The Standing of Science in America
We Respect It, But Do We Care About It?
SOURCE: Wikimedia Commons
Quick, name a major American living scientist. When polled in late 2007 and asked to name scientific role models, the best Americans could come up with were the names of people who were either not scientists, or not alive: Bill Gates, Al Gore, Benjamin Franklin, and Albert Einstein.
Print
This week, as I read the news that funding for university-based science and engineering research has lagged behind the rate of inflation for two years running—the first time this has happened—I’m moved to contemplate a complicated subject: Where, exactly, does science stand in America today? Is it respected? Disdained? Or just ignored?
On the one hand, Americans express strong confidence in the leaders of the scientific community; among important institutions of society, only leaders of the military are better trusted. (Journalists and members of Congress are basically considered slime). Americans also claim to be very interested in new scientific discoveries and developments—according to the National Science Foundation, surveys conducted each year from 2001 to 2006 found that “between 83% and 87% of Americans reported that they had either ‘a lot’ or ‘some’ interest in new scientific discoveries.”
That strong respect for science—and interest in it—doesn’t seem to go much beyond a surface level in many cases.
Obviously, though, this isn’t the full picture. The same Americans who express such confidence in the leaders of science probably couldn’t name any of them. When polled in late 2007 and asked to name scientific role models, the best Americans could come up with were the names of people who were either not scientists, or not alive: Bill Gates, Al Gore, Benjamin Franklin, and Albert Einstein. Moreover, while many people claim to be very interested in new scientific discoveries, they’re more interested in other things. According to NSF, as of 2006 only 15 percent of the public followed science news “very closely,” meaning that science ranked behind 10 other news subjects in terms of people’s interest. (Science’s ranking vis-à-vis other news subjects has been slipping of late; and indeed, declining treatment of science in the news reflects as much.)
The best way I can process these findings in my own head is to draw an analogy with the way scientific information gets treated in the context of political debates. On the one hand, everybody—left, right, and center—claims that science lies on their side, including the Christian right. The perception is basically universal that it is good and advantageous to appear both pro-science and informed about science.
As soon as you get into the details of what politicians or advocates are actually claiming, however, things quickly get murky. The science often fails to support their assertions, and the pro-science aura quickly dissipates under scrutiny—supplanted by opportunism or, in some cases, outright cynicism and manipulation. Consider the arguments about how much mercury we should let polluters spew into our atmosphere, or the carbon emissions and food price increases produced by making ethanol from corn.
The same, in a sense, goes for the public, although I don’t think anything deliberate or nefarious is happening here. Still, that strong respect for science—and interest in it—doesn’t seem to go much beyond a surface level in many cases. If you put it to the test—by asking the public to, say, take sides in a perceived conflict between science and their religious beliefs—then suddenly science doesn’t fare very well. According to NSF, when Americans reject belief in evolution or the Big Bang (which they do far more frequently than citizens in many other countries), it’s not, for the most part, because they don’t understand the basics of what the science says. Rather, it’s that they don’t let science win out in competition with other things that are important to them—like, in this case, religion.
What does it all add up to? I think the person who probably put it best is social scientist Daniel Yankelovich, who, writing in 2003, observed the following:
Science has reached greater heights of sophistication and productivity, while the gap between science and public life has grown ever larger and more dangerous, to an extent that now poses a serious threat to our future. We need to understand the causes of the divide between science and society and to explore ways of narrowing the gap so that the voice of science can exert a more direct and constructive influence on the policy decisions that shape our future.
Yankelovich, obviously familiar with the polling data that I’ve been citing, went on to draw a distinction between “respect” for science on the one hand—which is clearly widespread—and “influence” for science on the other—which is not. Scientists, he wrote, “do not have the influence due to them by virtue of the importance and relevance of their work and of the promises and dangers it poses for our communal life.”
Now we’re getting somewhere. The numbers I’ve cited above simply do not support the argument that we live in an absolutely antiscientific society, a land of know-nothings. But clearly, science isn’t at the top of many people’s agenda, whether they’re average citizens, politicians, or journalists.
