by Eddy Fougier, Les Échos, 12 July 2019
International surveys place the French among the most sceptical about scientific innovations and vaccines. The reality is more nuanced: they have a good image of science but are wary of its applications, and this wariness takes four forms that need to be distinguished.
In brief
- In a Fondapol survey conducted in 42 democratic countries, the French are among the most sceptical about the effects of innovations, notably on employment and freedoms.
- The Wellcome Global Monitor, conducted in more than 140 countries, places them at the top of those who see science as a threat to local jobs (55%) and who doubt the safety of vaccines (33%).
- Yet national surveys show a good image of science, research and researchers; the doubts concern applications (vaccines, pesticides, nuclear power, GMOs) and economic interests.
The four criticisms of science, in three arguments
An ideological criticism
It draws on an ecologist outlook, the rejection of technology or conventional medicine, or anti-capitalism: anti-vaccine, anti-GMO, anti-nuclear. The most radical challenge scientific rationalism itself.
A pragmatic criticism
It comes from people who say they are victims of scientific applications or who fear for their loved ones, whether or not these fears are well founded: residents near installations, self-declared victims of medicines or pesticides.
Individualism and anti-elitism
Some reject health rules in the name of their freedom of choice, such as ‘vaccine freedom’. Others suspect collusion between science, politics and the economy, sometimes to the point of conspiracy theories.
‘Another point to nuance is that criticism of science, and above all of its applications, is not solely the work of dreadful obscurantist climate sceptics, flat-earthers or anti-evolutionists.’Eddy Fougier, Les Échos, 12 July 2019
Why this debate interests us
Trust in science is a precondition for the transitions: without it, debates on vaccines, pesticides, nuclear power or food turn into a dialogue of the deaf. This article helps us understand where doubts come from, rather than dismissing them as obscurantism. Distinguishing these four criticisms means giving ourselves the means to respond to each in its own way.
Questions for debate
- How can we respond to a concern based on personal experience, without brushing it aside or giving in to it?
- Does wariness towards the applications of science stem from a lack of information, or from a lack of trust in institutions?
- How can we distinguish a legitimate criticism of a scientific application from a rejection of science itself?
To go further on apala.fr
Summary written by Claude (model Opus 5.5), an artificial intelligence, for APALA, based on the article published in Les Échos on 12 July 2019. The positions expressed are those of the author. A mistake? Write to us.
0 comments