When Celebrities Speak on Science

Timberwolf0122 writes to mention that the website Sense About Science is encouraging stars not to comment on scientific issues without at least checking their facts. A somewhat amusing article on the BBC matches up a few comments made by celebrities with the factual reaction from experts in the field of study tackled by their blunder.

Comments

Ask a scientist

[BWJones]

I gotta say as a scientist and professor that I agree completely with this position of reserving comment in the public spotlight until you have done a little homework. All too often we have celebrities and politicians using their status to manipulate science to bend to a political whim or will, or simply to just espouse a misunderstanding. Fundamentally, the problem is that we have a very poor science education curriculum in many schools in the US and internationally and we get individuals who are high school dropouts become actors and are now capable of garnering much attention towards their issue of the moment. That is not intended to be insulting nor does it minimize their position or status, it is simply asking them to refrain from doing a job they are not qualified for.

We have minimized the importance of science in our lives and it is now biting us collectively in the ass in terms of environment, medicine, technological progress, and education. Rather than hamstringing scientists, and only allowing them to speak when it serves the political climate of the moment, I would very much like to see a return to using scientists expertise in more areas of society and policy, perhaps even increasing the numbers of consultants for politicians, and the entertainment industry, not just as a reality check, which so many seem to be mis-using scientists for, but also as a means to spur inquiry and progress in both the arts and sciences. The model of using scientists as regulators of policy and such is as old as 1950's Sci-Fi, but it has been no accident that during the most progressive periods in history, we have relied on scientists and others who are trained to think and inquire to make some of our biggest technological advancements. These advancements include great strides in medicine, prolonging life-spans and improving the quality of life as well as ending global wars and in the absence of political influences, ending famine and disease.

Re:Ask a scientist

[Erwos]

I read that, and thought to myself: is science becoming the new religion of the 21st century?

* "Don't act without consulting a scientist!"
* "Science is responsible for all good things!"
* "Only say things approved by science!"
* "Public policy made by scientists is the best policy!"

Did I say religion? Looking at those, I think I meant _theocracy_. And there's not even a vestige of morality to hold check on some of the crazier impulses...

Science is responsible for many, many important things, and it is damned well something we need to emphasize more in schools. It is not, in my opinion, the end-all, be-all of humanity, and you are apparently casting it as such, or nearly so. I know you mean well, so I'm sorry to call you out, but like politicians and clergymen, scientists are starting to grate on me a bit with their attitude of "I know everything".

Re:Ask a scientist

[BWJones]

I have no problem with you calling me out. In fact, I welcome it.

You have read all of those things into what I said. I never said "don't act without consulting a scientist" or any of the other things you suggest. What I said was "I would very much like to see a return to using scientists expertise in more areas of society and policy, perhaps even increasing the numbers of consultants for politicians, and the entertainment industry, not just as a reality check, which so many seem to be mis-using scientists for, but also as a means to spur inquiry and progress in both the arts and sciences." which is very far away from anything you inferred. My position is that when we make decisions that can benefit from science and individuals who are trained to think and question, we are better off for it. That does not mean that religion gets pushed away, nor does it mean that science always does "good". What it does mean is that we become more careful about some of the things we do, especially as technology and power become more available. It also means that if we introduce more science into our daily lives, we become less reliant on small groups of powerful people to vet what we think, do and believe and we become less vulnerable to temporal vanities or trends.

Re:Ask a scientist

[meta-monkey]

Yes it's called "Engineer's Disease." People are experts on one topic, so they think they're experts on all topics.

Re:Ask a scientist

[meta-monkey]

Okay. Please starve yourself to death then.

Re:Ask a scientist

[BWJones]

Now, I am not completely sure on this concept, but I'll throw it out there for others to comment on and vet that know:

Famine typically happens in areas of low education, high poverty and unstable governments and monetary valuation, right? Also, as education levels go up, the number of children people have decreases..... So, the concept is that we invest more time and effort in fewer numbers of children that ultimately have less of an impact on the environment. If we maintain proper stewardship, this is possible. For an example, look at Japan who while maintaining one of the highest population densities of any developed nation, still possesses the highest percentage of old growth forest coverage.

Re:Ask a scientist

[distilledprodigy]

You say %50 for all of these things, but don't mention that the %50 isn't the same people every time. You make it sound like %50 of America is stupid. So %100 of americans are included in the whole that do or do not believe in the topics you stated. For instance, I don't believe in evolution but I believe in the health risks associated with second-hand-smoking. Everyone everywhere oversells their position on subjects to further promote that position. You are no different.

