In the new book “Against Reality” (ed. Papirus 7 Mares; 192 pages; R$ 44.90), microbiologist and researcher Natália Pasternak and journalist Carlos Orsi engage in one of their favorite activities: combating denial.
For the concept of denialism not to become ethereal, he arrives quickly in the book: “it is the attitude of denying, to oneself and to the world, well-established facts or a scientific consensus, in the absence of strong evidence”.
The menu ranges from more traditional denials, such as that practiced by the tobacco industry until the second half of the last century, to more recent ones, such as those that reject human influence on climate change.
Along the way come Holocaust denial (the Nazis’ murder of millions of Jews), creationism (for those who believe that the Earth and Universe were created by God almost exactly as they are today, in a more literal interpretation of the Bible, and generally in opposition to the Theory of Evolution), earthworks (the name says it all), among others.
Since 2018, when the Instituto Questão de Ciência (IQC) was founded, the couple’s hobby has gained official status. Pasternak presides over the organization, and Orsi directs the Revista Questão de Ciência, a publication of the IQC. The non-profit non-governmental organization promotes and encourages the adoption of public policies based on scientific evidence — a cry that has been especially repeated throughout the Covid-19 pandemic.
It was fateful, according to the authors, that the invitation to write the book and the release of the work coincided with a time when denialism was so in evidence, with the denial, for example, of the dissemination power of Sars-Cov-2 (the new coronavirus), the severity of the virus infection, the effectiveness of vaccines and even the very existence of the pandemic.
“The book would be written anyway, it was in our plans, but we didn’t expect the timing to be so important. We’ve never had a government as denial as this one,” Pasternak tells sheet.
“If it wasn’t now [o lançamento], it would be a cold book, like so many others, including great ones, that exist. The context makes the book a ‘hot’ work, in journalistic jargon. It’s really cool to launch a work that talks about the current situation, but it’s also scary,” says Orsi.
Exposing denials and dissecting their methods, as the authors do in the book, is a way to combat them. But what about who promotes them? Why, after all, are there people who are deniers?
Today it is easy to analyze the situation of the tobacco industry, for example. Even with the growing pile of evidence that the incidence of lung cancer was closely linked to tobacco consumption, the industry still fueled doubt, funding partial studies and lobbying to influence governments and the media on its behalf.
Of course, cigarette manufacturers, with this, sought to ensure the continuity of the business. And with the (misleading) messages that smoking wasn’t all that bad or the relentless (and dishonest) criticisms of studies that showed the harmful effects of smoking, smokers could maintain the same behavior—and with a clear conscience.
There is not always an economic interest behind a denial, but the denialist, yes, is often so “invested” in those messages or narratives that it becomes a mental and social burden to get rid of them, explains Orsi.
The cost of not being welcomed by a group can be a determining factor for these behaviors to even outweigh the quantity, quality and availability of good information.
Still, defends Pasternak, it is essential to inform in an accessible way. “Our role is not to convince. We want scientific information to circulate in an appropriate language and in a way that people understand. If someone Googles vaccines, that person can’t just land on antivaxer pages. [antivacina]”
But even statistics like the 4 million deaths averted each year from immunization agents do not convince some people — the numbers, they claim, could have been invented and spread in a global plot between industries, governments and the media. All in favor of some hidden economic interest.
And this kind of denial behavior is common in people of higher classes. The high level of education ends up serving only to find excuses, discredit scientific knowledge and convince, based on any argument, that it is necessary to avoid injections and do the same with your children.
To change the panorama, the solution is to improve the communication of science, especially about uncertainties — often, information is transmitted with an air that it is definitive, immutable, which goes against the modus operandi of science, of self-improvement.
“Not even the WHO was prepared to communicate uncertainties at the beginning of the pandemic. The change in orientation generated panic, distrust and affected the credibility of the institutions. And denial movements feed on this fear; and they are full of absolute certainties — this is a marked difference. If we do not communicate the uncertainties with honesty and transparency, these movements will only grow”, says Pasternak.
The best thing you can do at a difficult time like the present, argues Orsi, is to extract the most from the set of data and information available at all times. “Every second, we have to assume what is correct based on this evidence and take the most responsible actions possible.”
This would be precisely to stop denying reality and embrace it in all its complexity.
.
