tag:theconversation.com,2011:/uk/topics/public-understanding-of-science-13199/articlesPublic understanding of science – The Conversation2023-12-05T19:23:52Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2180302023-12-05T19:23:52Z2023-12-05T19:23:52ZFact-bombing by experts doesn’t change hearts and minds. But good science communication can<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/563530/original/file-20231205-30-fhevw2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=7%2C7%2C2389%2C1577&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.pexels.com/photo/rock-formation-during-night-time-167843/">Pixabay / Pexels</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A stir went through the Australian science communication community last week, caused by an article with the headline <a href="https://theconversation.com/science-communicators-need-to-stop-telling-everybody-the-universe-is-a-meaningless-void-215334">Science communicators need to stop telling everybody the universe is a meaningless void</a>. In meetings and online back channels we cried “not ALL science communicators!” </p>
<p>As experts in science communication, we think the article got a few things right but also that this isn’t the whole story. As science communication researchers have <a href="https://doi.org/10.17226/23674">recognised</a> for <a href="https://royalsociety.org/%7E/media/royal_society_content/policy/publications/1985/10700.pdf">decades</a>, some people who communicate science don’t really take their audiences into account. Instead they rely on the “<a href="https://oxfordre.com/communication/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-1396">deficit model</a>”, which wrongly suggests you can change people’s beliefs and behaviours simply by giving them facts to fill perceived gaps in their knowledge.</p>
<p>However, this isn’t the norm. Science communicators are not evangelists for the science-only worldview of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism">scientism</a>. Many science communicators think very deeply about what values matter to people, and how to reach their audiences.</p>
<p>Good science communicators put a lot of work into understanding audiences. Sometimes we undertake research programs to understand attitudes, values and worldviews so we can communicate empathetically with audiences, not just transmit information. Yet much of this work is invisible to the public – and clearly it isn’t widely recognised.</p>
<h2>What is science communication?</h2>
<p>Science communication is sometimes characterised as science marketing, but many of us would reject that label. We love to share our passion for science, but we are not uncritical cheerleaders for it. </p>
<p>We see science as part of humanity’s grand project to solve many challenges. We are not ignorant of the broader social context. Most of us do not believe science is everything, and we talk about its limitations. We also recognise the need to provide hope even in the face of catastrophic predictions.</p>
<p>Many of us would agree some science popularisers (we use the term deliberately) should stop telling people their values-based intuitive beliefs are proved pointless by science. For one thing, telling people their beliefs are wrong is a thoroughly ineffective way to communicate science, <a href="https://theconversation.com/three-key-drivers-of-good-messaging-in-a-time-of-crisis-expertise-empathy-and-timing-135866">especially in a crisis</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/563532/original/file-20231205-27-9eemqo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A photo of a protest in favour of science" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/563532/original/file-20231205-27-9eemqo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/563532/original/file-20231205-27-9eemqo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=347&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/563532/original/file-20231205-27-9eemqo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=347&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/563532/original/file-20231205-27-9eemqo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=347&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/563532/original/file-20231205-27-9eemqo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=436&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/563532/original/file-20231205-27-9eemqo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=436&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/563532/original/file-20231205-27-9eemqo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=436&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Science has a crucial role to play in informing the public and decision makers.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/group-of-people-with-signages-nKNrOZ5MXZY">Vlad Tchompalov</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Most science communicators work behind the scenes, supporting scientists to share their work, or running campaigns to counter misinformation. Some of us are translators, making information more accessible to decision-makers. Others are interpreters, helping define meaning and relevance of scientific ideas. Some of us are professional storytellers of science. </p>
<p>Being influential behind the scenes means we sometimes struggle to be recognised as experts in our own right, to have our qualifications and specialist training valued, and to have a seat at the table when governments and other organisations make decisions involving science communication.</p>
<p>There is some debate over whether science communication is <a href="https://jcom.sissa.it/article/pubid/Jcom0903(2010)C04/">a discipline in its own right</a>. Regardless, we know through practice and research that fact-bombing by experts has never been an effective way to engage communities in science. </p>
<h2>What makes a science communicator?</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21548455.2022.2136985">For some</a>, the key to what makes one a competent science communicator lies in education and training in “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_knowledge">threshold concepts</a>” which include</p>
<ol>
<li><p>audience-centred communication (which relies on understanding your audience)</p></li>
<li><p>shifting from deficit model-based communication to engagement.</p></li>
</ol>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/three-key-drivers-of-good-messaging-in-a-time-of-crisis-expertise-empathy-and-timing-135866">Three key drivers of good messaging in a time of crisis: expertise, empathy and timing</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Scientists themselves may not have been exposed to these concepts. While some universities teach these skills within science degrees, the depth and orientation of these courses vary. </p>
<p>In Australia, there are only two Masters-level programs in science communication (compared with the Netherlands, which has seven). These programs aim to develop professional skills but are also informed by the history, philosophy and sociology of science, so communicators can reflect deeply and critically on the choices they make. </p>
<p>So-called <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1075547019847484?journalCode=scxb?">values-based communication</a> is central to these programs.</p>
<h2>At the core, it’s about audience</h2>
<p>Values-based communication requires communicators to recognise that audiences have a range of knowledge bases, attitudes, perceptions, experiences and values. All of these influence how they relate to different scientific issues. </p>
<p>A science communication professional will take their audiences’ value systems into account when considering the purpose of their communication.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/god-and-illness-for-some-south-africans-theres-more-to-healing-than-medicine-176180">God and illness: for some South Africans, there's more to healing than medicine</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>A science communicator might decide to point out to some audiences that a virus doesn’t care who we are, so as to emphasise personal risk and responsibility. A different approach may be needed for an audience who believe <a href="https://theconversation.com/god-and-illness-for-some-south-africans-theres-more-to-healing-than-medicine-176180">illness is due to the will of a god</a>. </p>
<p>It’s the communicator’s responsibility to balance the potential harm their communication may cause with the benefit in supporting various audiences. One size definitely does not fit all.</p>
<h2>Good communicators understand human values</h2>
<p>Many people working in science communication do not have an education or qualifications in science communication. However, the vast majority do communicate with empathy and transparency about their own values. They acknowledge the limitations of science and its interplay with politics, culture, history and economics. </p>
<p>We reflect deeply on the ethical issues arising from our activities and, for those of us working with particularly controversial or contentious sciences, only time will tell whether we have been effective.</p>
<p>There is no doubt some sections of the science community do communicate without taking people’s values in mind. However, this is counter to current scholarship and best practice. </p>
<p>Most science communication professionals carefully take these things into account. We do it because that is the best way to get better societal outcomes, and to do better science that actually reflects the needs of the communities we live in.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/218030/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tom Carruthers is a freelance communications specialist working with clients including Science in Public. He is the co-president of the Australian Science Communicators, and adjunct lecturer in science communication at UWA.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Heather Bray is the Coordinator of the Master of Science Communication at the University of Western Australia and is involved in both teaching and research in science communication. She is a current member of Australian Science Communicators. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew Nurse is an associate lecturer of science communication at the Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science at ANU. He has previously received Research Training Program funding from the Commonwealth Government. He is a current member of Australian Science Communicators. </span></em></p>Science communication has to start with values – and most of the time it does.Tom Carruthers, Co-president, Australian Science Communicators, and Adjunct Lecturer, Science Communication, The University of Western AustraliaHeather Bray, Senior Lecturer in Science Communication, The University of Western AustraliaMatthew Nurse, Associate lecturer, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1493512020-11-12T13:27:19Z2020-11-12T13:27:19ZWhen scientific journals take sides during an election, the public’s trust in science takes a hit<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/368891/original/file-20201111-13-hvhyb9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=447%2C60%2C5157%2C3745&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">People lose faith in science when it takes a political side.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/Election2020WisconsinVoting/f700f11017154b8198897294aaa18cba/photo?boardId=d7f2514f50804466b15dfb81ed00d9cd&st=boards&mediaType=audio,photo,video,graphic&sortBy=&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=15&currentItemNo=6">AP Photo/Wong Maye-E</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/research-brief-83231">Research Brief</a> is a short take about interesting academic work.</em></p>
<h2>The big idea</h2>
<p>When the scientific establishment gets involved in partisan politics, it decreases people’s trust in science, especially among conservatives, according to our recent research.</p>
<p>In the lead-up to the 2020 presidential election, several prestigious scientific journals took the highly unusual step of either endorsing Joe Biden or criticizing Donald Trump in their pages.</p>
<p>In September, the editor-in-chief of the journal Science wrote a scathing article titled “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe7391">Trump lied about science</a>,” which was followed by other strong critiques from both the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMe2029812">New England Journal of Medicine</a> and the cancer research journal <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30548-9">Lancet Oncology</a>.</p>
<p>Several other top publications – including <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02852-x">Nature</a> and <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientific-american-endorses-joe-biden1/">Scientific American</a> – soon followed, with overt endorsements of Biden. The statements focused on each candidate’s impact on scientific knowledge and science-based decision-making.</p>
<p>To evaluate whether political endorsements like these might influence people’s attitudes toward science, we ran an <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NuknCbGqhuJyeGYLGuqBCqa9hC0MR13Z/view?usp=sharing">online survey experiment</a>.</p>
<p>We asked one group of respondents to read a news article about a scientific journal or magazine. We asked a second group of people to read an article that contained the same description of the publication but with additional details about the political position it took and quotes from its actual statements regarding Biden and Trump. Then we asked respondents about their trust in scientists, scientific journals and science as an institution.</p>
<p><iframe id="qH79F" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/qH79F/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>We found that trust in science declined among respondents who learned about a publication’s partisan statement. The magnitude of the observed effects is small but statistically significant, holds across a range of controls and is persistent across different ways of measuring trust in science. The finding was most pronounced for conservatives, likely because the endorsements were all supportive of Biden and against Trump.</p>
<p>Furthermore, we also found an interesting indirect effect. As trust in science decreased, so did the reported likelihood of complying with scientific recommendations about health behaviors related to COVID-19 – for example, wearing face masks.</p>
<h2>Why it matters</h2>
<p>There’s a lot of new research in the area of trust in science, including large polls of the public. Some findings suggest that there is still confidence in scientific expertise – but this <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/08/02/trust-and-mistrust-in-americans-views-of-scientific-experts/">declines as soon as science mixes with policy recommendations in people’s minds</a>.</p>
<p>Public policy issues have become highly polarized, reflecting larger political trends. While scientific research itself has not driven such polarization, some areas of scientific research, such as climate change, have become very politicized.</p>
<p>Further, while <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/27/public-confidence-in-scientists-has-remained-stable-for-decades/">public trust in scientists and science has remained largely stable</a> over the years, the American public is <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/08/02/trust-and-mistrust-in-americans-views-of-scientific-experts/">divided along party lines</a> in terms of trust in, and perceived impartiality of, science. Even more concerning, <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/516412-polls-show-trust-in-scientific-political-institutions-eroding">trust in science and medicine has been on the decline</a> since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.</p>
<p>Our findings suggest there may be costs when scientific institutions take partisan stances on electoral politics.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/368758/original/file-20201111-13-13p0pse.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="people with signs at a March for Science in DC" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/368758/original/file-20201111-13-13p0pse.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/368758/original/file-20201111-13-13p0pse.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368758/original/file-20201111-13-13p0pse.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368758/original/file-20201111-13-13p0pse.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368758/original/file-20201111-13-13p0pse.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368758/original/file-20201111-13-13p0pse.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368758/original/file-20201111-13-13p0pse.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Science supporters – like these at a 2017 March for Science – risk looking like just another advocacy group.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/ScienceMarch/547723549891476ba4b3595c94e3bc10/photo?boardId=d7f2514f50804466b15dfb81ed00d9cd&st=boards&mediaType=audio,photo,video,graphic&sortBy=&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=15&currentItemNo=0">AP Photo/Sait Serkan Gurbuz</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>How we did our work</h2>
<p>Because a single survey – even with a sample as large as our initial group of 2,975 demographically diverse Americans – could be a fluke, we ran a second survey. We configured a new sample of 1,000 people to be representative of the U.S. population, allowing us to generalize our findings better. The results lined up with those from the first study, indicating that our findings were not a fluke but robust. We will submit our full analysis to a peer-reviewed journal soon.</p>
<p>Because of the experimental design of our study, the effects we have identified can’t be due to people’s initial views coming into the survey. That’s because participants were randomly assigned to treatment and control groups, no matter what their prior beliefs on science or partisan positions. </p>
<p>As with any experimental study, we don’t know whether these effects will last or not. The highly partisan environment of the 2020 election may make some of our results specific to this time and place.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/149351/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kevin L. Young donated to a PAC during the current election, focusing on voter mobilization.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bernhard Leidner receives funding from the National Science Foundation for his current work on COVID-19 and, among other things, trust in science.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stylianos Syropoulos does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>When the scientific establishment gets involved in partisan politics, surveys suggest, there are unintended consequences – especially for conservatives.Kevin L. Young, Associate Professor of Economics, UMass AmherstBernhard Leidner, Associate Professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences, UMass AmherstStylianos Syropoulos, PhD Student in Psychological and Brain Sciences, UMass AmherstLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1476702020-11-09T02:39:31Z2020-11-09T02:39:31ZScience communication is more important than ever. Here are 3 lessons from around the world on what makes it work<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/368148/original/file-20201108-23-1ybltl5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C7%2C4139%2C3001&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s a challenging time to be a science communicator. The current pandemic, climate crisis, and concerns over new technologies from artificial intelligence to genetic modification by CRISPR demand public accountability, clear discussion and the ability to disagree in public. </p>
