Science is often considered the best available route to knowledge and, thus, essential for societal progress. Yet contemporary science faces several challenges. These challenges include politicization, misinformation, and inequalities. I outline each of these threats, detailing the ways in which they can undermine the optimal production and application of science. I provide an overview of various research agendas on each, as covered in this volume. Without minimizing the seriousness posed by each threat, I also suggest that existing work provides reason for hope that the scientific enterprise can address these challenges and continue to improve societal well-being.
AllcottHuntBoxellLeviConwayJacobGentzkowMatthewThalerMichaelYangDavid. 2020. Polarization and public health: Partisan differences in social distancing during the coronavirus pandemic. Journal of Public Economics191:1–11.
2.
AndrasfayTheresaGoldmanNoreen. 2021. Reductions in 2020 U.S. life expectancy due to COVID-19 and the disproportionate impact on the Black and Latino populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118 (5): 1–16.
3.
ArceneauxKevinJohnsonMartinMurphyChad. 2012. Polarized political communication, oppositional media hostility, and selective exposure. Journal of Politics74 (1): 174–86.
4.
BallewMatthewMaibachEdwardKotcherJohnBergquistParrishRosenthalSethMarlonJenniferLeiserowitzAnthony. 16April2020. Which racial/ethnic groups care most about climate change? Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. Available from https://climatecommunication.yale.edu.
5.
BolsenTobyDruckmanJames N.2015. Counteracting the politicization of science. Journal of Communication65 (5): 745–69.
6.
BolsenTobyDruckmanJames N.CookFay Lomax. 2014. How frames can undermine support for scientific adaptations: Politicization and the status-quo bias. Public Opinion Quarterly78 (1): 1–26.
7.
ClintonJoshuaCohenJonLapinskiJohnTrusslerMarc. 2021. Partisan pandemic: How partisanship and public health concerns affect individuals’ social mobility during COVID-19. Science Advances7 (2): 1–7.
8.
CookJohnPearceWarren. 2019. Is emphasising consensus in climate science helpful for policymaking? In Contemporary climate change debates, ed. HulmeMike, 127–45. London: Routledge.
9.
CornwallWarren. 2020. Officials gird for a war on vaccine misinformation. Science369 (6499): 14–15.
10.
DietzThomas. 2013. Bringing values and deliberation to science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences110 (S3): 14081–87.
11.
DimockMichaelWikeRichard. 13November2020. America is exceptional in the nature of its political divide. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Available from www.pewresearch.org.
12.
DouglasHeather. 2015. Politics and science: Untangling values, ideologies, and reasons. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science658 (1): 296–306.
13.
DruckmanJames N.KlarSamaraKrupnikovYannaLevenduskyMatthewRyanJohn Barry. 2021. Affective polarization, local contexts and public opinion in America. Nature Human Behaviour5 (1): 28–38.
FeinbergMatthewWillerRobb. 2013. The moral roots of environmental attitudes. Psychological Science24 (1): 56–62.
16.
FeinbergMatthewWillerRobb. 2019. Moral reframing: A technique for effective and persuasive communication across political divides. Social and Personality Psychology Compass13 (12): 1–12.
17.
FlavelleChristopherGoodluckKalen. 28October2021. Dispossessed, again: Climate change hits Native Americans especially hard. New York Times.
18.
FlynnD. J.NyhanBrendanReiflerJason. 2017. The nature and origins of misperceptions: Understanding false and unsupported beliefs about politics. Political Psychology38 (S1): 127–50.
19.
FowlerLukeKettlerJaclyn J.WittStephanie L.2021. Pandemics and partisanship: Following old paths into uncharted territory. American Politics Research49 (1): 3–16.
20.
GadarianShana KushnerGoodmanSara WallacePepinskyThomas B.2021. Partisanship, health behavior, and policy attitudes in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS ONE16 (4): 1–13.
21.
GauchatGordon. 2012. Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review77 (2): 167–87.
22.
GollwitzerAntonMartelCameronBradyWilliam J.PärnametsPhilipFreedmanIsaac G.KnowlesEric D.Van BavelJay J.2020. Partisan differences in physical distancing are linked to health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nature Human Behaviour4:1186–97.
23.
GrinbergNirJosephKennethFriedlandLisaSwire-ThompsonBrionyLazerDavid. 2019. Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Science363 (6425): 374–78.
24.
HornseyMatthew J.HarrisEmily A.BainPaul G.FieldingKelly S.2016. Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nature Climate Change6 (6): 622–26.
25.
HorowitzJuliana MenasceIgielnikRuthKochharRakesh. 9January2020. Most Americans say there is too much economic inequality in the U.S., but fewer than half call it a top priority. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Available from www.pewresearch.org.
26.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2014. Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC. Available from https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/.
27.
IyengarShantoLelkesYphtachLevenduskyMatthewMalhotraNeilWestwoodSean J.2019. The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science22:129–46.
28.
JeritJenniferZhaoYangzi. 2020. Political misinformation. Annual Review of Political Science23:77–94.
29.
KahanDan M.2015. Climate-science communication and the measurement problem. Political Psychology36 (S1): 1–43.
30.
KennedyKathleen A.ProninEmily. 2008. When disagreement gets ugly: Perceptions of bias and the escalation of conflict. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin34 (6): 833–48.
31.
