IN SUPPORTOF THEPRIMACYOF SCIENCE
WHITE PAPER / FALL 2020

“Science and everyday
life cannot and should
not be separated.”
Rosalind Franklin
Chemist and contributor to ourunderstanding of DNA

CONTENTS
IN SUPPORT OF THE PRIMACYOF SCIENCE
WHITE PAPER

04
08
10
13
19
26
30
32

INTRODUCTION
WHY NOW? SCIENCE MOVESFRONT AND CENTEREXPECTING SCIENCE TO COME
TO THE RESCUESCIENTIFIC INFORMATION: INTEREST, UNDERSTANDING,INFLUENCE, AND ACCESSSCIENCE, SOCIETY,
AND INSTITUTIONSTHE ROLE OF SCIENCE CONTENT IN SHAPING
INFORMED DECISIONSTHE DANGERS
OF BAD SCIENCE
CLOSING THOUGHTS: TURNING INTEREST
INTO PROGRESS36

APPENDIX

#01

INTRODUCTIONIN SUPPORT OF THE PRIMACY OF SCIENCE
WHITE PAPERT

he modern world is underpinned—
and made possible—by science.
Science sits at the center of ourtechnologies and gadgets, it fuels
our power supplies, it makes thefood we eat safe for consumption, and it
treats and even cures a myriad of ailments
and diseases that once were deadly. Virtually
every modern amenity and convenience—from clean water and refrigeration tocontent streaming and GPS—is rooted inscience.
And yet, how often do nonscientists think
about science? How closely do we follow
scientific news? And when we do hear about
a breakthrough or discovery, how well do
we understand it—and to what extent do we
believe it?

Societies with low rates of science
literacy are ill-equipped to make informed
decisions related to health, climate change,technology, advances in genetics, and more.
Individuals are unable to make fully learned
choices on matters that routinely affect us

Society and science: Better
understanding the relationship
Earlier this year, PMI commissioned an
online survey* by independent research firm
Povaddo. Fielded in June‒July 2020, thesurvey was completed by 19,100 adults in
19 countries and territories across Europe,Asia, the Americas, and Africa. Our intent
was to better understand people’s interestin science, their access to and understandingof scientific information, and how they ratevarious sources of scientific knowledge.
This paper details these findings and explores
the potential consequences of science notbeing leveraged to its full potential. The
findings make clear that the world’s citizens
want governments and public authorities
to prioritize science and fact over ideology,
politics, and unsubstantiated beliefs. Whenauthorities fail to do so, opportunities for
progress are lost and potential solutions tocritical global challenges—from climate change
and COVID-19 to tobacco harm reduction—are
hindered.
* See appendix for the complete survey methodology.

WHITE PAPER FALL 2020

Another question to ponder: Does the
public’s grasp of and respect for science
matter? Philip Morris International (PMI)
believes it does. In the United States, theNational Science Education Standards
established by the National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine definescience literacy as “the knowledge andunderstanding of scientific concepts andprocesses required for personal decision
making, participation in civic and culturalaffairs, and economic productivity.” In a
television interview, astrophysicist NeildeGrasse Tyson, director of New York City’s
Hayden Planetarium, put it more simply:“[Science] is a way of equipping yourself
with the tools to interpret what happensin front of you.”all: Should I get the flu vaccine? Is my tap water
safe to drink? How much sun exposure is safe
for me? This knowledge gap has the potential
to adversely affect both their quality of life andtheir sense of security and confidence. A lackof scientific literacy also makes it easier for
people to fall prey to misleading information,
as we have seen during the COVID-19
pandemic. Moreover, on a policymaking level,
inadequate scientific literacy—or the willfulchoice to ignore science—too often results indecisions and regulations based on ideology
or political convenience rather than objective
truth. In some circumstances, this poses a very
real danger to the public health.

5

IN SUPPORT OF THE PRIMACY OF SCIENCE
WHITE PAPER

Our intention is for this white paper to sparka broader conversation about the role ofscience, the importance of science-based
decisions, and opportunities for progress.
When science is not leveraged to its fullpotential—when the public and government
officials are denied access to accurate, easyto-understand, and non-misleading scientificinformation—a gap is created that allows
ideology, politics, and unsubstantiated beliefs
to take precedence over facts. This impedes
progress at a time when the world is facing
multiple existential threats, most notably
climate change and the novel coronavirus
pandemic. As shown by the results of thisstudy, the world’s citizens want science tosit at the heart of decisions impacting them.
Leaders in government and business should
heed this call to action.

Among the key findings of the study:
Faith in science is high. Most people surveyed(77 percent) are hopeful that advances inscience ultimately will solve many of theworld’s most pressing problems.

Views are split on whether society accords
sufficient respect to science today.
While 45 percent of the sample believe
society places sufficiently strong importanceon science, 47 percent disagree.
There also is strong interest in businesses
prioritizing science, with 90 percent ofrespondents saying it is important to themthat businesses invest continually in scienceto improve their products, and 87 percent
indicating that they look more favorably
upon those businesses whose products aresupported by robust science.

WHITE PAPER FALL 2020

The vast majority of those surveyed(84 percent) want their governments
to take the latest scientific evidence into
account when making policy decisions,but governments are not meeting
expectations. Just over half of the
respondents believe their governments
are doing a good job of ensuring thatscience informs their decision-making
processes.

Most of those surveyed (79 percent) havea keen interest in science—as evidenced
by their tendency to seek out additional
information when scientific developments
are announced—but nearly half (48 percent)find it difficult to access reliable scientificinformation. Here again, governments
receive poor marks, with 41 percent of thesample indicating that their officials are
doing a poor job of communicating unbiased
and reliable information about the latest
scientific developments and studies.
(Only 10 percent of the sample feel strongly
that governments are doing a good job ofsharing such information.)