<p>However, science communication is not new to challenge. The 20th century can be read as a long argument for science communication in the interest of the public good. </p>
<p>Since the Second World War, there have been many efforts to negotiate a social contract between science and civil society. In the West, part of that negotiation <a href="https://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/n6484/html/ch02.xhtml">has emphasised</a> the distribution of scientific knowledge. But how is the relationship between science and society formulated around the globe? </p>
<p>We collected stories from 39 countries together into a book, <a href="https://press.anu.edu.au/publications/communicating-science">Communicating Science: A Global Perspective</a>, to understand how science communication has unfolded internationally. Globally it has played a key role in public health, environmental protection and agriculture.</p>
<p>Three key ideas emerge: community knowledge is a powerful context; successful science communication is integrated with other beliefs; and there is an expectation that researchers will contribute to the development of society.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/three-key-drivers-of-good-messaging-in-a-time-of-crisis-expertise-empathy-and-timing-135866">Three key drivers of good messaging in a time of crisis: expertise, empathy and timing</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What is science communication?</h2>
<p>The term “science communication” is not universal. For 50 years, what is called “science communication” in Australia has had <a href="https://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/n6484/html/ch01.xhtml">different names</a> in other countries: “science popularisation”, “public understanding”, “vulgarisation”, “public understanding of science”, and the cultivation of a “scientific temper”.</p>
<p>Colombia uses the term “the social appropriation of science and technology”. This definition underscores that scientific knowledge is transformed through social interaction. </p>
<p>Each definition delivers insights into how science and society are positioned. Is science imagined as part of society? Is science held in high esteem? Does association with social issues lessen or strengthen the perception of science? </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/engaging-the-disengaged-with-science-38435">Engaging the disengaged with science</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Governments play a variety of roles in the stories we collected. The 1970s German government <a href="https://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/n6484/html/ch14.xhtml">stood back</a>, perhaps recalling the unsavoury relationship between Nazi propaganda and science. Private foundations filled the gap by funding ambitious programs to train science journalists. In the United States, the absence of a strong central agency <a href="https://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/n6484/html/ch40.xhtml">encouraged diversity</a> in a field described variously as “vibrant”, “jostling” or “cacophonous”. </p>
<p>The United Kingdom is the opposite, providing one of the <a href="https://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/n6484/html/ch39.xhtml">best-documented stories</a> in this field. This is exemplified by the Royal Society’s Bodmer Report in 1985, which argued that scientists should consider it their duty to communicate their work to their fellow citizens.</p>
<p>Russia saw a <a href="https://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/n6484/html/ch30.xhtml">state-driven focus on science</a> through the communist years, to modernise and industrialise. In 1990 the Knowledge Society’s weekly science newspaper <em>Argumenty i Fakty</em> had the highest weekly circulation of any newspaper in the world: 33.5 million copies. But the collapse of the Soviet Union showed how fragile these scientific views were, as people turned to mysticism.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A gloved hand holds a copy of Russian newspaper Argumenty i Fakty." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/368147/original/file-20201108-13-x1yqjm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/368147/original/file-20201108-13-x1yqjm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368147/original/file-20201108-13-x1yqjm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368147/original/file-20201108-13-x1yqjm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368147/original/file-20201108-13-x1yqjm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368147/original/file-20201108-13-x1yqjm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368147/original/file-20201108-13-x1yqjm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">At its peak in 1990, the government-published Russian newspaper Argumenty i Fakty had a circulation of 33.5 million copies per week.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Many national accounts refer to the relationship between indigenous knowledge and Western science. Aotearoa New Zealand is managing this well (there’s a clue in the name), with its focus on mātauranga (Māori knowledge). The integration has not always been smooth sailing, but Māori views are now incorporated into nationwide science funding, research practice and public engagement.</p>
<p>Ecologist John Perrott <a href="https://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/n6484/html/ch04.xhtml">points out</a> that Māori “belonging” (I belong, therefore I am) is at odds with Western scientific training (I think, therefore I am). In Māori whakapapa (genealogy and cosmology), relationships with the land, flora and fauna are fundamental and all life is valued, as are collaboration and nurturing. </p>
<h2>Science communication in the Global South</h2>
<p>Eighteen countries contributing to the book have a recent colonial history, and many are from the Global South. They saw the end of colonial rule as an opportunity to embrace science. As Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah <a href="https://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/n6484/html/ch15.xhtml">said</a> in 1963 to a meeting of the Organisation of African Unity:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We shall drain marshes and swamps, clear infested areas, feed the under-nourished, and rid our people of parasites and disease. It is within the possibility of science and technology to make even the Sahara bloom into a vast field with verdant vegetation for agricultural and industrial developments.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="An African man in the foreground wearing a white suit and waving a white hat next to a 1960s Chevrolet car. More men, cars and forest in the background." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/368146/original/file-20201108-23-3mlyuc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/368146/original/file-20201108-23-3mlyuc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=607&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368146/original/file-20201108-23-3mlyuc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=607&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368146/original/file-20201108-23-3mlyuc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=607&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368146/original/file-20201108-23-3mlyuc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=763&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368146/original/file-20201108-23-3mlyuc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=763&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368146/original/file-20201108-23-3mlyuc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=763&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Ghanaian president Kwame Nkrumah believed science could aid his country’s development.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwame_Nkrumah#/media/File:ASC_Leiden_-_NSAG_-_van_Es_17-016_-_Visiting_President_Kwame_Nkrumah_is_waving_with_a_tropical_hat_-_Volta_Dam,_Akosombo,_Ghana_-_late_February_1962.tif">L.A. van Es</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Plans were formulated and optimism was strong. A lot depended on science communication: how would science be introduced to national narratives, gain political impetus and influence an education system for science?</p>
<p>Science in these countries focused mainly on health, the environment and agriculture. Nigeria’s polio vaccine campaign was <a href="https://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/n6484/html/ch26.xhtml">almost derailed</a> in 2003 when two influential groups, the Supreme Council for Shari’ah in Nigeria and the Kaduna State Council of Imams and Ulamas, declared the vaccine contained anti-fertility substances and was part of a Western conspiracy to sterilise children. Only after five Muslim leaders witnessed a successful vaccine program in Egypt was it recognised as being compatible with the Qur’an. </p>
<h2>Three key ideas</h2>
<p>Three principles emerge from these stories. The first is that community knowledge is a powerful force. In rural Kenya, the number of babies delivered by unskilled people led to high mortality. Local science communication practices <a href="https://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/n6484/html/ch03.xhtml">provided a solution</a>. A <em>baraza</em> (community discussion) integrated the health problem with social solutions, and trained local motorcycle riders to transport mothers to hospitals. The <em>baraza</em> used role-plays to depict the arrival of a mother to a health facility, reactions from the health providers, eventual safe delivery of the baby, and mother and baby riding back home.</p>
<p>A second principle is how science communication can enhance the integration of science with other beliefs. Science and religion, for example, are not always at odds. The Malaysian chapter <a href="https://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/n6484/html/ch23.xhtml">describes</a> how Muslim concepts of halal (permitted) and haram (forbidden) determine the acceptability of biotechnology according to the principles of Islamic law. Does science pose any threat to the five purposes of <em>maslahah</em> (public interest): religion, life and health, progeny, intellect and property? It is not hard to see the resemblance to Western ethical considerations of controversial science. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-science-communicators-can-learn-from-listening-to-people-25087">What science communicators can learn from listening to people</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The third is an approach to pursuing and debating science for the public good. Science communication has made science more accessible, and public opinions and responses more likely to be sought. The “third mission”, an established principle across Europe, is an expectation or obligation that researchers will contribute to the growth, welfare and development of society. Universities are expected to exchange knowledge and skills with others in society, disseminating scientific results and methods, and encouraging public debate. </p>
<p>These lessons about science communication will be needed in a post-COVID world. They are finding an audience: we have made the book <a href="https://press.anu.edu.au/publications/communicating-science">freely available online</a>, and it has so far been downloaded more than 14,000 times.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/147670/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joan Leach receives funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Toss Gascoigne does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Science communication succeeds when it takes community knowledge seriously, works with other belief systems, and expects researchers to contribute to society.Toss Gascoigne, Visiting fellow, Centre for the Public Awareness of Science, Australian National UniversityJoan Leach, Professor, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1279692019-12-06T14:41:12Z2019-12-06T14:41:12ZClimate change: Americans are worried, but still underestimate how serious it is<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/305818/original/file-20191209-90552-o41b8r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C6000%2C3997&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/eagle-creek-wildfire-columbia-river-gorge-710588278?src=50d151f1-a38e-41b6-b116-72270ea435e8-1-0">Christian Roberts-Olsen/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The world is often better and getting better than people think. Murder rates, deaths from terrorism and extreme poverty are all down. Life expectancy, health and education levels are up. But, as I explore in my book <a href="https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/bobby-duffy/why-were-wrong-about-nearly-everything/9781541618091/">Why We’re Wrong About Nearly Everything</a>, people mostly think things are worse than they are and going downhill fast because of the natural tendency of humans to focus on <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%252F0022-3514.75.4.887">negative stories</a> and <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103197913330?via%253Dihub">forget how bad the past was</a>.</p>
<p>But there is one vital, even existential, exception: people still don’t realise how bad the world’s climate and natural environment have become. Misperceptions about climate change and the ecological crisis are all too clear from a <a href="https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/climate-misperceptions-2019">new survey of Americans</a> that tested their understanding of how far the problem has progressed in their lifetimes.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-you-think-you-know-about-the-climate-is-probably-wrong-new-uk-poll-123103">What you think you know about the climate is probably wrong – new UK poll</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Recycling will save us?</h2>
<p>It’s an extraordinary fact that all 20 of the hottest years on record have been <a href="https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/wmo-climate-statement-past-4-years-warmest-record">in the last 22 years</a>. But when we asked the US public how many of the past 22 years have been among the hottest, the average guess is 14, and only 15% of Americans correctly guess that it is all 20 years. Democrats are slightly better at getting the right answer (23%) than Republicans (9%).</p>
<p>It’s understandable that people might be poorly versed in statistics like this, but there’s also confusion over what the biggest causes of warming are. The people we interviewed guessed that 16% of global greenhouse gas emissions come from air travel, when it’s <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/jul/19/carbon-calculator-how-taking-one-flight-emits-as-much-as-many-people-do-in-a-year">only around 2%</a>. While aeroplanes emit a lot of CO₂ during each flight, air travel is still relatively infrequent, compared with, say, car journeys.</p>
<p>The rarity of flying explains why, despite aviation’s relatively limited contribution to emissions, one of the most effective actions a person can take is to fly less. A <a href="https://phys.org/news/2017-07-effective-individual-tackle-climate-discussed.html">study by Swedish academics</a> puts skipping one transatlantic flight as the third most effective action someone can take, only behind having one less child and living entirely car free. But only 10% of the US public pick out skipping the flight as one of the top three. Instead, 45% thought recycling as much as possible is a priority for reducing emissions – a much less effective action than giving up just one flight.</p>
<p>And that’s not the only misperception about recycling. People also think much more plastic waste has been recycled than is really the case. Our respondents thought about half of the 6.3 billion tonnes of plastic waste that has been produced worldwide is now languishing in the environment. <a href="https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/07/plastic-produced-recycling-waste-ocean-trash-debris-environment/">Research shows it’s an incredible 79%</a>. People thought that a quarter of plastic waste has been recycled, when it’s only 9%.</p>
<p>The people we spoke to also didn’t realise just how much wildlife has suffered over the past few decades, and how precipitous the decline in populations has been. Only a quarter of the US public correctly identify that the population sizes of mammals, birds, fish and reptiles in the world have <a href="https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/living-planet-report-2018">declined by 60% since 1970</a>. Again, Democrats were slightly better than Republicans: 26% selected the correct, terrifying answer, compared with 16% of Republicans.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/304501/original/file-20191129-156099-151ecgs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/304501/original/file-20191129-156099-151ecgs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/304501/original/file-20191129-156099-151ecgs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304501/original/file-20191129-156099-151ecgs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304501/original/file-20191129-156099-151ecgs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304501/original/file-20191129-156099-151ecgs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304501/original/file-20191129-156099-151ecgs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304501/original/file-20191129-156099-151ecgs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Those interviewed were more likely to pick recycling as an effective way of tackling climate change than foregoing flying.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Bobby Duffy</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Information overload</h2>
<p>Despite low engagement with the scale of the problems, people are still worried.</p>
<p>Our new polling also showed that 60% of Americans reject President Donald Trump’s past assertion that global warming is an “<a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/408983789830815744">expensive hoax</a>” – and instead, 62% agree that the world is facing a “climate change emergency, with the threat of irreversible destruction of our environment in our lifetime”.</p>
<p>But there are huge differences in these attitudes between Republicans and Democrats. Seven in ten Democrats strongly disagree that global warming is an expensive hoax, compared with just 17% of Republicans. Half of Republicans disagree that the world is facing a climate change emergency, compared with just 6% of Democrats.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/deniers-vs-alarmists-its-time-to-lose-the-climate-debate-labels-37765">Deniers vs alarmists? It's time to lose the climate debate labels</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This very different view between party supporters is despite only relatively small differences in perceptions of the reality between the two groups. This shows that attitudes to big issues like climate change are sometimes so tied up with political identity, including attachment to political parties, that understanding the facts is often secondary.</p>
