Scientists must solve growing trust problem

[Klaatu]

Scientists must solve growing trust problem

Mercury News Editorial

Scientists are facing a crisis of trust.

A Pew Research Center poll released Jan. 29 shows a huge gap between the views of scientists and the general public on a range of issues -- not just climate change but also genetically modified foods, vaccinations, the use of animals in research and the threat of overpopulation. Furthermore, as scientific theories evolve, today's instant mass communication of each step forward and back undermines belief in facts that are proven, like the ability of vaccines to all but eliminate a disease.

Lecturing people isn't the answer. Alan Leshner, the outgoing CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, made that clear Wednesday when he met with this newspaper's Editorial Board. Scientists instead need to engage the public in a forthright conversation about the importance of science to society, he said.

Thousands of scientists are gathered in San Jose this weekend for the AAAS annual meeting. We hope they're grappling with how to begin that public conversation. Silicon Valley's science-based economy should be an inspiration.

Federal funding for R&D in areas such as energy and medicine has dropped 10 percent in the past six years -- and these are areas people consider important. Overall, R&D as a percentage of total federal spending is at its lowest level since 1956.

America's changing attitudes toward science and diminishing funding for research are not entirely a cause-and-effect phenomenon. Americans believe in roads and bridges but don't want to pay to maintain them, either. And like declining infrastructure, the decline of scientific research and the consequences for Americans' lives and economic advancement are worrisome.

Increasingly, Americans believe that what's called science is actually political posturing. For example, only half of the adults surveyed by Pew said climate change is mostly due to human activity, while 87 percent of scientists believe it is; 37 percent of Americans think genetically modified foods are safe, compared to 88 percent of scientists; 68 percent of adults say childhood vaccines should be required, while 86 percent of scientists think so.

And 82 percent of scientists believe world population will be a major problem, while only 59 percent of Americans agree.

In a January editorial in Science magazine, Lesher wrote that only 52 percent of scientists say this "is a good time for science," down from 76 percent as recently as 2009. The disparity not only puts future funding for science in danger, Leshner said, but also carries the risk that America's best young minds will no longer want to pursue research as a career. That would be disastrous for Silicon Valley.

Community and political leaders have a role in restoring respect for the pursuit of scientific truth. But Lesher is right that scientists themselves need to be more engaged in fostering understanding of their independence, motivation and actual work.

source
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_27516835/mercury-news-editorial-scientists-must-solve-growing-trust

[Slavic]

The growing anti-vaccination trend in the US population worries me. Vaccination works wonders if it is administered to the entire population. Once enough people stop vaccinating, then the chance of catching an archaic disease increases exponentially.

[Mr. Piccolo]

I am puzzled by the attempt to blame things like defunding scientific research on the views of the population as a whole. Politicians most likely make these funding decisions based on whether or not they serve the interests of their capitalist paymasters. Your average voter really has little impact on these or other decisions by the government.

Science will be on a better footing once it is freed from the shackles of capitalism and the profit system.

[Klaatu]

Your average voter really has little impact on these or other decisions by the government.

That's because too many voters are misinformed, uneducated, or just plain stupid.

Ed Shultz (The Ed Show) calls these people "low-information voters." That about sums it up.

[tuwix]

Scientists must solve growing trust problem

Since science is driven by bourgeois objectives frequently, it's nothing strange that lower classes don't trust it. The most distorted science are economics likely that were transformed into neoliberal religion with dogmas, gurus, saints and holy books. Other sciences are influenced too. All researches about other form of energy are restrained by energetic lobbies...

[Creative Destruction]

uh, why is it up to scientists to "solve" this problem? it's not an issue they cultivated.

[Klaatu]

uh, why is it up to scientists to "solve" this problem? it's not an issue they cultivated.

True, but they are probably the only ones intelligent enough and unbiased enough to find an answer?

[Creative Destruction]

True, but they are probably the only ones intelligent enough and unbiased enough to find an answer?

not necessarily. this is something that social scientists and psychologists have been going back and forth about for years. but, it's not up to a physicist or a meteorologist to provide solutions to this issue -- mainly because it's not their area and they probably don't have the answers anyway.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Since science is driven by bourgeois objectives frequently, it's nothing strange that lower classes don't trust it.

