Reacción a "A review identifies what most influences polarization on health issues"

The study published in Science Advances offers a broad and timely overview of how the COVID-19 pandemic affected not only physical health but also the communicative health of our societies. By analyzing the factors that fueled health polarization—from inequality and ideology to institutional trust and the circulation of misinformation—it confirms that public health management cannot be understood in isolation from the social processes of knowledge construction. Polarization around science does not arise from data, but from the meanings we attribute to it and the media and political dynamics that amplify it.

Various studies published in recent years agree that scientific literacy and familiarity with biological concepts have a moderating effect on ideological polarization. People with greater knowledge about the coronavirus and scientific processes were less vulnerable to extreme narratives and showed a more critical attitude towards the political management of the pandemic. These studies reinforce the idea that health polarization is not so much due to a lack of information as to the absence of dialogue and spaces for public deliberation around risk and evidence.

In the Spanish context, the conclusions of this study are particularly relevant: the response to future health crises cannot be limited to improving institutional communication, but must also reinforce critical and participatory scientific literacy in schools, the media, and social networks. Trust in science is built over the long term, in everyday life and through continuous learning. Fostering a pro-science culture, but also one that is critical and healthy skepticism—capable of distinguishing between uncertainty and manipulation—is one of the best tools for preventing polarization and strengthening democracy.