Allen W Cowley, Jr.Function, Volume 3, Issue 2, 2022, zqac006, https://doi.org/10.1093/function/zqac006Published: 26 February 2022
This editorial was prompted by a recent meeting of the Fellows of the International Union of Physiological Sciences (IUPS) during which ideas were solicited for how to advance physiology globally. An endeavor that I believe deserves our serious consideration is the serious engagement of patients, caregivers, and advocates into as many of our national and international activities as possible. There has been a rapidly growing distrust of science which we must recognize and respond to. This mistrust threatens our very future since why should we expect strong continued public funding of our research if they no longer trust us? Informed patients when provided meaningful opportunities are our strongest allies and we must find ways to integrate this energy into our efforts to assure the future of basic biomedical research.
As in most complex dynamic systems, biological or societal, when stressed the weaknesses become apparent. Such is the case since the onset of the Covid pandemic in 2020 which has tested every aspect of our scientific, medical care, and public health enterprises. Ironically, the pandemic has revealed a growing erosion of public confidence in science and biomedical research. This was starkly reflected in the recent population survey on confidence in institutions conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago1. Although about three-quarters of Americans believe that the benefits of scientific research outweigh any harmful results, only 50% express a “great deal of confidence” in the scientific community. Not a rousing endorsement. This is despite the remarkable achievements in science and medicine over these recent decades and the successful and heroic responses to the Covid pandemic. This should be distressing to us all. As Rice University historian Douglas Brinkley has said, “Science used to be something all Americans would get behind, but we now see it falling prey to the great political divide. The world of science should be a meeting house where right and left can agree on data. Instead, it’s becoming a sharp razor’s edge of conflict.”