The majority of these anti-vaxxer types aren't really "lower-class", but generally relatively well-off and at least economically stable 'middle-class' white-collar workers who, being helicopter parents and paranoid to the extreme, go around on the Internet and believe whatever dumb, delusional comment they find on a youtube video or end up clicking links to NaturalNews.

[tuwix]

^^And I didn't write about anti-vaxxers only but about reasons of general distrust to science.

[piet11111]

The reason why science loses credibility is because under capitalism its secondary to profits.

Just one example is how "safe" asbestos was.

[Klaatu]

The reason why science loses credibility is because under capitalism its secondary to profits.

And furthermore, those profits are used increasingly to not only buy bogus science, (e.g. climate change denial) it is also used to buy elected officials. While this is nothing new, it is growing factorially (that is, much more than exponentially) We are seeing a developing capitalist dictatorship in it's infancy. Grave danger to society lies ahead.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I think the anti-vaccination shit goes deeper than simple ignorance or misinformation. That doctor who was all over the news a few weeks ago kept going on about the purity of his child, and given his popularity with those people it seems like that's a concept that resonated with them. There is a real kind of supremacy at work with it, where these awful 'highminded' liberals get up on their ridiculous pedestal and look down on and denounce the vaccinated herd trying to deprive their pure children of some kind of essence. That's got nothing to do with trusting scientists, it's an ideological issue.

[Creative Destruction]

I think the anti-vaccination shit goes deeper than simple ignorance or misinformation. That doctor who was all over the news a few weeks ago kept going on about the purity of his child, and given his popularity with those people it seems like that's a concept that resonated with them. There is a real kind of supremacy at work with it, where these awful 'highminded' liberals get up on their ridiculous pedestal and look down on and denounce the vaccinated herd trying to deprive their pure children of some kind of essence. That's got nothing to do with trusting scientists, it's an ideological issue.

It's not just liberals. This is about a half/half issue for conservatives and liberals. Conservatives obviously have the added issue of it being a governmental mandate, but they still have the same superiority complex with regards to the purity of their children. Also, trusting scientists often comes down to whether it's an ideological issue. With climate change, people's trust in what climatologists are putting out is pretty clearly tied to whatever ideology you hold. It's both ways.

Even if you were to pin it exclusively to ideology, though, it has more to do with rank individualism as an overarching concept in the American political landscape, which infects both liberals and conservatives. Parents who are obsessed with the idea that, basically, their kids are their property and they're off-limits to social encroachment.

[Creative Destruction]

The reason why science loses credibility is because under capitalism its secondary to profits.

Just one example is how "safe" asbestos was.

Loses its credibility among whom? For a lot of people, the profit factor is what builds credibility with scientists. Otherwise, for example, you get people who complain (and, yes, rather inconsistently) that climate science is all junk because climate scientists are just in it to raid the public treasury. Meanwhile, the oil industry funded scientists, for whom the profitability of their patrons are detrimental, are some how credible in this area, as well as "other scientists" who don't actually have extensive training in climate science, like meteorologists.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I have to be honest I've never met a conservative that opposed vaccinations, only liberals. I'm sure they exist but I do think this is predominantly a liberal issue. Certainly a vile kind of individualism is at play though. The logic seems to be that we as a society put so much effort into protecting the weak members, in the sense of an immune system in this instance, that we in turn put the 'strong' members in undue danger. And so these heroic parents are taking a stand to protect their 'strong and pure' children knowing full well that they put others in danger. Certainly this logic can be found at work in any other modern reactionary ideology, white nationalists, MRAs, etc., but this instance seems to have a liberal bent in that it also hides behind some circle of life, kumbaya horseshit as well.