6

IN SUPPORT OF THE PRIMACY OF SCIENCE
WHITE PAPER

Why does a tobacco company
care about scientific literacy
and public interest in science?
PMI is undergoing a fundamental
transformation into a science- andtechnology-powered company with the aimof delivering a smoke-free future—a future
without cigarettes. With the right regulatory
encouragement and support from civilsociety, we believe this goal can be achievedin many countries within 10‒15 years.

smokers who would otherwise continue
to smoke away from cigarettes to thescientifically substantiated better alternatives
that are now available. We are proud toreport that, as of June 30, 2020, an estimated
11.2 million smokers around the world havealready changed to PMI’s heat-not-burnproduct and stopped smoking. Our aspirationis that by 2025, at least 40 million adults
who would otherwise have continued tosmoke will have changed to PMI’s smoke-free
products.

The best choice for any smoker is to quit
tobacco and nicotine use altogether.
However, many will not quit. Our corporate
mission is grounded in moving those adult

Scientific literacy plays an important role ineducating policymakers about these better
alternatives and the role they can play intobacco control and harm reduction.

Delivering a Smoke-Free Future
Since 2008, Philip Morris International has invested billions of dollars in developing,
testing, and manufacturing better alternatives to cigarettes. These smoke-free
products, which include heated tobacco and e-vapor products, are the result of nearly
two decades of R&D work, underpinned by a rigorous scientific assessment program
and led by a team that today includes more than 430 world-class scientists and otherexperts. We make our scientific findings and methods available for others to scrutinize,
we invite independent research into our products, and we encourage a broad, sciencebased conversation with regulators, scientists, and the public health community about
the best way to make these products available to adult smokers while minimizing
unintended use. The best choice a person can make is never to start smoking or, if they
do, to quit tobacco and nicotine use entirely. Our smoke-free products are intended
for those existing adult smokers who would otherwise continue to smoke.
WHITE PAPER FALL 2020

7

#02

WHY NOW?
SCIENCE MOVESFRONT ANDCENTERIN SUPPORT OF THE PRIMACY OF SCIENCE
WHITE PAPER

H

as there ever been a better timethan 2020 to explore public
interactions with science? Everyday, science and scientists
feature prominently in the news.
As public authorities and news organizations
scramble to deal with the novel coronavirus,
they are relying more than ever on theexpertise of specialists whose work normallytakes place behind the scenes. During thispandemic, the activities and opinions ofvirologists, microbiologists, epidemiologists,
pharmacologists, and data scientists havebeen thrust into the spotlight, as many
governments have made a point of showing
how their policies are being guided byscience. Some of the specialists they consult
have even become media phenomena. No
wonder. It has been a long time since there
has been a public health threat of such
immediate concern to such a large swath of
the world’s population. It has been a longtime since a public health threat has shut
down entire countries and industries formonths, with the prospect of many months
more.

other technicalities than they had previously
in their entire lives.
The pandemic has placed science front andcenter in policymaking, media discussions,and everyday life. It has reminded people of
the role science can play in solving some of
the world’s most significant challenges. And
it has brought forward pertinent questions
around the evolution of scientific knowledge,
the understanding of scientific facts, andhow science can better inform our decisions.
With one eye to the present and the other tothe future, we think it is an appropriate time
to explore public attitudes toward scienceand reflect on the opportunities that exist
for our world to leverage the full potentialof the discipline, as well as the speed
bumps in the way.

WHITE PAPER FALL 2020

The hundreds of millions of people confinedto their homes during lockdowns have had
plenty of time to go online to check out
the science of epidemics in general and
COVID-19 in particular. There has beenplenty to look up. A number of scientificjournals and prominent news brands havemade their COVID-19 stories accessible
to nonsubscribers at no charge, and social
media platforms have been full of links tomedia coverage. Online and offline, people
have been discussing technical issues such
as R0 numbers, case fatality rates, herd
immunity, viral load, PCR and antibody
testing, and the effectiveness of face masks.
In the space of just a few months, many
millions of nonscientists have learned more—or at least heard more—about these andWith one eye to the present
and the other to the future,
we think it is an appropriate
time to explore public
attitudes toward science.

9

#03

EXPECTINGSCIENCE TO
COME TOTHE RESCUEIN SUPPORT OF THE PRIMACY OF SCIENCE
WHITE PAPER“Any sufficiently advanced
technology is indistinguishable
from magic.”
Arthur C. Clarke,
author, inventor,
and futurist

We live in a world in which
the miraculous is mundane,
a world that to any time
traveler from the past would
seem to be full of magic.
Thanks to the application of science throughtechnology, we take for granted thousandsof gadgets and services that once were thepreserve of science fiction. Most of the time, we
don’t even notice them—at least until they don’t
work as expected.
In the personal domain, people enjoy many
everyday marvels: hand-held computers
thousands of times more powerful than thosethat enabled the Apollo 11 moon landing; highspeed wireless connections; global, multiparty
video chats; instant language translation;satellite navigation; and the ability to watch
virtually any movie or listen to any music fromanywhere at any time. And in specialist domains,
many can benefit from such wonders as rapid
and affordable DNA sequencing, diagnostic
imaging, and remote keyhole surgery.

There is a big divide, however, between thelittle problems of everyday life and the massive
challenges facing the world such as COVID-19,
pollution, climate change, water shortages,

WHITE PAPER FALL 2020

In virtually all cases, most of us accept
these marvels with barely a thought. Seeing
something new, we may think, “That’s
ingenious,” but then we quickly move on to
the next thing. In virtually all cases, for most ofus, the technology is not something we haveactively wished for. It’s not providing a solution
to a serious everyday problem. It just appears,
pushed forward by the rapid pace of innovationand expectations that the next thing will
come soon. Technological advances have been
happening so widely, so fast, and for so longthat if a problem does arise, we now expect
science and technology to have solutions at theready, or to invent them quickly.