Re:Ask a scientist

[dpilot]

Schools... Beyond that, it's the parents who don't bring their kids up with a sense of self-discipline and value for education. You know, the same parents who, when the kid misbehaves in school, come to the defense of "their poor child" instead of reinforcing the discipline.

Re:Ask a scientist

[Phisbut]

Anyhow about the science curriculum in US schools, they are actually not that bad.

When creationism is taught as science, and evolution is merely a theory that can be easily discarded, then yes, I'd say the science curriculum in US schools is lacking.

Re:Ask a scientist

[NoTheory]

The obnoxious part about straw-man arguments like parent's post is that it is premised on the very problem that scientists and realists are so pissed off about.

A culture of fact isn't predicated on the specific individuals involved. The point is to leave behind cults of personality, and focus on the content of what is said. Good scientists* don't want to be celebrities, or rock-stars. They don't want people to follow everything they do. They don't want hoards of groupies or worshipers. They want people to learn about and understand the things they're making decisions about.

[* note i said good scientists. There are plenty of scientists who want to be celebrities or rockstars. But that's for the sake of their own ego, not for the advancement of science]

Re:Ask a scientist

[smilindog2000]

One more thing... please don't quote Fox News as if they are an unbiased authority. Fox is controlled by Rupert Murdoch, and Fox has a politically motivated view on global warming. For a good review on the issue, please read the wikipedia article. Until then, so long as you're quoting Fox News, and remain poorly informed, your part of the problem, not the solution.

Re:Ask a scientist

[alkaloids]

I feel like science getting this rap as "a religion" is a bit strange to say the least. It's probably because the religious people get upset about their views and beliefs being challenged by scientists, but I guess that's kind of what scientists do by definition - challenge and examine beliefs. Being "a scientist" (without going to a book or website that defines such things) is being someone who makes observations about the world, makes inferences based on those observations, then tests those observations. Such activities can also be described as "thinking rationally". So let's take your little list and replace your use of "science" with "thinking rationally".

* "Don't act without thinking rationally!"
* "Rational thinking is responsible for all good things!"
* "Only say things approved by thinking rationally!"
* "Public policy made by those that think rationally is the best policy!"

That's not so greivous now, is it?

So I do think that there are a lot of cases of someone being an expert in one field and leveraging that respect into other areas that they have no expertise in at all, and scientists are certainly wrong about a ton of things. But that's what we do. We make a supposition and test that theory. To not do so is to live life totally randomly and recklessly or with someone else calling all your shots, which to me sounds more dangerous.

I DO have serious issues with "big science" and the political landscape of today's funding agencies and the fact that GW and big oil companies get to dictate where "public" research dollars are spent and are really perverting science by wishing to "push" it in some way, but that's a topic for a different discussion. All told, the alternative to science is...?

Re:Ask a scientist

[mspohr]

This is about science (fact), not faith (religion). The article is about not looking stupid by saying things that are not true.

Science is not religion. It is based on observable (repeatable) fact.

Religion is not observable, provable fact, it is faith. If you observe a god acting to cure disease, end famine and war, etc. then you could call it science. However, if all you can do is hope that god will cure disease, end famine and war, etc. then you call it faith and it is a religion.

Science is not a religion.

Re:Ask a scientist

[Xzzy]

Well, if it were treated as an individual, "Slashdot" could be an expert on a great many topics, because I guarantee there's quite a few "experts" that read the site, who are probably authorities on a great many different things.

Problem is they're either all too smart to post, or sit at +2 for eternity because they took too long to post, or got ignored to make room for a +5 funny. ;) Sometimes going back to a week old article can find some really interesting comments.

Re:Ask a scientist

[Total_Wimp]

I gotta say as a scientist and professor that I agree completely with this position of reserving comment in the public spotlight until you have done a little homework. All too often we have celebrities and politicians using their status to manipulate science to bend to a political whim or will, or simply to just espouse a misunderstanding.

But it helps if the educated scientists give more reliable answers than the celebrities.

In the first example in the article, Melinda Messenger says she doesn't want man-made chemicals in her or her children's bodies. Though this does ignore the fact that most chemicals aren't very harmful in the doses we're likely to encounter, the scientists response actually seems to support her point.