[Creative Destruction]

I have to be honest I've never met a conservative that opposed vaccinations, only liberals. I'm sure they exist but I do think this is predominantly a liberal issue. Certainly a vile kind of individualism is at play though. The logic seems to be that we as a society put so much effort into protecting the weak members, in the sense of an immune system in this instance, that we in turn put the 'strong' members in undue danger. And so these heroic parents are taking a stand to protect their 'strong and pure' children knowing full well that they put others in danger. Certainly this logic can be found at work in any other modern reactionary ideology, white nationalists, MRAs, etc., but this instance seems to have a liberal bent in that it also hides behind some circle of life, kumbaya horseshit as well.

It is a "bi-partisan" issue, according to the polls. (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/conservatives_and_liberals_hold_anti_science_views _anti_vaxxers_are_a_bipartisan.html) It just happens that, in this instance, some prominent liberals tend to be louder about it. That doesn't take away from the actual consequence, though: people who don't get up and preach about it as much (probably because conservatives are busy complaining about the state of climate science) are still not getting their kids vaccinated. Who's more of an asshole about it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

That poll seems to be asking who should have a say in deciding to get a child vaccinated, not whether they personally would vaccinate a child or not. Even then, it's still not really about anti-science feelings its bullshit culture-war non-sense that our media is fascinated by.

[piet11111]

Loses its credibility among whom? For a lot of people, the profit factor is what builds credibility with scientists. Otherwise, for example, you get people who complain (and, yes, rather inconsistently) that climate science is all junk because climate scientists are just in it to raid the public treasury. Meanwhile, the oil industry funded scientists, for whom the profitability of their patrons are detrimental, are some how credible in this area, as well as "other scientists" who don't actually have extensive training in climate science, like meteorologists.

Look closely at the example of asbestos.

A material that we where told that it was safe until the ever increasing mountain of evidence to the contrary started to challenge that assertion.
And then science concluded that it was a dangerous but this fact was hidden from the general public for decades.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Yeah but then all those people who had been betrayed by science accepted the new science that said it was indeed harmful. I mean, did they all perform tests themselves to confirm that prolonged inhalation would be harmful? If they didn't, who did? Even the anti-vaccination people have their own 'science'. Belief in science is not the issue at hand.

[Creative Destruction]

Look closely at the example of asbestos.

A material that we where told that it was safe until the ever increasing mountain of evidence to the contrary started to challenge that assertion.
And then science concluded that it was a dangerous but this fact was hidden from the general public for decades.

That's not a credibility issue for science. It's a credibility issue for the people who had it hidden away from the general public; that is, the industry. You're conflating the two.

[piet11111]

Yeah but then all those people who had been betrayed by science accepted the new science that said it was indeed harmful. I mean, did they all perform tests themselves to confirm that prolonged inhalation would be harmful? If they didn't, who did? Even the anti-vaccination people have their own 'science'. Belief in science is not the issue at hand.

True but the topic is trust in scientists not science itself.

Currently there are scientists that say that fracking is safe while people can set their own tap water on fire.

The trust issue is that more and more people dont trust scientists to do proper science.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

That's true I kind of got side tracked. The point I was trying to make is that people don't really understand science to begin with. I think in general people 'agree' with science that conforms to their ideological outlook and then are 'skeptical' of science that does not. In either case the actual content of the supposed science never actually holds weight, since few people actually investigate it in the first place. With that in mind it's hard to see a poll like the one in the OP and come to the conclusion that it's something for scientists to solve, as it's not even the real issue but a symptom of something else.

[Creative Destruction]

True but the topic is trust in scientists not science itself.

Currently there are scientists that say that fracking is safe while people can set their own tap water on fire.

If you do want to get dryly technical about it: there have only been a few actual documented cases of this happening, and it resulted from rush jobs by the contractors that were setting up the infrastructure. Conceivably, doing slower, and more methodical, jobs will prevent this from happening, which stands to reason since not every -- not even most -- well near a fracking site is contaminated. It is literally the worst part of fracking that you could pick out and criticize, where it regards the science of it all. There's much more study to back up claims that fracking is dangerous because of how it interacts with the Earth (sometimes causing small earthquakes) or the damage it causes to the general environment, through, plainly, the extraction of natural gas and its eventual use.