11

IN SUPPORT OF THE PRIMACY OF SCIENCE
WHITE PAPER

deforestation, and species loss. Although theseare planet-sized challenges, the respondents toour survey are hopeful that science will provide
solutions.

Across the sample, the balance of opinion
shows clearly that there are a lot more people
who are hopeful about science than there areunhopeful people:

Without mentioning specific issues, the PMI
survey asked: Generally speaking, how hopeful
are you that advances in science and scientificdevelopments can deliver solutions to society’s
biggest problems? The question was not specific
to COVID-19, so these figures cannot belinked directly to thoughts about the pandemic.
That said, the survey was fielded in summer
2020, following/during several months oflockdown in many places, with the media
regularly speculating on how long it would takefor a vaccine to be developed. Therefore, it
is reasonable to assume that thoughts of thepandemic were present for respondents as theyanswered the question.

77 percent said they are hopeful (including
26 percent who are very hopeful).
20 percent are not hopeful (including just
4 percent who are not at all hopeful).
We don’t know whether many respondents
have specific ideas about how science could
be applied to society’s biggest problems. What
we do know is that they have faith that these
problems will be addressed—and ultimately
solved—by science and scientists.

TAKEAWAYS

Most people have high expectations of science. They “believe” in science, just as mostpeople in previous eras believed in higher powers. There is a widespread expectationthat science will find a way.

77%

WHITE PAPER FALL 2020of people are hopeful that advancesin science can deliver solutions tosociety’s biggest problems

12

#04

SCIENTIFICINFORMATION:
INTEREST,UNDERSTANDING,INFLUENCE, AND
ACCESSIN SUPPORT OF THE PRIMACY OF SCIENCE
WHITE PAPER

B

eyond their expectation that science
will provide solutions for the world,
respondents expressed strong
interest in scientific information—be
it scientific developments or new
studies. A substantial majority also agree thatscience influences their personal decisions.
Yet, despite this clear desire to look to science

for answers, most respondents find it difficult toaccess scientific information they consider reliable.

Interest in scientific information
To ascertain respondents’ level of interest inscientific information, we asked: When you hear

When you hear about a new scientific development or study, which of the following
do you typically do?
% choosing “seek out more in-depth information about it”
and/or “watch out for other reports”
95%

Philippines
Mexico92%

Brazil

91%

Italy

90%

South Africa

87%

Argentina

87%
84%

VietnamTaiwan82%

Hong Kong

81%

U.S.

81%

Israel80%

Germany

79%

Total

79%

U.K.

78%
72%

Japan

71%

Norway71%
65%

Russia62%

Netherlands
52%South Korea
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

WHITE PAPER FALL 2020

Australia

14

IN SUPPORT OF THE PRIMACY OF SCIENCE
WHITE PAPER

about a new scientific development or study, whichof the following do you typically do?
Not pay much attention
Watch out for other reports
Seek out more in-depth information about it
UnsureAs the chart above shows, 79 percent ofrespondents stated that they typically “seek out
more in-depth information about it” or “watch out
for other reports.” This indicates an appetite forscientific learning.
This paper does not delve into detailed analysis ofeach of the 19 geographic samples covered in thesurvey. It is potentially illuminating of the bigger
picture, however, to compare and contrast the
responses of different countries and territories
on some issues. For example, while it is striking
enough that 79 percent of respondents overall

feel this actively engaged, it is even more striking
to see that figure exceed 90 percent in thePhilippines, Mexico, and Brazil.

Understanding of scientificinformation
Being interested in scientific information is one
thing. Understanding it—especially well enoughto explain it to others—is an altogether different
matter.
One of the big challenges of presenting scientificinformation to the general public is determining
how to communicate it in an engaging way
without “dumbing” it down to the point at which
essential nuances are lost. If the communication
goes into too much detail, it risks overwhelming
people who don’t have sufficient knowledgeof the field. If, on the other hand, the accountis too “big picture,” too general, that risks
oversimplifying the issue and giving the false
impression that the science is complete andWhich of the following best describes your general attitude
to scientific information?

5%

3%

13%

I can understand it well enough to explain it in detailto another person
I can understand it well enough to explain it broadly
to another person

I cannot understand it
42%

UnsureWHITE PAPER FALL 2020

I can understand summaries of scientific information

36%

15

IN SUPPORT OF THE PRIMACY OF SCIENCE
WHITE PAPER

unchallenged. As the pandemic has shown,issues of science are far from simple. Evenbasic recommendations (e.g., use a face mask,
maintain social distancing) can cause confusion
and, in the current climate, may even bepoliticized.

claimed they could not understand it (5 percent)or were unsure (3 percent).

In the PMI survey, we asked respondents to rate
their understanding of scientific information.
One acid test of understanding a piece ofcontent is being able to communicate essential
points of it to someone else. Around one ineight respondents to the survey (13 percent)agreed, “I can understand it well enough to
explain it in detail to another person.” For themto answer in this way indicates a high level ofunderstanding—or at least a high degree ofconfidence. Over three times as many
(42 percent) chose, “I can understand it wellenough to explain it broadly to another person.”
Just over one-third (36 percent) were morecautious, choosing, “I can understand summaries
of scientific information.” A small minority either

The numbers we have presented so far indicatethat majorities in most geographies are interested
in scientific information and feel confident thatthey can understand it well enough to explain
it to others. In view of these attitudes, what
influence does science have on their personal
lives? In particular, we wanted to know how
important science would be in influencing
people’s decisions regarding five actions that may
carry risks during the coronavirus pandemic.

Influence of science on personal
decisions

A majority of respondents said that sciencewould be important in influencing all five of thesedecisions. They gave the highest scores to theactivities that are the most prevalent in most
lives: work and transit.