<p>This is a real challenge for those campaigning for climate action. It’s not enough to just provide more facts and expect people to hear them and act, regardless of how extraordinary those facts are.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/imagine-newsletter-researchers-think-of-a-world-with-climate-action-113443?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=TCUKengagement&utm_content=Imagineheader1127969">Click here to subscribe to our climate action newsletter. Climate change is inevitable. Our response to it isn’t.</a></em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/127969/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bobby Duffy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>“It is worse, much worse, than you think.”Bobby Duffy, Professor of Public Policy and Director of the Policy Institute, King's College LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/965742018-05-25T12:22:24Z2018-05-25T12:22:24ZWe’re not prepared for the genetic revolution that’s coming<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220458/original/file-20180525-51135-qvxam5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/close-businessman-holding-glowing-dna-helix-683382997?src=XtIrmtlLbNh-UD32uwMXmQ-1-6">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>When humans’ genetic information (known as the genome) was mapped 15 years ago, it promised to change the world. Optimists anticipated an era in which all genetic diseases would be eradicated. Pessimists feared widespread genetic discrimination. Neither of these hopes and fears have been realised.</p>
<p>The reason for this is simple: our genome is complex. Being able to locate specific differences in the genome is only a very small part of understanding how these genetic variants actually work to produce the traits we see. Unfortunately, few people understand just how complex genetics really is. And as more and more products and services start to use genetic data, there’s a danger that this lack of understanding could lead people to make some very bad decisions.</p>
<p>At school we are taught that there is a dominant gene for brown eyes and a recessive one for blue. In reality, there are almost no human traits that are passed from generation to generation in such a straightforward way. Most traits, <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/jhg2010126">eye colour</a> included, develop under the influence of several genes, each with its own small effect.</p>
<p>What’s more, each gene contributes to many different traits, a concept called pleiotropy. For example, genetic variants associated with autism have also been <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4511766/">linked with schizophrenia</a>. When a gene relates to one trait in a positive way (producing a healthy heart, say) but another in a negative way (perhaps increasing the risk of macular degeneration in the eye), it is known as <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms7063">antagonistic pleiotropy</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220460/original/file-20180525-51102-1ymb73h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220460/original/file-20180525-51102-1ymb73h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=342&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220460/original/file-20180525-51102-1ymb73h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=342&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220460/original/file-20180525-51102-1ymb73h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=342&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220460/original/file-20180525-51102-1ymb73h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=430&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220460/original/file-20180525-51102-1ymb73h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=430&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220460/original/file-20180525-51102-1ymb73h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=430&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">There’s no single gene for eye colour.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/closeup-blue-eyes-woman-without-makeup-326171174?src=FdLfJZAe9ecP0M7kAff_bg-1-42">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As computing power has increased, scientists have been able to link many individual molecular differences in DNA with specific human characteristics, including behavioural traits such as <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/mp2016107">educational attainment</a> and <a href="https://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/S0006-3223(16)32664-6/fulltext">psychopathy</a>. Each of these genetic variants only explains a tiny amount of variation in a population. But when all these variants are summed together (giving what’s known as a characteristic’s <a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/whats-your-polygenic-score/">polygenic score</a>) they begin to explain more and more of the differences we see in the people around us. And with a lack of genetic knowledge, that’s where things start to be misunderstood.</p>
<p>For example, we could sequence the DNA of a newborn child, calculate their polygenic score for academic achievement and use it to predict, with some degree of accuracy, how well they will do in school. Genetic information may be the strongest and most precise predictor of a child’s <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/mp2016107">strengths and weaknesses</a>. Using genetic data could allow us to more effectively personalise education and target resources to those children most in need.</p>
<p>But this would only work if parents, teachers and policymakers have enough understanding of genetics to correctly use the information. <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-biosocial-science/article/genes-and-gini-what-inequality-means-for-heritability/FD7C2DEA0A89346708A193B5CB23B0CF">Genetic effects can be prevented or enhanced</a> by changing a person’s environment, including by providing educational opportunity and choice. The misplaced view that genetic influences are fixed could lead to a system in which children are permanently separated into grades based on their DNA and not given the right support for their actual abilities.</p>
<h2>Better medical knowledge</h2>
<p>In a medical context, people are likely to be given advice and guidance about genetics by a doctor or other professional. But even with such help, people who have better genetic knowledge will benefit more and will be able to make more informed decisions about their own health, family planning, and health of their relatives. People are already confronted with offers to undergo costly genetic testing and gene-based <a href="https://www.oncologica.com/dynamic-cmp-routing/?pg=sp6&vn=dbs&cmp=adw&lng=en&ch=google&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIxpb5gN7u2gIVxITVCh04BgSSEAAYASAAEgIxn_D_BwE">treatments for cancer</a>. Understanding genetics could help them avoid pursuing treatments that aren’t actually suitable in their case.</p>
<p>It is now possible to edit the human genome directly using a technique called <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-crispr-gene-editing-and-how-does-it-work-84591">CRISPR</a>. Even though such genetic modification techniques are regulated, the relative simplicity of CRISPR means that biohackers are already using it to edit their own genomes, for example, to <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/stephaniemlee/this-biohacker-wants-to-edit-his-own-dna?utm_term=.jjYRlLwxmA#.tsqoROD5xA">enhance muscle tissue</a> or <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41990981">treat HIV</a>.</p>
<p>Such biohacking services are very likely to be made available to buy (even if illegally). But as we know from our explanation of pleiotropy, changing one gene in a positive way could also have catastrophic unintended consequences. Even a broad understanding of this could save would-be biohackers from making a very costly and even potentially fatal mistake. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220461/original/file-20180525-51121-gocrpk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220461/original/file-20180525-51121-gocrpk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220461/original/file-20180525-51121-gocrpk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220461/original/file-20180525-51121-gocrpk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220461/original/file-20180525-51121-gocrpk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=454&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220461/original/file-20180525-51121-gocrpk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=454&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220461/original/file-20180525-51121-gocrpk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=454&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Biohackers may try to enhance their bodies with altered DNA.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/heroin-addiction-young-manteen-finding-vein-88931419?src=gdauW8rYfTzlMoSTuISRDA-1-39">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>When we don’t have medical professionals to guide us, we become even more vulnerable to potential genetic misinformation. For example, <a href="https://www.marmite.co.uk/geneproject">Marmite</a> recently ran an ad campaign offering a genetic test to see if you either love or hate Marmite, at a cost of £89.99. While witty and whimsical, this campaign also has several problems.</p>
<p>First, Marmite preference, just like any complex trait, is influenced by complex interactions between genes and environments and is far from determined at birth. At best, a test like this can only say that you are more likely to like Marmite, and it will have a great deal of error in that prediction.</p>
<p>Second, the ad campaign shows a young man seemingly <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjivUDIawLI">“coming out”</a> to his father as a Marmite lover. This apparent analogy to sexual orientation could arguably perpetuate the outdated and dangerous notion of “<a href="https://theconversation.com/gay-genetics-research-still-causes-irrational-fears-23284">the gay gene</a>”, or indeed the idea that there is any single gene for complex traits. Having a good level of genetic knowledge will enable people to better question advertising and media campaigns, and potentially save them from wasting their money.</p>
<p><a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12687-018-0363-7">My own research</a> has shown that even the well-educated amongst us have poor genetic knowledge. People are not empowered to make informed decisions or to engage in fair and productive public discussions and to make their voices heard. Accurate information about genetics needs to be widely available and more routinely taught. In particular, it needs to be incorporated into the training of teachers, lawyers and health care professionals who will very soon be faced with genetic information in their day-to-day work.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>To test your genetic knowledge and see how ready you are to make informed decisions in the genomic era visit <a href="http://www.tagc.world/iglas">The International Genetics Literacy and Attitudes Survey</a> and contribute to our ongoing research.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/96574/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert Chapman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Genetics is influencing more and more of our decisions, but we can’t make the right choices if we don’t understand it.Robert Chapman, PhD Candidate, Goldsmiths, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/766302017-04-26T01:05:33Z2017-04-26T01:05:33ZCan Bill Nye – or any other science show – really save the world?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166714/original/file-20170425-13380-14ry8qb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Will Bill Nye's new show find a wider audience than Neil deGrasse Tyson's 'Cosmos' did?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/inVision-Vince-Bucci-Invision-AP-a-ENT-CPAENT-C-/513a1e21274242ed99d659d85630c48b/3/0">Vince Bucci/Invision for the Television Academy/AP Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Netflix’s new talk show, “<a href="https://www.netflix.com/title/80117748">Bill Nye Saves the World</a>,” debuted the night before people around the world joined together to demonstrate and March for Science. Many have lauded the timing and relevance of the show, featuring the famous “<a href="https://www.netflix.com/title/80046944">Science Guy</a>” as its host, because it aims to myth-bust and debunk anti-scientific claims in an <a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-isnt-lying-hes-bullshitting-and-its-far-more-dangerous-71932">alternative-fact era</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/what-does-research-say-about-how-to-effectively-communicate-about-science-70244">But are more facts</a> really the kryptonite that will rein in what some suggest is a rapidly spreading <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trumps-5-most-ldquo-anti-science-rdquo-moves/">“anti-science” sentiment in the U.S.</a>?</p>
<p>“With the right science and good writing,” Nye hopes, “we’ll do our best to enlighten and entertain our audience. And, <a href="https://media.netflix.com/en/press-releases/netflix-announces-new-talk-show-with-bill-nye">perhaps we’ll change the world a little</a>.” In an ideal world, a show like this might attract a broad and diverse audience with varying levels of science interest and background. By entertaining a wide range of viewers, the thinking goes, the show could effectively dismantle enduring beliefs that are at odds with scientific evidence. Significant parts of the public still aren’t on board with the <a href="https://theconversation.com/yes-we-can-do-sound-climate-science-even-though-its-projecting-the-future-75763">scientific consensus on climate change</a> and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/vaccines-back-in-the-headlines-heres-what-the-experts-say-47815">safety of vaccines</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-report-on-ge-crops-avoids-simple-answers-and-thats-the-point-study-members-say-59289">genetically modified foods</a>, for instance.</p>
<p>But what deserves to be successful isn’t always what ends up winning hearts and minds in the real world. In fact, <a href="https://aaas.confex.com/aaas/2016/webprogram/Paper18139.html">empirical data we collected suggest</a> that the viewership of such shows – even heavily publicized and celebrity-endorsed ones – is small and made up of people who are already highly educated, knowledgeable about science and receptive to scientific evidence.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166715/original/file-20170425-13414-qu005f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166715/original/file-20170425-13414-qu005f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166715/original/file-20170425-13414-qu005f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166715/original/file-20170425-13414-qu005f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166715/original/file-20170425-13414-qu005f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166715/original/file-20170425-13414-qu005f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=553&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166715/original/file-20170425-13414-qu005f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=553&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166715/original/file-20170425-13414-qu005f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=553&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">‘Cosmos’‘ pedigree and publicity seemed like they would translate to success….</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/inVision-Frank-Micelotta-Invision-AP-a-ENT-CPAE-/194092c8627d4ef3aa898b073e2f2c83/1/0">Frank Micelotta/Invision for FOX/AP Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>‘Cosmos’ illustrates the issue</h2>
<p>The 2014 reboot of <a href="http://www.carlsagan.com/">Carl Sagan</a>’s popular 1980 series “Cosmos,” starring astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, is just one recent example. Tyson’s show, “<a href="http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/cosmos-a-spacetime-odyssey/">Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey</a>,” aired prime time on Fox and the National Geographic channel, received several <a href="http://www.emmys.com/awards/nominees-winners/2014">Emmy nominations</a> and was considered a critical success in which “Tyson managed to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/02/26/neil-degrasse-tyson-to-receive-the-national-academy-of-sciences-most-prestigious-honor/?utm_term=.ae59385f7780">educate and excite viewers of all ages</a> across the globe.”</p>
<p>However, Tyson’s efforts to reach a broad audience and preach beyond the proverbial choir fell short. Nielsen ratings indicate the new version of “Cosmos” reached 1.3 percent of television households, which doesn’t compare well even to other science shows and educational programming. PBS’ “NOVA,” for instance, <a href="http://www.sgptv.org/media/pdfs/SGPTV_2016-17_Media_Kit_100416.pdf">typically reaches about 3 percent</a> of households (around <a href="http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2016/nielsen-estimates-118-4-million-tv-homes-in-the-us--for-the-2016-17-season.html">four million viewers</a> a week), and PBS’ other prime time programming usually gets higher Nielsen ratings than “Cosmos” had. “Cosmos” lagged even further behind science entertainment shows like “<a href="http://www.cbs.com/shows/ncis/">NCIS</a>,” which reached 11.2 percent of households, and “<a href="http://www.cbs.com/shows/big_bang_theory/">The Big Bang Theory</a>,” which reached 10.8 percent of households during the same week “Cosmos” aired its first episode.</p>
<p>In 2014, we conducted a <a href="https://aaas.confex.com/aaas/2016/webprogram/Paper18139.html">representative national survey</a> in a collaboration among the University of Wisconsin, the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center and Temple University. We found that 76.1 percent of Americans did not watch any episodes of “Cosmos,” 7.1 percent said they watched one episode, and only 2.4 percent said they watched all 13 episodes.</p>
<p>And there were really no surprises about who tuned in. Respondents who saw at least one episode were 40 percent more likely to be male, 35 percent more likely to claim interest in science, and significantly more knowledgeable about science than those who didn’t watch. Less affluent audiences were less likely to watch at least one episode, as were those who were highly religious. Even those who expressed above-average interest in science watched only 1.5 “Cosmos” episodes on average.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166716/original/file-20170425-13401-110os80.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166716/original/file-20170425-13401-110os80.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166716/original/file-20170425-13401-110os80.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=435&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166716/original/file-20170425-13401-110os80.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=435&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166716/original/file-20170425-13401-110os80.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=435&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166716/original/file-20170425-13401-110os80.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=547&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166716/original/file-20170425-13401-110os80.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=547&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166716/original/file-20170425-13401-110os80.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=547&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">What science programming will capture the imaginations of those who aren’t already into science?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/two-boys-brothers-watching-tv-attentively-56826280">Watching image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Success is out there?</h2>
