Can Scientists Influence Public Health Behavior Without Creating Hysteria?

  • Thread starter anorlunda
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses the issue of vaping and the potential overreaction to it leading to a ban, which could result in more harm than good. The focus shifts to the idea of being alarmed but not alarmist, and whether or not it is possible for the public to respond in a rational and measured way to a crisis. The conversation also touches on the role of scientists in influencing public behavior and the challenges of population growth and sustainability.
  • #1
anorlunda
Staff Emeritus
Insights Author
11,308
8,732
https://reason.com/2019/12/12/new-i...rm-and-the-debate-over-e-cigarettes/#comments

I just read that short but interesting article from reason.com. The subject was vaping (e-cigarettes). They say that overreaction to the epidemic of vaping deaths could result in vaping being banned. If it was banned, then millions of other lives would be lost because people would smoke real cigarettes instead. (see the article for a better explanation.)

My interest is not in the vaping issue per se But rather in their appeal to the public to "be alarmed but not alarmist." My thought was, "That can't work." It made me realize that rational reasoned measured public response to any crisis is no longer in our repertoire. We have only 1) do nothing apathy, and 2) overreaction in our modern bag of tricks. That applies not just to politics, but to almost everything. If those scientists want the public to do what they want, they need hysteria, not reason.

Of course, a statement such as my preceding paragraph itself is itself an exaggeration. But there is a kernel of truth in there that surprises me.

What do you think, can the public be alarmed but not alarmist?
 
  • Like
Likes sysprog
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I think they need to speak to an economist who will figure out better incentives to motivate the public to do the right thing.
 
  • #3
I am not a great fan of better farming through chemistry but I have nonetheless been appalled by recent awards concerning Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and glyphosate (Round-up). The causal link seems pretty tenuous but lawyers on TV in the US are now trolling for potential lawsuits: "Did your family member die from NHL??...Did he ever spray the weeds? ..Call us toll free"
Perhaps it is good that the sword of capitalism has two edges, and I have trouble shedding tears for Monsanto, but the science surely seems to have nothing to do with it anymore.
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK
  • #4
Crisis (mis)management is how everything gets done.
 
  • Informative
Likes Klystron
  • #5
anorlunda said:
What do you think, can the public be alarmed but not alarmist?
I think it depends on the issue.

There are so many demands on our attention that to get a share of it anyone who wants public attention finds it almost a necessity to present his proposed object of focus as somehow of more urgent priority than its competitors.

One person says we have to arrest global warming or we're all doomed to perish in a new ice age, and another says if we don't keep our economy strong it will collapse and we'll be fighting local wars with primitive weapons over arable land and fresh water supplies instead of fighting far away with drones and rockets over mineral rights and hegemonies.

I think that a very fundamental problem is that like other loving things, mammals tend to populate past the point of serious scarcity, and in our own case (that of humans), the impact of that on planetary resources and on ecosystemic health is staggering and unsustainable.

If we could engineer a way for people to be overall less fertile, so that we had no unsustainable population growth, without having to require any individual behavioral changes, and such that trying harder would make no difference, we could thereby put a strong attenuation on the need to be alarmed, and on the attendant thereto temptation to be alarmist.
 
  • #6
anorlunda said:
What do you think, can the public be alarmed but not alarmist?
No. There is always some people who will push it further: and then some more will pick it up and push it even further...
I don' think there is a way around it (within acceptable limits of police actions, of course o0) )
 
  • #7
anorlunda said:
If those scientists want the public to do what they want, they need hysteria, not reason.
I'll vap to that ...not.
anorlunda said:
... can the public be alarmed but not alarmist?
I'm thinking that most wouldn't know how to be an alarmist.
 
  • #8
anorlunda said:
If those scientists want the public to do what they want, they need hysteria, not reason.

Is that what our goal as scientists should be? To get people to do what we tell them to do?
That's not why I went into science.
 
  • Like
Likes Bystander
  • #9
Vanadium 50 said:
Is that what our goal as scientists should be? To get people to do what we tell them to do?
That's not why I went into science.
That's a good point. I've written in the past that they shouldn't. But these are public health scientists, I think that's an exception. There is no point in having public health scientists if they don't influence public health behavior.
 

1. What does it mean to "Be Alarmed But Not Alarmist"?

"Be Alarmed But Not Alarmist" means to acknowledge and take seriously the potential dangers or risks of a situation, but not to overreact or spread unnecessary fear or panic. It is important to find a balance between being aware and prepared, and being overly anxious or causing unnecessary alarm.

2. How can one avoid being an alarmist in a scientific context?

In a scientific context, it is important to rely on evidence-based information and avoid speculation or sensationalism. It is also important to carefully consider the potential impacts and consequences of sharing information, and to communicate findings accurately and objectively.

3. Why is it important to be alarmed but not alarmist?

Being alarmed but not alarmist allows for a rational and measured response to potential dangers or risks. It also helps to avoid causing unnecessary fear or panic, which can have negative impacts on individuals and society as a whole. Additionally, being alarmist can undermine the credibility of scientific information and lead to misinformation.

4. How can scientists effectively communicate alarming information without being alarmist?

Effective communication of alarming information involves presenting the facts and evidence objectively and without bias. It is important to clearly explain the potential risks and their implications, while also providing practical and actionable steps for individuals and communities to take. Scientists should also be transparent about any uncertainties or limitations in the information.

5. How can the media play a role in promoting "Be Alarmed But Not Alarmist"?

The media can play a crucial role in promoting "Be Alarmed But Not Alarmist" by prioritizing accurate and evidence-based reporting. They can also help by avoiding sensationalism and providing context and perspective to alarming information. By responsibly and effectively communicating scientific information, the media can help prevent unnecessary fear and panic and promote a more informed and rational response to potential dangers.

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top