Knowledge translation (KT) emerged to address the challenges of applying health and medical research findings into practice. Historically, KT was viewed through two lenses: a positivist empiricist perspective emphasizing a linear transfer of knowledge from producers to users, and a sociological perspective focusing on the social systems mediating knowledge uptake. The positivist view, rooted in evidence-based medicine and practice, prioritized empirical evidence from randomized controlled trials, often overlooking other forms of knowledge and potentially entrenching scientific authority over patients. The sociological view, influenced by Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations theory, acknowledged the multifaceted pathways of knowledge adoption within social systems, emphasizing communication and negotiation. Modern KT approaches increasingly adopt a more complex, dynamic, and integrated sociological view, acknowledging the limitations of the positivist model. Several complexity-informed models, including the KT Complexity Network Model (KT-cnm), attempt to capture this integrated view, recognizing the interplay of various stakeholders and contextual factors influencing knowledge translation. However, this shift raises a dilemma: how can KT ensure scientific evidence has a prominent role in public discourse, especially within the current post-truth, populist climate? This paper explores this dilemma, addressing the critique of science's privileged status and proposing that KT should prioritize creating conditions for a basic consensus on factual matters and shared values, allowing scientific evidence to play its appropriate role in decision-making.

The paper reviews critiques of KT and the role of scientific evidence in public policy, highlighting concerns about scientism, the privileging of scientific logos, and the science-policy nexus. The COVID-19 pandemic serves as a prime example of these concerns, illustrating the uncertainties, contestations, and controversies surrounding public policy decisions based on scientific evidence. The critique aligns with critical theory, advocating for emancipation, participatory democracy, and greater public engagement. Arguments for epistemic pluralism often emphasize the importance of considering socioeconomic and psychological factors alongside epidemiological models, challenging the perceived objectivity of scientific expertise. However, the paper notes that some arguments for epistemic equivalence between scientific knowledge and other perspectives are not always well-substantiated, raising concerns about potential philosophical inconsistencies. The authors examine different perspectives, including those advocating for epistemic democracy and those employing post-structuralist critique. They also discuss Greenhalgh and Engebretsen's call for a pragmatist turn in navigating the science-policy nexus, noting the inherent philosophical challenges and controversies associated with some of these proposals.

This paper employs a qualitative methodology, primarily conducting a literature review to examine existing scholarship on knowledge translation, the role of science in policymaking, and the challenges of navigating a post-truth political economy. The authors analyze various frameworks and models of knowledge translation, focusing particularly on the KT Complexity Network Model (KT-cnm) as a case study of an approach attempting to incorporate a broader understanding of contextual factors and stakeholder interactions. The analysis integrates philosophical considerations, drawing on discussions of scientific realism, epistemic pluralism, pragmatism, and critiques of relativism. The methodology involves a critical evaluation of different perspectives on the science-policy nexus, the influence of post-truth narratives, and the role of scientific evidence in public discourse. The paper does not involve primary data collection but instead synthesizes existing literature to develop a critical analysis of the challenges facing knowledge translation in the contemporary context. The authors systematically review arguments for and against the epistemic primacy of science, weighing the ethical and practical implications of various approaches to knowledge translation. The argumentative strategy relies heavily on philosophical analysis, drawing upon relevant concepts and theories to support its claims. There's no empirical data collection or statistical analysis in this philosophical paper.

The paper's central argument centers on the dilemma faced by knowledge translation (KT) in a post-truth political economy. While the emerging view of KT emphasizes complexity, inclusivity, and stakeholder engagement, the authors argue that scientific evidence should retain an appropriate level of epistemic primacy in public discourse. The authors analyze various critiques of KT and the science-policy nexus, identifying tensions between the desire for inclusivity and the need for effective responses to urgent challenges like the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change. The authors identify a lack of consensus on basic facts and values as a significant barrier to effective knowledge translation, exacerbated by a post-truth environment where appeals to emotion often outweigh objective facts. The historical transformation of the public sphere, from Habermas's ideal of the bourgeois public sphere to its current fragmented and polarized state, is discussed as a key context for understanding the present challenges. The rise of populist movements, the influence of partisan media, and the spread of misinformation are highlighted as factors contributing to the erosion of trust in scientific expertise and institutions. The paper analyzes the KT-cnm, noting its strengths in acknowledging the complexities of knowledge translation but arguing that it may be insufficient to address the urgency and scale of 'wicked problems' in a post-truth context. The authors find that simply incorporating diverse viewpoints may not suffice when basic consensus on facts is lacking, leading to the proposed need for KT strategies that actively promote the conditions for such consensus, rather than passively accommodating existing pluralism.

The findings highlight a significant tension between the inclusive ideals of emerging KT perspectives and the practical need for scientific evidence to play a central role in addressing critical public health and environmental challenges. The authors' proposed solution – prioritizing the establishment of a basic consensus on fundamental facts and values – addresses this tension by suggesting that KT shouldn't merely accommodate diverse viewpoints but actively work to create the conditions for a more informed and reasoned public discourse. This approach acknowledges the importance of ethical considerations and diverse perspectives but emphasizes that the epistemic status of scientific evidence shouldn’t be diminished to the level of other, potentially unfounded, perspectives. The discussion underscores the importance of restoring trust in scientific expertise and institutions, while also acknowledging the limitations of imposing scientific knowledge without adequate public consultation and engagement. The authors suggest that a pragmatic approach that balances inclusivity with the need for evidence-based solutions is essential for effective knowledge translation in the current context. This requires fostering scientific literacy, critical thinking skills, and civic engagement to counter the spread of misinformation and promote effective public discourse.

This paper argues that knowledge translation (KT) must adapt to the realities of a post-truth political economy. While embracing inclusivity and stakeholder engagement, KT needs to actively promote the conditions for a basic consensus on facts and values, thus enabling scientific evidence to assume its appropriate level of influence. This approach, rather than passively accommodating existing divisions, aims to strengthen democratic processes and public trust in science. Future research could explore specific strategies for fostering scientific literacy, critical thinking, and civic engagement, and investigate effective approaches to communicating complex scientific information in a politically polarized environment. The authors acknowledge that achieving this balance is a significant challenge, but contend that it is necessary for KT to effectively contribute to addressing global challenges requiring urgent action.

The paper's reliance on a literature review limits its scope to examining existing scholarship. The authors acknowledge that the proposed approach of actively promoting consensus on fundamental facts and values is a significant challenge with no immediate or guaranteed solution. The study primarily focuses on the philosophical and political dimensions of knowledge translation, with less attention given to practical implementation details. Further research is needed to explore specific strategies for achieving the proposed goal of fostering consensus in a post-truth environment and bridging the gap between scientific evidence and public policy.