<p>Engaging scientific programming could still be an antidote to waning public interest in science, especially where <a href="https://theconversation.com/science-achievement-gaps-start-early-in-kindergarten-65028">formal science education</a> <a href="https://theconversation.com/heres-why-kids-fall-behind-in-science-56785">is falling short</a>. But it is revealing that “Cosmos” – a heavily marketed, big-budget show backed by Fox Networks and “Family Guy” creator Seth McFarlane – did not reach the audience who need quality science information the most. “Bill Nye Saves the World” might not either. Its streaming numbers are not yet available.</p>
<p>Today’s <a href="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10935.html">fragmented and partisan media environment</a> fosters selective exposure and motivated reasoning – that is, viewers typically tune in to programming that <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015701">confirms their existing worldview</a>. There are few opportunities or incentives for audiences to <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320868111">engage with scientific evidence</a> in the media. All of this can propagate misleading claims and deter audiences from accepting the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317516111">conclusions of sound science</a>. And adoption of misinformation and alternative facts is <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-each-side-of-the-partisan-divide-thinks-the-other-is-living-in-an-alternate-reality-71458">not a partisan problem</a>. Policy debates questioning or ignoring scientific consensus on vaccines, climate change and GMOs have <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214554756">cut across different political camps</a>.</p>
<p>None of this is meant to downplay the huge potential of entertainment media to reach diverse audiences beyond the proverbial choir. We know from decades of research that our mental images of science and its impact on society are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210384988">shaped heavily</a> by (sometimes stereotypical) portrayals of science and scientists in shows like “The Big Bang Theory” or “<a href="http://www.bbcamerica.com/shows/orphan-black">Orphan Black</a>.”</p>
<p>But successful scientific entertainment programming needs to accomplish two goals: First, draw in a diverse audience well beyond those already interested in science; second, present scientific issues in a way that unites audiences around shared values rather than further polarizing by presenting science in ways that seems at odds with specific political or religious worldviews. </p>
<p>While “Cosmos” failed to attract a diverse audience eager to be introduced to the wonders of the universe (and science), there’s still value in the science community and entertainment industry collaboratively developing these kinds of television programs. In order to be successful, however, these collaborations must draw on insights from social science research to maximize the reach of novel diverse formats, communication strategies and media outlets. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine’s <a href="http://scienceandentertainmentexchange.org/">Science and Entertainment Exchange</a>, for instance, tries to connect the entertainment industry and the nation’s best scientists in order to combine the reach of entertainment media’s engaging storytelling with the most accurate portrayal of science.</p>
<p>And social science research suggests that complex information can reach audiences via the most unlikely of places, including the satirical fake news program “The Colbert Report.” In fact, a University of Pennsylvania study showed that a series of “Colbert Report” episodes <a href="http://www.cc.com/video-collections/8iug7x/the-colbert-report-colbert-super-pac/3yzu4u">about Super PACs and 501(c)(4) groups</a> during the 2012 presidential election <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2014.891138">did a better job educating viewers</a> than did mainstream programming in traditional news formats. </p>
<p>Social science can help us learn from our mistakes and better understand how to connect with hard-to-reach audiences via new formats and outlets. None of these shows by themselves will save the world. But if done right, they each might get us closer, one empirical step at a time.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>After publication, “Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey” host <a href="https://theconversation.com/go-76630#comment_1276757">Neil deGrasse Tyson responded to this article</a> in a comment.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/76630/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Popular programming that focuses on science tends to not actually be all that popular. Bringing in new audiences who aren’t already up to speed on science topics is a challenge.Heather Akin, Post-Doctoral Research Fellow at the Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of PennsylvaniaBruce W. Hardy, Assistant Professor of Strategic Communication, Temple UniversityDietram A. Scheufele, Professor of Life Sciences Communication, University of Wisconsin-MadisonDominique Brossard, Professor and Chair in the Department of Life Sciences Communication, University of Wisconsin-MadisonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/600142016-05-26T10:21:09Z2016-05-26T10:21:09ZHow to tell the world you’ve discovered an alien civilisation<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124135/original/image-20160526-22054-8xmm1u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">#FoundThem.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">ESO/José Francisco Salgado (josefrancisco.org)</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>After countless fictional scenarios of humans making contact with alien civilisations, you’d think we’d be prepared for actually discovering one. But finding intelligent life beyond the Earth is clearly likely to be one of the most shattering moments in the history of our species. </p>
<p>So if you’ve just discovered an alien civilisation, how should you go about breaking the news? This is a momentous task, and I have been involved in developing some guidelines for the scientists who are involved in searching for extraterrestrial life. <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.02947">The research</a> is due to be published in the journal <a href="http://www.journals.elsevier.com/acta-astronautica/">Acta Astronautica</a>.</p>
<p>With the millions of dollars currently being invested in initiatives such <a href="http://www.seti.org/">the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI)</a>, some would argue it is only a matter of time before we do come across intelligent life. I’m personally not convinced, but pessimism isn’t enough to abandon a search. The scientific method requires us to test our hypotheses with observation and experiment – regardless of our initial prejudices.</p>
<p>If we ever do find signs of intelligent life, I don’t expect it to be a message from an alien civilisation or a landing party. It will probably be something a little more prosaic, such as signs of artificial pollution in the atmosphere of an exoplanet. It may even take the form of <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-are-the-odds-of-an-alien-megastructure-blocking-light-from-a-distant-star-49311">enormous structures built in space</a> to collect energy and provide habitats.</p>
<p>I showed in some <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.1672">work</a> a few years ago that we would be able to see such megastructures in exoplanet transit data, such as that gathered by the Kepler Space Telescope. True enough, Kepler did see weird objects such as <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1509.03622">Tabby’s Star</a>, KIC 8426582, with features similar to those predicted would come from artificial structures. But like most astronomers, I’m still a sceptic – a swarm of comets around Tabby’s Star producing incredible changes in brightness <a href="https://theconversation.com/notion-of-alien-megastructure-blocking-light-from-distant-star-bites-the-dust-52358">is still the more sensible interpretation</a>. What’s really encouraging about this, though, is that it shows SETI can be done “on the cheap”, taking advantage of publicly available astronomical data to search for aliens. For a pessimist like me, this seems like a much more appropriate strategy.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124127/original/image-20160526-22080-1p9rgsg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124127/original/image-20160526-22080-1p9rgsg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124127/original/image-20160526-22080-1p9rgsg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124127/original/image-20160526-22080-1p9rgsg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124127/original/image-20160526-22080-1p9rgsg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124127/original/image-20160526-22080-1p9rgsg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124127/original/image-20160526-22080-1p9rgsg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Alien megastructure or just comets?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">NASA</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The flurry of internet activity surrounding Tabby’s star – blogs, tweets, news stories and the <a href="https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/608159144/the-most-mysterious-star-in-the-galaxy">Kickstarter campaign</a> to encourage the public to support further observations – demonstrate how different the world has become since SETI began around 60 years ago. </p>
<h2>Super-connected world</h2>
<p>If evidence of extraterrestrial life ever came to us from the stars, what should the discoverers do next? This is something astrobiologists have pondered for decades. In 1989, a committee of SETI scientists even drew up a set of <a href="http://avsport.org/IAA/protdet.htm">post-detection protocols</a> to guide scientists through the steps after discovery. These steps include getting your colleagues to verify the discovery, and notifying “relevant national authorities” (precisely who this means is unclear to me), followed by the scientific community and then the public via a press release. </p>
<p>However, this set of guidelines was written before the age of the internet. Back then, we got our news via the paper or the TV screen. Even 24-hour news was in its infancy. Nowadays, the news world is a fragmented sphere of articles placed on our devices and in our feeds via a variety of social media tools, shared by our friends and family. Data flows extremely rapidly, and easily gets amplified and distorted. </p>
<p>That is why my colleague Alexander Scholz and I decided to take another look at the issue, asking how the SETI post-detection protocols should change to reflect our super-connected world. We quickly realised that scientists need guidance <em>before</em> starting the experiment, let alone after making a detection. It is now common practice for new scientific projects to set up a blog about their work, and this will be essential for SETI. The blog should include a clear description of what a certain project will do, and what the criteria are for a successful detection, a false positive and no detection. This would help journalists and the public alike to avoid misinterpreting the results. </p>
<p>The individuals involved need to be credible communicators of their work, so maintaining good digital presence in the early stages is very helpful. We also recommend they update their security settings to protect against nefarious individuals broadcasting their <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/03/doxing-an-etymology/284283/">personal information</a> – which is sadly a real risk these days. </p>
<p>If a team is lucky enough to make even an unconfirmed, tentative detection, they must be sure to have nothing to hide. Leaks are unavoidable, and alarmingly rapid. Nobody wants an “aliens found” story that turns out to be false. The best way to do this is to publish data immediately. If it’s very clear that the detection is unconfirmed, and natural or man-made causes can’t be ruled out, then there is no room for conspiracy theorists to wail about the scientists’ collusion with the <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2012/05/23/men_in_black_sightings_do_they_still_happen_.html">men in black</a> (an accusation flung at me more than once). It also gives other scientists the chance to check the work, and verify the detection. </p>
<p>Of course, we’ve all seen some of the comments on YouTube or other media sites – there are numpties everywhere, and there is seemingly no stopping good scientific discussion being twisted into inexplicable diatribes and vile hate speech. Therefore, the most important piece of advice for scientists is to be involved in the conversation. </p>
<p>If a publicised detection turns out to be false, the team should immediately make a public statement making it clear that no aliens have been discovered and why. They should even publish a paper retracting it if they have to.</p>
<p>But whoever discovers intelligent life should also prepare for it to swallow up the rest of their life – there isn’t going to be time for much else. Their new job will instead be to help humanity come to terms with its new identity, as just one of multiple intelligent civilisations in the universe.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/60014/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Duncan Forgan's postdoctoral position at the University of St Andrews is funded by the European Research Council. He is a member of the Royal Society of Edinburgh's Young Academy of Scotland, and a founding member of the UK SETI Research Network.</span></em></p>In a world of blogs, twitter and open data, scientists need to think again about how they’d communicate a discovery of alien life.Duncan Forgan, Research Fellow, University of St AndrewsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/544932016-02-12T10:26:32Z2016-02-12T10:26:32ZWhat’s the point of theoretical physics?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111194/original/image-20160211-29214-2zauf0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>You don’t have to be a scientist to get excited about breakthroughs in theoretical physics. Discoveries such as gravitational waves and <a href="https://theconversation.com/higgs-bosons-decay-confirms-physics-model-works-20882">the Higgs boson</a> can inspire wonder at the complex beauty of the universe no matter how little you really understand them. </p>
<p>But some people will always question why they should care about scientific advances that have no apparent impact on their daily life – and why we spend millions funding them. Sure, it’s amazing that we can study black holes thousands of light years away and that Einstein really was as much of a genius as we thought, but that won’t change the way most people live or work.</p>
<p>Yet the reality is that purely theoretical studies in physics can sometimes lead to <a href="https://theconversation.com/five-ways-particle-accelerators-have-changed-the-world-without-a-higgs-boson-in-sight-54187">amazing changes</a> in our society. In fact, several key pillars on which our modern society rests, from satellite communication to computers, were made possible by investigations that had no obvious application at the time. </p>
<h2>Quantum leap</h2>
<p>Around 100 years ago, <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-quantum-physics-570">quantum mechanics</a> was a purely theoretical topic, only developed to understand certain properties of atoms. Its founding fathers such as Werner Heisenberg and Erwin Schrödinger had no applications in mind at all. They were simply driven by the quest to understand what our world is made of. Quantum mechanics states that you cannot observe a system without changing it fundamentally by your observation, and initially its effects to society were of a philosophical and not a practical nature.</p>
<p>But today, quantum mechanics is the basis of our use of all semiconductors in computers and mobile phones. To build a modern semiconductor for use in a computer, you have to understand concepts such as the way electrons behave when atoms are held together in a solid material, something only described accurately by quantum mechanics. Without it, we would have been stuck using computers based on vacuum tubes.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111195/original/image-20160211-29175-1om523u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111195/original/image-20160211-29175-1om523u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111195/original/image-20160211-29175-1om523u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111195/original/image-20160211-29175-1om523u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111195/original/image-20160211-29175-1om523u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111195/original/image-20160211-29175-1om523u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111195/original/image-20160211-29175-1om523u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">GPS: a relative success.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>At a similar time as the key developments in quantum mechanics, Albert Einstein was attempting to better understand gravity, the dominating force of the universe. Rather than viewing gravity as a force between two bodies, he described it as a curving of space-time around each body, similar to how a rubber sheet will stretch if a heavy ball is placed on top of it. This was Einstein’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-einsteins-general-theory-of-relativity-killed-off-common-sense-physics-50042">general theory of relativity</a>. </p>
<p>Today the most common application of this theory is in GPS. To use signals from satellites to pinpoint your location you need to know the precise time the signal leaves the satellite and when it arrives on Earth. Einstein’s theory of general relativity means that the distance of a clock from the Earth’s centre of gravity affects how fast it ticks. And his theory of special relativity means that the speed a clock is moving at also affects its ticking speed.</p>
<p>Without knowing how to adjust the clocks to take account of these effects, we wouldn’t be able to accurately use the satellite signals to determine our position on the ground. Despite his amazing brain, Einstein probably could not have imagined this application a century ago. </p>
<h2>Scientific culture</h2>
<p>Aside from the potential, eventual applications of doing fundamental research, there are also direct financial benefits. Most of the student and post-docs working on big research projects like the Large Hadron Collider, will <a href="https://royalsociety.org/%7E/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294970126.pdf">not stay in academia</a> but move into industry. During their time in fundamental physics, they are educated at the highest existing technical level and then take their expertise into working companies. This is like educating car mechanics in Formula One racing teams.</p>
