Beyond Facts: How Scientific Objectivity Undermines Democracy

When 819 different social media campaigns tried to boost COVID-19 vaccination rates, they managed to shift public opinion by just 1 percent.

That stark failure, documented in a major analysis, signals something profound: the traditional model of science communication—dumping facts and expecting “truth to prevail”—has hit a wall in our polarized information landscape.

A team of communication experts argues in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that scientists must abandon their top-down lecture approach and embrace what they call a “collaboration model” that treats public concerns, moral values, and community voices as equal partners in scientific discourse.

The Democracy Problem Behind Science Denial

“Scientists do a good job of answering the technical questions they think are relevant, about the risks and the benefits, but these are not the questions communities are asking,” explains Dietram Scheufele, an investigator at the Morgridge Institute for Research and co-author of the report. “Communities are asking about what the science means for their personal identities, and what it means for their fears about a future that will look very different from what we have now.”

The numbers tell a chilling story about science’s credibility crisis. In 2000, Republicans and Democrats showed nearly identical confidence in the scientific community—47% and 46% respectively. By 2022, that consensus had shattered: only 28% of Republicans expressed high confidence compared to 53% of Democrats.

This isn’t just about climate change skepticism or vaccine hesitancy. It reflects a deeper fracture in how Americans view expertise itself, with each political side vastly exaggerating the other party’s anti-science positions.

Beyond the Deficit Model

The current approach, researchers argue, treats the public like empty vessels waiting to be filled with scientific knowledge. This “deficit model” assumes people simply lack information, and that facts will naturally correct their misguided beliefs.

But that model crashes against modern realities:

• Scientific uncertainty gets weaponized by bad actors who exploit ambiguity to undermine expert consensus
• Pseudoscientists can present themselves as credible experts in our fragmented media landscape
• Political polarization means people often judge science by the messenger’s perceived partisanship rather than the message content
• Scientists artificially position their work as “value-free” when public policy always involves choosing between competing values

The Conversation Solution

The alternative involves replacing one-way information dumps with genuine dialogue. Instead of trying to “correct” public misconceptions, scientists would engage communities as equals, acknowledging that scientific evidence and societal values must jointly shape policy decisions.

This participatory approach requires what the researchers call “intellectual humility”—scientists admitting they don’t have all the answers and that community concerns deserve serious attention, not dismissal.

“I think we’re beginning to see how technologies like AI and gene editing change how we think about what it means to be human,” Scheufele observes. “We can help make sure that science stays at the forefront of the discussions but also recognize that science alone doesn’t determine the outcome.”

Trust Through Transparency

Counterintuitively, research suggests that acknowledging uncertainty and sharing negative information about scientific interventions can actually build long-term trust, even if it reduces short-term compliance. For example, being transparent about COVID-19 vaccine limitations decreased immediate acceptance but strengthened confidence in scientific institutions over time.

The study points to successful models like the Transforming Evidence Funders Network, which establishes ongoing relationships between scientists, communities, and policymakers before crises emerge. This proactive infrastructure contrasts sharply with the current reactive approach where communicators scramble to respond to each new challenge.

The Stakes for Science’s Future

The timing couldn’t be more critical. Science faces potential budget cuts while dealing with increasingly complex challenges like artificial intelligence, gene editing, and climate change that raise fundamental questions about human identity and societal values.

“Unless we do that, we’ll end up in more and more situations like we’re in now, where science becomes a chess piece being used in political battles,” Scheufele warns. “Science is the most important mechanism we have for creating, curating and disseminating knowledge.”

The research reveals how our current communication ecosystem amplifies the loudest, most extreme voices while elevating pseudoscience to the same level as peer-reviewed research. In this environment, simply shouting scientific facts louder won’t restore public trust—it requires fundamentally reimagining how science engages with democracy itself.

Related