Can Scientists Influence Public Health Behavior Without Creating Hysteria?

  • Thread starter Thread starter anorlunda
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the influence of scientists on public health behavior, particularly in the context of communicating risks without inciting hysteria. Participants explore the challenges of effectively conveying urgency while avoiding alarmism, touching on various examples such as vaping, environmental issues, and public health messaging.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that a rational, measured public response to crises is increasingly rare, suggesting that scientists may need to resort to hysteria to motivate action.
  • One participant proposes that engaging economists could help create better incentives for the public to respond appropriately to health issues.
  • Concerns are raised about the influence of capitalism on scientific discourse, particularly regarding the legal implications of health claims related to products like glyphosate.
  • Another viewpoint suggests that the urgency of various global issues leads to a competition for public attention, complicating the ability to communicate risks effectively.
  • A participant speculates on the potential for engineering societal changes, such as reducing population growth, to alleviate the need for alarmist messaging.
  • Some express skepticism about the possibility of the public being alarmed without becoming alarmist, noting that there will always be individuals who escalate concerns.
  • There is a discussion about the role of scientists in influencing public behavior, with some questioning whether the goal should be to direct public action or to inform without manipulation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on whether it is possible for the public to be alarmed without becoming alarmist. There is no consensus, as some believe it is inherently impossible while others suggest it may depend on the specific issue at hand.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the complexities of public health communication, including the interplay of scientific messaging, societal behavior, and economic incentives. Participants note the challenges posed by competing narratives and the potential consequences of alarmist versus measured responses.

anorlunda
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Messages
11,326
Reaction score
8,755
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   Reactions: sysprog
Physics news on Phys.org
I think they need to speak to an economist who will figure out better incentives to motivate the public to do the right thing.
 
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   Reactions: PeroK
Crisis (mis)management is how everything gets done.
 
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: Klystron
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.
 
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) )
 
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.
 
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   Reactions: Bystander
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.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Progress In Calculating The HLbL Contribution To Muon g-2
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K