Trust in Scientists on Climate Change and Vaccines

Hamilton, Lawrence C.; Hartter, Joel; Saito, Kei

doi:10.1177/2158244015602752

Cited by 198 publications

(211 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

168

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, in a recent study, liberals reported greater trust in scientists as sources of information regarding vaccines and climate change, and this partisan gap widened with education (19). Another recent study found that conservatives with greater Significance Public opinion toward some science and technology issues is polarized along religious and political lines.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics

Drummond

Fischhoff

2017

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

392

359

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although Americans generally hold science in high regard and respect its findings, for some contested issues, such as the existence of anthropogenic climate change, public opinion is polarized along religious and political lines. We ask whether individuals with more general education and greater science knowledge, measured in terms of science education and science literacy, display more (or less) polarized beliefs on several such issues. We report secondary analyses of a nationally representative dataset (the General Social Survey), examining the predictors of beliefs regarding six potentially controversial issues. We find that beliefs are correlated with both political and religious identity for stem cell research, the Big Bang, and human evolution, and with political identity alone on climate change. Individuals with greater education, science education, and science literacy display more polarized beliefs on these issues. We find little evidence of political or religious polarization regarding nanotechnology and genetically modified foods. On all six topics, people who trust the scientific enterprise more are also more likely to accept its findings. We discuss the causal mechanisms that might underlie the correlation between education and identity-based polarization.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics

Drummond

Fischhoff

2017

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

392

359

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The polarization along partisan lines is not limited to climate science. For example, Hamilton, Hartter, and Saito (2015) showed that trust in scientists regarding vaccinations was also greater among Democrats than Republicans, and this polarization again increased with increasing education. The conservative-liberal split is particularly amplified in attitudes toward vaccinations against sexually transmitted diseases such as the human-papillomavirus (HPV), which is responsible for cervical cancer (Kahan, Braman, Cohen, Gastil, & Slovic, 2010).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Motivated Rejection of Science

Lewandowsky

Oberauer

2016

Curr Dir Psychol Sci

290

218

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some scientifically well-established results-such as the fact that emission of greenhouse gases produces global warming-are rejected by sizable proportions of the population in the United States and other countries. Rejection of scientific findings is mostly driven by motivated cognition: People tend to reject findings that threaten their core beliefs or worldview. At present, rejection of scientific findings by the U.S. public is more prevalent on the political right than the left. Yet the cognitive mechanisms driving rejection of science, such as the superficial processing of evidence toward the desired interpretation, are found regardless of political orientation. General education and scientific literacy do not mitigate rejection of science but, rather, increase the polarization of opinions along partisan lines. In contrast, specific knowledge about the mechanisms underlying a scientific result-such as human-made climate change-can increase the acceptance of that result.

show abstract

“…Lack of public trust in science illustrates these issues regarding the prior distributions. Despite scientific evidence on issues such as safety of childhood vaccines, safety of genetically modified foods and effectiveness of sexual health education these topics remain controversial . Although individual psychology may predispose individuals to embracing controversy, access to “prior distributions” is an important determinant .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Back to Bayesian: A strategy to enhance prognostication of metastatic spine disease

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims Clinicians must consider prognosis when offering treatment to patients with spine metastases. Although several prognostic indices have been developed and validated for this purpose, they may not be applicable in the current era of targeted systemic therapies. Even before the introduction of targeted therapies, these prognostic indices should not have been directly used for individual patient decision making without contextualising with other sources of data. By contextualising, we mean that prognostic estimates should not be based on these scores alone and formally incorporate clinically relevant factors not part of prognostic indices. Contextualisation requires the use of Bayesian statistics which may be unfamiliar to many readers. In this paper we show readers how to correctly apply prognostic scores to individual patients using Bayesian statistics. Through Bayesian analysis, we explore the impact of new targeted therapies on prognostic estimates obtained using the Tokuhashi score. Methods We provide a worked calculation for the probability of a patient surviving up to 6 months using dichotomous prognostication. We then demonstrate how to calculate a patient's expected survival using continuous prognostication. Sensitivity of the posterior distribution to prior assumptions is illustrated through effective sample size adjustment. Results When the predicted prognosis from the Tokuhashi score is contextualised with data on contemporary systemic treatments, patients previously deemed non‐surgical candidates may be eligible for surgery. Conclusions Bayesian prognostication generates intuitive results and allows multiple data points to be synthesised transparently. These techniques can extend the usefulness of existing prognostic scores in the era of targeted systemic therapies.

show abstract

Trust in Scientists on Climate Change and Vaccines

Cited by 198 publications

References 59 publications

Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics

Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics

Motivated Rejection of Science

Back to Bayesian: A strategy to enhance prognostication of metastatic spine disease

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About