Please indicate the importance of science in influencing
the following personal decisions:% very/somewhat important
When to return to anormal work life

78%

When to take public
transportation

68%

When to attend
large events
When and where to
go on next holiday

54%

When to visit large
shopping centers

53%
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

WHITE PAPER FALL 2020

59%

70%

80%

90%

100%

16

IN SUPPORT OF THE PRIMACY OF SCIENCE
WHITE PAPER

Access to scientific information

developments and studies? Almost half the sample(48 percent) said they find it difficult, including 10
percent who find it very difficult.

It’s concerning that, despite significant interestin scientific information, most respondents said
they do not have easy access to it. We asked:
Generally speaking, do you find it easy or difficult toaccess reliable information about the latest scientific

It could be tempting to gloss over this finding,but a closer look at what is at stake when people
have to make decisions in the absence of reliable

Generally speaking, do you find it easy or difficult to access reliable information
about the latest scientific developments and studies?
41%

18%

South Africa
Philippines

12%

45%

Mexico14%

43%

10% 2%

28%

4% 1%

38%

9% 2%

32%

U.S.

10%

43%

31%

8%

8%

Israel

11%

42%

30%

8%

9%

44%

7%

Australia

35%

15%

Vietnam

7%

31%

12%
6% 2%

41%

Brazil

8%

42%

33%

13%

U.K.

9%

40%

34%

9%

Netherlands

7%

40%

33%

Total

8%

38%

37%

Germany

6%

40%

41%

8%

5%

Argentina

10%

35%

41%

10%

4%

Japan

40%

3%

39%

Taiwan

6%

32%

Italy

2%

South Korea

3%

Russia

2%
0%

11%

9% 3%

45%
38%
30%

Somewhat easy

40%

10%

5%

49%

19%

Very easy

7%

49%

20%

17%

9%
46%

26%

7%

10%

40%

35%

10%

12%

12%

5%

18%

4%
9%

32%
50%

60%

Somewhat difficult

70%

80%

Very difficult

90%
Unsure100%

WHITE PAPER FALL 2020

Hong Kong 1%

8%

9%

30%

34%

8%

Norway4%17

IN SUPPORT OF THE PRIMACY OF SCIENCE
WHITE PAPER

information allows us to evaluate this shortcoming
in a more comprehensive way.
According to the significant body of research
exploring human decision-making—and inparticular the roles of cognition, emotion, andintuition in this process—human thinking isshaped both by gut feelings and logical analysis.
The former is quick, while the latter requires
time and thinking based on the facts andevidence at hand.
Naturally, in situations where reliable informationis scant, we have to rely more on our gut and use
mental shortcuts, also known as heuristics, toreduce complexity and assist our decision-making.
We routinely take an “educated guess” or apply
the “rule of thumb” to make decisions that range
from figuring out the quickest route to the officeduring rush hour to selecting a gift for a friend.

Mental shortcuts help us go about our everyday
lives. But what happens when we need to makea decision on complex matters for which we lackknowledge, experience, and expertise? Take, forexample, decisions around protection during thecoronavirus pandemic. If people are not able toaccess reliable information on the latest scientificdevelopments and data, they will be less capableof analyzing the situation and understanding
their options. What’s worse, they may resort
to unreliable shortcuts to make decisions—potentially including following what the neighbors
are doing, what they feel good about doing, or
accepting advice from a random Facebook group.
In short, when access to reliable scientificinformation is limited, people may be more
susceptible to misinformation, wild guesses,
and hearsay, hindering their ability to makeinformed choices.

TAKEAWAYS

Most people have an appetite for scientific information, most feel confident in their ability to understandit, and most allow science to influence important decisions in their personal lives. Despite theseoverwhelmingly positive attitudes toward science, the majority of respondents indicated that they don’t
have easy access to reliable information about scientific developments and relevant studies—a concerning
finding given that, in the absence of such information, biased assumptions or even life-endangering
falsehoods may be more likely to influence their decisions.

WHITE PAPER FALL 2020

48%

find it difficult toaccess reliable information
about the latest scientificdevelopments
and studies

18

#05

SCIENCE,SOCIETY,AND
INSTITUTIONSIN SUPPORT OF THE PRIMACY OF SCIENCE
WHITE PAPER“There are in fact two things,
science and opinion; the former
begets knowledge, the latter
ignorance.”
HippocratesOver centuries, scientists haveplayed an increasingly central
role in everyday life, helping us
uncover truths about the world
and accumulating knowledge thatis fueling progress in every aspect of life—frommedicine and environmental management
to the food we consume and the textiles we
use to make our clothes. Galileo Galilei, Isaac
Newton, Charles Darwin, Louis Pasteur, Marie
Curie, Albert Einstein, and Nikola Tesla are justa few of the many scientists who have come tofigure in popular culture. Their names and theirdiscoveries are part of the story of the modern
world.
The scientific approach to understanding
the world, with its methodical questioning,
empirical observations, experimentation, andtesting of hypotheses, has gradually eclipsed
unquestioning belief-based approachesof religion and tradition. Some religious
leaders assert that science and faith are notincompatible; for example, Pope Francis and hisstatements concerning the theory of evolution
and the Big Bang or the Dalai Lama calling forcollaboration between science and religion.
On the other hand, a growing anti-sciencemindset is contesting the findings of science andeven its legitimacy. The anti-vaccine and, more
recently, the anti-mask movement are tellingexamples of how personal beliefs or ideologies
can shape people’s decisions, even in the face of
scientific evidence to the contrary.

WHITE PAPER FALL 2020

Nevertheless, it is clear from our surveythat majorities in these 19 countries andterritories align themselves with science. They
are interested in it, they are confident they
understand it, and they say their decisions are
influenced by it. But do they think others intheir societies have similarly respectful viewsof science?

