Agreed. The likes of Neil deGrasse Tyson and Carl Sagan and the other physicists seem to be able to work a crowd and explain theories as well as some of the best salespeople I have met.

BUT we are still a long way off from the "celebrity" scientist I think. One of the most telling examples is the most recent "Curiosity" rover landing on Mars. One of the videos produced explaining the 7 Minutes of Terror was not narrated by a scientist, an engineer nor anyone actually involved in the mission. It was none other than old mate William Shatner.

At any rate, I think we are on the right track here. As a salesman-come-scientist, it astounds me that scientific discoveries and debates do not take more of a "wants-needs-features-benefits-solution" slant. Bashing people over the head with the scientific method will take a multi-generational change. Scientists need to SELL their ideas, keeping in mind that most people couldn't give a toss about critical thinking.

imo

Could you give some examples of scientists that are lofty, patriarchal and smug? I've never come across one, and I think that's just a media portrayal that people accept too willingly.

I won't bother giving you examples as that's not my opinion of scientists. As I said, that's the perception that a lot of members of the public have. But thanks for putting words in my mouth.

Mac is doing his handlers' bidding promptly, as usual -- positing objective "scientists" who aren't.
;]

Leading scientists Mark, they want the ones who are actually right, the ones who do that actual research. Why do you always list the ones who have been proven wrong with actual data and people who aren't even climate scientists.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/baked-curry-the-best-way-to-hide-the-incline.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Lindzen_Illusions.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pielke-sr-misinforms-high-school-students.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pielke-sr-sks-dialogue-final-summary.html

kids *do* appreciate science - because science is fun! Showing primary school students a few simple, entertaining experiments (get Dr Karl to chose them) would solve this particular problem.

Deepak Chopra's followers invoke scientific jargon in support of absolute nonsense because they nevertheless respect science and think Chopra's is genuine. Does that mean there isn't a problem with how these people perceive science? Of course there is, it's just pseudoscience rather than anti-science.

You have the advantage of me Mr Hackett, I am not familiar with Mr Chopra's oeuvre. So I don't feel qualified to weigh on the difference between pseudo-science and anti-science in this regard.

What is pseudo-science? Science that can be disproved? Then the journal Nature is full of pseudo-science.

Sean,
Climate change belief divides reasonably neatly with ones political persuasion.

I have raised this in this forum before. Most people are deciding on this topic without even an algebra based understanding of physics and no understanding of the mol concept whatsoever.

I disagree with the statement that most deniers (not a very good term by the way) are quite well versed in science.

Pseudoscience, in simple terms, is any idea that carries certain science-like features (such as language, or is published in a journal) yet is unsupported by the values that make science useful (such as varied peer review, repeatability etc.).

Junk science and pseudoscience can both be defined according to confidence held in a belief as a result of non-scientific values. Yet pseudoscience is in support of an idea that is typically rejected by a credentialed scientific community, while junk science (potentially the more insidious of the two) is unwarranted confidence in a study or an idea that is more readily accepted by the scientific community.

In both cases science is 'respected' as a concept. What differs is the sense of who the authority is.

Interesting, you define pseudoscience exclusively in terms of social acceptance and not in terms of method.

So for example when Phrenology was published in journals and getting positive peer reviews it would not have been a pseudoscience. A position I agree with incidentally, but its rare to find such a sophisticated understanding of the interrelationship between science and social structures.

This will help you understand my own position that AGW is both excellent science (journals, peer reviews the lot) but it is laughably wrong.

In many ways climate scientists do bear quite some close resemblance to the old phrenologists, feeling their way along statistical noise on graphs and trying to invest the bumps they discover with moral or eschatological significance.

"once could conclude that a large majority opinion of the people who are trained and experienced in the field would be a valid one"

One could conclude that, although such a conclusion hardly strikes me as an example of cognitive excellence.

" or one could ask: how likely is it that untrained zealots are better at interpreting the science than professionals in the field"
Its an art, let me tell you.

"how likely is it that the technological advancement of the human race has had no impact on the natural climate cycles?"
Quite unlikely, although my newly acquired cognitive skills are shouting at me that this is a strawman, sorry strawperson.

