Science to Action: Convincing a Skeptical Public

Science to Action: Convincing a Skeptical Public

Science to Action: Thoughts on Convincing a Skeptical Public William H. Press University of Texas at Austin 2015 William D. Carey Lecture April 30, 2015 Actual full page ad in USA Today and The Wall Street Journal February, 2015) This is the only way that it could be less effective, in my opinion! National Geographic

(January, 2015) reporting on Pew poll (2014) The questions are a mixture of being about scientific fact, and about the opinions of scientiststwo quite different things! Storyline No. 1 Scientists who are motivated by a sense of pure discovery observe, measure, and characterize a new phenomenon. Other scientists and engineers, motivated by a desire to create

applications, develop technologies and inventions that utilize the new phenomenon. The results are new products, jobs, and industries. What do successes look like? The rise of new industries. Disclaimer: N-grams are not always accurate indicators of social trends. However, they are fun. Storyline No. 2 Scientists familiar with the data recognize a danger or hazard to the public. They convince the public that action

is needed, often despite opposition from economic interests or people who disagree with the evidence. The result is appropriate action by government and favorable outcomes for the public. What do successes look like for Storyline No. 2? Discussion rises, action is taken, issue loses urgency The two storylines are quite different. No. 1: Scientists enabling research discovery, invention, and development what can be No 2: Scientists educating the public and

advocating action and change what should be These are both important roles for scientists. But they are different and distinct and require different kinds of interaction with the public Storyline No. 2 successes are not all post-WWII phenomena Triangle Shirtwaist fire (1911) San Francisco earthquake (1906) Iroquois Theater fire (1903) Chicago fire (1871) Fire protection as a case study The hazard was one familiar

to the public. There were catalyzing events. There were effective and affordable mitigating technologies. 1890: Grinnells glass disk sprinkler head Economic interests were not exclusively on one side 1894: Underwriters Laboratories We might hope for progress without catalyzing events, but history indicates otherwise 1911

1962 1964 Case study: Smoking Is Is the the hazard hazard familiar familiar to

to the the public? public? Have Have there there been been catalyzing catalyzing events? events? Are Are there there effective effective and and affordable

affordable mitigating mitigating technologies? technologies? Are Are economic economic interests interests not not exclusively exclusively on on one one side? side? ? ? Case study: Climate

Is Is the the hazard hazard familiar familiar to to the the public? public? ? ? Have

Have there there been been catalyzing catalyzing events? events? ? ? Are Are there there effective effective and and affordable affordable mitigating mitigating technologies? technologies? ?? or or

Are Are economic economic interests interests exclusively exclusively on on one one side? side? ? ? Sandy, 2012 Ambiguities arise when Storyline No. 2 masquerades as Storyline No. 1 A hazard

exists, is mitigatable by technology, so it should be mitigated. A new technology exists, can make better lives, so it should be widely adopted. In substance, these are both Storyline No. 2! the operative word is should How successful are efforts to influence public opinion on these two variants? Mitigating hazards

Fire safety Food safety Building codes Vaccination Tobacco Pesticides Air/Water pollution

Climate change Antibiotics overuse Cybersecurity Making better lives Chemicals Nuclear power GMOs Targeted advertising Sharing economy (Uber, AirBnB)

Color code: Success, Ambiguous, or Failure at convincing the public. Two views on GMO labeling expressed by scientists (overheard) GMO labeling is scientifically misleading. It creates externalities with identifiable costs, such as higher food prices, and poorer nutrition in the developing world. It sets a precedent for anti-scientific public policy. Governments should discourage GMO labeling. GMO labeling is a matter of consumer preference. As long as a GMO label is not designed to be intentionally confused with a safety label, science and scientists have only a limited

special role in this debate. The point: This is a debate about values, not about science. Perils of using the word should A matter of judgment, not of scientific fact Whose judgment? Are people like me represented in the process? Do scientists have, or claim, a special role in judging? At what cost and to whom? Disruptive to established economic interests? Implying a redistribution of wealth? Implying a perturbation of political influence? By whose moral compass? My values are different from yours.