<p>Despite these direct and indirect benefits, most theoretical physicists have a very different motive for their work. They simply want to improve humanity’s understanding of the universe. While this might not immediately impact everyone’s lives, I believe it is just as important a reason for pursuing fundamental research. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111199/original/image-20160211-29202-k3uaot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111199/original/image-20160211-29202-k3uaot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111199/original/image-20160211-29202-k3uaot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111199/original/image-20160211-29202-k3uaot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111199/original/image-20160211-29202-k3uaot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111199/original/image-20160211-29202-k3uaot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111199/original/image-20160211-29202-k3uaot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Infinite inspiration.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This motivation may well have begun when humans first looked up at the night-sky in ancient times. They wanted to understand the world they lived and so spent time watching nature and creating theories about it, many of them involving gods or supernatural beings. Today we have made huge progress in our understanding of both stars and galaxies and, at the other end of the scale, of the tiny fundamental particles from which matter is built.</p>
<p>It somehow seems that every new level of understanding we achieve comes in tandem with new, more fundamental questions. It is never enough to know what we now know. We always want to continue looking behind newly arising curtains. In that respect, I consider fundamental physics a basic part of human culture.</p>
<p>Now we can wait curiously to find out what unforeseen spin-offs that discoveries such as the Higgs boson or gravitational waves might lead to in the long-term future. But we can also look forward to the new insights into the building-blocks of nature that they will bring us and the new questions they will raise.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/54493/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alexander Lenz receives funding from STFC. </span></em></p>There’s a good reason you should care about the discovery of gravitational waves, even if you don’t understand the science.Alexander Lenz, Deputy director, Institute for Particle Physics Phenomenology, Durham UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/425222015-06-01T05:59:58Z2015-06-01T05:59:58ZAmerican universities: reclaiming our role in society<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83422/original/image-20150529-15253-iktfcv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">But who will come out to talk with the public? </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/71380981@N06/11069730733/in/photolist-4MED4a-hScghr-MSB83-28e964-qENtYy-ch288s-9yrcap-pjYU1o-eFwfDE-6erBSg-64obiJ-agDbc5-2U5KFN-sn7GQ3-3C1uxC-5jDzsv-kX5dXM-4nVNMF-7Wyxur-5DeBui-5zVLmg-9ybBge-9Fh7r-ra8Kzw-aF7t7b-kWCKPt-kY8EUK-2yt1k7-7fisMx-4nVNir-eFq8iX-eFq8hB-eFwfAL-eFq8gK-eFq8gc-eFwfzJ-eFwfCA-eFq8ce-eFwfvq-eFwfy9-eFwfAf-eFwfyW-eFq8hn-4xrahD-4nVNGi-62D8k6-4nZS3Q-a66Ux3-4nZWT5-4nZSnd">Roger </a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>American universities are facing a crisis of relevance. There is, quite simply, a growing tension between their internal cultures and their role within society. </p>
<p>But the good news is that a growing number of us academics are taking this issue head on, exploring a broader range of models for what it means to be a scholar within society, and challenging old models that stand in the way of such progress.</p>
<h2>‘Stark fissures’ between gown and town</h2>
<p>New York Times columnist <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/opinion/sunday/kristof-professors-we-need-you.html">Nicholas Kristof wrote</a> about the disconnect in this way: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Some of the smartest thinkers on problems at home and around the world are university professors, but most of them just don’t matter in today’s great debates.” </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Kristof was roundly criticized by a number of academics who accused him of lopsided arguments. But he was actually adding his voice to those of a growing number of prominent academics who are also calling for change, with book titles like <a href="http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1933371153.html">Fixing the Fragmented University</a>, <a href="https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/designing-new-american-university">Designing the New American University</a> and many more. </p>
<p>Echoing this reality, the most recent Pew Research Center <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/">survey of public and scientists’ views on science and society</a> exposed “stark fissures between scientists and citizens on a range of science, engineering and technology issues.” </p>
<p>For example, where 87% of scientists accept that natural selection plays a role in evolution, only 32% of the public agrees; where 88% of scientists think that Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are safe to eat, only 37% of the public agrees. </p>
<p>In its most extreme example, actress <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/07/130716-autism-vaccines-mccarthy-view-medicine-science/">Jenny McCarthy</a> has been able to lead a movement in which parents choose not to vaccinate their children for fear of autism, despite the vehement <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-vaccines-are-dangerous/">rejection of that causal link</a> by American medical institutions. </p>
<p>This dire state of affairs prompted National Geographic to devote a cover story to America’s “<a href="http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/science-doubters/achenbach-text">War on Science</a>.” </p>
<p>At the same time, public universities are increasingly struggling to hold on to dwindling levels of state funding as state legislators profess a lack of appreciation of their value to society and parents struggle with their rising costs. </p>
<p>One <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/16941775">Economist article</a> opined that the American university system may be declining in much the same way that the Big 3 automakers did as their tuition costs rise, research displaces teaching as the primary focus of faculty, and administrative staffs grow to unprecedented proportions. </p>
<p>While one may worry about the future of the university in such circumstances, this drift from relevance has tremendous costs for society as well. </p>
<p>Academics have a critically important, though often neglected, role in the public and political debate on a range of issues: GMOs, climate change, gun control, health care, fiscal policy, nuclear power; the list goes on.</p>
<h2>A time for self-examination</h2>
<p>Two years ago, we were part of a group of 10 faculty at the University of Michigan who began to address this problem, exploring our role as academics in public and political discourse. </p>
<p>We started with a <a href="http://graham.umich.edu/media/files/PrelimSurveyResults-PublicEngagement.pdf">survey</a> of our fellow faculty’s attitudes toward academic engagement, followed by a series of <a href="http://graham.umich.edu/mm/brownbag/">faculty forums</a>, and culminated in a <a href="http://graham.umich.edu/mm/">May 2015 conference</a> that brought together experts and participants from across the US to discuss the role of academic engagement in public and political discourse. </p>
<p>The three days reflected the concerns of faculty but also provided unexpected insights into the nature of emerging challenges and opportunities. </p>
<p>We discovered a commitment to public dialogue among the faculty, although there are also concerns that engagement outside the walls of academia does not receive strong institutional support, leaving academics vulnerable to marginalization and even exclusion. For many within academia, public engagement is viewed as a waste of time at best, and anti-intellectual at worst. </p>
<p>There was also a clear sense that this is something we should be doing as academics, but something we have neither the training, the resources, nor the institutional support to undertake effectively. From our beginning as doctoral students through our evaluation for tenure, academic research is our primary metric of excellence.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83302/original/image-20150528-31337-1iksgt8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83302/original/image-20150528-31337-1iksgt8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83302/original/image-20150528-31337-1iksgt8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=380&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83302/original/image-20150528-31337-1iksgt8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=380&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83302/original/image-20150528-31337-1iksgt8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=380&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83302/original/image-20150528-31337-1iksgt8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83302/original/image-20150528-31337-1iksgt8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83302/original/image-20150528-31337-1iksgt8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Four university presidents discuss academic engagement in public and political discourse at a recent University of Michigan meeting. From right to left: Michael Crow (Arizona State University), Philip Hanlon (Dartmouth College), Mark Schlissel (University of Michigan) and Teresa Sullivan (University of Virginia). The panel was moderated by Andrew Hoffman (far left).</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">University of Michigan</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In an <a href="http://media.rackham.umich.edu/rossmedia/Play/7c9a78ca3e7c407db466777873bcdef91d">opening discussion</a> between the presidents of the University of Michigan, University of Virginia, Dartmouth College and Arizona State University, it was clear that, while there was general agreement on the importance of academic engagement, individual institutions had markedly different challenges and approaches to its practice. </p>
<p>University of Virginia President Teresa Sullivan spiced up the conversation by pointing out that many state legislatures not only fail to see the value of our research; some don’t think we should be doing research at all.</p>
<p>In the face of such concerns, there was surprisingly little clarity on what we mean by “engagement,” who should be engaging, how they should be doing this and what the role of the institution is in the public and political spheres. </p>
<p>There was much talk about cultural and institutional barriers. The criteria and process of tenure and promotion review came up again and again as an institutionalized disincentive to engage. We simply don’t know how to value or even measure impact beyond the academic world where, so often, it is the citation counts – the number of times a scholar’s work is cited by other scholars – that determine success. </p>
<p>Yet there was also the recognition that academics need to jolt themselves out of well-worn ruts and think creatively about how to successfully engage, rather than commiserate about how the institutions they themselves form create barriers to engagement.</p>
<p>Reflecting this, Penn State Professor Richard Alley made the point that if he could change one thing about the academy, he would change how universities measure “excellence.”</p>
<h2>The need for two-way communication</h2>
<p>Throughout the conversations, though, one aspect of engagement with the public was repeated again and again: it must be more than one-way communication.</p>
<p>To be truly effective, academics need to both listen and speak, to profess deep topic knowledge but also express humility and patience in hearing what people need and what they want. </p>
<p>As stated by Michael Kennedy from Northwestern University, we need to begin with the question “How can we help you?”</p>
<p>In fact, despite the urgency and confusion, <a href="http://media.rackham.umich.edu/rossmedia/Play/9abaec96f79547d984f96c84ef2273371d">Professor Jane Lubchenco</a> – former Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and now Oregon State University professor – remarked that early-career academics are engaging whether we like it or not.</p>
<p>Indeed, we noted marked generational differences in this conversation. There is a growing hunger among scientists-in-training to ensure that their work has relevance beyond the ivory tower of the academy. They are already, for example, using forms of social media such as Twitter, Facebook and blogs in innovative ways that older academics neither use nor fully understand. </p>
<p>Many of the nearly 60 PhD students who attended the conference worry that academia may take some time to be welcoming to their desires. This led some to wonder whether it will take the next generation of scholars to drag the “old guard” into relevance. </p>
<p>But with this theme came questions about whether young academics that value engagement will end up voting with their feet, migrating to those universities that provide them with the opportunities, support and recognition they are looking for. Indeed, this could create a new way to differentiate universities based on the faculty they hire, the students they attract and the communities they serve.</p>
<h2>Initiatives taking place across the country</h2>
<p>We are still mulling over the takeaway from the conference and plan to produce a <a href="http://graham.umich.edu/mm/conference-output/">final summary report</a> later this summer. </p>
<p>But overall, what was clear from our deliberations was that faculty want to engage, and change is already in play, with programs like Northwestern’s <a href="http://scienceinsociety.northwestern.edu/">Science in Society Program</a>, the University of Massachusetts’ <a href="https://www.umass.edu/pep/">Public Engagement Project</a>, Stanford’s <a href="https://leopoldleadership.stanford.edu/">Leopold Leadership Program</a>, Harvard’s <a href="http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/">Scholars Strategy Network</a>, the University of Michigan’s <a href="http://artsofcitizenship.umich.edu/">Arts of Citizenship Program</a> and more developing at institutions around the country. </p>
<p>Reflecting the desire of the next generation to change the norms of academia, young scholars at the University of Michigan have created the <a href="http://www.learntorelate.org/">RELATE program</a> (Researchers Expanding Lay-Audience Teaching and Engagement). This program’s story also demonstrates the resistance to public engagement that still exists in some of the US’s top academic institutions. </p>
<p>In RELATE’s inaugural year, some students were so worried about their advisor’s disapproval that they kept their participation a secret.</p>
<p>Whether such innovations will have a lasting impact on US universities as a whole is unclear. </p>
<p>But if the success of these programs is anything to go by, there is a growing hunger for more diverse academic institutions and career paths that enable research and teaching excellence to be augmented by excellence in engaging in public and political discourse – and finding relevance and value in communities outside the ivory tower.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/42522/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Maynard does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew J. Hoffman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Universities may be facing a crisis of relevance but a growing number of academics are tackling this issue head on.Andrew J. Hoffman, Holcim (US) Professor of Sustainable Enterprise and Director of the Erb Institute, University of MichiganAndrew Maynard, Director, Risk Science Center, University of MichiganLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/379422015-03-17T09:47:53Z2015-03-17T09:47:53ZScience celebrities are our de facto science laureates<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74934/original/image-20150316-9217-wv9lbh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Neil deGrasse Tyson is just one scientist celeb who already unofficially does the job of a science laureate.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/greyhawk68/375189520">John Roling</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A bill to create a US science laureate is <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4176">pending in Congress</a>. Climate skeptics reportedly <a href="http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2013/09/u.s.-science-laureate-bill-hits-roadblock">derailed a previous proposal</a> in 2013, fearing President Obama would appoint a scientist who shared his policy goal to curb greenhouse gases.</p>
<p>Akin to the poet laureate position, the honorary one-year laureate appointment would give a respected scientist an official national platform to enhance the public understanding of science and attract students to STEM fields.</p>
<p>When the bill was first introduced in 2013, <a href="http://www.wired.com/2013/05/the-science-laureate-of-the-united-states/">Wired</a> suggested astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, theoretical physicist Brian Greene and marine biologist Sylvia Earle among other candidates to fill this science ambassador role.</p>
<p>But if the bipartisan 2014 bill succumbs to another fight over the <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/got-science/2013/got-science-october-2013.html#.VQCknmTF-QO">politicization of science</a>, it’s worth considering that perhaps we don’t need a science laureate. We already have de facto spokespeople for science – celebrity scientists.</p>
<h2>Celebrity scientists/science ambassadors</h2>
<p>I profiled Tyson and Greene at length in my book, <a href="https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781442233430">The New Celebrity Scientists</a>, which examines how our media-driven celebrity culture produces popular scientific stars. Both have esteemed records in doing exactly the things the <a href="https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr4176/text">Science Laureates of the United States Act of 2014</a> hopes to achieve. Tyson and Greene are exemplars of what the Act calls for: someone who can “embody, demonstrate, and articulate the importance and excitement of scientific research and education.”</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74935/original/image-20150316-9176-16h6r5a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74935/original/image-20150316-9176-16h6r5a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74935/original/image-20150316-9176-16h6r5a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74935/original/image-20150316-9176-16h6r5a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74935/original/image-20150316-9176-16h6r5a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74935/original/image-20150316-9176-16h6r5a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74935/original/image-20150316-9176-16h6r5a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74935/original/image-20150316-9176-16h6r5a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Neil deGrasse Tyson engages the public about science in all kinds of arenas, even those more focused on the arts.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/clevrcat/13017165494">ClevrCat</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For example, in the past few weeks, Tyson stressed his passion and commitment to communication, telling <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/star-talker-neil-degrasse-tyson-on-fame-education-and-tweets/2015/02/24/5ec101fa-b854-11e4-a200-c008a01a6692_story.html">The Washington Post</a>’s Style section, “I’m a servant of the public’s appetite for science, for the universe, for science literacy.”</p>
