By Mary West
Scientific research has long been the driving force behind countless advances that extend and improve quality of life. However, a new study published in Nature Medicine suggests that certain behaviors among researchers may be hindering these advances.
The primary concern is polarization within the scientific community—a phenomenon in which researchers fail to objectively examine all available evidence or consider that long-held beliefs might be wrong.
Polarization in science is quite concerning, Thiago Cruvinel, associate professor at the University of São Paulo and coauthor of the study, told The Epoch Times in an email. “We believe it is more widespread in research than we might expect,” he said. “With misinformation becoming more accessible and visible online, researchers have increasingly adopted a sharper tone to defend their perspectives, perhaps to protect science.”
Such a defensive approach, however, may be counterproductive. This sharper tone is one of the indicators of a polarized approach, which does not promote critical thinking, according to Cruvinel. A one-sided discourse can reduce openness to diverse scientific advances and alternative solutions, ultimately limiting society’s ability to address complex problems.
Recognizing Polarized vs. Non-Polarized Research
To illustrate polarized messaging in research, consider this example: Vaccines are 100 percent safe, and anyone who doubts this is ignorant.
Such a claim is a polarized message, according to the researchers. It is characterized by harsh, assertive tones and an unquestioning allegiance to a single viewpoint, which can ignite strong emotions and foster group loyalty. Polarized messaging is typically associated with controversy, sarcasm, partisanship, hysteria, persuasiveness, and skepticism. When such a view becomes dominant, it discourages people from challenging existing ideas.
In contrast, non-polarized research presents neutral, balanced arguments and uses terms that acknowledge uncertainty. It’s typically linked to objectivity, inclusiveness, impartial examination of evidence, credibility, and diversity.
Warning Signs of Research Polarization
The study’s authors have proposed a codification system of characteristics to identify polarization in research. Key indicators include that the research:
- Insists that a particular viewpoint is the correct one
- Presents its message with drama and uses intense words
- Chooses selective experts to support views
- Leaves out opposing views
- Uses politics or partisan arguments to defend scientific positions
- Emphasizes flaws of opposing views
Factors Driving Polarization
Several factors contribute to polarization in scientific research, according to the researchers, including uncertainty and failure to challenge consensus.
Uncertainty about the right solution for an issue is what drives scientific advancement. However, when society fears an issue, it craves certainty for reassurance, which can lead to one-sided messaging.
Failure to challenge consensus promotes group solidarity among an issue’s supporters while alienating its skeptics—rather than engaging them in meaningful dialogue.
A person’s inherent biases can lead to an entrenched view, Johnathon Anderson, research scientist and associate professor at the University of California Davis Institute for Regenerative Cures, told The Epoch Times in an email.
“It is human nature to resist changing one’s mind about something that one already believes to be true,” he said. “This is particularly a problem if the idea comes from another person or group.”
When Funding Affects the Finding
The pharmaceutical industry funds some research on the effectiveness and safety of medications and medical devices, leading to potential financial conflicts of interest that can result in invalid findings. For instance, a 2017 review published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews found that industry-funded studies have more favorable results and conclusions than studies sponsored by other sources.
While financial conflicts aren’t examples of polarization per se, they can create conditions that foster it, Cruvinel noted.
“Such scenarios may influence scientific outcomes, where only favorable aspects of medications are presented, while potential disadvantages are concealed,” he said. “This situation precedes polarization, as the public may not yet be aware of the results.”
The Cycle of Scientific Polarization
To illustrate how polarization can become self-reinforcing, Cruvinel presents a common scenario:
“Imagine that a research group is determined to prove an association between two factors, A and B,” he said. “They frame their findings in this light, defending the idea to their peers and society,” he added. “As they gain prestige and influence, they may develop—consciously or not—a defensive stance to protect their theory.”
Cruvinel contrasts this with another group of scientists who find the association between A and B implausible or insufficient to explain the phenomenon. They might suppress their inclination to question it, fearing ridicule or exclusion from the scientific and public spheres. In such cases, the original theory then becomes treated as fact, reinforced by the authority of its proponents.
When a challenge arises, these alternative theories face not just scientific scrutiny but often encounter sarcasm and disdain, Cruvinel said.
“These dynamics can also work in reverse,” he noted. “Proven theories can be aggressively challenged by groups with political or economic power, delaying social consensus and the development of effective policies,” Cruvinel said.
The bottom line is that when research and medical practice become polarized, people suffer, Anderson said. “Life-altering health benefits and technologies are not advanced at the rate they should be in these kinds of environments.”
Discover more from USNN World News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.