My priorities are different from yours. My beliefs are different from yours. My tolerance for change is different from yours. 1. Science is a fact-discovering enterprise. 2. Science is a rationalist approach to life. Quantification Experimental validation Repeatability Underlying natural laws

Statistical inference Processes open publication peer review advancement by merit Translational path to applications This is a methodology. Decisions based on data Weighing pros and cons Skepticism about the use of untestable facts assertions based on authority only

Some version of a utilitarian metric Some belief in the efficacy of action the future can be different and better This is a value system. There are competing value systems and they are unlikely to disappear any time soon In recent decades, distrust of science has increased in a way that does not appear merely cyclical. A significant part of this is distrust appears to be financed by contrary business interests, a marketing strategy first

perfected by the tobacco industry. Unfortunately, this is the new reality for current and future science-based issues. What should* the scientific community do? I. More clearly separate fact-based conclusions from value-based judgments, even when both are valuable Journals should publish more opinion labeled as such And be more rigid in excluding should (and its equivalents) from refereed publications Be more active in communicating the merits of a rationalist approach to decision-making By our own example in the public space In education, e.g., How would a scientist approach this policy decision? Be careful and selective in invoking science as a privileged platform

Less This data shows that we need to More Speaking for myself But not shy about It is an accepted scientific fact that * using the word carefully What should the scientific community do? II. Be less dismissive of unscientific (as we might see them) value systems. First rule of marketing: Knocking the competition destroys credibilityyours. Be more assertive in reacting to threats to the integrity of science More criticism of poor quality science, even that which supports our values (the irresistible finding) More meaningful disclosure of funding sourcesultimate source, not opaque frontsas condition of publishing

More calling out of meretricious balance (there are two sides to every issue) when it is poor journalism More calling out merchant of doubt campaigns and their practitioners (tobacco, climate, ) In the long run, convincing the public is a long, two-step process. Step 1: Communicate the value of a rationalist approach to decision-making Step 2: Communicate well-established scientific results

We need to be better at both kinds of communication.

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • Malpresentation Malposition - Islamic University of Gaza
  • Wellness and Self-Care for Aging Caregivers

    Wellness and Self-Care for Aging Caregivers

    Wellness - for an organization or an individual - is the capacity to sustain vision and mission, as evidenced by physical, emotional, social and spiritual balance and resiliency. Pictures of Resiliency
  • TCU CoSc 10403 Programming with Java

    TCU CoSc 10403 Programming with Java

    TCU CoSc 10403 Programming with Java The JFrame Class The JFrame Class A Frame is a top-level window with a title and a border. The size of the frame includes any area designated for the border.
  • Title

    Title

    These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and...
  • Falling Through the Cracks: Reaching Older Adults at Risk of ...

    Falling Through the Cracks: Reaching Older Adults at Risk of ...

    The Link Between Social Isolation and Risk for Depression. A lack of social connections can increase the risk of death by at least 50%, and in some circumstances, by more than 90% [1]. Lonely individuals are more . prone to...
  • Factor Analysis - Medical University of South Carolina

    Factor Analysis - Medical University of South Carolina

    [technique] is factor analysis. Few statisticians are neutral about. this technique. Proponents feel that factor analysis is the . greatest invention since the double bed, while its detractors feel . it is a useless procedure that can be used to...
  • Oxidative DNA Damage is Reduced by a Daily

    Oxidative DNA Damage is Reduced by a Daily

    Dr Mary Hannon-Fletcher 2nd International Vitamin Conference 23rd May 2012 Copenhagen Background End stage renal disease is associated with an increase in oxidative stress, cardiovascular disease and cancer Haemodialysis induces repetitive bouts of oxidative stress Resulting in increased levels ...
  • Graphing Sequences - jamesrahn.com

    Graphing Sequences - jamesrahn.com

    Graphing Sequences Section 1.4 There is more than one way to represent a sequence. Other kinds of formulas Tables Graphs Match each table with a recursive formula and a graph that represent the same sequence.