<p>Tyson’s written several popular science titles, hosted a radio show and podcast StarTalk, as well as a reboot of the path-breaking 1980 TV show Cosmos. Next month he’ll host his own late-night talk show about science on National Geographic Channel. Tyson was named by <a href="http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/26-the-10-most-influential-people-in-science">Discover</a> in 2008 as one of the magazine’s ten most influential people in science. Next month he will be awarded the 2015 <a href="http://www.nasonline.org/news-and-multimedia/news/feb-26-2015-NASawards.html">Public Welfare Medal</a> by the National Academy of Sciences, for his promotion of science for the public good. </p>
<p>What more public communication could Tyson do even with the honorable distinction as science laureate?</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74944/original/image-20150316-9214-s4vtby.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74944/original/image-20150316-9214-s4vtby.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74944/original/image-20150316-9214-s4vtby.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=780&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74944/original/image-20150316-9214-s4vtby.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=780&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74944/original/image-20150316-9214-s4vtby.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=780&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74944/original/image-20150316-9214-s4vtby.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=980&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74944/original/image-20150316-9214-s4vtby.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=980&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74944/original/image-20150316-9214-s4vtby.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=980&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Brian Greene, scientist and science promoter.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/speakingoffaith/6962696265">On Being</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The same is true of Greene. His breakout 1999 popular book <a href="http://books.wwnorton.com/books/The-Elegant-Universe/">The Elegant Universe</a> brought to wide audiences the ideas of his specialist area of string theory. <a href="http://www.press.umich.edu/4999338/strung_together">Scholars consider</a> Greene’s book a watershed moment in the popularization and public understanding of this esoteric subject.</p>
<p>He embodied his work. <a href="http://discovermagazine.com/2010/extreme-universe/08-discover-interview-man-who-plucks-all-the-strings">Discover</a> called him “the public face of string theory.” <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/26/books/books-of-the-times-the-almost-inconceivable-but-don-t-be-intimidated.html">The New York Times</a> once called him “the cutest thing to happen to cosmology since the neutrino.”</p>
<p>After The Elegant Universe, Greene went on to write other well received popular science books. He also hosted two multi-part specials on PBS’s long-running science show, NOVA. With his wife, award-winning television journalist Tracy Day, he founded the <a href="http://www.worldsciencefestival.com/">World Science Festival</a>, which aims to weave science throughout the rest of our culture. He is also a prime mover behind <a href="http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/03/world-science-university-wants-to-teach-you-physics-for-free/">World science U</a>, an online learning platform for science education.</p>
<p>Could he do more for the public understanding of science as a science laureate?</p>
<h2>Deeper engagement via cultural celebs</h2>
<p>The fame of Tyson and Greene, I argue in my book, resulted in part from the confluence of two historical trends related to the public understanding of science.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74936/original/image-20150316-9211-1jntoi7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74936/original/image-20150316-9211-1jntoi7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74936/original/image-20150316-9211-1jntoi7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74936/original/image-20150316-9211-1jntoi7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74936/original/image-20150316-9211-1jntoi7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74936/original/image-20150316-9211-1jntoi7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74936/original/image-20150316-9211-1jntoi7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74936/original/image-20150316-9211-1jntoi7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Neil deGrasse Tyson signing an autograph, just like any other celeb.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/contusion/5074131955">Courtney </a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There has, first, been a trend towards scientists becoming cultural celebrities, a movement that had as a pivotal moment the 1980s broadcast of Cosmos presented by Carl Sagan. As the science historian Marcel Chotkowski LaFollette wrote in her book <a href="http://books.google.com/books/about/Science_on_American_Television.html?id=YvSg8WBHIS4C">Science on American Television</a>, “Sagan already had modest fame outside academe. Cosmos now propelled him to international stardom.”</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74945/original/image-20150316-9208-n733jq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74945/original/image-20150316-9208-n733jq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74945/original/image-20150316-9208-n733jq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=441&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74945/original/image-20150316-9208-n733jq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=441&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74945/original/image-20150316-9208-n733jq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=441&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74945/original/image-20150316-9208-n733jq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=554&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74945/original/image-20150316-9208-n733jq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=554&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74945/original/image-20150316-9208-n733jq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=554&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Carl Sagan, the proto-science celeb.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/trackrecord/327991674">Javier</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Since then, today’s celebrity culture refracts abstract issues through the prism of personality. As cultural historian Leo Braudy wrote in his <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=l9oQAQAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22plastered+on+every+idea+and+event%22">The Frenzy of Renown</a>, “human faces are plastered on every idea and event.”</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74938/original/image-20150316-9208-1rfysd8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74938/original/image-20150316-9208-1rfysd8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74938/original/image-20150316-9208-1rfysd8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74938/original/image-20150316-9208-1rfysd8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74938/original/image-20150316-9208-1rfysd8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74938/original/image-20150316-9208-1rfysd8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74938/original/image-20150316-9208-1rfysd8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74938/original/image-20150316-9208-1rfysd8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The crowds line up for a talk by Brian Greene at a venue that typically focuses on media, architecture and design.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/strelka/9894175525">Ivan Gushin</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The second historical trend has been towards a deeper engagement with citizens on the part of scientists. Crucially, this involves scientists not speaking from on high as voices of truth or reason. Instead, as science communication researchers Matthew Nisbet and Dietram Scheufele <a href="http://climateshiftproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/NisbetScheufele2009_WhatsNextforScienceCommunication_PromisingDirectionsLingeringDistractions_AmericanJournalBotany.pdf">noted</a>, it involves inviting citizens to participate in trust-based, two-way conversations about science and its role in society.</p>
<p>For examples of such conversations, listen to Tyson on his StarTalk podcast discussing science and politics with actress and activist <a href="http://www.startalkradio.net/show/when-science-crashes-the-party/">Janeane Garofalo</a>. Or discussing science, race and science fiction with Star Trek actress <a href="http://www.startalkradio.net/show/a-conversation-with-nichelle-nichols/">Nichelle Nichols</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74946/original/image-20150316-9221-130d1bt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74946/original/image-20150316-9221-130d1bt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74946/original/image-20150316-9221-130d1bt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74946/original/image-20150316-9221-130d1bt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74946/original/image-20150316-9221-130d1bt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74946/original/image-20150316-9221-130d1bt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74946/original/image-20150316-9221-130d1bt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74946/original/image-20150316-9221-130d1bt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">We live in an era of TED talks, when scientists including Brian Greene draw rapturous crowds.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/tedconference/13253386034">TED Conference</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>With his 2011 book <a href="http://www.randomhouse.com/book/71272/the-hidden-reality-by-brian-greene">The Hidden Reality</a>, Greene sparked valuable conversations about the nature of science. The book explained the multiverse, the idea that our universe might be just one of billions that exist, each with its own particular characteristics. A Nature <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v469/n7330/full/469294a.html?message-global=remove">review</a> criticized the book for presenting not reality but “unproven theoretical possibilities.” On this point, Greene emphasized the value for citizens to understand how scientific knowledge develops, “not just to learn about <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20927986.500-bestselling-string-theorist-betting-on-the-multiverse.html?page=2">science that’s all settled</a>, confirmed and in textbooks, but also to capture a picture of vital science in the making.”</p>
<h2>Is a celebrity superior to science laureate?</h2>
<p>Greene and Tyson are just two examples of prominent scientists doing exactly what a science laureate might do. Others include theoretical physicist <a href="http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/lisa-randalls-guide-to-the-galaxy-71799164/?no-ist">Lisa Randall</a> and cognitive scientist <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/magazine/11Genome-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0">Steven Pinker</a>. These figures are the public faces of science, who each communicate complex scientific ideas, illuminate the nature of science, and place science at the core of culture.</p>
<p>Their popular stardom sets them apart in another crucial way from a science laureate. The 2014 bill states that the laureate would be appointed by the elite National Academy of Sciences. The post therefore risks being a modern manifestation of a decades-old style of science communication: a talented, establishment scientist accurately transmitting facts to educate the public. But, for citizens, knowledge of science does not lead automatically to appreciation of science. </p>
<p>A scientific celebrity, by contrast, is more inclusive, more populist, and perhaps more democratic. Lasting fame cannot be solely manufactured. As cultural critic Louis Menand <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1997/03/24/the-iron-law-of-stardom">explained</a>, a celebrity’s personality must connect deeply with public and social concerns, as Sagan did at the height of the <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/03/why-em-cosmos-em-can-t-save-public-support-for-science/284355/">Cold War</a>. </p>
<p>Our popular culture – crucially – granted Tyson and Greene the legitimacy to speak in a sustained way on behalf of science. They cut through political partisanship to connect with the public. Citizens voted them stars.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37942/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Declan Fahy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A bill before congress would create a science laureate position akin to the poet laureate for poetry. But some science stars are already essentially doing the job now.Declan Fahy, Assistant Professor of Communication, American University School of CommunicationLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/379242015-03-03T00:56:41Z2015-03-03T00:56:41ZWe must defend science if we want a prosperous future<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73549/original/image-20150303-15984-re4pwm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Science is under attack but we must defend it if we want to improve politics in Australia.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Victoria University</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Today’s Australians are, by far, the best educated cohort in our history –- on paper, anyway -– but this is not reflected in the quality of our political discourse. We appear to be lacking in courage, judgement, capacity to analyse and even simple curiosity, except about immediate personal needs.</p>
<p>There are more than 1.1 million university students, both undergraduate and postgraduate (about 900,000 of them locals), <a href="http://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/2014firsthalfyearstudentsummaryinfographics.pdf">currently at Australian universities</a>. </p>
<p>Australia also has about 4.5 million graduates (nearly 20% of the population), far more than the total numbers of traditional blue collar workers. Members of trade unions amount to about one million people: 18% of the total work force and about 12% of the private sector.</p>
<p>Inevitably, these numbers will shift our political culture, but the process is occurring slowly. </p>
<p>Australia, like the US, UK, Canada and much of Europe, has undergone a serious decline in the quality of debate on public policy. The British journalist Robert Fisk has called this “<a href="http://grittv.org/?video=the-deadly-infantilization-of-american-politics-robert-fisk-and-patricia-degennaro">the infantilisation of debate</a>”.</p>
<p>In the era of “spin”, when a complex issue is involved, leaders do not explain. They find a mantra (“stop the boats!”) and repeat it endlessly, “staying on message”, without explanation or qualification. The word “because” seems to have fallen out of the political lexicon. </p>
<p>Evidence-based policies and actions should be a central principle in the working of our system and reliance on populism and sloganeering should be rejected, but in reality they are not.</p>
<h2>Selling out science</h2>
<p>Complex problems demand complex solutions. Examples of such problems are refugees and climate change, which cannot be reduced to parroting a few simple slogans (“turn back the boats”, “stop this toxic tax”). </p>
<p>“Retail politics” – sometimes called “transactional politics” – where policies are adopted not because they are right but because they can be sold, is a dangerous development and should be rejected. We must maintain confidence that major problems can be addressed –- and act accordingly. </p>
<p>A voracious media looks for diversity and emotional engagement, weakening capacity for reflection and serious analysis, compounded by the rise of social media where users, typically, seek reinforcement of their views rather than being challenged by diversity.</p>
<p>Science and research generally are given disturbingly low priority in contemporary public life in Australia. Scientists, especially those involved with climate change or the environment, have come under unprecedented attack, especially in the media. </p>
<p>And the whole concept of the scientific method is discounted, even ridiculed. <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/gustav-nossal-3089">Gus Nossal</a> sometimes quotes me as saying that Australia must be the only country in the world where the word “academic” is treated as pejorative.</p>
<p>The role of science in policy development is a sensitive issue. I spent years – decades really – bashing my head against a brick wall trying to persuade colleagues to recognise the importance, even centrality, of science policy. </p>
<p>Many, probably most, of my political colleagues had no interest in science as an intellectual discipline, although they depended on science for their health, nutrition, transport, entertainment and communication.</p>
<p>We need to revive the process of dialogue: explain, explain, explain, rejecting mere sloganeering and populism. We need evidence-based policies, but often evidence lacks the psychological carrying power generated by appeals to prejudice or fear of disadvantage (“they are robbing you…”). </p>
<h2>Evidence vs. opinion</h2>
<p>There is a disturbing conflict between evidence and opinion (“you have evidence, but I have strong opinions”), and political processes are more likely to be driven by opinion rather than evidence in a short political cycle.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/brian-schmidt-4963">Brian Schmidt</a>, our Nobel Laureate in astrophysics, wrote of his experience in this regard in <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/comment/jury-in-on-climate-change-so-stop-using-arguments-of-convenience-and-listen-to-experts-20150215-13et0j.html">The Age</a> on February 16:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>As a Nobel Prize winner, I travel the world meeting all kinds of people.</p>
<p>Most of the policy, business and political leaders I meet immediately apologise for their lack of knowledge of science.</p>
<p>Except when it comes to climate science. Whenever this subject comes up, it never ceases to amaze me how each person I meet suddenly becomes an expert.</p>
<p>Facts are then bandied to fit an argument for or against climate change, and on all sides, misconceptions abound.</p>
<p>The confusion is not surprising – climate science is a very broad and complicated subject with experts working on different aspects of it worldwide.</p>
<p>No single person knows everything about climate change. And for the average punter, it’s hard to keep up with all the latest research and what it means.</p>
<p>More surprising is the supreme confidence that non-experts (scientists and non-scientists alike) have in their own understanding of the subject.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I encourage you to read <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/books/review/thinking-fast-and-slow-by-daniel-kahneman-book-review.html?pagewanted=all">Thinking, Fast and Slow</a>, a 2011 best seller by the psychologist Daniel Kahneman who, although not an economist, won the Nobel Prize for Economic Science in 2002 for his development of “<a href="http://www.princeton.edu/%7Ekahneman/docs/Publications/prospect_theory.pdf">prospect theory</a>”.</p>
