WHEN COVID-19 vaccines saved millions and provided relief from the pandemic, I believed this would serve as powerful ammunition for science communication. While the vaccines had flaws, they offered the best option available then, and their benefits far outweighed the risks. With this in mind, I turned to TikTok, my new social media tool, to educate the public about activism and class action lawsuits, and significant challenges for emerging technologies. I also discussed the usual rare side effects of medications and medical procedures.
I hoped my video would alleviate fears and instill scientific understanding among the public. However, I was mistaken. Despite my 20+ years of experience as a science communicator, the comments challenged me. Public perception of science is taking a turn for the worse, marked by a strong trust deficit. We are living in an era of post-trust, post-expertise, and post-truth, exacerbated by anti-corporate sentiments.[ihc-hide-content ihc_mb_type=”block” ihc_mb_who=”unreg” ihc_mb_template=”3″ ]
As of July 8, 2024, my video had 491.4K views and 1,693 comments, all negative. The comments alleged that vaccines caused a myriad of health issues, ranging from diabetes, fatigue, cancer, hair loss, frequent fevers, and body aches, to gastric problems, strokes, and premature deaths. Many expressed discontent over the perceived coercion to get vaccinated, while others are seeking traditional treatments to remove the “toxins” from their bodies as a result of vaccination.
This reflects a clear misunderstanding of risk assessment and management, risk perception, scientific studies, and the distinction between causation and correlation. The reluctance of scientists and doctors to explain the science further widens the communication and knowledge gap.
Malaysia is embarking on its National Vaccine Development Roadmap (NVDR) to develop its own vaccines. Recently, Takeda launched their dengue vaccine (see page 13). However, these initiatives will be derailed if science communication is not at the centre stage. The NVDR has a strong communication strategy, and I contributed to its content. Yet, it must be aggressively implemented to shape public opinion toward scientific thinking.
In the field of agribiotechnology, activism by certain civil society groups has threatened scientists, halting research that showed potential for field trials. Rice is one such crop. Scientists lacked the stamina, skills, knowledge, time, and resources to address the perceived risks brought forth by activists. No initiatives have been taken to address these limitations, and the easy way out has been to stop the research.
This approach is backfiring and will worsen in the next decade as climate change hits us harder. Our crops will not be resilient enough to withstand the impact of climate change. Even with strong science communication initiatives and active engagement from scientists, regulators, churches, and NGOs, the Philippines could not get Golden Rice off the ground. Activists hijacked the process by filing a lawsuit against it after commercial planting began. This is a case of science being hijacked by those against humanity.
Can we let this continue to happen? Is conducting research in laboratories and publishing papers in high-impact journals enough for science to thrive? How about ensuring science serves humanity? Let the jury be out there.
[/ihc-hide-content]