20

IN SUPPORT OF THE PRIMACY OF SCIENCE
WHITE PAPER

The importanceaccorded to science
In our survey, we asked
respondents: Generally
speaking, do you feel likesociety places a strong
enough importance on
science? The global sample
was almost evenly split,with 45 percent answering“yes,” 47 percent answering“no,” and 8 percent unsure.
The fact that a majority of
respondents don’t thinksociety appropriately
respects science or are
unsure indicates a significant
gap between the importancethey ascribe to science andhow it is perceived by thebroader society.
The patterns of response
varied widely between
and within countries. The
only discernable regional
pattern is in Latin America,
where the perception thatsociety does not place astrong enough importanceon science is especiallypronounced.

Argentina

30%
YES

VS.

65%

= net -35
percentage
pointsVS.

60%= net -25
percentage
pointsVS.

71%= net -44
percentage
pointsNO

Brazil

35%
YES

NO

Mexico

27%
YES

NO

WHITE PAPER FALL 2020

21

IN SUPPORT OF THE PRIMACY OF SCIENCE
WHITE PAPER

Trust in sources of scientificinformation
The great majority of people are notscientists. They don’t have the training
and may not have the time to search out
original scientific research and determine its
value. And so they rely on third parties for
information. But which sources do they trust?
We asked respondents how much they trust
each of 10 individuals and institutions toprovide unbiased and reliable information
about the latest scientific findings.
Ministries or departments of health cameout on top as most trusted, with around
two-thirds of respondents trusting themcompletely or somewhat to provide unbiased
and reliable scientific information. Fewer
respondents gave high marks to the person
in charge: the minister of health (59 percent).
Perhaps this reflects the fact that theministry/department is an institution
composed of many people who between
them have a lot of experience. The minister,by contrast, typically is a political appointee
and may or may not have much relevant
health and/or scientific expertise.

The principle of science-based policymaking
seems straightforward—after all, why wouldn’t
officials apply available scientific evidence topolicy decisions? In most cases, they do, as
we have seen in the formulation of policies tomitigate climate change (e.g., Paris Agreement,science-based targets to cut greenhouseemissions). In other instances, such as tobacco
harm reduction, science may be eclipsed bypolitics or dogma in some quarters.
The COVID-19 crisis has given even greater
prominence to the crucial role that science canand should have in informing policy decisions.
Unsurprisingly, many governments have been
keen to show that they are formulating policy
in close consultation with scientists.
The PMI survey included this request: Pleaseindicate whether you support or oppose thegovernment ensuring the latest scientificdevelopments and studies are taken into accountwhen making policy. Overall, 84 percent
support it (including 39 percent strongly), while
just 9 percent oppose it—an emphatic show of
support. This question did not refer explicitly
to COVID-19, although respondents may wellhave had the novel coronavirus in mind.
Yet despite this widespread support forbringing science into policymaking, only
51 percent rated their government as doinga good job of ensuring that science andscientific evidence are included in decisionmaking processes. Meanwhile, around fourin 10 respondents (41 percent) think theirgovernments are doing a poor job of it. They’re
not alone: In 2018, 180 science organizations
came together to form the International
Science Council with the intent of increasing
the role of scientific evidence in public
policymaking and “advanc[ing] science as a
global public good.”

WHITE PAPER FALL 2020

Similarly, trust in the World HealthOrganization (WHO) is higher (63 percent)than in the WHO leadership (58 percent).
The same pattern pertained to the lowest
scoring of the 10 sources: Just 42 percent
trust the media to convey accurate scientificinformation, and slightly fewer (39 percent)trust journalists.

Science in policymaking

22

IN SUPPORT OF THE PRIMACY OF SCIENCE
WHITE PAPER

Do you support or oppose the government
ensuring the latest scientific developments
and studies are taken into account when
making policy?

Do you believe your government doesa good job or a poor job ensuring scienceand evidence are included in thedecision-making process?

7%

8%

9%

VS.

51%
41%

84%

Total support

Total oppose

UnsureTotal poor job

UnsureWHITE PAPER FALL 2020

Similarly, only a slight majority (54 percent)of respondents indicated they think theirgovernments are doing a good job when asked:
Do you believe your government does a goodjob or a poor job communicating unbiased andreliable information about the latest scientificdevelopments and studies? A hefty minorityof 41 percent rated their governments poorly
on this measure.

Total good job

23

IN SUPPORT OF THE PRIMACY OF SCIENCE
WHITE PAPER

Do you believe your government does a good job or a poor job communicating unbiased
and reliable information about the latest scientific developments and studies?
5%

10%Good job - strongly

15%

Good job - somewhat
Poor job - somewhat
Poor job - strongly
Unsure

26%

44%

These findings show that policymakers andregulators have more work to do if they wantto meet society’s expectations of how scienceshould be leveraged to shape policies anddecisions.

WHITE PAPER FALL 2020

Beyond looking for objective facts andassessing the totality of available evidence toinform their decisions, it is equally importantfor policymakers to debate the data openly
and transparently, and to do so while being
clear about both implicit and explicit biases.
Moreover, when policymakers are guided byrobust science, it is in their interests to provide
access to science content that explains andjustifies their policy decisions. It’s comparable
to math exams, where it is not enough forthe student to simply give the final answer.
Examiners want to see the workings—theprocess whereby the student came to theanswer. Only then can they properly judge thevalue of the result.

In addition to the inherent benefits oftransparency and productive debate, such an
open approach to science and evidence allows
stakeholders to follow along throughout theprocess and to be better positioned to bothprovide input and understand the logic of theresultant policy decisions.