If we want to understand how to make the public hand over decision making to technocrats we should look at examples where that has happened. The economy is probably the most obvious one: the public believe whatever they're told, sometimes with passion and almost always with complete ignorance. It works because of the tightly aligned pressures on all relevant sectors - media, government, and the 'experts' - to produce a consistent message.

In the dark ages we had a church hierarchy misinforming us and now we have the high priests of business telling us what to believe or creating enough doubt to entrench inaction. If you are a single-issue lobby group and aren't trying to change the system then all you can do is concentrate on changing elite opinion. Good luck with that though...

Geoff, you've sort of given me a segue to mention a notable point here.

When looking at science denialism such as anti-vaccination activism, hysterical anti-medicine and anti-pharmaceutical activism more generally (eg. HIV denialists, and Internet crackpots like NaturalNews and Mercola), anti-fluoridation cranks, anti-nuclear energy activism, and anti-biotechnology activism, the science denialists usually just dismiss all science, all evidence, and basically anything that challenges their beliefs as being part of some sort of "Big [Pharma/Biotechnology/Nuclear/circle as appropriate] Industry Conspiracy!

These people will usually respond to anybody who knows what they're talking about, anybody who is a scientist, anybody who actually has the science literacy, by simply claiming that they're a "shill", they're "on the take" from the big, bad, global conspiracy run by the evil corporations to pay off all the scientists, leading all the scientists around the world to lie as a result.

Why? Because they simply apply a little bit of science to debunking their flawed arguments.

I guess that's sort of similar to climatology science denial in some cases too, where the scientists are accused of some sort of Big Conspiracy to get more public funding.

I get this all the time from anti-nuclear activists, and my friends who are immunologists, agricultural scientists, medical biologists or physicians get it all the time too from the other sorts. Increasingly, this seems to be a familiar experience for many scientists across all sorts of disciplines. Pretty offensive, isn't it?

Luke, I don't think you've got the correct generalisation. I think nuclear power and GMOs are very ill-advised, and much of the medical industry is far too reductionist. So I get thoroughly pissed off by people who claim anyone with these views is "hysterical", "anti-science", "too emotional" etc. etc.

For me the distinction is partly money-power, partly world view. There's such a thing as holistic science, but old-fashioned technophiles don't seem to know about it. If you understand living systems then nuclear, GM and reductionist medicine don't pass muster.

Untrue Geoff.

If you understand living systems then you would understand that we have been genetically modifying animals and plants to suit our needs for ~11,000 years. If you understand what techniques are being used now then you understand that it is actually just an advance of those some techniques, done more precisely rather than more randomly. This is clear to any geneticist.

Again, nuclear power is solid science, solid principles. There are of course risks and it could be argued one way or another whether the risks are worth it. But the science is solid and we use that science every day. In fact people you know, if not you, have benefited from nuclear science, can we all say medical imaging?

Tim -
Selection does not introduce new genetic material or radically different genetic combinations. We have been winnowing, and cross breeding closely related genomes. GM is a radical departure, and an open experiment in the biosphere. Absurd "assurances", such as that GM pollen won't travel more than two meters, have no credibility. It isn't working anyway. It can't work because organisms evolve but lab-introduced genes are fixed.

I didn't say there is no science in nuclear power. And yes there are risks and when they are sensibly assessed it's not worth it. Especially when we could release far more energy far more cheaply by using the efficient designs for many things that are already available.

Returning to the article's point about motivations, it seems to me these topics provoke world-view responses in enthusiasts - nature is to be dominated, and the thought of working with nature is too scary because that sounds like surrender which sounds like defeat. But our attempts to dominate nature are putting us all in peril.

You appear to be unfamiliar with several of the breeding techniques that have been used. Radiative mutations, grafting, gene shooting (basically introducing new material from another source to a primary source and seeing what happens), etc, are all used in conventional breeding. GM is actually far more precise and actually has the potential to be far safer, especially with the testing procedures that are in place, which no other breeding program requires (as an example, have a look into cancer and hip arthritis in certain dog breeds).

My points in regard to GM and Nuclear was to highlight that your point about "well funded groups pushing an agenda" is inaccurate as it is clear that you yourself have a biased opinion and seem to have been informed by the scare campaigns rather than the science. So essentially that lack of information is a form of anti-science, as you haven't fully understood GM or nuclear, especially in relation to their contemporaries.