Dr John Hoskins: "Most leave quickly but some stay: asbestos and silica in our lungs, dioxins in our blood. The most important thing is dose: one aspirin cures a headache, a hundred kills."

Sounds to me like he's almost completely supporting her point that putting a lot of chemicals in your body can be bad. His other points, in paragraph 1 and 3 point out that our routine exposure is probably small, but doesn't actually refute what she's saying, that we should be wary of introducing more chemicals unless we know what effect they'll have on us. His entire response is framed as pointing out the flaws in her arguments, but his actual arguments say otherwise.

The worst one was at the end. Joanna Lumley says we shouldn't be putting chemicals and growth stimulants in our cattle. She probably doesn't have any proof that these things can hurt people, and the scientist points that out.

But the scientist, Prof John Toy, uses these words: "It is essential that 'cancer-causing' claims are based only on scientifically proven facts, not scaremongering. There is no definitive evidence that controlled food additives cause cancer.

Replace "cancer" with "global warming" and replace "controlled food additives" with "human activity" and you have almost exactly the argument used by oil companies and many conservatives to claim global warming does not exist. It's not a logical argument, it's an argument that insinuates that any possible error on her part, no matter how small, makes his argument correct. The words "definitive" and "fact" are the nasty ones in this case. The truth is, science is usually somewhat vague and full of additional questions and problems that must be solved, especially in answering new questions, like the kind that are constantly coming up in the rapidly changing field of food additives. He's not claiming he has any proof that she's wrong, he's just claiming that because she's not holding "definitive facts" in her hand, that makes him right.

Professor Toy then goes on to say, "We do know that half of cancers are caused by lifestyle factors such as being overweight." He's using this as an argument that the actress is incorrect. Once again, though it may sound like a refutation, it's just more false logic. Just because his statement may be true says absolutely nothing about the accuracy of her statement. In fact, half the factors being lifestyle related point very strongly to half of them being something else.

My whole long-winded point is that this kind of non-science repudiation of non-scientists may work just fine to convince average Joe that celebrity X is wrong, but it does very little to teach him the type of arguments that are valid. In fact, it cements in Joe's mind that since scientist use arguments based on logical falicies, that those kinds of arguments must be scientifically valid. It's a bad message to be sending.

BTW, the other two actually looked good to me. They're straight forward responses to reasonably straight forward comments.]

TW

Re:Ask a scientist

[Grym]

Yes it's called "Engineer's Disease." People are experts on one topic, so they think they're experts on all topics.

To be fair, though, the scientific disciplines aren't completely insular and unrelated as many people would like to think. Believe it or not, but my Biology classes taught me a lot (even if only tangentially, at times) about law, computer science, politics, and even philosophy.

And in all honesty, the most important aspect of a science education is teaching the method through which one should derive his or her information and opinions. Because while our understanding of the world may change, the logic by which we draw those conclusions--by and large--won't. And, once you've trained yourself to rationally analyze things, you can apply that skill to any intellectual pursuit. The same cannot be said for arts, such as, for example, acting. The skill of acting, may make you be able to act like you have an informed opinion, but it doesn't help you actually say anything of worth.

So, if given the choice, I'd be much more open to listen to what an engineer has to say about global warming than Leonardo DiCaprio. And that is why I come to slashdot, instead of something like Leo's "Eco-site" when I'm in search of an informed opinion and not a good laugh.

-Grym

Re:Ask a scientist

[Overly Critical Guy]

I love when people claim Fox News biased and then never cite examples, particularly of this "politically motivated view on global warming" that you claim (let me guess, they're "petrol-funded?"). You have no idea how many people I've talked to who told me Fox News is evil and biased but will never give me a specific case. CNN and other stations are just as "controlled" by their owners as any other news organization, and CNN has made tons of reporting errors, to the point that their head guy Eason Jordan had to leave the company a few years ago (I'm sure you never heard about it because the media purposely buried the story). In fact, a UCLA/Stanford study found Brit Hume's show to be the most centrist, accurate show on TV.

It seems to me there are some people who are left-of-center who simply don't like the fact Fox News airs conservative viewpoints on the same level as liberal viewpoints, because they're so used to the rest of the media airing conservative viewpoints with derision as if they're a minority opinion that doesn't make up half the country. Just today, the New York Times theater journalist called Patricia Heaton an "extremist" because she's opposed to abortion, for example. Well, the majority of the country has issues with abortion, according to polls. But the traditional media tends to frame viewpoints they don't like so that they appear abnormal and outside the mainstream. Whether you like it or not, all the polls, studies, and research done has shown a left-of-center bias in the press.

