In January and into February, the Contra Costa Times published a series of articles relating to the public’s perception of science and scientists. To summarize, scientists are respected, but their work product is not.
In a report released January 29 by the Pew Research Center1 and based on a pair of surveys conducted in collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), it was reported that the American public agrees with scientists on the valuation of their integrity and effectiveness of scientists (high), but disagrees when it comes to their work: This is viewed poorly by the public, to the tune of a gap generally in the range of 20 percentage points. How can scientists garner respect for their training and integrity and have their work be unappreciated by many of the same people?
Trying to make sense of this, it is useful to look at how a public without high-level scientific education gathers information. Sources, including newspapers, television, radio, print and online publications, books and social media, among others, offer varying degrees of accuracy, and it is not hard to find “information” that conforms to one’s view of the world.
News programs that try to present a balanced view of current events often elevate junk science to a comparable level as quality science. The public is faced with the question: Which to believe? They may ask around, but most people are not able to provide a cogent reply.
It is relatively easy these days to form a foundation or research institute that seeks to perpetuate a specific world view and to obtain support from like-minded donors. Biased, even outlandish claims attract attention and receive coverage and create fear, uncertainty and doubt.
Perhaps the worst offenders are politicians, who compete for campaign contributions and parrot the claims of special interest groups. It is all too easy to find examples of large businesses providing junk science to regulators in support of self-serving business goals.2
Politicians also take positions based upon polling, regardless of facts. Chris Christie, the governor of New Jersey, flipped his position on measles vaccination in less than 12 hours on February 2nd, reversing his initial “pro-choice” stance, obviously meant to pander to the anti-government bloc in the Republican party. At the same time, Rand Paul, senator from Kentucky, was trying to appeal to those on all sides of the debate: He’s seen cases where vaccines cause “profound mental disorders; his own children are vaccinated; people should be able to choose, with the possible exception of some vaccines,” etc. Perhaps least helpful: “It’s an issue of freedom and public health.” This is one of those sound bites that hits the right notes without having any meaning at all.
Providing good information for people to make health-care decisions is important. All the dissonance makes a difficult task that much harder.
References
- Funk, C. and Rainie, L. Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society; http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/.
- Valliantos, E.G. Poison Spring: The Secret History of Pollution and the EPA. Bloomsbury Press: London, U.K., 2014.
Robert L. Stevenson, Ph.D., is Editor Emeritus, American Laboratory/Labcompare; e-mail: [email protected].