You've raised some very interesting points there Elizabeth. I'm sure some people would see those comments and think you're 'anti-science' but I've been thinking about a lot of these kinds of issues myself. First and foremost, I've working for over a decade in scientific research and have a PhD in submission at the moment, so I do have inside perspective to offer (in case you're wondering, I worked for a long time before doing a PhD, and would say you learn more working than accumulating letters anyway).

Also I can tell you I'm not the only one who's worried about some of these issues - as it happens I spent some time on Friday talking to a colleague (another young scientist) about exactly these issues. They're leaving science. There's plenty of reasons to do so, not least of which is the poor career structure and job security, but the reasons we were talking about is the health of science itself. It's pretty depressing as a so-called 'young scientist' to realize you've come into an academic discipline which has some severe problems, and my colleague said this: "is it my responsibility to try and fix all this? should I make it my life's work to fix the problems with science, because that's what I'd be signing up to if I stay" - they've decided to cut and run, and I can't blame them one bit. In many ways it's exactly the same as being young in general - you look around at the state of the world and wonder about the dog's breakfast you're inheriting. Problem is, it seems to be the same situation in the career of science. Will I stay around and try to fix things? I'm not entirely sure.

I think going into every point about why I think science needs to be overhauled in a comment section is going to be a bit much, so I'll just say I agree with all your points about academic journals, and also the sentiments of that author on preventive medicine (That article on public health as arrogant in CMAJ is interesting; if anything, the author is arguing that since preventive medicine deals with healthy people that the standards of evidence need to be higher before any recommendations are made. I'd agree - I've certainly seen too many public health presentations come up with 'suggestions' being based on poor quality evidence. We certainly don't need another hormone replacement in women debacle to appreciate the need for RCTs.)

But here's where this all really gets to me - I honesty think now more than ever we really need policy and actions to be based on the best available evidence. And yet at the same time, with problems like this about how science is done, it undermines faith in the scientific literature and 'science' as a pursuit as a whole - the exact problem you've raised here. This is really deeply troubling, as 'the baby will get thrown out with the bathwater' and then where will we be? These kinds of problems with science also provide great ammunition for all the anti-science activists out there. My aforementioned colleague talked about that they think we're heading for a 'scientific dark ages', where all these problems to do with how science is done will come to the fore, combined with public misunderstanding of research or distrust of scientists, and result in a huge public backlash where anything 'scientific' will be almost a bad word. It sounds doomsday-ish but I can see elements of this already taking place.

Take your comments for example, you've raised some important issues, but I'd implore you not to think of all science as flawed because of it and paint it all with the same brush. Is there some crap science out there? Yip, for sure. I think every scientist in the world could point to some examples of crap work done in their field. But there is some worth paying attention to. And if we say 'science is flawed and I don't trust any of it', where are we going to end up? Who would you trust? A homeopath? Some cult leader saying you should cleanse your aura and the world will provide good health? And trust would be the right word - without some method of actually assessing whether something works in a properly controlled manner, you'd just be going on faith.... and I seriously don't want to see a world going back to that. While you can say science involves politics and power, I think you could pretty well be certain from history that a faith-based society involves even worse abuses of power.

So take it from me, a card-carrying scientist: yes, you're completely correct, science has problems. But if we don't work on addressing those problems and just instead throw the whole pursuit out the window, we could seriously end up in an even bigger mess. And while our generation has problems, where would that leave the next one?

(As somewhat of an aside, I don't get your attitude to HPV vaccine? I'm a guy and I've even looked into whether I could get it. Who knows I may never develop an HPV-related health issue but with genital warts, penile and anal cancer, and oropharyngeal cancers (which are on the increase in men, probably due to increased rates of oral sex) all caused by HPV I'd be keen to sign up for avoiding those.)

"How can there possibly be ‘verticle transmission’ of Hep B when the mother has tested negative or has already been vaccinated herself? "

Two ways:
1. The test isn't 100% sensitive; and
2. There is a window period between infection and the development of antibodies.

Neonatal Hep B vaccine has been one of the most successful recent public health development - especially for migrant communities that come from endemic Hep B areas. The other highly successful public health measure you mentioned is Fluoridation of drinking water.