Re:Ask a scientist

[Total_Wimp]

When creationism is taught as science, and evolution is merely a theory that can be easily discarded, then yes, I'd say the science curriculum in US schools is lacking.

It's worth pointing out that those were a tiny fraction of the schools in our country, they got very widespread condemnation for their actions, they lost every important court case and an entire school board was replaced by the voters because of this.

When I see any group with problems, I have less of a tendency to judge the group based on those problems than to judge the group based on how they deal with those problems. In this case, the problem was small (compared to the group as a whole) and it was dealt with swiftly. I know the media coverage made it seem bigger, but that's ok with me. It made the smack-down look bigger and left a big neon warning to anyone who tries again.

TW

Re:Ask a scientist

[nelsonal]

I think it's the same issue as the Wall St Journal. It's a fine newspaper that frequently does indepth ground breaking reporting on their fields. You'd be pretty hard pressed to notice a whole lot of differences in the reporting on national stories in it or any other national paper, but it would have far more coverage of topical (business) news but on national issues both are very similar. However, their editorial pages range from center right (in the US) to wacknut far right. Because of this the whole paper is commonly percieved as a far right paper. I blame the inability of people to separate facts from opinions.
If Murdoch is to be blamed for anything it's pandering to the lowest common denominator in his news gathering for ratings (which has been a pattern of his far longer than the first day Fox News started broadcasting).

Re:Ask a scientist

[KermodeBear]

Whether or not you believe Fox News if biased, I linked to two other sources with similar information: A newspaper's website, and a major university. Somehow I doubt that this information is a Big Scary Fox News Conspiracy. It has also appeared in numerous scientific journals, besides. It is sad that you would piss all over me simply because ONE link went to Fox News. Sheesh.

Re:Ask a scientist

[Bugmaster]

I think the grandparent poster's main idea was not to defer more of our decisions to scientists, but for everyone to become more scientifically-minded. We live in a world where each individual wields an almost unimaginable amount of power at his fingertips -- just crash your car into a wall at 90 mph to see what I mean -- and it could really help if everyone understood a little about how this power truly works.

Ugh

[SengirV]

Yet idiots in the US clammor for celebs to speak on their behalf in front of congress. I know that when I want to know more about ALAR and it's effects, I look to Merrill Streep.

Three words......

[8127972]

Never Gonna Happen.

Stars think that because of the fact that they are famous and are seen by millions of people, they have the right to have an opinion about anything. There are times that that is good (George Clooney on Dafur for example) and I personally have no problem with that as long as the opinion as long as it is an informed opinion. But the fact is that stars are just like end users with computer hardware or software. They are not going to read something to avoid shooting themselves in the foot. They'll just start shooting and hope for the best.

Re:Three words......

[Nos.]

Stars think that because of the fact that they are famous and are seen by millions of people, they have the right to have an opinion about anything.
Not quite. Because they live in a "free" society, they have a right to an opinion on everything. The problem is that the mainstream public believes that if someone famous says something, it must be true.

Re:Three words......

[gstoddart]

Stars think that because of the fact that they are famous and are seen by millions of people, they have the right to have an opinion about anything.

No, stars recognize that (like the rest of us) they are entitled to have an opinion about anything. The problem is, if you're believing Tom Cruise's opinions about anti-depressants, you're a flipping idiot, because his opinion is based on junk science and the fact that he's a raving lunatic.

But, stars with opinions are no different than anyone else with an opinion, except for the fact that they are seen by millions of people. But, that doesn't mean they're gonna be any more careful about having them than the rest of us.

Cheers

While we're at it

[Marcos Eliziario]

I don't know about you in the rest of the world. But here in Brasil, we would be very thankful if they stoped talking about politics also.

What about us?

[AutopsyReport]

It's so easy to blast a celebrity for an inaccurate talk on scientific matters. However, each of us are guilty of spewing out incorrect information because we believed it was right.

I don't care if Tom Cruise or Donald Trump speak authoritatively. What I do care about is the friends, neighbors, teachers, and other adults that have an overwhelming influence over their peers (children, students, friends, etc.). To the public, Cruise & Trump are fiction. To you, your teacher talking about Evolution is real.

