A Bridge Too Far? Rethinking Alliances in Science Communication

Reaching the Unreachable: Controversial Partnerships and the Fight for Scientific Trust

Oct 09, 2024

Pray for me, folks. Today, we're diving into a topic that's causing quite a stir in the science communication world: the potential power – and undeniable controversy – of working with unexpected allies to overcome mistrust in science. This is not just about sharing information; it's about reimagining how we connect with those who've lost faith in traditional scientific voices.

The Crisis of Mistrust and the Need for Connection

We're facing a crisis in science communication. Despite overwhelming evidence supporting vaccinations, climate change (as I write this, Hurricane Milton is barreling toward Florida), and other critical scientific issues, large segments of the population remain skeptical or outright dismissive. Why? Because trust trumps truth.

A recent NPR article highlighted a crucial insight: when it comes to combating misinformation, we need to start with connection, not correction. This isn't just feel-good advice – it's backed by research. Studies show that people are more likely to accept new information when it comes from sources they trust, even if those sources aren't traditional scientific authorities.

A Personal Journey: My Exchange with Matthew Nagra, ND

Let me share a recent personal experience that exemplifies the complex landscape we're navigating.

I recently shared a video on Unbiased Science from Matthew Nagra, a naturopath. The content was a response to misinformation-machine-Barbara O'Neill's claim that people with high cholesterol don't get Alzheimer's – a statement that immediately set off alarm bells. Matthew's video was impressive: he systematically dismantled this misinformation, emphasized the nuance and multi-causality of diseases like Alzheimer's, discussed the importance of statins, and backed up his points with multiple peer-reviewed studies.

When I shared the post, I didn't even register that Matthew was an ND. The content was spot-on and evidence-based – exactly what I look for when curating information for our community. However, the backlash was swift. Some people in the science communication world attempted to discredit me simply because I had shared content from a naturopath. The tar and feathers were out.

This criticism prompted me to reach out to Matthew directly. We had a remarkably productive conversation. I was open about my past vocal criticisms of naturopathy – criticisms I still stand by. But I also expressed how refreshing it was to see his evidence-based content.

Matthew's response was equally open and thoughtful. He shared that he, too, is critical of many aspects of his own field. This mutual acknowledgment of the complexities within healthcare and science communication was, frankly, invigorating.

This exchange highlighted something rather eye-opening: it is possible – and indeed, valuable – to have respectful discourse on social media without resorting to finger-pointing, shaming, or bullying. It's about finding common ground in our commitment to evidence-based information, regardless of the letters after someone's name.

Unexpected Allies: A Case Study

Building on my experience with Matthew, let's look at a broader case study: the role of naturopathic doctors (NDs) in the COVID-19 vaccination campaign. An article co-authored by an MD and an ND highlighted how NDs in Canada played a crucial role in vaccinating people who were deeply distrustful of conventional medicine.

Key points from the article:

NDs administered vaccines at public health clinics, surprising many attendees.
Some vaccine-hesitant individuals felt more comfortable discussing their concerns with NDs, whom they perceived as more skeptical of broad public health measures.
NDs' understanding of natural health products and the wellness industry allowed them to address specific concerns that conventional doctors might overlook.

This case study illustrates a powerful point: sometimes, the most effective messengers for evidence-based information are those who have already earned the trust of skeptical communities.

The Controversy and the Opportunity

Let's address the elephant in the room: many in the scientific community are deeply uncomfortable with the idea of partnering with or promoting content from naturopathic doctors or other alternative practitioners. The concerns are valid:

Naturopathy as a field has been associated with significant misinformation.
Many naturopathic practices are not evidence-based and can be harmful.
Elevating these voices might lend credibility to pseudoscientific ideas.

These are serious concerns that we can't ignore. However, I believe we're at a crossroads where we need to consider new approaches. Here's why:

Traditional science communication is failing to reach large segments of the population.
Trust in conventional medical and scientific institutions is at a concerning low.
Alternative health practitioners often have the ear of those most skeptical of mainstream science.

The opportunity here is immense: by finding ways to work with evidence-based practitioners from these communities, we could potentially reach millions who have tuned out conventional scientific voices.

Let me be crystal clear: my willingness to engage with individual evidence-based practitioners does not mean I've softened my stance on naturopathy as a whole. I stand firmly behind my past criticisms of the profession, including an entire podcast episode (it was actually a two-parter) featuring Britt Hermes, a former naturopath turned whistleblower. Hermes has rightly pointed out the inadequacies in naturopathic education, the potential dangers of unproven treatments, and the misleading claims often made by practitioners. The harms caused by naturopathy are real and significant. From delayed diagnoses to ineffective treatments for serious conditions, the consequences can be dire. My goal in reaching out to evidence-based individuals within this field is not to legitimize naturopathy but to leverage their unique position to reach skeptical audiences with accurate, scientific information. It's a delicate balance, but one I believe is necessary in our current climate of widespread scientific mistrust.

A Path Forward: Bridging Divides Without Compromising Integrity

I propose a nuanced approach that neither dismisses the potential of these unexpected allies nor compromises our commitment to evidence-based information:

Identify and engage with individuals from alternative health communities who demonstrate a commitment to evidence-based practices.
Collaborate on targeted outreach to skeptical communities, leveraging their established trust.
Maintain rigorous fact-checking and clear communication about what is and isn't supported by scientific evidence.
Use these collaborations as opportunities to promote scientific literacy and critical thinking within alternative health communities.

This approach isn't without risks, and it will require careful navigation. But the potential reward – reaching those who have long since tuned out conventional scientific voices – could be transformative for public health and science communication.