Which gets to another point: much of the skepticism of science is based on having little information or not the right information. This, again, isn't a problem of the scientists. It's the problem of political leaders who dupe people into believing politics over science.


The trust issue is that more and more people dont trust scientists to do proper science.

As most people aren't actually scientists, it's extremely difficult for most to assert that scientists aren't doing "proper science." What you're saying here, to me, points to a certain level of scientific illiteracy as a basis of mistrust. Again, not an issue of the scientists.

[ckaihatsu]

A reminder on what the scientific method *is*....


You Are Here



http://s6.postimg.org/jlhry1h81/130828_You_Are_Here_aoi_xcf.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/z6z3hzt65/full/)

[Creative Destruction]

ckaihatsu... while appreciating the work you put into these pictures, they mean exactly squat, especially when you just drop them in places and expect it to be self-evident wtf is going on in them.

[ckaihatsu]

ckaihatsu... while appreciating the work you put into these pictures, they mean exactly squat, especially when you just drop them in places and expect it to be self-evident wtf is going on in them.


Yeah, whenever I get a confused response like yours I wonder why the Internet was ever invented....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

[Creative Destruction]

Yeah, whenever I get a confused response like yours I wonder why the Internet was ever invented....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

I understand what the scientific method is, you ass. Your picture does nothing to help or explain what's going on.

[ckaihatsu]

I understand what the scientific method is, you ass. Your picture does nothing to help or explain what's going on.


Not for some, apparently. What can I help you with today?

[Creative Destruction]

nothing, evidently.

[ckaihatsu]

nothing, evidently.


The best metaphor here is a flashlight in a dark room -- all the best with that.

[cyu]

Vaccinations I see as manufactured controversy. Just as capitalists might incite racism to divide and conquer the unruly masses, sometimes they create controversies with the explicit intent of distracting them - be it over abortion or whether people should eat eggs from the smaller end or the larger end. Other manufactured controversies include trading saber-rattling with nations like North Korea. You might even start a fake environmental organization, with "liberal" goals, that are ultimately just designed to waste people's time, rather than accomplish anything.

Many scientists I see as cowards - not the kind that would sell their own mothers, but rather the kind that have taken the path of least resistance. They generally have good intentions, but are too afraid to confront the powers that be, so they try to save the world through science, rather than politics. However, no matter how good technology gets, as long as the ruling class holds economic and political power, any advancements they make will just be another tool added to the arsenal of those who control society's levers of power. Only very rarely are any of their well-intentioned advancements able to run-around the control of the ruling class - those are the exceptions, not the rule.

It is because of this that technological advancement has resulted in unemployment and poverty, rather than giving the working class a life of leisure.

[Creative Destruction]

Vaccinations I see as manufactured controversy. Just as capitalists might incite racism to divide and conquer the unruly masses, sometimes they create controversies with the explicit intent of distracting them - be it over abortion or whether people should eat eggs from the smaller end or the larger end. Other manufactured controversies include trading saber-rattling with nations like North Korea. You might even start a fake environmental organization, with "liberal" goals, that are ultimately just designed to waste people's time, rather than accomplish anything.

Many scientists I see as cowards - not the kind that would sell their own mothers, but rather the kind that have taken the path of least resistance. They generally have good intentions, but are too afraid to confront the powers that be, so they try to save the world through science, rather than politics. However, no matter how good technology gets, as long as the ruling class holds economic and political power, any advancements they make will just be another tool added to the arsenal of those who control society's levers of power. Only very rarely are any of their well-intentioned advancements able to run-around the control of the ruling class - those are the exceptions, not the rule.

It is because of this that technological advancement has resulted in unemployment and poverty, rather than giving the working class a life of leisure.

Scientists are no more cowards than any other worker who doesn't outright challenge the power of the capitalists. I suppose we just have a world full of cowards.

[cyu]

Scientists are no more cowards than any other worker who doesn't outright challenge the power of the capitalists. I suppose we just have a world full of cowards.


