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

[smilindog2000]

It's a good thing we always know what we're talking about here on /. :-)

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

[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

[Weston O'Reilly]

As a proud Roman Catholic, I have this advice: If you want your kids to learn the theory of evolution, send them to a Catholic school.

Re:Ask a scientist

[coredog64]

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. From all the accounts I've read, Leonardo DiCaprio is actually an intelligent person.

      "DiCaprio's no idiot," says one insider. "His questions about the M1
      and M2 money supply really impressed the president, and when he
      floated a proposal about allowing offshore hedge funds to manage
      Social Security, Clinton's ears really perked up. They were smart
      questions, tough questions -- not the kind of questions you'd expect
      from Barbara Walters."

      Other insiders agree. "DiCaprio knows more about currency fluctuations
      than Cokie Roberts, Diane Sawyer and Sam Donaldson rolled into one,"
      says one source at ABC. "He's not just another pretty face."

http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind00 04b&L=wnn&P=2044

why stop at science?

[OffTheLip]

Celebrities should be seen not heard.

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.

And in the same spirit...

[Tx]

...the article also encourage slashdot posters not to reply without first reading the article!

Well, it might say that, I haven't read it yet :s

Melinda Messenger

[Nighttime]

I love this quote by Melinda Messenger: "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."

That would be the same Melinda Messenger that has breast implants.

Re:seconded.

[AuMatar]

So did the altar boys.

Yeah, thats mean. I just couln't help myself.