Listen carefully: Teaching students to navigate science-scepticism

In a lecture hall at ETH Zurich, a lively discussion is underway. Students from a range of disciplines are grappling with a pressing question: how should scientists respond to groups that reject, reinterpret or claim scientific findings for their own political purposes?

The students are taking part in a seminar called Science, Trust and Politics, which forms part of the university¡¯s interdisciplinary Science in Perspective programme. This initiative provides critical insights into societal perspectives on science and technology, equipping students with the skills to advocate for research-based knowledge beyond the academic sphere ¨C and engage more effectively with society.

A message from the ¡°lab rats¡±

Now, picture a different scene: we¡¯re in the United States. Protesters are gathering for a march. Standing side-by-side, they hold placards that read ¡°No to genetic engineering¡±, ¡°No geoengineering here¡± and ¡°We are not lab rats¡±. Their slogans express resistance to areas of scientific research perceived as threatening, such as solar geoengineering and Covid-19 vaccinations.

Solar geoengineering is term given to technological approaches to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth and thereby mitigate global warming. Due to the difficulty in reliably predicting the consequences of such approaches, they remain controversial ¨C both in the scientific community and in society at large.

Some science-sceptical groups associate solar geoengineering with the notion of ¡°chemtrails¡±. They claim that the contrails left by aircraft contain chemical or biological agents deliberately released to manipulate the weather or reduce the population. As these assertions contradict established atmospheric science, chemtrails are widely regarded as a conspiracy theory.

Scientists and policymakers have also addressed the topic, primarily to counter misinformation and to strengthen public trust in scientific processes. Gabriel Dorthe, however, takes a different approach ¨C both as a researcher and as a lecturer.

Listening with the sensitivity of a cultural anthropologist

Dorthe shifts the focus away from researchers and towards those who hold opposing views. In his work, he adopts the approach of a cultural anthropologist, seeking to understand the thinking and behaviour of less-familiar and culturally distinct communities through questioning, listening, observation and participation.

When engaging with supporters of the chemtrails theory or critics of Covid-19 measures, Dorthe attends their gatherings, reads their blogs and social media posts, and conducts interviews. His aim is to understand the perspectives that shape their scepticism.

Dorthe studied philosophy and environmental humanities in Lausanne and Paris, and later conducted research at Harvard, the Potsdam Research Institute for Sustainability and ETH Zurich¡¯s Professorship for Ethics, Technology and Society. He focuses on groups often seen as contributing to the erosion of public trust in science.

Tracing the roots of distrust

In a recent study published in Communications Earth & Environment, Dorthe takes a deep dive into science-sceptical communities. His research spans the United States, Germany, Switzerland and France, focusing on critics of Covid-19 vaccines and proponents of the chemtrails theory.

Dorthe approaches scientific and conspiratorial thinking as two distinct ways in which people connect facts, values, politics, hopes and fears to form a specific understanding of the world. In his analysis, neither perspective is deemed fundamentally superior or inferior. This allows him to explore how trust and mistrust emerge through mutual reference and interaction, thereby shedding light on the reciprocal tensions between science policy and conspiratorial thinking.

From the standpoint of scientific enlightenment, conspiracy theories are often dismissed as irrational or mere misinformation that can be corrected through fact-based science communication. Dorthe, however, sees them differently. The link between climate technologies, weather manipulation and human control ¨C the topics raised on the protest placards ¨C may seem surprising or far-fetched. After all, geoengineering and Covid-19 vaccines are scientifically unrelated.

Yet, for Dorthe, such unexpected connections offer valuable insight into how science-sceptical groups weave together urgent concerns ¨C health, security, geopolitics, research and ecology ¨C into a coherent narrative that reflects their view of technological and political developments. For science communication, this understanding can serve as a powerful asset.

A broader sense of unease

¡°As provocative as it may sound, understanding the experiences raised by conspiracy theories can strengthen our grasp of why public controversies around emerging technologies are so heated,¡± says Gabriel Dorthe. ¡°One reason is that these technologies have the potential to fundamentally reshape our lives.¡±

Dorthe¡¯s approach helps to distinguish between doubts genuinely related to science and those rooted in other causes. Often, mistrust is not directed at science alone. Science-sceptical groups at times perceive science as closely aligned with politics and business ¡ª part of a system that, in their eyes, fails to represent their interests.

Such groups perceive Covid-19 measures, as well as climate and geoengineering interventions, as threats to bodily autonomy and individual freedom. Their unease reflects not only scepticism towards the sciences, but also deeper concerns about governance, control and personal agency.

Bridging divides: The case of Homeopathy

Back in the lecture hall, Gabriel Dorthe shares his insights into science-sceptical communities with his students. ¡°One of the core insights I try to instil in my students,¡± says Dorthe, ¡°is that trust doesn¡¯t travel in just one direction.¡± He encourages students to engage with perspectives that differ from their own: ¡°Listen carefully. Pay attention. Broaden your view. Be present. Meet people where they are. Ask those who disagree with you the same questions you ask those who agree. Don¡¯t judge too quickly, and stay flexible in your interpretations until you understand someone¡¯s stance on a topic.¡±

One student project on homeopathy particularly resonated with him, exemplifying the impact of his approach. The student, a committed natural scientist, had spent years arguing with her mother about the effectiveness of homeopathy. Dorthe suggested a shift in strategy: instead of debating what is true or false, she should ask her mother why she is convinced by homeopathy and how she perceives its effects.

This change in perspective led to a surprising insight. For the student¡¯s mother, homeopathy was not merely a belief: it was a practice, a community, a form of knowledge about the body and health. This shift transformed their relationship. After years of tense debates over which form of medicine was ¡°right¡± ¨C biomedicine or homeopathy ¨C they began to understand the issues that mattered to each other. In the end, it was no longer about winning the argument. In addition, these insights sparked a growing mutual interest.

For Dorthe, the student¡¯s work is a compelling example of how thoughtful questions can generate meaningful arguments for science communication. Drawing on his experience with dialogue formats between science and society ¨C such as at the Vaudois Philosophy Association in Lausanne or the Francophone Philosophy Festival ¨C he advocates for researchers to develop formats that facilitate exchange with groups that holds opposing views, and to learn from them rather than merely trying to convince them.