Agreed. That's why I support armed union-members =]

[Thirsty Crow]

uh, why is it up to scientists to "solve" this problem? it's not an issue they cultivated.
It's an issue they seem to be, at best, ignoring and relying on science media and the education system to deal with the broader social ramifications and dissemination of both the aptitude in scientific methodology and current results.

The latter are a poor ally in any attempt at cultivating a scientifically minded mentality. So the real issue is the peculiar social isolation of the sciences.

I think it is surely up to the scientists to work out possible approaches to their social integration as scientists; not in a haphazard way, not in a localized way, but comprehensively and as broadly as possible.

[Creative Destruction]

It's an issue they seem to be, at best, ignoring and relying on science media and the education system to deal with the broader social ramifications and dissemination of both the aptitude in scientific methodology and current results.

The latter are a poor ally in any attempt at cultivating a scientifically minded mentality. So the real issue is the peculiar social isolation of the sciences.

I think it is surely up to the scientists to work out possible approaches to their social integration as scientists; not in a haphazard way, not in a localized way, but comprehensively and as broadly as possible.

I don't think you'll find a group of people as frustrated and hating of science media as scientists themselves. Unfortunately, they do not control those media companies and don't control publication choices outside of peer-reviewed journals.

I am also not sure where scientists are supposed cultivate minds but from the education system. Probably one of the biggest initiatives that scientists were able to bring about was the increase in STEM funding. If they have no other place to rely on, I really don't know where else they can go to reach and recruit for the sciences. The bugaboo there is that it often relies on private money, but that isn't so much out of choice than it is out of necessity.

This can't be all on the shoulders of the science community, because they've been trying. A lot of it is up to the public, but the public has largely been failing to offer any significant measure of help. Scientists obviously benefit a great deal from science literacy... and promotion has almost solely been on their shoulders.

[Thirsty Crow]

I don't think you'll find a group of people as frustrated and hating of science media as scientists themselves. Unfortunately, they do not control those media companies and don't control publication choices outside of peer-reviewed journals.I know; I kinda meant to imply that the relationship between the scientific community and science media is so screwed up, but the problem at least when I think about it all is just why don't members of said community come together with the purpose of creating their own venue of information dissemination and aptitude raising.

For instance, and going off my own experience, I surely know as a matter of fact that finances to start up an idependent media outlet, controlled by the scientific community in question, are possible to gather without much trouble when it comes to the university hub of social sciences in the capital of the country I live in; hell, much subsidiary work could be arranged without much burden upon the starting budget, starting from possible projects for student + professor teams (and students could gain ECTS points - that basic unit of academic evaluation in Europe, for such participation). Not to mention public lectures, workshops, and so on.

When it comes to public lectures; there was this one here about precarious labor, organized by the Association of Sociologists. I dug a bit to see where it was announced; apart from some specific online groups, the only place was the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences. Nobody thought that the Unemployment Office, alongside some casual and attractive flyer/poster design and/or ready explanation, was a good idea. Not to say that scores of un/deremployed would flock, but this is indicative of what I'm aiming at.


I am also not sure where scientists are supposed cultivate minds but from the education system. Probably one of the biggest initiatives that scientists were able to bring about was the increase in STEM funding. If they have no other place to rely on, I really don't know where else they can go to reach and recruit for the sciences. The bugaboo there is that it often relies on private money, but that isn't so much out of choice than it is out of necessity.
It's not an issue of recruitment in any meaningful sense of the word; it's one of outreach. Apart from the issue of the possible restructuring of the education system - which is a whole new can of worms.
Anyway, I think this is an active and sort of interesting question; I don't know of course exactly "where" or by what means, but I sure as hell am convinced that, broadly speaking, the scientific community foams at the mouth when it comes to destructive phenomena like mentioned in this thread, but currently does absolutely nothing to even rethink their social position and means of interaction with those people who're not part, nominally, of that community.

[Klaatu]

Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?
We live in an age when all manner of scientific knowledge—from climate change to vaccinations—faces furious opposition.
Some even have doubts about the moon landing.

full article
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/science-doubters/achenbach-text

The print version has the title: "The War on Science"