24

IN SUPPORT OF THE PRIMACY OF SCIENCE
WHITE PAPER

Science and business
Given the value most respondents accord
to science, it comes as no surprise that clear
majorities are keen for businesses to prioritize thediscipline. The survey asked respondents to rate
their agreement with several statements relating
to this topic.
They were almost unanimous (90 percent) inagreeing: It is important to me that businesses makecontinual investments in science to improve theirproducts.
Almost as many (87 percent) agreed: I look morefavorably on businesses that have robust science
supporting their products.
A similarly high majority (83 percent) agreed:
Businesses have an important role to play inconveying unbiased, accurate information about aproduct.

A clear but smaller majority (77 percent) agreed
with a stricter statement: Businesses should only
be allowed to make claims that are substantiated byscience.
The survey responses make it clear that today’s
consumers want businesses to invest in scienceand rely on it in manufacturing and promoting theirproducts. In a portion of the survey not directly
pertaining to science, we presented respondents
with a set of issues related to the economy, theenvironment, public health, and income inequity. In
addition to addressing these issues directly,
68 percent of the sample would like to see
governments encourage private businesses to develop
their own solutions to these global issues. This is yet
more evidence of the heightened role business is
expected to play. And with 85 percent of respondents
stating that businesses should develop science-based
solutions to some of the biggest problems facing
society today, the expectations are clear for science tosit at the center of many of these efforts.

% agreeing strongly/somewhat
It is important to me that businesses make continual
investments in science to improve their products

90%

I look more favorably on businesses that have robust
science supporting their products

87%

Businesses have an important role to play in conveying
unbiased, accurate information about a product83%

Businesses should only be allowed to make claims
that are substantiated by science

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

TAKEAWAYS

Most people feel positively about science and would like society to accord greater importance to it.
In particular, they want businesses to be more engaged in developing, communicating, and respecting
science. A large majority support governments taking the latest science into account in policymaking,but barely more than half think their government is doing that.

WHITE PAPER FALL 2020

0%

77%

25

#06

THE ROLE OFSCIENCE CONTENT
IN SHAPING
INFORMEDDECISIONSIN SUPPORT OF THE PRIMACY OF SCIENCE
WHITE PAPERI

n pre-pandemic times, rarely a day went
by without media flagging some kind of
science-related news (“New researchshows …”). Sometimes this news isabout obscure subjects such as black
holes in deep space, ancient fossils, andnanotechnology. However, much of thetime, science is shared via stories that are
immediately relevant to virtually everybody.

What motivates people to follow
science content?

While our survey shows that public interestin science is strong, there has been a trend
away from “serious” science journals toward
more general-interest scientific news, which
offers more scope for pseudoscience andhype.

Science related to health is of near-universal
interest because it affects everyone. If we don’t
have a particular ailment now, most of us are atleast curious about how to avoid developing it.
Now, in the era of COVID-19, interest in healthinformation has escalated, as people look for
information on mitigation tactics and potential
breakthroughs that offer hope of beating thevirus and making it possible to get back tosomething resembling “normal” life.

Given the importance of science in modern
life, it is worthwhile to dig a bit deeper into
the coverage and communication of scienceand to ask some questions.

There has been a trend awayfrom “serious” science journals
toward more general-interest
scientific news.

The survey confirms that people take a strong
interest in science. But what motivates them tofollow scientific news and developments in an
era in which one’s choice of media content isvirtually unlimited? It comes down to a mix ofinterest and self-interest.

Public interest in the environment also has
grown as the topic has become more relevant
to our everyday lives. Air pollution, for instance,
has become a big worry for people all over theworld. Throughout 2019, global action kept
the environment in the headlines, abettedby regular occurrences of “extreme weather,”with its too-often-devastating impacts. In
2020, coverage of the lockdowns has included
stories on how the natural world seems to havebenefited from the break in human activity—
the so-called “anthropause.”

One would hope that the consumption ofscientific information (when accurate) would
help people to make better choices. And
sometimes it does. For example, increased
awareness of the health and environmental
benefits of organic food and beverages

WHITE PAPER FALL 2020

Technology, too, is of widespread interest.
People often want to know not just about thelatest tech gadgets, but also about their social
implications and potential health risks.

27

IN SUPPORT OF THE PRIMACY OF SCIENCE
WHITE PAPER

arguably is among the reasons for the sharp
growth in global sales in this category,from less than $116 billion in 2015 to an
anticipated nearly $328 billion by 2022,
according to Allied Market Research. However,
we know all too well that poor dietary choices
continue to contribute to rising rates ofobesity and cardiovascular disease, among
other afflictions, demonstrating that scientificknowledge may not necessarily translate intomeaningful action.
Science content can and should aim to help
achieve better outcomes, including in therealm of public health.

What is needed from providersof science content to enablepeople to make better-informed
decisions?

Alongside the ethical dimension comes qualityof content. Some science content is briefand simple. Some is long and detailed. Either

Moreover, science content should make clear
what the implications of the content are forthe reader/viewer in concrete terms, as wellas what actions they might consider taking
and choices they could make in light of these
implications.
Content providers should also be cognizant
that some scientific terms have a completely
different meaning when used by nonscientists.
For example, the word theory. In science, it’s“a well-substantiated explanation of an aspectof the natural world that can incorporate laws,
hypotheses, and facts.” For nonscientists, atheory is merely a hunch or a guess withouta solid body of supporting evidence. Similarly,
the concept of “uncertainty” can also express
different meanings. In science, almost
nothing is regarded as absolutely certain in
all conditions. When scientists talk about
uncertainty, they are referring to “the range of
how confident they are in their findingsor their measurements.” When nonscientists
use the word, it means they don’t know
something or doubt it.