<p>Prospect theory analyses rational and irrational factors in decision making. He demonstrates, regrettably, the extent to which people like you and me use familiar short cuts – “heuristics” – to make intuitive judgements, and discount evidence or rationality in making decisions. </p>
<p>This can apply whether purchasing something, deciding where and how to like something, or taking a political stance on issues. Kahneman became the outstanding authority on <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/behavioural-economics">behavioural economics</a> and social psychology.</p>
<p>Jonathan Haidt’s <a href="http://righteousmind.com/">The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion</a>, from 2012, is also an important book. I think Haidt could go much further with his thesis, which states that politics and religion tend to be centred on “values”, so people can pick and choose, and can sometimes be blinded to the facts because of their moral worldview. It is clear that many people say: “I reject these particular facts because I don’t trust where they come from.”</p>
<h2>Heuristics and confusion</h2>
<p>Psychologists confirm that we habitually engage in the <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/c/confirmation_bias.htm">cherry-picking of evidence</a> -– we choose the bits that we are emotionally, intuitively, attracted to and comfortable with.</p>
<p>The Cambridge political scientist, <a href="http://www.polis.cam.ac.uk/Staff_and_Students/professor-david-runciman">David Runciman</a>, argues that “opinion, interest and knowledge are too divided, and no event, whether an election […] or a crisis is clear enough in its meaning to bring closure”.</p>
<p>For example, there is fierce opposition in some quarters to the <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/vaccination">vaccination</a> of children and the fluoridation of water supplies to prevent dental caries, even though the empirical evidence in support of both is overwhelming. But appeals to fear can be far more powerful than arguing on the basis of hard evidence.</p>
<p>There has been a sustained attack from some quarters – the News Corporation papers, the Institute of Public Affairs (<a href="http://www.ipa.org.au/">IPA</a>) and the Centre for Independent Studies (<a href="http://www.cis.org.au/">CIS</a>) to name only three – on scientific research and scientific method, even on rationality and the Enlightenment tradition. </p>
<p>The illusion was created that scientists are corrupt, while lobbyists are pure. One of the false assertions is that scientists who take the mainstream position are rewarded, while dissenters are punished (similar to Galileo and the Inquisition). </p>
<p>In Australia now, and the US until recently, the contrary could be argued. Galileo’s work was based on observation of data -– his opponents were operating from doctrine.</p>
<p>Scientists arguing for the mainstream view have been subject to strong attack by <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/climate-change-denial">denialists</a> who assert that they are quasi-religious zealots who are missionaries for a green religion. </p>
<p>In reality, it was the denialist/confusionist position to rely on faith, the conviction that there were a diversity of complex reasons for climate change but only one could be confidently rejected: the role of human activity.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73545/original/image-20150302-15987-39engb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73545/original/image-20150302-15987-39engb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73545/original/image-20150302-15987-39engb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73545/original/image-20150302-15987-39engb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73545/original/image-20150302-15987-39engb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73545/original/image-20150302-15987-39engb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73545/original/image-20150302-15987-39engb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73545/original/image-20150302-15987-39engb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">It might be nice to see ‘science’ in that list.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/takver/15091861855/in/photolist-bDMWut-nDzRTT-fFyoQN-u8JgB-eU3wND-iZsWW8-eXRmac-n5WddR-nWxmQW-fFxRVG-9taTCu-rbczdH-aXtPG-oZBJJK-kMWhhT-91PkDE-9Qtx2w-pHAy8x-4FkKAg-fwtmzh-6bxz33-gKoR68-4BTp93-feuRpN-gumgjA-dYqKLi-xWkAg-nMGeqQ-dPF3rg-kMVBGZ-cs3FYo-4ZbAJk-rc2z4j-ctTARQ-87PCG7-p1VDQG-5FigGb-fTDneL-5zR5P-91PA3V-c4yRJb-5rH9iW-4rVftw-mf1t6n-b936Un-87PDTL-arEkcn-5Vy5Ku-67wMBQ-8aaofb">Takver/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Three fronts</h2>
<p>There are three areas of attack against expertise and taking a long term, analytical view of the world: from the Right, the Left and the anxious Centre.</p>
<p>From the Right there have been systematic and well-financed attacks by lobbyists from the fossil fuels industry and electricity generators. This has been highly personal, often abusive, sometimes threatening. </p>
<p>The anxious Centre includes people working in particular industries and regions (such as Hunter Valley, La Trobe Valley, Tasmanian forests), understandably fearful of potential job losses, without much prospect of creating new jobs. The trade union movement is deeply divided on this –- as is the business community.</p>
<p>But from the Left, or some segments of the intellectual Left, a deconstructionist mind-set has partly undermined an evidence-based approach to policy making or problem solving.</p>
<p>The pluralist or deconstructionist or post-modern theory of knowledge is contemptuous of expertise, rejects the idea of hierarchies of knowledge and asserts the democratic mantra that –- as with votes in elections –- every opinion is of equal value, so that if you insist that the earth is flat, refuse vaccination for children or deny that HIV-AIDS is transmitted by virus, your view should be treated with respect. </p>
<p>Similarly, there has been a repudiation of expertise and or taste -– dismissing the idea of people like <a href="https://prelectur.stanford.edu/lecturers/bloom/">Harold Bloom</a>, or myself, that there is a “Western canon” which sets benchmarks. “No,” say the deconstructionists, “the paintings of Banksy, the mysterious British graffiti artist, are just as good as Raphael, and hip-hop performances are just as valid as Beethoven’s Opus 131.” </p>
<p>The Welsh geneticist <a href="http://www.ucl.ac.uk/slms/people/show.php?personid=10687">Steve Jones</a> asks an important question: if there is a division of scientific opinion, with 999 on one side, and one on the other, how should the debate be handled? Should the one dissenter be given 500 opportunities to speak? </p>
<p>Yet Graham Lloyd, The Australian’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/having-it-both-ways-news-corps-climate-paradox-30024">environment editor</a> – perhaps more accurately described as the anti-environment editor – trawls the web, finds obscure and unsubstantiated critiques of mainstream science, then publishes them as front page attacks on professional integrity.</p>
<h2>Science and common-sense</h2>
<p>There are major problems when it comes to explaining some of issues in science, and there have been ever since science began. Some fundamental scientific discoveries seem to be counter-intuitive, challenging direct observation or our common-sense view of the world.</p>
<p>Common sense, and direct observation, tells us that the Earth is flat, that the sun (like the moon) rotates around the Earth and that forces don’t operate at a distance.</p>
<p>Aristotle with his encyclopedic –- but often erroneous –- grasp of natural phenomena, was a compelling authority in support of a geocentric universe, and that the seat of reason was in the heart, not the brain, and that females were deformed males. His views were dominant for 1,500 years. </p>
<p>The Greek astronomer Ptolemy, following Aristotle, provided ingenious proofs in support of geocentrism. Then along came Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler who said: “Your common sense observation is wrong. The orbits of sun and moon are completely different, although they appear to be similar.” (Our use of the terms “sunrise” and “sunset” preserves the Ptolemaic paradigm.) </p>
<p>By the 20th Century, electronics enabled us to apply force from a distance, to do thousands of things remotely, manipulating spacecraft and satellites, or receiving signals (radio, telephony, television), setting alarms, opening garage doors and, one of the great labour saving devices, the remote switch for television.</p>
<p>The most obvious disjunction between science and common sense is the question: “right now, are we at rest or in motion?” </p>
<p>Common sense and direct observation suggests that we are at rest. But science says, “wrong again”. We are moving very rapidly. The earth is spinning on its axis at a rate of 1,669 kmh at the equator, and in Melbourne (37.8°S) at 1,317 kmh. We are also orbiting round the sun even faster, at nearly 30 kms, or 107,200 kmh. There is a third motion, harder to measure, as the galaxy expands -– and it’s speeding up, as <a href="https://theconversation.com/brian-schmidt-in-conversation-8383">Brian Schmidt postulates</a>.</p>
<p>But, sitting here in Footscray, it is hard to grasp that we are in motion, kept in place by gravity. Psychology resists it. Essentially we have to accept the repudiation of common sense on trust, because somebody in a white coat says, “trust me, I’m a scientist”. I would challenge anyone to reconcile common sense and quantum theory or to satisfactorily explain the Higgs boson or -– hardest of all -– to define gravity.</p>
<p>The factors that limit the psychological carrying power of much science –- not all -– include these: </p>
<ul>
<li><p>its complexity, often requiring use of a language known only to initiates</p></li>
<li><p>outcomes are seen as too expensive</p></li>
<li><p>outcomes are seen as too slow</p></li>
<li><p>the history of science has been badly taught, often portrayed as an effortless success story, proceeding from triumph to triumph, instead of the passionate and dramatic reality.</p></li>
</ul>
<h2>Science at the core</h2>
<p>Scientists and learned societies have been punching below their weight in matters of public policy, and they are careful to avoid being involved in controversies outside their disciplines, possible threats to grants being among them. </p>
<p>Some distinguished scientists are outstanding advocates, including <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/gustav-nossal-3089">Gus Nossal</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/peter-c-doherty-169">Peter Doherty</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ian-chubb-5153">Ian Chubb</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/fiona-stanley-16277">Fiona Stanley</a>, <a href="https://www.science.org.au/node/320923">Robert May</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/brian-schmidt-4963">Brian Schmidt</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ian-frazer-10030">Ian Frazer</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/mike-archer-am-5995">Mike Archer</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/tim-flannery-11549">Tim Flannery</a> and <a href="http://www.unimelb.edu.au/unisec/calendar/honcausa/citation/denton.pdf">Dick Denton</a>. </p>
<p>Science must be at the core of our national endeavour and you are well placed to examine the evidence, evaluate it, then advocate and persuade. Our nation’s future depends on the quality of its thinking, and its leaders.</p>
<p>There is a wide-spread assumption by industry and government that Australia’s economic, social and technological future will be a mirror image of the past. We can be confident that this just won’t happen. We have not even begun to talk seriously about the threats and opportunities of a post-carbon economy.</p>
<p>I encourage you, whatever your political persuasion, or lack of it, to argue for higher recognition of the role that science must play in our future, and drive your MP mad unless or until he/ she does something about it.</p>
<p>Remember Archimedes and his lever. But first you have to find a fulcrum, then you push the lever.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37924/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Barry Jones does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Our nation’s future depends on the quality of its thinking and its leaders. As such, science must be at the core of our national discourse.Barry Jones, Professorial Fellow, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/368702015-01-29T19:42:05Z2015-01-29T19:42:05ZScientists and public disagree, but let’s not get too excited<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/70521/original/image-20150129-22322-qx6s5u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Average Americans don't view science issues the same way scientists do.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-114524698/stock-photo-business-person-standing-against-the-blackboard-with-a-lot-of-data-written-on-it.html">Man image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A new <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/science2015/">set of surveys</a> of scientists and the public finds the two groups have widely different views about scientific issues. Conducted by the Pew Research Center in collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the survey found scientists tended to have a more positive opinion of many technologies than the general public.</p>
<p>Those involved in science may get frustrated by the survey’s findings, wondering why the public isn’t as enthused by their work as the researchers themselves. But the acceptance of new technologies is rarely straight-forward. The scientific community needs to remember that it continues to benefit from widespread, <a href="http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/index.cfm/chapter-7/c7s3.htm#s3">hard-won admiration</a>. </p>
<p>The survey might be a reminder to scientists that they can always do better at communicating their work and its motivations to the general public.</p>
<h2>Survey says:</h2>
<p>Some of the contrasts in the Pew Research Center data are stark. </p>
<p>Almost all of the scientists surveyed (88%) said they viewed genetically modified foods as safe, but only about a third (37%) of their fellow Americans said they shared this belief. Similarly, a majority of the scientists (68%) said they see pesticides as safe, but only about a quarter of the overall population said they felt that way (28%).</p>
<p>The only two issues where the scientists were more negative than the broader public were offshore drilling and hydraulic fracturing – fracking – to obtain fossil fuels. About half (52%) of Americans said they favor offshore drilling but only about a third of the scientists gave this response (32%). Similarly, 39% of Americans said they favor fracking in comparison to 31% of the surveyed scientists.</p>
<p>This difference may be linked to the fact that, whereas almost all scientists (87%) said they thought climate change was due to human activity, only half of Americans (50%) expressed this view.</p>
<h2>Warm feeling toward science itself</h2>
<p>In the face of all these differences, it’s worth remembering that overall perceptions of science are quite positive. More than three quarters of Americans (79%) told Pew they thought science was making life better and that the effects of science on health care (79%) were mostly positive.</p>
<p>Ultimately, 72% of Americans said that government funding for engineering and technology pays off in the long run and 71% said that funding for basic research pays off.</p>
<p>The main thing that seems potentially troubling about the research results is the small decline in positive views about science. Such results echo through the report’s comparisons of the 2014 figures against a similar study from 2009. For example, whereas 79% of Americans thought science made life better in 2014, 83% held this view in 2009.</p>
<p>However, it is difficult to know what to make of data based on only two data points and other research has not (yet) suggested we are in the midst of a substantial decline in support for science. Rather, other available data suggests that views about science have remained <a href="http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/index.cfm/chapter-7/c7s3.htm#s1">fairly</a> stable in recent years.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/70525/original/image-20150129-22314-8n12j1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/70525/original/image-20150129-22314-8n12j1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/70525/original/image-20150129-22314-8n12j1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70525/original/image-20150129-22314-8n12j1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70525/original/image-20150129-22314-8n12j1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70525/original/image-20150129-22314-8n12j1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=584&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70525/original/image-20150129-22314-8n12j1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=584&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70525/original/image-20150129-22314-8n12j1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=584&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Survey results can identify interesting points of difference.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/swamibu/3596922151">Farrukh</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What might be behind the gap?</h2>
<p>Although 84% of the scientists surveyed said they thought the public’s lack of scientific knowledge was a “major problem” for science, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662506070159">academic research</a> suggests that scientific knowledge is only a minor driver of attitudes about science.</p>
<p>The science views reported by Pew are instead likely driven by factors such as the degree to which respondents have faith in the expertise and good will of scientists (i.e., <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317505111">key factors that drive perceptions of trustworthiness</a>). <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.511246">Overall worldview</a> also likely influenced responses, since we all tend to unconsciously adjust our views so that we see things we like, for example, as more safe and things we dislike as less safe.</p>
<p>For scientists, most of whom are also unlikely to be experts in more than one topic raised by Pew, it is reasonable to expect that they tend to trust their fellow scientists. The American public might be expected to be more cautious.</p>
<h2>There’s value in views</h2>
<p>The fact that the <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org">Pew Research Center</a>, as well as the <a href="http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/index.cfm/chapter-7/c7s3.htm">National Science Board</a>, the <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_419_en.pdf">European Commission</a> and individual countries such as <a href="http://www.scienceadvice.ca/uploads/eng/assessments%20and%20publications%20and%20news%20releases/science-culture/ScienceCulture_fullreportEN.pdf">Canada</a>, are putting resources into these types of surveys speaks to the importance of tracking what citizens think about science.</p>
