Slashdot Mirror
The Gap Between What The Public Thinks And What Scientists Know
First time accepted submitter burtosis writes Despite similar views about the overall place of science in America, the general public and scientists often see science-related issues through a different lens, according to a new pair of surveys by the Pew Research Center in collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). From FiveThirtyEight: "The surveys found broad support for government to spend money on science, but that doesn't mean the public supports the conclusions that scientists draw. The biggest gap between scientists and the public came on issues that may elicit fear: the safety of genetically modified (or GMO) foods (37 percent of the public said GMOs were safe, compared to 88 percent of scientists) and the use of pesticides in agriculture (28 percent of the public said foods grown with pesticides were safe to eat, versus 68 percent of scientists). There was also disagreement over the cause of climate change (50 percent of the public said it is mostly due to human activity, compared to 87 percent of scientists). Here’s a full list, via Pew Research Center, of the scientific issues the survey asked about."
That's because the general public get most (all) of their information about science from sources that have a particular goal in mind when it comes to how that information should be interpreted. First a fear is created, because fear sells, and then they offer a politics based (rather than facts based) answer, because relief also sells.
Further, people won't listen to scientists, but they will listen to news anchors and politicians, because fiction is far easier to understand than facts.
Do you mean Bacillus thuringiensis toxin?
You mean the toxin that is classified as organic and can and is sprayed on plants as an organic pesticide?
You know the one where the only way to harm a human with it is to inhale it as a powder and in that form it causes the same damage as inhaling almost any other powder. Even inhaling sugar as a powder is bad for you.
That toxin is COMPLETELY inert inside humans. However insects and some fish can cleave the protein and can then be killed by the toxin.
The organic version is sprayed on plants, washes off and damages local aquatic life. The GMO version does not wash off and has no impact on local aquatic life. The GMO version also concentrates in the parts of the plant we don't eat.
The organic way of using BT toxin is worse in ALL WAYS than the GMO version.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
You are kidding, right? Yes they have been tested.
http://archive.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/2225-no-health-concerns-for-gmo.html
I am a Chemical and Biological Engineer and overall I think that GMO food is safe. I would also like us to use more nuclear power. My views on nuclear power are less informed than my knowledge of GMO is. However, my views on nuclear power are still FAR more informed than the average person.
I think that is where the major difference comes in.
Many normal people don't research anything and have very strong opinions. Most scientists and engineers I know do tend to do research before holding a viewpoint.
Most scientists and engineers I know also find other scientists and engineers they trust in other fields and will accept the more qualified persons viewpoint if it seems reasonable. Most mechanical engineers trust my viewpoint more on chemical and biological stuff and I trust theirs more on aerodynamics.
It makes sense to listen to more qualified people.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
That's news to me. I didn't think the public could think :P
Pro tip: you're a member of the public.
When talking about the public, you should use the pronoun "we", not "they".
Yes, but generally any scientist* trusts the scientific method and experimental evidence over other methods of coming to a conclusion. There are a few exceptions with biases (climate scientists paid to parrot big oil's talking points, for example), but generally scientists try to discover the truth, whether or not it conforms with their world beliefs.
Scientists trust scientists in other fields because they assume scientists have based their opinions on solid scientific evidence. So, a physicist may know nothing about DNA, but will trust when the biologists say it has roles in genetics, just as a biologist might have no clue about the big bang, but would trust physicists when they say it created the universe. Both the biologist and physicist, despite being in different fields, would trust knowledgeable scientists in fields they are uncertain about over, say, some talking head on TV or some evangelist spouting biblical opinions.
Assume we are talking about credible scientific fields here, not "Christian science" or similar
It may be safe to eat, but there are other issues with GMO food than that. Setting loose genes in the environment for other organisms to pick up for example. Or patent issues with companies like Monsanto. Those are much less decided by science.
In the past after some drug or chemical had been around for thirty some years and it took that long to gather data. And meanwhile a lot of people died painfully diseased deaths
As a Computer Science major, I worry more about the patenting of plants; the copyright of the genetic structure; the terms of licenses imposed by the giant GMO firms; the common use of sterile plants to prevent that "IP" from escaping the farms. They may be safe to eat, but "safe" to me means we won't intentionally repeat the potato famine.
>. Politicians push fear, and then lord their position and power over the people who they nominally serve.
Which one should keep in mind when looking at science. Scientists being paid by a grant from Phillip Morris (tobacco) or All Gore tend to publish conclusions that are likely to get the grant renewed. A lot of people I work with are top experts
in their field, whose jobs are dependant on a federal grant getting renewed. Guess how many of them published information that makes the grantor unhappy last year. Hint - it's a round number.
Exactly. Furthermore, there are many ways something can be "genetically modified." e.g. You can modify a tomato to downregulate expression of an existing protein to make the fruit bruise less. You can also modify a planet to secrete insecticide. I'm certain that the former is safe but I'd reserve judgement on the latter depending on what the insecticide was. Furthermore, what if the insecticide is safe for me but it kills bees? GMO is too broad an issue for blanket statements.
soylentnews.org
The Gap Between What The US Public Thinks And What Scientists Know.
The reason why people don't trust GMO food for instance, is that it's sometimes impossible to undo mistakes that are made. Scientists tend to have tunnel vision and have made mistakes with global impact in the past. So I don't find this gap surprising at all. People are wary because they think scientists want to mess with the planet.
This is not the sig you're looking for.
I think paycheck corruption in science today is even worse, like with the CAGW promoters.
IF that were true, then the climate scientists who know the "truth" would be able to get all the grants they want from the fossil fuel industry and "clean up" or least get a paycheck.