WHITE PAPER FALL 2020

From the media side, at an absolute minimum,
science coverage needs to contain soundinformation that is grounded in robust
empirical work conducted rigorously inaccordance with established scientificprinciples. This means, among other things,
that it should not mislead people—for
example, by using headlines created to grab
attention while misrepresenting the detailsof the work being reported. Research from
Cardiff University in the U.K. reveals thatexaggerations in news coverage on topics
related to public health tend to stem notfrom the research itself but from the press
releases the scientists or organizations craftedor approved. The authors assert that the
cumulative effect of such exaggerations candamage the reader’s understanding of thehealth matter being reported.

way, at whatever degree of complexity it iscommunicated, it should present the mostreliable knowledge available on the subject.
The deeper the level of complexity, the more
it should reflect the nuances that are themark of honest and balanced scientificreporting (e.g., sample size, margins of error,
limitations of current knowledge and applied
methodologies, acknowledgment of different
opinions). The lower the level of complexity,
the more it should guard against the risk ofpeople coming away with overly simplified
or misleading interpretations.

28

IN SUPPORT OF THE PRIMACY OF SCIENCE
WHITE PAPER

What conditions will give science
content the best chance of
positively influencing behavior
change?
For consumers of science content to achieve
better outcomes, they must not only haveeasy access to quality information but
reason to trust it. It is critical, therefore—
especially in the health space—that publicauthorities and media platforms work to
expose and, to the extent they can, eliminate
fraudulent and unfounded assertions. At
the same time, people need to be educatedon how to assess the veracity of scientificinformation. This must include the ability(and desire) to differentiate between science
content promoted by a celebrity or activist
and science reports based on empirical,
peer-reviewed work.

TAKEAWAYS

Science content can aim to do more than keep people informed. It can aim to provide more robust
information so that people can make better-informed decisions.

79%

are interested
in new scientificinformation

41%

believe their governments doa poor job of communicating
reliable information
about the latest
scientificdevelopments

40%

believe the media doa poor job of communicating
reliable information about
the latest scientificdevelopments

WHITE PAPER FALL 2020

29

#07

THE DANGERS
OF BAD SCIENCEIN SUPPORT OF THE PRIMACY OF SCIENCE
WHITE PAPERW

hat are the practicalconsequences of people
being unable to differentiate
between solid information andmisinformation? What dangers
lie in the public being denied access to unbiased
and up-to-date scientific findings?

When interest in science goes wrong
The anti-vax movement provides a sobering casehistory of how the public interest in science canlead to negative outcomes. Although opposition tovaccination goes back to the 19th century, it is theanti-MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) version thathas been having a big impact in recent decades.
In 1998, the British medical publication
The Lancet published a paper linking the MMR
vaccine to autism. The story ran for five
years, garnering widespread coverage until
an investigative journalist published an exposé
in 2004. The paper was retracted by thecoauthors and the publication 12 years after its
initial appearance, but by then vaccination rates
had dropped significantly. Even today, rates insome countries are still below those needed toprevent group infections, as some people rejectvaccinations outright and others hesitate too long.
Now measles is resurgent.

Importance for public policy
The COVID-19 crisis illustrates why public
interest in science matters. People’s interest

In most instances, the effects of public policy
take years or even decades to become evident.
For example, the mandatory use of seat belts—astandard feature in cars today and probably
one of the most common safety devices inmodern history—was at first fiercely contested
by segments of the population in the U.S. andelsewhere. But as research and data on road
fatalities accumulated over the decades that
followed, the initial claims that seat belts were
ineffective, inconvenient, and uncomfortable
have been dismissed for good.
On the other end of the spectrum, bad science—
intentional or not—can limit opportunity for
progress. In the U.S., an August 2020 Gallup poll
showed that one in three Americans would not
get the COVID vaccine if available today. Amongthe naysayers are anti-vaxxers, those who refuse
vaccinations, but also a growing number ofcitizens who have lost trust because of perceived
politicization of the science.
The real risk—similar to what we see in the fieldof better alternatives to cigarette smoking—isthat, without thorough research and review, “junkscience” is being used to set political agendas.
In the field of tobacco and health, poor-quality
science is being used to sway the public against
alternatives to cigarettes despite good-quality
science showing that such products are a far
better choice for adult smokers than continuing tosmoke. Because of this interference, policymakers
in many countries are opting to stick with thestatus quo. They are still allowing the sale ofcigarettes—the most dangerous form of nicotine
consumption—while banning or restricting
the sale of scientifically substantiated better
alternatives. Good policymaking requires that
ideology and personal beliefs be set aside and that
all of the evidence be dispassionately evaluated.

WHITE PAPER FALL 2020

The anti-vax movement may turn out to be still
more impactful as governments attempt to deal
with COVID-19. According to media reports, evenas researchers are racing to develop vital vaccines,
some conspiracy theorists are alleging that a
vaccine against COVID-19 fits into an Orwellian
government masterplan.

and understanding of why policies are proposed
affects their willingness to support the policies
politically and adhere to them in practice.

31

#08

CLOSINGTHOUGHTS:TURNING
INTEREST INTO
PROGRESSIN SUPPORT OF THE PRIMACY OF SCIENCE
WHITE PAPER“While we will not all
become scientists, we cancertainly learn to think
like them.”
Jacek Olczak,
Chief Operating Officer,
Philip Morris InternationalAt first blush, it is encouraging
that so many people identify
themselves as interested inscientific information, as keen
to find out more, and as able tounderstand and explain it. However, displaying
this apparently pro-science attitude does notnecessarily mean that they are “thinking likescientists”—methodically gathering a rangeof evidence and evaluating it critically. They
may equally—or more probably—be looking for
information that confirms what they alreadythink or wish to believe.
In an ideal world, people with an appetite forscientific information will identify which media
outlets rely on trustworthy sources to create
solid stories. They will take the time to follow
up references in the stories. They will takeadvantage of the wealth of sober, high-quality
scientific content available, and they will dig
into it in a spirit of open but critical curiosity.
In a less-than-ideal world of widespread doubt
and mistrust, unfortunately, many people with
an appetite for scientific information will be
led astray. Sensationalist pseudo-scientificcontent abounds online—“alternative” views
that make a virtue of running counter to“mainstream” science.

