Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Seen As Competent But Not Trusted By Americans

cold fjord writes The Woodrow Wilson School reports, "If scientists want the public to trust their research suggestions, they may want to appear a bit 'warmer,' according to a new review published by Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. The review, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), shows that while Americans view scientists as competent, they are not entirely trusted. This may be because they are not perceived to be friendly or warm. In particular, Americans seem wary of researchers seeking grant funding and do not trust scientists pushing persuasive agendas. Instead, the public leans toward impartiality. 'Scientists have earned the respect of Americans but not necessarily their trust,' said lead author Susan Fiske, the Eugene Higgins Professor of Psychology and professor of public affairs. 'But this gap can be filled by showing concern for humanity and the environment. Rather than persuading, scientists may better serve citizens by discussing, teaching and sharing information to convey trustworthy intentions.'"

3 of 460 comments (clear)

  1. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Eh. I don't entirely disagree, but...

    It could be Italy, where failing to predict an earthquake lands you in jail.
    Or it could be China, where grants don't actually cover the costs of your experiments, and many scientists publish faked results on some work to pay for the science they want to do.
    Or it could be Iran, where being a scientists in the wrong field nets you a free gift box of bullets delivered straight to your cranium, courtesy of the CIA(okay that's the US's fault too).
    Let's not forget that only few decades ago, in the Soviet Union, several entire schools of academics(like sociology) were considered outright verboten to study, on the grounds that they weren't Marxist.

    And the US still has the single biggest science economy in the world, even if that's massively and disproportionately military in nature.

    The problems are voters have with understanding and appreciating science definitely hold us back, but it could be a lot worse.

  2. Bullshit by ilsaloving · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Maybe scientists would be friendlier if the 'average American' wasn't a proctologic habersashery.

    It is not a scientists job to teach people science. Their job is to do science. Furthermore, the "climategate" scandal has demonstrated very clearly that if a scientist dares try to engage the public to any meaningful extent, then they'd be inundated with either trolls, or assholes who insist on pushing their own personal politics.

    And then, of course, scientists will get raked over the coals because they are not allowed to be a human being, who gets frustrated and bitchy when being forced to deal with such crap.

    The problem is that there is no one clear problem. The media don't know jack about science, but insist on reporting it. North American culture in general has become profoundly anti-intellectual. There are other issues as well, but those are the most directly relevant.

    What we need are more *spokespersons* for science. More Neil deGrasse Tysons. People who BOTH understand the science AND have the skill to teach it to laypeople. Hell, IMO general media should be banned outright from discussing scientific topics, since they don't seem to be able to do anything BUT screw it up.

  3. Re:Fox News? by Rob+Y. · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Most of the bogus scientific breakthroughs are "amazing medical advances" and "promising cancer treatments" that have no business being in the popular media at all - given their untested status at the time they're released. This is largely a media problem (isn't everything these days), driven by an over-competitive media landscape in which consumers' attention is all that matters. But it's also a trap scientists themselves can fall into. There often are large financial involvements at stake, and the media are all too easily manipulated. None of which is to say that the scientific method and peer review don't win out in the end. Science pursues all kinds of dead ends - we're just not supposed to hear about them. And that's not any kind of cover-up; it's how the process works - and it does work.

    --
    Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...