See, if global warming were in fact a hoax or even over-blown, the oil, gas, and coal industries would be handing out grants like candy with their unlimited money. I wold expect to see the battles like the cigarette industry put up.
But they are not. They only thing they have is press releases and propaganda - usually attacking AGW on political grounds (like increased taxes or some other nonsense.)
Which tells me that there is nothing there scientifically for them.
The evidence is conclusive: human caused global warming is fact.
There is poison in everything you eat. The skins of potatoes are naturally poisonous, the seeds on strawberries are naturally poisonous. However, the health benefits in these items outweigh the damage the poison does. Like everything how a poison impacts you depends on the dosage.
Lots of poisons are safe for humans at the levels we ingest them. There is no way you could eat any food without dealing with some level of poison.
The rat study you mentioned has LONG since been discredited and not been replicable by other experts in the field. The scientist that did the work is largely considered to be a fraud in the field and at this point articles published under his name are no longer accepted by reputable journals and he has resorted to destroying students reputations in the field instead by getting them to submit his articles under their names.
The paper in question was retracted http://www.scientificamerican.... and is widely considered to be fraudulent.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
Your average person has well-founded and valid opinions on what they know.
I rarely find that to be true. Average people tend to have highly biased and largely un-researched opinions even within their area of expertise. My father is a farmer, but knows very little about GMOs. He does have very strong opinions in favor of GMOs but if you investigate you quickly find there isn't much basis for those opinions other than it saves him money (you would get a blank stare if you said the term bio-diversity for instance). I had a brother in law who was an auto-mechanic although he still wasn't a very good source of information when choosing a vehicle. Far too many personal biases.
It is very rare for people to thoroughly research almost anything. I remember people saying how things like home ownership, marriage, and parenting are things you simply cannot properly prepare for until you experience it. Although I have done all three and it really was possible to research and plan for all three well enough that there were no surprises. Although my daughter isn't even one year old yet, so I still have plenty of time to be wrong about that one.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
You sez:
I would also like us to use more nuclear power. My views on nuclear power are less informed than my knowledge of GMO is. However, my views on nuclear power are still FAR more informed than the average person
1. How do you know your view is "FAR more informed than the average person"?
2. You said you were "FAR more informed", so ...
2a. Who was the one informed you? 2b. And how do you know what you have been informed is correct?
I don't know about the education system where the GP lived, but generally those becoming well educated and capable in a specialist subject tend to be better educated and more capable than average in other fields. I am a nuclear engineer but did not even specialise in it until my third job. So I would claim similarly to the GP that (1) I am much more informed on subjects outside nuclear engineering, both in science and the humanities, than the average person. That is simply because I had a liberal education to a significantly further level than the average person. Even to be accepted on my course to study engineering I had also to have studied (and passed the exams in) sciences other than maths and physics, foreign languages (plural), English to the same level as someone entering a university course in it, and certain other humanities subjects. (2a & b) At that time I was taught these other subjects at a good school, and that knowledge had been confirmed by what I have seen and heard ever since.
Also a factor is the inherent tendency of scientists (in the broadest sense to include engineers) to find out about and question things, leading to more and more knowledge being acquired through life, knowledge which tends to be missed by the average person who is more likely to spend as much free time as possible being entertained.
I disagree with the headline here. The presumption is that the public merely thinks, but may be wrong, and scientists actually know facts.
Everyone listens to those whom they respect. Some are taught to respect firebrand preachers; some believe any idiot with a PhD. Some look for truth in Biblical quotes, but can't read; others believe in scientific method, but couldn't explain scientific method if you gave them a cheat sheet.
Example: Is the world flat or round? Well, people we respect say that it is round. But how many average citizens have a clue to the evidence?
Sound thinking there. The GMO crops "raison d'etre" is to sell more weedkiller, eh? So farmers willingly buy this more expensive GMO crop JUST so they can buy more weedkiller? Yeah, that makes sense. Or maybe Monsanto is making this GMO crop JUST so it can sell more glyphosphate, which has no patent protection and is dirt cheap? Yeah, that makes sense. And of course, before GMO crops they weren't spraying pesticides everywhere, right? And those pesticides could never have affected insect populations, right? And, oh yeah, Monsanto destroyed every food crop except their own, right?
Have you ever spoken to farmers?? The half dozen farmers I've talked with all say the same thing (I grew up in a small, rural community), most of them were older than 60 and had been farmers for decades. They don't have the time, money, or resources to collect, process, and store seeds, they always buy them. These guys LOVE GMO crops because of the increased yields and predictability.
This stuff is great, until we find out we are cultivating super-weeds. Google "Roundup Ready resistance". Eventually, we'll have to find a different chemical to control weeds. Then another. Then another.
Complete side note, but organic farmers have started using water jets to get rid of weeds. Even more they have been adding things like corn gluten to the pressure weeders to fertilize at the same time as they cut. The gluten helps kill the weeds too.
The downside is that it's at least a two person job. Someone has to drive while another aims and shoots. No known resistance has been developed to a high pressure water jet.
Disclaimer: I am not anti GMO. I am however, concerned about pesticide resistance, and the concept of engineering plants to allow us to use more pesticides, which is a fine way to accelerate resistance. I also eat organic as much as possible because I think it tastes better - but harbor no delusions of us feeding the world that way.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Scenario: terminatored corn is widely succesful and replaces regular corn. Something bad happens to stop Monsanto from delivering more seends. What will the farmers plant? They can't use seeds from terminatored corn since they're infertile, and they can't plant regular corn seeds since they no longer have any. Mass starvation follows.
Planned obsolescence in vital systems is a really bad idea.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.