more of a web of connection, really weighing two sets of evidence here. If your thought patterns also look more like a web than a line, you have a better knowledge structure and are therefore more prepared to make an educated decision. It also gives you a chance to check your biases. For those of us who aren't used to wearing a mask for working, it can be really awkward. It's very important for us to recognize and attend to these feelings that are going to be biasing what information we pay attention to, so that we can recognize when our biases may be getting in the way of our decision-making. Finally, we're at the T, for true. This is a bit of a weird one because if you hear or read someone espousing the truth about some scientific claim, this should always be a big red flag to you. Science knowledge is inherently uncertain. It's subject to change in light of new evidence. There is no absolute truth with a big T. Some philosophers also call this truth with the big T, absolute truth versus what we accept a true is fact right now, that's true for the little t. We have principals that we use for making decisions that are based on the best evidence that we have at hand right now, and that's truth with a little t, because there is no absolute truth when it comes to science knowledge. Again, going back to what we talked about earlier in this module and also at the beginning of this specialization in course 1, the power of science knowledge is that it is subject to revision in light of new evidence, listen and look for hedges like might, could, maybe, support, could scientists use them. It isn't a sign that scientists don't know what they're talking about. In fact, it's the sign of a good scientist. If you see that, it's much more trustworthy information. Now that we've talked about our best practices for reviewing science information, let's move on to the second driving question of this lecture. What do I do about anti-science discourse? Starts again with first acknowledging our biases and also with meeting people where they are. Do you not want to listen to someone or do they not want to listen to you because of some pre-existing bias? For example, a major issue in the United States in the filming of this video is the politicization of science issues. Whether or not an individual accepts certain scientific evidence has much more to do with their political party affiliation and less on the merits of the actual science evidence. It can be extremely difficult to divorce the two. Checking and examining biases isn't easy for anybody. That's why we need to attend to it repeatedly when we're examining information. Study show it doesn't matter what your political party is, at least in the United States, both parties have equal amount of biases. This also brings me to my next point; always meet people where they are. Not where you want them to be, not where you think they should be, but where they actually are. Productive discourse starts with relationship building. People who feel threatened or antagonized are going to dig in deeper with their views and be much less likely to listen to you. Since also we're arguing with people on Facebook or on written means is typically a bad idea. It's a much easier to read negative tone, negative intent. There's that bias again into words and if someone is disagreeing with you, it's much easier to infer antagonism even if you don't think you're presenting that way, and so people will shut down. Humans don't like confrontation. It's not conducive to learning. It doesn't matter how many facts you throw out there due to motivated reasoning, people will not pay attention to them. Until you reach a point with another person where you're accepted as part of their in-group, where there's a level of relationship there first, there is a certain level of trust that's reached. The knee-jerk reaction when you disagree with them isn't for them to feel like they're being attacked. You can't change someone's mind and that's why it starts to checking our own biases and our own tendencies towards motivated reasoning and trying to meet people where they are. Why do they think that way? What led to that decision? Can you enter into a conversation with somebody? It starts with relationship building wall, also tearing down walls that prevent dialogue. This is a big issue, especially in the United States where there's such a divisive political scene. We desperately need dialogue, not just about political issues, but scientific ones as well that we've seen again and again and again throughout this specialization. Remember your best practice and remember the basic principles of human psychology. Fundamentally, at a core level, people want you to like and accept them and their ideas as well that's very deeply engrained into us. But we don't like confrontation. It makes us question who we are as a person and triggers defensiveness. The trick to getting around anti-scientific rhetoric is to go about it by acknowledging the people behind the ideas first, really separating the two, while also acknowledging our aims and biases and their aims and biases. Focus on relationship building first and then having those needed discussions. In closing this module focus on the psychology behind how we make decisions about biological issues. We talked about epistemological beliefs about science, as well as motivated reasoning and best practices for applying these principles in our daily lives. Both to ensure the we're using the best scientific information possible when we make decisions and also so that we're equipped to engage in productive dialogue with others. The information covered in this module is critically important to ensure a scientifically literate society. Now we turn to the final module, not just of this course, but of the whole specialization and talk about the bigger picture of biology education and our next steps from here.