<p>We need these types of numbers to tell us whether science is losing support and where there might be room for improvement.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/70523/original/image-20150129-22322-1a9x3ot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/70523/original/image-20150129-22322-1a9x3ot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/70523/original/image-20150129-22322-1a9x3ot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70523/original/image-20150129-22322-1a9x3ot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70523/original/image-20150129-22322-1a9x3ot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70523/original/image-20150129-22322-1a9x3ot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=526&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70523/original/image-20150129-22322-1a9x3ot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=526&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70523/original/image-20150129-22322-1a9x3ot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=526&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Scientists need to engage with those outside their fields.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-38617798/stock-photo-conference-hall-full-of-people-participating-in-the-business-training.html">Meeting image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As is well known to <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa7477">science leaders</a>, there is a need to ensure that science maintains and builds its place in society by having scientists engage with their communities in ways that allow them to hear from fellow citizens. This allows them to share the expertise that goes into scientific research and the deep sense of caring about society that underlies many scientists’ work.</p>
<p>What seems less likely to be helpful – no matter how satisfying – are efforts to put down those who may currently disagree with scientists through aggressive tactics such as labeling people as <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/books/review/Sanghavi-t.html?_r=0">deniers or irrational</a>. </p>
<p>It’s especially important to learn what we can from reports such as Pew’s while avoiding any the-sky-is-falling commentary that <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/02/public-opinion-astrology-dumb">disparages</a> the survey respondents.</p>
<p>Such measures are apt to make scientists seem less trustworthy.</p>
<p>Finally, it’s worth noting that the scientists’ surveyed were randomly selected from the American membership of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Although the organization is very well respected and the world’s largest general purpose scientific society, it also tends to have an older membership base (35% of respondents were aged 65 or older) and its mission to “advance” science may also mean that the type of person who joins may be more outward facing than many scientists.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/36870/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John C. Besley is the Brandt Chair in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University. He studies public opinion about science and technology and science communication. He is also the lead writer of the National Science Board’s biennial chapter on public attitudes and understanding. He provided comments on a draft of the Pew research Center report.</span></em></p>A new set of surveys of scientists and the public finds the two groups have widely different views about scientific issues. Conducted by the Pew Research Center in collaboration with the American Association…John C. Besley, Associate Professor of Advertising and Public Relations, Michigan State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/346052014-11-27T19:25:30Z2014-11-27T19:25:30ZThe palaeolithic diet and the unprovable links to our past<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65416/original/image-20141125-8672-1hdgku2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Harking back to the diet of the caveman.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/daniandgeorge/8699416930">Flickr/George </a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>We still hear and <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/paleo-diet-worked-for-me/story-fnb64oi6-1227132311448">read a lot</a> about how a diet based on what our Stone Age ancestors ate may be a cure-all for modern ills. But can we really run the clock backwards and find the optimal way to eat? It’s a largely impossible dream based on a set of fallacies about our ancestors.</p>
<p>There are a lot of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=palaeolithic+diet">guides and books</a> on the palaeolithic diet, the origins of which have <a href="https://theconversation.com/caveman-cravings-rating-the-paleo-diet-14995">already been questioned</a>. </p>
<p>It’s all based on an idea that’s been around for decades in anthropology and nutritional science; namely that we might ascribe many of the problems faced by modern society to the shift by our hunter-gatherer ancestors to farming roughly 10,000 years ago.</p>
<p>Many <a href="http://robbwolf.com/what-is-the-paleo-diet/">advocates of the palaeolithic diet</a> even claim it’s the only diet compatible with human genetics and contains all the nutrients our bodies apparently evolved to thrive on.</p>
<p>While it has a real appeal, when we dig a little deeper into the science behind it we find the prescription for a palaeolithic diet is little more than a fad and might be dangerous to our health.</p>
<h2>Mismatched to the modern world</h2>
<p>The basic argument goes something like this: over millions of years natural selection designed humans to live as hunter-gatherers, so we are genetically “mismatched” for the modern urbanised lifestyle, which is very different to how our pre-agricultural ancestors lived.</p>
<p>The idea that our genome isn’t suited to our modern way of life began with a highly influential <a href="http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM198501313120505">article</a> by Eaton and Konner published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1985. </p>
<p>Advocates of the palaeolithic diet, traceable back to Eaton and Konner’s work, have uncritically assumed a gene-culture mismatch has led to an epidemic in “diseases of civilisation”.</p>
<p>Humans are, it’s argued, genetically hunter-gatherers and evolution has been unable to keep pace with the rapid cultural change experienced over the last 10,000 years. </p>
<p>These assumptions are <a href="http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v31/n9/full/0803610a.html">difficult to test</a> or even outright wrong.</p>
<h2>What did our Stone Age ancestors eat?</h2>
<p>Proponents of the palaeolithic diet mostly claim that science has a good understanding of what our hunter-gatherer ancestors ate.</p>
<p>Let me disavow you of this myth straight away – we don’t – and the further back in time we go <a href="http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/3/665.full">the less we know</a>.</p>
<p>What we <em>think</em> we know is based on a mixture of <a href="http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/%7Edrwhite/worldcul/atlas.htm">ethnographic studies</a> of recent (historical) foraging groups, reconstructions based on the archaeological and fossil records and more recently, genetic investigations.</p>
<p>We need to be careful because in many cases these historical foragers lived in “marginal” environments that were not of interest to farmers. Some represent people who were farmers but returned to a hunter-gatherer economy while others had a “mixed” economy based on wild-caught foods supplemented by bought (even manufactured) foods.</p>
<p>The archaeological and fossil records are strongly biased towards things that will preserve or fossilise and in places where they will remain buried and undisturbed for thousands of years.</p>
<p>What this all means is <a href="http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/gurven/ember1978.pdf">we know little</a> about the plant foods and only a little bit more about some of the animals eaten by our Stone Age ancestors.</p>
<h2>Many variations in Stone Age lifestyle</h2>
<p>Life was tough in the Stone Age, with high infant and maternal mortality and short lifespans. Seasonal shortages in food would have meant that starvation was common and may have been an annual event.</p>
<p>People were very much at the mercy of the natural environment. During the Ice Age, massive climate changes would have resulted in regular dislocations of people and the extinction of whole tribes periodically. </p>
<p>Strict cultural rules would have made very clear the role played by individuals in society, and each group was different according to traditions and their natural environment.</p>
<p>This included gender-specific roles and even rules about what foods you could and couldn’t eat, regardless of their nutritional content or availability.</p>
<p>For advocates of the palaeolithic lifestyle, life at this time is portrayed as a kind of biological paradise, with people living as evolution had designed them to: as genetically predetermined hunter-gatherers fit for their environment. </p>
<p>But when ethnographic records and archaeological sites are studied we find a great deal of variation in the diet and behaviour, including activity levels, of recent foragers.</p>
<p>Our ancestors – and even more recent <a href="http://www.nt.gov.au/health/healthdev/health_promotion/bushbook/volume2/chap3/index.html">hunter-gatherers in Australia</a> – exploited foods as they became available each week and every season. They ate a vast range of foods throughout the year. </p>
<p>They were seasonably mobile to take advantage of this: recent foraging groups moved camps on average 16 times a year, but within a wide range of two to 60 times a year.</p>
<p>There seems to have been one universal, though: all people ate animal foods. How much depended on where on the planet you lived: rainforests provided few mammal resources, while the arctic region provided very little else.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/3629672">Studies show</a> on average about 40% of their diet comprised hunted foods, excluding foods gathered or fished. If we add fishing, it rises to 60%.</p>
<p>Even among arctic people such the as Inuit whose diet was entirely animal foods at certain times, geneticists have failed to find any mutations enhancing people’s capacity to survive on such an extreme diet. </p>
<p>Research from anthropology, nutritional science, genetics and even psychology now also shows that our food preferences are partly determined <em>in utero</em> and are mostly established during childhood from cultural preferences within our environment.</p>
<p>The picture is rapidly emerging that genetics play a pretty minor role in determining the specifics of our diet. Our physical and cultural environment mostly determines what we eat.</p>
<h2>Evolution didn’t end at the Stone Age</h2>
<p>One of the central themes in any palaeolithic diet is to draw on the arguments that our bodies have not evolved much over the past <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.4065/79.1.101">10,000 years</a> to adapt to agriculture-based foods sources. This is nonsense.</p>
<p>There is now abundant evidence for <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/past-5-000-years-prolific-for-changes-to-human-genome-1.11912">widespread genetic change</a> that occurred during the Neolithic or with the beginnings of agriculture.</p>
<p>Large-scale genomic studies have found that more than 70% of protein coding gene variants and around 90% of disease causing variants in living people whose ancestors were agriculturalists arose in the past 5,000 years or so. </p>
<p>Textbook examples include genes associated with lactose tolerance, starch digestion, alcohol metabolism, detoxification of plant food compounds and the metabolism of protein and carbohydrates: all mutations associated with a change in diet.</p>
<p>The regular handling of domesticated animals, and crowded living conditions that eventually exposed people to disease-bearing insects and rodents, led to an assault on our immune system.</p>
<p>It has even been suggested that the light hair, eye and skin colour seen in Europeans may have resulted from a diet poor in vitamin D among early farmers, and the need to produce more of it through increased UV light exposure and absorption. </p>
<p>So again, extensive evidence has emerged that humans have evolved significantly since the Stone Age and <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/10/david-attenborough-humans-still-evolving">continue to do so</a>, despite some uninformed commentators still <a href="http://bigthink.com/videos/mankind-has-stopped-evolving-2">questioning</a> whether evolution in humans has stalled.</p>
<h2>A difficult choice</h2>
<p>In the end, the choices we make about what to eat should be based on good science, not some fantasy about a lost Stone Age paradise.</p>
<p>In other words, like other areas of preventative medicine, our diet and lifestyle choices should be based on scientific evidence not the latest, and perhaps even harmful, commercial fad.</p>
<p>If there is one clear message from ethnographic studies of recent hunter-gatherers it’s that variation – in lifestyle and diet – was the norm.</p>
<p>There is no single lifestyle or diet that fits all people today or in the past, let alone the genome of our whole species.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/34605/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Darren Curnoe receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p>We still hear and read a lot about how a diet based on what our Stone Age ancestors ate may be a cure-all for modern ills. But can we really run the clock backwards and find the optimal way to eat? It’s…Darren Curnoe, Human evolution specialist, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/334942014-10-28T12:15:27Z2014-10-28T12:15:27ZJoint winners of Maddox Prize spoke out about science despite abuse and legal threats<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63006/original/cxswzt25-1414492485.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Standing up for science.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Sense About Science</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The 3rd annual John Maddox Prize has been <a href="http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/maddox-prize-2014.html">awarded</a> to Emily Willingham, a science writer in the US, and David Robert Grimes, a physicist at the University of Oxford, in recognition of their work in the face of public hostility.</p>
<p>This year’s winners are both science writers, passionate about the discussion of complex scientific topics including those often ambushed by an anti-science contingent. Both have faced direct abuse following publication of their articles – which have addressed contentious issues. Undeterred, both have fought on and continue to publish on challenging topics. Their efforts are helping keep discussion based on the facts prominent in the public domain.</p>
<p><a href="http://twitter.com/ejwillingham">Willingham</a> is a freelance science journalist whose evidence-based <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2014/04/30/blame-wakefield-for-missed-autism-gut-connection/">article</a>: “Blame Wakefield for missed autism-gut connection” drew intense criticism and a lawsuit from Andrew Wakefield, the discredited scientist known for his now-retracted 1998 Lancet paper on the alleged link between vaccines and autism. She criticised the “red herring and the subsequent noxious cloud that his fraud left over any research examining autism and the gut”.</p>
<p>Willingham’s self-declared passion is “presenting accurate, evidence-based information”. She says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Standing up for science and public health in the face of not only unyielding but also sometimes threatening opposition can be tiring and demoralising.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="http://twitter.com/drg1985">Grimes</a> is a post-doctoral researcher at the University of Oxford in the UK, working on modelling oxygen distribution in tumours. He has been awarded the Maddox Prize for reaching out to the public through his writing on a range of challenging and controversial issues, including nuclear power and climate change. </p>
<p>Grimes continues to present the evidence, despite receiving threats, particularly surrounding <a href="http://choiceireland.org/content/facts-still-sacred-despite-irelands-spectrum-conflicting-views-abortion">discussion on abortion in Ireland</a>. Following his article on <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/aug/30/six-stubborn-myths-cancer">six myths about cancer</a>, in which he addressed the “dubious and outlandish” information that can be found on the internet, he received physical and digital hate-mail.</p>
<p>Often, when it comes to divisive or emotive issues such as these, fringe voices are the loudest and can often drown out or bully others out of the argument. In talking about climate change, genetic modification, vaccinations and reproductive rights, the winners of the 2014 John Maddox Prize have made it their responsibility to ensure evidence-based arguments are making their way into the public domain, to influence and empower the silent majority. </p>
<h2>Standing up for science</h2>
<p>Science writing is continually improving. A <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/dust-to-dust-1.16137">recent editorial</a> in the journal Nature recognises this:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Too many scientists dismiss the media and journalists as sloppy and unwilling to engage in both detail and ambiguity. In fact, there can be no branch of journalism as self-scrutinising and anxious about its performance as that which covers science.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And yet there remains public confusion on key scientific issues. One of the problems is that as scientists discover more and more about the world, the evidence base changes and experts are forced to change their minds and challenge what had previously been accepted as facts. </p>
<p>Strong anti-science voices not only muddy the waters, but also cause the scientific community to be reticent to engage. This can only hamper the public’s understanding of science – so it’s very important that those who are determined to stand up for science and evidence are given support and recognition.</p>
<p>The John Maddox Prize is a joint venture between the science-communication charity Sense about Science, Nature and the Kohn Foundation. Established in 2012, it is awarded to those who stand up for science, often in the face of adversity, on matters that are important to the public. </p>
<p>Sir John Maddox was the editor of Nature for 22 years and was a passionate scientist and writer who encouraged public debates based on sound science and evidence. </p>
<p>The prize is open to nominations for any kind of public activity, including all forms of writing, speaking and public engagement, which addresses misleading information about scientific or medical issues in any forum, brings sound evidence to bear in a public or policy debate or helps people to make sense of a complex scientific issue.</p>
<p>Winners of the prize are those who go above and beyond their obligation in standing up for science, and show strength and resolve in dealing with negative repercussions.</p>
<p>The 2013 winner was <a href="https://theconversation.com/david-nutt-i-was-sacked-i-was-angry-i-was-right-19848">David Nutt</a>, who was sacked from the UK government’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. His alleged mistake was to publish a paper that claimed that horse-riding was riskier than consuming ecstasy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/33494/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lydia is member of the Voice of Young Science, which is run by Sense About Science.</span></em></p>The 3rd annual John Maddox Prize has been awarded to Emily Willingham, a science writer in the US, and David Robert Grimes, a physicist at the University of Oxford, in recognition of their work in the…Lydia Le Page, Post-doctoral researcher, The University of EdinburghLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.