Share
Reported by Natasha McCarthy (Head of Policy, Data at the Royal Society) and Kate McNeil (CSaP Communications Coordinator)
How do institutions earn the trust needed to guide personal decision making through the evidence they provide?
We all need access to trusted information to guide the decisions we make. However, the process of sharing evidence and building trust in that information can be challenging when that evidence is contested by others, when information is non-linear, or when the advice given is subject to change – as has happened in the rapidly evolving context of the covid-19 pandemic. With this in mind, CSaP’s Policy Leaders Roundtable in the spring of 2021, chaired by Professor Dame Sally Davies, sought to explore the nature of the relationship between science, evidence, and truth. Throughout the event, contributors including Professor John Aston, Professor Sheila Jasanoff, Professor Melissa Leach, and Policy Leaders Fellows Emily Miles and Sam Lister explored how we can move away from a binary distinction between ‘good’ information and misinformation.
Evidence in areas such as public health – from advice about food safety to guidance on the safety and efficacy of vaccinations – guide important individual decisions that in turn have consequences for wider society. The decisions an individual makes depend on their personal circumstances and background, and this individual point of view can be in tension with data and evidence that is drawn from broad populations. How an individual may apply that evidence to themselves depends on the source of that evidence, as trust depends not only on the quality of information, but on who is providing it. For example, vaccine hesitancy may not be driven by scepticism about the quality of evidence, but a lack of trust in the institution that provides it.
This relationship of trust may be influenced by the communities to which individuals belong, with disadvantaged communities more likely to be sceptical of the institutions which have contributed to structural inequality. Trust is also affected by the behaviour of the representatives of institutions; and the real or perceived motivations of those giving advice.
A lack of automatic trust in institutions that hold power is not inherently problematic, nor is the questioning of evidence in the context of a plurality of sciences, evidence sources, and inherent uncertainty. However, if evidence or guidance is rejected or questioned, institutions should take steps to understand why individuals or groups take that stance. It may not be that the evidence is being rejected, but that the framing of risks is different. Here, opening a dialogue that exposes the different risks and harms that are cause for concern can be more valuable to decision-makers than simply continuing efforts to better communicate the same scientific facts.
An organisation can earn the right to be trusted when it recognises the complexity of the information environment and its place within it; when it is open to, and reflects on, the wider set of issues at stake for different communities. This involves listening to diverse communities and the risks that are of concern to them. It is to be open to the different sources of evidence relevant to those risks, including local and anthropological knowledge. It is to engage with a plurality of sciences, each of which brings differing narratives to complex issues such as those in public health. Mapping the multiplicity of issues and perspectives around challenges from policy to public health and making space for a more inclusive dialogue around them, is a vital step communicating evidence in a trustworthy and constructive way.
Cover image by Karim Ghantous on Unsplash