I expect someone will point out the difference between my neighbour and a celebrity is the latter has an audience of thousands and therefore has a larger effect. That would seem to be true, but I highly doubt it. Only the disillusioned will absorb the words of a celebrity. But embracing the information that a friend, neighbor or teacher imparts to you is a natural thing because we typically have trust in those surrounding us. A teacher has so much more authority and leverage to influence you into believing incorrectly, a level of influence that Tom Cruise cannot match.

This isn't to say that television is not influential, only that there should be stronger fears than the celebritity: those people (including ourselves) close to us that impart incorrect knowledge on a daily basis.

Re:What group of people...

[glock22ownr]

To your point celebrities need to shut up about politics, world events, and their ideas of how to make the world better. That's like me offering up my opinions/knowledge of Quantum Physics... good read.. possibly amusing.. but about as useful as a turd in a punch bowl.

seconded.

[Ayanami Rei]

My ol' mother went to Catholic school for 9 years and she knew more about sex and birth control and all that than any of her other peers once she got to public high school.

Why would anybody listen to a 'celeb'???

[MindSlap]

Why Oh why would anybody even 'consider' the opinion of a celeb.
Granted, they have the 'right' to say anything they want. (Trouble is, what they say is asinine, moronic, and uniformed.)
'Celebs' are the mental equivalent of 8 year olds. Typically uneducated, live the life of 'me..me..me', and spend more time in front the mirror rather than a book.

Remember, just because they 'seem intelligent' on 'screen' doesnt me they are the same in the 'real world'.
These people 'pretend' in front of camera, they 'pretend' to be other than themselves, they speak words others have written, and walk from one end of stage to another on the cue of others. Basically they are well madeup puppets that can be animated without visible strings or a hand up their butt. (Oh Wait..In hollywierd I suspect the latter form of 'directing' occurs more often than we may think.)
These are hardly the qualifications for somebody capable coherent and independent thought.
(Just look at how many 'believe' Micheal Moore! That would be your first clue).

Dont confuse a 'celebs' intelligence with their 'feel good' causes. It doesnt take much of a brain (or any) to joint PETA or some other wacko group and thus claiming some 'higher ground' above us mere mortals.

Puleeeze.
Celebs? And their 'opinions'?
Hardly a matter of discussion, but rather a 'joke' on those that take them seriously.

Hey.. I still like cartoons. I would put any 'celebs' opinion up against Bugs Bunny's worldly thoughts anyday. It would make for an interesting debate. (I'll put my money on Bugs for the win)

Ok ya Star Magazine readers.. Mod me down.

Re:Why would anybody listen to a 'celeb'???

[geekoid]

Sadly, many people consider the statment spout forth from vapid celeb to be correct, or at least worth listening to. I think there is some leftover baggage from our tribal heritage that gets triggered when someone who seems to have status speaks.
That is my opinion, and I ahve no evidence to back that up.

Re:The qualifications for 'celebrity' -- But ...

[irenaeous]

... the problem with articles like these is that the criticism is not always fair.

I see nothing wrong with the first two celebrity comments.

"Why should I allow my body or my children to be filled with man-made chemicals, when I don't know what the health effects of these substances will be?"

Melinda Messenger is criticized for this because small amounts of man-made chemicals are present in the body at all times. But Melinda's remark does not deny this or address that issue at all. Her comment is about unspecified "large doses" (i.e. being "filled with") man-made chemicals. The question is perfectly fair. The implication of her remark is that the general population is being exposed to excessive dosages of toxic man-made chemicals. That by itself, is likely to be true in many cases. Yes, she should give specifics. We need to see the context of her remarks. But the above snippet is not self evidentially false, and is a perfectly fair question and concern.

"...he was in serious pain, just below the knee, and I felt the area above had been traumatised. I started feeling and I'd say within 20 minutes, he was walking again. It took away the pain."

Once again, no context is given. Chris De Burgh is singled out for what? Related the facts of what happened? Truthfully? And the scientist critic believes that what he said was true? And gave a plausible explanation of the cause? What falsehoods did Chris De Burgh communicate? I don't see that he made any claim to have healed the underlying injury. Maybe he did in the greater context of his comments, but the comment above as quoted is perfectly OK.

The other criticisms seem correct to me, but this kind of reporting bugs me because it is does not seem to me to be fair or cogent.