Trust: From Socrates to spin by Kieron O鈥橦ara, Icon Books, 拢12.99, ISBN 184046531X Reviewed by Maggie McDonald
CREATIONISTS may denounce modern science, but every time they take a plane trip, they are entrusting their lives to the scientists whose discoveries made powered flight possible. Trust binds society together, although we may not always perceive it. A key aspect is working out who can be relied on, and who cannot. Doubting authority, whether religious or royal, says Kieron O鈥橦ara, gave birth to the modern world 鈥� and the 鈥渃ulture of scientific enquiry鈥�.
In a most timely book, O鈥橦ara, from the Intelligence, Agents, Multimedia Group at Southampton University in the UK, examines the social connective tissue of trust. He focuses on trust in public life, an arena where scientists place their ideas before consumers and potential financial backers, often with unpredictable outcomes.
Advertisement
I enjoyed O鈥橦ara鈥檚 engaging analysis of the notion of trust from philosophical roots and a brief tour of Dante鈥檚 special hell for trust breakers to modern peer review of research.
Science is an area in which with expertise comes authority and deference, and O鈥橦ara explains why he thinks it holds a dominant position in the modern world. 鈥淪cience, like religion, like magic, like art, is employed by governments, organisations and individuals for particular purposes, and science, unlike religion, magic and art, usually achieves those purposes. Much of its authority stems from this.鈥�
But expertise has its downside, because those who understand science may not be those who are affected by it. Where we might expect to see increasing confidence between, for example, a doctor and a patient because it is now a policy to obtain 鈥渋nformed鈥� consent for a medical procedure, it may not exist. Consent from a patient means that they become responsible for the outcome, rather than the doctor. Something that looks like a positive benefit can be flawed because shared information is not the same as shared understanding. It could even be seen as abuse of trust.
One of the reasons for public lack of confidence in science is that ideas and discoveries are often interpreted in completely different ways. Most scientific research deals in probabilities, measured and assessed in an agreed method. Public misunderstanding seems to stem from mistaking probability for certainty, from looking at results out of context.
How to restore trust once lost is a problem. Between individuals it is a simple matter: someone is or isn鈥檛 trustworthy. But if that person represents an institution or a discipline a single act by a one person may affect the perceived trustworthiness of thousands of people. Politicians who make staunch claims about enemy weapons capabilities, for example, may erode your trust in government intelligence sources.
O鈥橦ara鈥檚 book is absorbing, a fascinating read. He鈥檚 excellent at reminding you about what you need to know without making a reader feel ignorant.
His timeliness rests on recent cases of public unhappiness with science, such as the debate about modified crops, and the dispute in the UK and US over the MMR vaccine. As he points out, 鈥渢rust is easier to destroy than create鈥�. Does O鈥橦ara show how to rebuild trust? He makes an interesting case that it cannot be done by social engineering, only at the 鈥渕icro-level of individual behaviour鈥�. His gloomy conclusion is that even this might not work. It is an individual responsibility: O鈥橦ara says that the way ahead lies in being as trustworthy as we can.