Conspiracy theories are something of a plague for scientists: no matter how much research is done on some topics, a vocal minority will insist that the facts just aren’t true.
So it’s gone for vaccines, climate change and 9/11, and so it will go on, in all likelihood. In some cases, it may be best to simply ignore the conspiracy agitators, but, as a 2010 article in EMBO Reports points out, some of the biggest scandals start out looking very much like outlandish conspiracy theories — the Watergate scandal in the 1970s, for example.
Perhaps the best attitude toward conspiracies is to follow the advice popularized by Carl Sagan: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
When taking on some of the more outlandish theories out there, scientists must weigh the the public benefit of lending knowledgeable analysis to questionable hypotheses with the chance they’ll provide a semblance of legitimacy to the claim they’re studying. In the end, a scientific paper may not win over hardened conspiracy theorists, but it may at least quell the suspicions of those caught in the middle.
As one survey paper looking at the viability of the “Chemtrails” conspiracy puts it: “Our goal is not to sway those already convinced that there is a secret, large-scale spraying program — who often reject counter-evidence as further proof of their theories — but rather to establish a source of objective science that can inform public discourse.”