The reason that the majority of whooping cough cases are in the vaccinated is because the vaccinated far outweigh the unvaccinated. Pro rate, rates are much higher in the unvaccinated (it's easy to do they maths).

So much nonsense in your final paragraph, Lisa, it's not worth responding to.

Lisa, re your comment about the World Health Organisation and hepatitis B. I’m highly suspicious of the WHO’s estimates of various diseases, and also the WHO’s relationship with the pharmaceutical industry.
Re hepatitis B epidemiology. The Australian Immunisation Handbook 9th edition states: “The prevalence of HBV carriage differs in different parts of the world, and may be quite variable within countries. Carrier rates vary from 0.1 to 0.2% among Caucasians in the United States, northern Europe and Australia…” http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/Handbook-hepatitisb
We learn from the Australian Immunisation Handbook that an NHMRC recommendation is responsible for the universal hepatitis B vaccination program. The NHMRC’s report “Recommendations on hepatitis B immunisation” (dated 1996 and now rescinded) admits “the overall incidence of disease is extremely low in young children and many infants will be vaccinated against a disease which they are at low risk of contracting”: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/cd11.pdf
Re your reference to hep B not being on the UK schedule. Neither is rotavirus. (Refer to “Gastroenteritis in children – Prevention”: http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/rotavirus-gastroenteritis/pages/prevention.aspx ) And no mention on the UK schedule yet re adding chickenpox (varicella) to the MMR vaccine, or changing the timing. For more info on chickenpox from a UK perspective see: “Why aren’t children in the UK vaccinated against chickenpox?”: http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/1032.aspx
As for flu vaccination…if only we had an investigative journalist capable of applying scrutiny to the international flu industry, this is a gigantic can of worms.

Lisa, refer to page 3 of my “Open letter to the NSABB re the political and ethical implications of lethal virus development” for hyperlinks to information re the WHO and the swine flu ‘epidemic’: http://bit.ly/AfyAtQ (Some of the articles are behind paywalls.)
Have you been following the ‘lethal flu virus research’ controversy? I forwarded my open letter on this topic to the NSABB at the end of January and a lot of water has gone under the bridge since then.
I tried to raise discussion about this controversial flu virus research on Ben Goldacre’s ‘Bad Science’ forum. The discussion thread I initiated on the ‘Bad Science’ forum was initially met with apathy and then hostility. It seems anything associated with vaccination is off-limits on the ‘Bad Science’ forum, a mob of patronising pseudonyms descends to attack anybody who dares to challenge this sacred cow. The ‘Bad Science’ forum appears to be a group of smug, like-minded people who don’t like interlopers upsetting their cosy chats. Dissenters are labelled ‘trolls’.
If you have the patience for it you can check out the discussion thread: “Lethal flu virus research…” http://www.badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=27118&hilit=lethal+flu+virus+research
I’ve ceased commenting on that thread for a while as they were wasting my time . However, one good thing about Goldacre’s ‘Bad Science’ forum is that the threads remain open, so I can go back and comment further when I’m ready. It’s useful to have these public forums to ‘put things on the record’.
The two controversial flu virus research papers have now been published. However, the voluntary moratorium on potentially dangerous flu virus experiments remains in place, refer to this article in Science: “U.S. Infectious Disease Chief Urges Flu Scientists to ‘Engage’, Support H5N1 Research Moratorium”: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/07/us-infectious-disease-chief-urge.html
I’m continuing to follow this matter with interest…

All of it.

Own goal, Lisa Hodgson. 1644 cases of invasive pneumococcal disease. Exactly why we have pneumococcal vaccine. Too bad for "Big Pharma" that they won't sell as many antibiotics, right?

How many annual cases of pneumococcal meningitis would you consider to be optimal, Lisa?

Oh, and I'll guess you appreciate that the number of tetanus, diphteria and rubella cases are tiny because of vaccination, don't you.

I'm not sure why you persist in this argument when even your own posts contradict you.

Scraping in a Godwin's Law statement already Marc, you must be getting desperate.

"Only source of information"??? Wow. Insulting me and John whilst pretending to be an authority.
The day I rely solely on blogs for my information is that day I take up calling myself Marc Hendrickx.

I'm a big fan of science journals, you may have heard of them. Of course, you call them part of the conspiracy.