Another Controversial Ally: The Sarah Ballantyne Story

My experience with Matthew Nagra isn't an isolated incident. Earlier this year, I invited Dr. Sarah Ballantyne, formerly known as "The Paleo Mom," onto my podcast. This decision sparked significant controversy and criticism within the science communication community. However, I believe it's a perfect example of the nuanced, bridge-building approach I'm advocating for.

From Paleo to Evidence-Based: A Journey of Growth

Dr. Ballantyne's story is one of remarkable evolution. She went from being a spokesperson for restrictive diets to embracing evidence-based nutrition. The purpose of having her on the podcast wasn't to discuss nutrition per se, but to explore her journey from sharing misinformation to promoting evidence-based content.

Key takeaways from Sarah's story:

The power of admitting mistakes: Sarah openly acknowledges her past mistakes and uses her experience to communicate more effectively with those still entrenched in restrictive diet culture.
Reaching skeptical audiences: Like Matthew Nagra, Sarah has an audience that trusts her. This presents a unique opportunity to reach people who might be skeptical of conventional science and medicine.
The process of change: Sarah's transition wasn't overnight. It involved years of re-evaluating evidence, updating her brand, and gradually shifting her audience towards more evidence-based information.

Critical Engagement, Not Uncritical Acceptance

It's crucial to note that featuring Sarah on the podcast wasn't about endorsing every aspect of her current approach. During our conversation, we didn't shy away from addressing the controversies surrounding her past work. I even expressed skepticism about certain aspects of her current approach (specifically, her quantification of nutrient density called the Nutrivore Score, which might be misused to moralize foods, something which Sarah communicates about carefully and hopes to prevent), but we talked through it– politely and collegially. We found common ground. We were respectful.

This critical engagement is a key part of the bridge-building process. It demonstrates that:

We can have respectful, productive conversations with those who have different perspectives or backgrounds.
Engaging with someone doesn't mean agreeing with everything they say.
It's possible to acknowledge someone's growth and potential positive influence while still maintaining a critical, evidence-based stance.

The Bigger Picture

The goal of these conversations isn't to achieve perfect agreement. Instead, it's about:

Showcasing the journey from pseudoscience to evidence-based thinking, which can inspire others to make similar transitions.
Reaching audiences that might otherwise be closed off to evidence-based information.
Demonstrating that the scientific community can engage critically but respectfully with those who have embraced evidence, regardless of their past.

Drawing the Line and Navigating Gray Areas

While I advocate for engaging with unexpected allies who have shown a genuine commitment to evidence-based information, it's important to recognize that not all voices deserve a platform. Some individuals and groups have made spreading misinformation and disinformation their primary focus. The infamous "Disinformation Dozen," for instance, falls squarely into this category.

These bad actors are fundamentally different from those like Sarah Ballantyne or Matthew Nagra. They:

Are not open to respectful, evidence-based discourse
Do not seek to lead with evidence or scientific rigor
Often have a vested interest in spreading falsehoods, whether for financial gain or ideological reasons
Consistently ignore or misrepresent scientific consensus

With such individuals, I struggle to find any common ground beyond our shared humanity (as in, we all have a pulse). Platforming them risks legitimizing their harmful messages and could potentially expose vulnerable audiences to dangerous misinformation. In these cases, the risks far outweigh any potential benefits of engagement.

It's vital that we, as science communicators, maintain this distinction. Our goal is to build bridges where possible, but we must also recognize when a chasm is too wide or too dangerous to cross. By focusing our efforts on those who demonstrate a genuine willingness to engage with evidence, we can maximize our impact without compromising our integrity or potentially causing harm.

Of course, real life is often more complex than putting people into clear-cut categories. There can be gray areas where it's not immediately obvious whether engagement would be beneficial or harmful. In these cases, we must carefully weigh the potential risks and benefits, always prioritizing the dissemination of accurate, evidence-based information and the well-being of our audience.

This nuanced approach requires constant vigilance and self-reflection. We must always be ready to reassess our strategies and partnerships as new information comes to light or circumstances change.

A Personal Reflection: From Scientific Zealot to Bridge Builder

I'll be the first to admit, I remember being a scientific zealot. As a grad student, I was consuming nothing but data and evidence, surrounded by like-minded peers. It was all too easy to fall prey to the echo chamber mindset. But now, as a science communicator with a sizeable platform, my goal has shifted. My goal is to elicit real change and to reach those who are skeptics. After all, if we're only preaching to the choir, what's the point? Our mission should be to reach those who aren't already in our camp, to expand the circle of scientific understanding, while also continuing to update and enhance the scientific knowledge of our own followers.

Learning from Public Health: The Power of Trusted Messengers

It's worth noting that working with trusted messengers isn't a new concept – it's a strategy that's been effectively employed in public health for years. Many public health initiatives partner with community leaders, including religious figures in faith-based communities, to disseminate important health information. It's likely that public health professionals don't see eye-to-eye with these religious leaders on all issues. However, they find common ground and leverage the community's trust in these figures to share critical health information. This approach recognizes that trust and cultural understanding can be powerful tools in promoting public health. By adopting a similar strategy in science communication, we're not reinventing the wheel, but rather applying a proven method to a new challenge.

Calling for Dialogue

This is a complex, controversial issue, and I don't pretend to have all the answers. That's why I'm calling for an open, honest dialogue within our community:

How can we balance the need for evidence-based communication with the reality of widespread mistrust?
What are the ethical considerations of partnering with practitioners from fields that have promoted pseudoscience?
How can we ensure that these efforts enhance scientific understanding rather than muddy the waters?

We genuinely value your thoughts, concerns, and ideas as we navigate this challenging landscape. Let us know what you think.

Stay curious, keep questioning, and let's bridge these divides together…

Unbiased Science