Should it rate higher? I, for one, believe so.
To see that, consider a very important question for most people: Where should I buy a home? Amid the housing market meltdown, it has become apparent that home investments can be risky ones, especially when they’re made without adequate information. And yet how many people weigh the likely impacts of global climate change when making their home purchases? It is going to raise sea levels, worsen droughts in many parts of the west, increase the risk of wildfires…all matters that will ultimately factor into real estate markets and prices. But I for one find it almost impossible to believe that many people are taking this into account in any serious way.
That’s what’s missing. Americans might tune in to some science news, visit science museums, and even adjust their diets and prescriptions based upon the latest studies. But it’s not enough. Without anything beyond a surface-level appreciation of science, they stand far too blind when staring down something of paramount importance: The future.
Chris Mooney is a contributing editor to Science Progress and the author of two books, The Republican War on Science and Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle Over Global Warming. He blogs on The Intersection with Sheril Kirshenbaum.
Comments on this article
Einstein is the new Elvis.
But seriously, there is absolutely a disconnect here…
August 27th, 2008 at 6:54 pmChris Mooney said: “That’s what’s missing. Americans might tune in to some science news, visit science museums, and even adjust their diets and prescriptions based upon the latest studies. But it’s not enough. Without anything beyond a surface-level appreciation of science, they stand far too blind when staring down something of paramount importance: The future.”
It’s the same as you would say “hey, my fellow Americans, brothers and sisters, you should all become much more intelligent now, quickly people!” It’s certainly a very good idea, becoming essentially more intelligent than one is, and it may even be feasible, but nobody knows how and why it happens, as well as the unfortunately much more real opposite process, qualitative decrease of effective intelligence. [E.g. “almost all children are clever, almost all adults are stupid” (scientists including!) - another “inconvenient truth”]
Experience shows that your bold activism in unconditional support of science is missing the point at all levels. Those of us who remember the dominating spirit and attitudes in the 60s-70s of the last century would agree that at that time nobody would need to artificially “promote” (deep) science and its importance in society: (fundamental) physics was one of the most prestigious professions and any crazy sci-fi dream seemed near-future reality, to put it in a one-phrase summary. Since then science and its useful applications have only made (essential) progress, apparently, but (especially fundamental) science popularity has dropped down to effective zero. So everything is not so simple…
On the level of “great living scientists” (not only American ones!), you are particularly unfair to your fellow Americans failing to name any. They can’t just because there’s no any! The fact that huge, always growing salaries are always paid to “officially prominent” scientists and Nobel (and many other) Prizes are routinely attributed every year to “officially truly great” ones doesn’t mean that the actual level of RESULTS of OFFICIALLY so much praised and luxuriously remunerated research is indeed so great. The last “truly great” discovery in biology was the DNA code deciphering and we have celebrated its 50th anniversary already some years ago (in great pomp, but without much of equally great and always needed progress in the same direction!). In physics the last at least “truly impressive” discovery was probably that of high-temperature superconductivity in 1986 (although superconductivity as such was discovered much earlier), but let’s not forget that it was a truly empirical, trial-and-error, intuitive experimentation and nothing more. And since then all your “officially great” scientists (in the whole world!) were absolutely unable to understand the origin of this particular phenomenon, despite the really uncounted billions fruitlessly wasted for the purpose (only this one!). We can also recall equally “great” and very “futuristic”, ongoing endeavours of “artificial intelligence”, “quantum computers”, “nanotechnology”, or thermo-nuclear fusion (let alone such evident disasters as “quantum field theory”, the whole official cosmology or planetary ecology!), each of them eating a small state budget, but always without real, rather than only verbal progress. After which you’re shouting pathetically “The future!”. But SUCH “science” and civilisation stupidly investing all its resources exclusively into that evidently inefficient, openly destructive and fraudulent knowledge enterprise have NO future at all. Sorry for this very inconvenient truth, but you have the right to know it.
