Getting The Public To Listen To Good Science 419
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "We all know that false or misleading science headlines are all too common these days and that misleading media combined with an apathetic and undereducated public lead to widespread ignorance. But the real question is, how can this trend be reversed? At a session at the recent AAAS meeting, a study was discussed indicating that what matters most is how the information is portrayed. While people are willing to defer to experts on matters of low concern, for things that affect them directly, such as breast cancer or childhood diseases, expertise only counts for as much as giving off a 'sense of honesty and openness,' and that it matters far less than creating a sense of empathy in deciding who people will listen to. In other words, it's not enough to merely report on it as an expert. You need to make sure your report exudes a sense of honesty, openness, empathy, and maybe even a hint of humor."
Yeah, but can you 'prove' it? (Score:5, Interesting)
But how to you start to explain the difference between a priori and a posteriori without people rolling their eyes and walking off?
Think globally, act locally (Score:5, Interesting)
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/20/0340238 [slashdot.org] http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/03/1644252 [slashdot.org]
and uninformed editorializing like this:
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/20/0031238 [slashdot.org]
Simple. (Score:5, Interesting)
The hard part would be implementing it. Standardized testing that can be agreed upon is probably a pipe dream for something like this, but if it could be done you'd never see parents take more of an interest in their child's education.
Re:Entertainment value (Score:5, Interesting)
Science education, world-wide if not in the US, has never been better. Scientists and engineers make up a larger share of our society than ever before in the history of mankind. Religion and ignorance have lost ground, while knowledge and understanding have gained.
Is there more to be done? Are we where we want to be in terms of scientific understanding? No, but we are on the right track as a species. The only things we can do is continue pushing the veil of ignorance steadily back, and doing our best to educate children in the way science actually works.
Re:What we have here (Score:5, Interesting)
What we have here is a marketing failure.
The average person is not very bright, is superstitious/religious, and only relates to the world in emotional terms. Instead of trying to change them, figure out how to do what their leaders do and "sell" them what you want them to think. Scientific method is for reaching future scientists/geeks/techies, but we need to get some leverage with the average schmuck on the street.
Don't let facts get in the way of good fun (Score:4, Interesting)
Is it really a net positive for science if it gives a very skewed version of what science is and how science works?
I would argue that the USA's peak of scientific interest was during the late 1960s when the space program was a national obsession and every second kid had a Nasa poster on their bedroom wall. Perhaps we have a lot of scientists and engineers now, but that is mainly a generational lag thing. Perhaps we know more about science now, but the interest is long gone. The current national obsessions (it there are any) are Britney Spears etc. The USA sure is not seeding the next generation of scientists.
Re:immunization (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Simple. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What we have here (Score:2, Interesting)
There have always been stupid people (Score:2, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Obscurantism (Score:4, Interesting)
If Dr. Smith from Bob Jones university gets on Fox news and says "Stem cells are made of ground up newborn babies and have absolutely no scientific merit, they just like killing babies," I can write angry letters but I can't actually arrest him (legally). There's no recourse there.
The poisonous lies are already out there, readily absorbed by anyone who is inclined to be opposed to stem cells because their pastor says they're wrong, cementing their opinion into place. Even if someone competent were to appear on that same show and immediately point out the flaws with that, people would walk away with what they wanted, which is not always the correct rebuttal. They'll remember "Stem cells are babies! That's terrible! Ought to be a crime!" And they'll vote.
Also, I think saying "anyone claiming 'the debate is over' on an area of active scientific dispute should be ignored" is pretty circular. Furthermore, debates are often over on a serious academic level while to non-academics the shouting match has just begun. Evolution is a good example of that. The debate is over, but the fundamentalists though will continue to argue for years to come.
As for consensus, most of the public won't spend more than 5 minutes thinking about something. It would be great if we could get them to realize the truth in scientific facts through education, but if you try to teach someone about the fundamentals of natural selection, walk them through the proof, they're going to change the channel rapidly and still be swayed the other way. If you point out that 99.999% of scientists agree on natural selection, they're going to be resistant to that
Re:What we have here (Score:2, Interesting)
I hate to shake your tree, but in my view "science" is a system of beliefs; one that we inherited from the period of the Enlightenment, and we have been developing in the western world for a few centuries, and that has been working out remarkably well, and as such we wish to extend it and support it and spread it. However, there is no denying that it is "one more" belief system, and in some cases, not the best one to adhere to (as anyone who was healed from cancer through integrative medicine would testify).
I am an academic and a scientist, and I believe in all my heart that in most cases science is the best thing we've got, and that its promotion is essential to the well being of our society.
However, it is self-deception to think science is beyond being yet another system of beliefs, and a socially-constructed one (particularly in the case of social science). That in itself doesn't disqualify science from being the right thing to do; it just requires us, as scientists, to remember that we are being funded by the people, and for the people. And while Democracy and Science might be occasionally in opposition, we cannot afford to ignore either element of the equation...
Re:Don't let facts get in the way of good fun (Score:3, Interesting)
My daughter got into Discovery's shows about fishes, and now sincerely wants to become a marine biologist so she can learn more about them. Yeah, I'd say it's a net positive.
Re:Simple. (Score:3, Interesting)
Standardized testing and a standardized curriculum will never be accepted by a large portion of the public. Unless the standard happens to be teaching out of the bible.
Look at all the moaning and crying people do over a mention of evolution in a science text. Or attempts to slip creationist material into schools.
If you try to implement this nationally, you will run into the tradition of local control over schools. That's a brick wall you will spend the rest of your life beating your head against.
Just heard a talk from Henry Jenkins (Score:3, Interesting)
Bring science to the people... (Score:3, Interesting)
Data mining and mapping peer-reviewed research to find all the effective treatment options for any given disease.
Taking "obesity" as an example [curehunter.com], you can quickly see strong relationships with "insulin" and "exercise".
And in a few clicks you can read the supporting article abstracts.
Whether or not average people want to read scientific journal articles is debatable, but we can cut through the pharma marketing noise and bring them the sourced research that matters to them.
With goal seeking algorithms and peer-reviewed source data I think information overload and Google spam can be fought.
If everyone was a scientist (Score:1, Interesting)
Mythbusters! (Score:3, Interesting)
Many of the 'real' science programs on TV spend far less time on explaining the process of science, and instead present the subject (whatever it is), as a sequence of 'facts', with little discussion.
I really think that Mythbusters is probably the best science promotion show on TV.
Re:Don't let facts get in the way of good fun (Score:4, Interesting)
A friend of mine was working toward a Masters in English. I was working toward a Masters in Biochemistry. After the graduation we compared our theses. Hers was 350 pages and took her one year to write. Mine was 52 pages long. She asked how I could get by "so easily" with only a 52 page thesis. I showed her one page on which was the elucidation of a new chemical which was a non-toxic, broad-spectrum anti-biotic active at 1 mg/L, 3-Amino-3,4-diHydrox-carbostyril. (It's been over 40 years, I hope I remembered that correctly!) "See that page?", I asked. "It took a full year to be able to write that one page alone".
While the pharmaceuticals looked at that compound they did not market it because they discovered that my research was public domain because the Welch Foundation Research grants (The Grape people) are all public domain.
I also pointed out that if ANY other researcher published ahead of me I would have to go back to square one and start over because my work would no longer have been original. (The only way she would have to start over was if she was caught plagiarizing but then she could never start over unless another school accepted her, which is doubtful.)