KhanBeethikaRobbinsCarolOkrentAbigail. 2020. Science and engineering indicators 2020: The state of U.S. science and engineering. NSB-2020-1. Alexandria, VA: National Science Board, National Science Foundation. Available from https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20201.
32.
KuklinskiJames H.QuirkPaul J.JeritJenniferSchwiederDavidRichRobert F.2000. Misinformation and the currency of democratic citizenship. Journal of Politics62 (3): 790–816.
33.
LazerDavid M. J.BaumMatthew A.BenklerYochaiBerinskyAdam J.GreenhillKelly M.MenczerFilippoMetzgerMiriam J.NyhanBrendanPennycookGordonRothschildDavid, et al2018. The science of fake news. Science359 (6380): 1094–96.
34.
LazerDavidPerlisRoy H.OgnyanovaKatherineBaumMatthewSimonsonMatthew DGreenJonDruckmanJamesGitomerAdinaLinJenniferSantillanaMauricio, et al2021. The COVID States Project #40: COVID-19 vaccine attitudes among healthcare workers. OSF Preprints. doi:10.31219/osf.io/p4q9h.
35.
LeeJohn J.2021. Party polarization and trust in science: What about Democrats?Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World7:1–12.
36.
LevyJeremyBayesRobinBolsenTobyDruckmanJames N.2021. Science and the politics of misinformation. In The Routledge companion to media disinformation and populism, eds. TumberHowardWaisbordSilvio, 231–41. London: Routledge.
37.
LewandowskyStephanEckerUllrich K. H.SeifertColleen M.SchwarzNorbertCookJohn. 2012. Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest13 (3): 106–31.
38.
LipsitzKeenaPop-ElechesGrigore. 2020. The partisan divide in social distancing. SSRN. doi:dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3595695.
39.
LiuBrittany S.DittoPeter H.2013. What dilemma? Moral evaluation shapes factual belief. Social Psychological and Personality Science4 (3): 316–23.
40.
LupiaArthur. 2013. Communicating science in politicized environments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences110 (S3): 14048–54.
41.
MacedoStephen. 2019. Introduction. In Why trust science? ed. OreskesNaomi, 1–14. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
42.
McCartyNolan. 2019. Polarization: What everyone needs to know. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
NazhaBasselMishraManojPentzRebeccaOwonikokoTaofeek K.2019. Enrollment of racial minorities in clinical trials: Old problem assumes new urgency in the age of immunotherapy. American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book39:3–10.
45.
Nuclear Threat Initiative and Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. 2019. The Global Health Security Index 2019. Nuclear Threat Initiative, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, and Economist Intelligence Unit. Available from www.ghsindex.org.
46.
NyhanBrendanReiflerJason. 2010. When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior32 (2): 303–30.
47.
OreskesNaomiConwayErik M.2010. Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing.
48.
PageScott E.2008. The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
49.
PerryBrea L.AronsonBrianPescosolidoBernice A.2021. Pandemic precarity: COVID-19 is exposing and exacerbating inequalities in the American heartland. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118 (8): 1–6.
50.
ReederGlenn D.PryorJohn B.WohlMichael J. A.GriswellMichael L.2005. On attributing negative motives to others who disagree with our opinions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin31 (11): 1498–1510.
51.
RoozenbeekJonSchneiderClaudia R.DryhurstSarahKerrJohnFreemanAlexandra L. J.RecchiaGabrielVan Der BlesAnne Marthevan der LindenSander. 2020. Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 around the world. Royal Society Open Science7 (10): 1–15.
52.
ScheufeleDietram A.KrauseNicole M.2019. Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences116 (16): 7662–69.
53.
SkitkaLinda J.HansonBrittany E.MorganG. ScottWisneskiDaniel C.2021. The psychology of moral conviction. Annual Review of Psychology72:347–66.
54.
Smith-DoerrLaurelAlegriaSharla N.SaccoTimothy. 2017. How diversity matters in the US science and engineering workforce: A critical review considering integration in teams, fields, and organizational contexts. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society3:139–53.
55.
SoperGeorge A.1919. The lessons of the pandemic. Science49 (1274): 501–6.
56.
SuhayElizabethDruckmanJames N.2015. The politics of science: Political values and the production, communication, and reception of scientific knowledge. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science658 (1): 6–15.
57.
Swire-ThompsonBrionyLazerDavid. 2019. Public health and online misinformation: Challenges and recommendations. Annual Review of Public Health41:433–51.
58.
United States Global Change Research Program. 2018. Impacts, risks, and adaptation in the United States: Fourth national climate assessment. Vol. II. Washington DC: United States Global Change Research Program. doi:10.7930/NCA4.2018.
59.
Van BavelJay J.BaickerKatherineBoggioPaulo S.CapraroValerioCichockaAleksandraCikaraMinaCrockettMolly J.CrumAlia J.DoublasKaren M.DruckmanJames N., et al2020. Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nature Human Behaviour4 (5): 460–71.
60.
van der LindenSander. 2015. The conspiracy-effect: Exposure to conspiracy theories (about global warming) decreases pro-social behavior and science acceptance. Personality and Individual Differences87:171–73.
61.
WellesBrooke Foucault. 2014. On minorities and outliers: The case for making big data small. Big Data & Society1 (1): 1–2.
62.
WolskoChristopherAriceagaHectorSeidenJesse. 2016. Red, white, and blue enough to be green: Effects of moral framing on climate change attitudes and conservation behaviors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology65:7–19.
