Getting The Public To Listen To Good Science

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."

Comments

Yeah, but can you 'prove' it?

[Anonymous Coward]

The biggest problem is getting the public to listen to good science is to make them understand the scientific method and the philosophy of science. Otherwise it is just another type of belief to them.

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

[bperkins]

Stop running crappy stories like these:
  http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/20/0340238 http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/03/1644252

and uninformed editorializing like this:
  http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/20/0031238

Simple.

[Ransak]

Give parents a tax break based on how well their children do in school.

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

[johnsonav]

Look how Discovery channel etc get hyped and dramatized and facts removed to make for a more entertaining package. Even the news is infotainment. I think this is a perfect example of how the situation is improving. Before things like TLC or Discovery, there were almost no infotainment outlets. Even though the balance is skewed more towards the "tainment," and less toward the "info," it is still a net positive.

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

[couchslug]

"What we have here is a failure to communicate .."

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

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Sure, Good Science need not be completely dry and boring, but Discovery Channel etc edit for entertainment value, not fact. At the end of the day they are generating material which competes for eyeballs with sitcoms and Reality TV etc. No eyeballs means no ad revenue which means no airtime. Simple.

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:Don't let facts get in the way of good fun

[Jerry]

What James Burke pointed out was that the difference between Science and Humanities is that Science is involved with discovering that which has never been known before, while Humanities is merely the re-arrangement of previously expressed thoughts.

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.)

Re:Obscurantism

[philspear]

While we can definitely spot a phony in our own fields, our policing is somewhat toothless in the public sphere.

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 .001% and christian fundamentalists.