WHITE PAPER FALL 2020

Content providers intent on ensuring that
accurate information reaches its intended
audiences face a daunting challenge: They
must square the joint needs for both scientificrigor and broad comprehensibility. “Upstream,”the information is likely to involve complex
calculations and technical nuances thatmust satisfy peer review. “Downstream,”the information must be presented in a waythat enables end users to draw accurate andactionable conclusions from it. It must also
make clear that scientific opinions in complex
areas are often provisional. They are basedon the best information available at the timeand may change in the light of new findings.

33

IN SUPPORT OF THE PRIMACY OF SCIENCE
WHITE PAPER

For nonscientists who think that science is“supposed to” offer proof and definitive answers,
it may be hard to understand and accept that“the science” is likely to change. This leads toanother challenge: being transparent and earning
trust.
Unless they are willing to dig very deep, mostpeople must be able to trust that the scientificinformation being presented to them has been
generated using rigorous methods. They must be
confident that the information is being presented
in good faith, with the intention to inform, notconfuse or deceive. Any faltering in their trust
makes people more vulnerable to the risks ofcompeting information.
Exacerbating the problem: Some search andrecommendation algorithms rank information
sources online by popularity rather than integrity.
This means that peripheral and even discreditedscientific information can gain currency amongpeople who are suspicious of establishedscience. As growth in the number of anti-vaxxers
and other conspiracy-minded citizens has shown,misinformation and disinformation masquerading
as science may be harnessed for ideological
purposes—especially when it is promoted byinfluential groups. This raises the risk of people
making choices that are objectively, measurably
detrimental to their own interests and/or to thewider society.

because it goes against what they are committed
to believing. Addressing the problem of “society
rejecting facts,” Science Daily advocated: “Ourcommon goal should be to return public trust in
our research enterprise, which has done so muchgood for so many. […] The more we can do as
scientists to promote our guiding principles ofrigor, transparency, honesty and reproducibility
and to provide the best evidence possible andget people to understand [it], the greater the
likelihood that they will listen to the message andfollow it.”
It is entirely possible that two people will
systematically examine the same robust scientificinformation and come to different conclusions. In
the scientific world, it is expected that thinking
will evolve, that consensus will change as new
information and evidence emerge. After all,science often advances when a prevailing pointof view is challenged and shown to be wrong.
And no matter how difficult it may be to let go of
long-held beliefs, the scientific mindset shows us
the way. Consider Albert Einstein’s “cosmologicalconstant”—his belief that the universe was static,
based on the prevailing wisdom and knowledge
at the time. Some claim that he later called thisview the “greatest blunder” of his career. For
Einstein, the idea of an expanding universe didn’t
fit with his view of how the universe acted, but
after listening to evidence from astronomers
such as Edwin Hubble, he eventually admitted
his error.

Reinforcing public trust in science
WHITE PAPER FALL 2020

At PMI, we believe that public access to goodquality scientific information is critical. Only
through unfettered access to such information
can people make informed choices based on
facts rather than gut feeling or ideology. At thesame time, we must recognize that such accessis not sufficient on its own. Many people rejectmainstream scientific information even if it’saccessible, not because it is of poor quality, but

34

IN SUPPORT OF THE PRIMACY OF SCIENCE
WHITE PAPER

Food for thought
For scientists and others interested
in science, this is a golden age. Neverbefore in human history has so muchinformation been so widely available.
This poses immense opportunities,
daunting challenges, and some risks.

“The greatest obstacle todiscovery is not ignorance—it is
the illusion of knowledge.”
Daniel J. Boorstin,
Historian and Librarianof the U.S. Congress

Our survey results show thatpeople all over the world value
scientific information and wantpublic authorities to do a betterjob of incorporating science into
policymaking. They also would like to
see governments better communicate
unbiased and non-misleading scientificinformation. Transparency and open
debate are vital.
Governments, policymakers, businessleaders, and citizens alike have aunique opportunity today to elevatescience and scientific knowledge asa reliable force for good. Progress
will depend on our collective ability
to objectively examine the facts,
move past our biases, and open
ourselves to new ways of thinking.
We must all work together to ensurethat the policies our governments
are instituting do not run counter toobjective truths.

WHITE PAPER FALL 2020

35

IN SUPPORT OF THE PRIMACY OF SCIENCE
WHITE PAPER

APPENDIX
Survey details
Povaddo conducted this study on behalf of
PMI between June 25 and July 8, 2020. The
survey was fielded among general population
adults ages 21 and older in 19 countries
and territories: Argentina, Australia, Brazil,
Germany, Hong Kong, Israel, Italy, Japan,
Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, thePhilippines, Russia, South Africa, South
Korea, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, theUnited States, and Vietnam. For the overall
sample, there is a margin of error of+/- 0.72% at the 95% confidence interval.
Various safety restrictions to stop the spreadof COVID-19 were in place around the world
at the time of fieldwork; for this reason
and in an effort to ensure the safety of allparticipants, all fieldwork for this project
was conducted online. Therefore, theseresults are representative of the online adult
population in each country, meaning the
portion of the adult population in a given
country that has personal and routine accessto the internet.

WHITE PAPER FALL 202036© Philip Morris Products S.A. 2020
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be shared, reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without theprior written permission of PMI. All third-party product names or company
names referred to are for informational purposes only. References to thesenames does not implicitly or explicitly express any kind of affiliation with,or endorsement of, them. Images: All images used within this book areeither owned by or licensed to PMI under separate license agreements.
Image banks used: Getty Images, Unsplash.
Philip Morris Products S.A.
Avenue de Rhodanie 501007
LAUSANNE, SWITZERLAND
www.pmi.com