It seems that in reality your fellow American taxpayers (1) tend to be as attentive as possible to their emerging scientific future (but they can’t see any!) and (2) despite that, they continue to diligently contribute increasing amounts of their hard-earned profits to science development (but the latter only confirms its negative-efficiency operation, too often indistinguishable from evident financial fraud decorated with deceptive, “scientifically” looking but actually senseless terminology).
So you too, Chris, don’t be superficial in your scientific passions and estimates and try to look deeper into science details. Then it won’t be too difficult for all of us to understand that we live today a very special “bifurcation” moment in knowledge (and humanity!) development, explaining very well the above (otherwise persisting) paradoxes and showing well-specified, provably bright perspectives for “The future” you care so much about (see http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4562 for details). As to how those “scientifically proven”, “rigorously substantiated” and “multiply confirmed” perspectives can be practically realised at a suitable scale, with whose participation and support, I’m afraid somewhat extraordinary, “individually structured” and it seems almost “magic” efforts and occasions are needed, far beyond the banal, totally corrupt fuss of the official science establishment unfortunately poisoning also various private attempts. “The future” seems to be in personality, a single one or very few of them, as it has always been the case for essential science progress. So that if “The future”, the real one finally emerges, your fellow Americans won’t fail to cite the correct names, for their true merits…
August 28th, 2008 at 10:40 amChris,
August 28th, 2008 at 11:41 amI think part of the problem lies in the disconnect between science and daily life. Taking your climate change analogy a bit further - how many Gulf Coast residents really know anything about hurricanes and use that information to make house purchase decisions? I know it because I grew up there. So do you. But far too many people either ignore the risk entirely, or buy the notion that there is something that humans can do to protect them by “controlling” nature. It’s why the Corps of Engineers is running gung ho ahead with “strengthening” the levee system but not devoting the same amount of money to rebuilding marsh around New Orleans.
I think scientific training needs to include a component of public education. Members of the general public aren’t going to start caring on their own — we have to convince them it matters, both directly and through journalists.
August 30th, 2008 at 5:31 pmIt never ceases to amaze me the way science is treated in this country. Science should be taught everyday in everything throughout our lives. The school systems and parents as well, should be teaching the scientific method as a way to keep our children safe from the various flim flam that goes throughout our society.
September 3rd, 2008 at 8:42 pmChris Mooney is certainly on to something important in his essay. As is clear from the comments sent in, there are many ways of approaching the question of why science does not weigh in as it often should in public affairs and in other sectors of peoples’ lives. I like to think of this issue as one of contesting authorities. Science is one of many other sectors of society that compete with one another for attention, for support of its underlying motivations, and for influence in public affairs. Other sectors include religion, the law, legislative government, executive government, economics, and the like. In all these sectors, science (and I do not make a distinction between science and technology here because the two are so intimately intertwined) competes for authority, for the right to say how things are in the world, and for moral authority, the right to weigh in on how things ought to be in the world. How it fares in these contests does not depend as much on whether people actually know a lot of science, as many would like to think. Even most scientists are expert or even moderately well informed on only a small fraction of what is known in science. Rather, science’s authority rests on what people think of science as a social entity, on what they think science has accomplished for the common good, their trust in science as a social force, the extent to which scientists themselves evidence any concern for the general public welfare. There is a lot more to this subject than just the point I am making here, but I do think that the nature of the scientific enterprise, that scientists’ own images of their work and the community of which they are a part, tend to make for a rather closed community, one in which there is an ethos of “science says”, and the rest of the world is supposed to act on that without the active participation of scientists themselves in all the social, political and economic processing that is needed for the science to find its way into practice in a sound and beneficial way. The question, then, is how can scientists become more involved in society, conveying the values of science, ensuring its integrity, demonstrating its capacity to help solve societal problems? This is something scientists need to work on.
September 4th, 2008 at 11:28 am