This is sort of a clean-up post. I have had some death in my family, so I have been gone and I need to clean my slate before getting back into it again.
First topic:
I am starting to get angry at my fellow scientists. I try and try to fight what I see as a coming perfect storm leading us into a societal regression into the dark ages.
Most of my colleagues wave this off or simply ignore it. And I can understand that. It is easy, because you are surrounded by “educated people” all day, to get hoodwinked into thinking that “no one could possibly think that the earth is flat these days”. We have to combat this, we have to become activist, because I think we are loosing the cultural war.
Why? We allow too much loose talk when it comes to science, and we don’t correct the record at the local level (at parties, in polite conversation etc)…by the time we do correct things, they have already disseminated into the mass-consciousness as misinformation. And believe me, the misinformation propaganda is good.
I had a HUGE fight over email with my extended family this weekend. Keep in mind, these people are Americans with B.A., B.S. and M.A. degrees from American Universities. They claim to be “educated” and their peers look up to them as contributors to the community. Here is how part of the exchange went after I responded to a chain email I was sent.
Family: “Pfizer is buying a smaller drug company called Wyeth. They are borrowing money from US Banks who took TARP money. Meanwhile Pfizer has all the cash in the world (enough to buy Wyeth) stashed in foreign countries because they don’t want to bring the cash into this country for risk of paying 35% in federal income tax. The Wyeth purchase is going to cost thousands of US jobs. It’s the Pfizers of the world that is giving the country to China. And where do you think Pfizer gets the money to do all its research and pay for people’s continuing education who don’t even work for them – by charging exorbitant amounts of money for its drugs – that people on social security or people working at McDonald’s can’t afford…An interesting article about NIMH and the funding I’m giving it over the next two years (All to tack on another 5 years on to an already 85 year-old with a diminished quality of life there’s already a quite effective way to avoid 99% of the chance of contracting HIV, or to cure Autism – which is known to already be treatable through therapy). "
If you read through that who quote, some things should send chills up your spine:
1) Drug companies are evil.
2) Autism is curable through some treatment.
3) Who cares about adding a few years to an old person’s life.
4) What we see as collaborations with China in science, the population sees as “selling out” to them.
Do you remember my post from a few months ago?
It is not the specifics here that I am afraid of, it is the general sense that anyone with a computer can be propagandized into these conceptual orthodoxies. That is not new, and not surprising. I am just afraid that our propaganda is not as good as their propaganda, particularly when it comes to the biological sciences.
__________________________
Second topic:
The awesome and talented Eva Amsen did an interview with me about being a musician and a scientist. I see that the wonderful Henry Gee is interviewed as well. I am really looking forward to what she does with this, because I think what she is doing is really good for science. We need more of this and I am thankful and proud to be part of it! Please enjoy!
Michael, I’m sure you’ll find Pamela’s latest post of interest.
hi Michael
I enjoyed your post here. I also get into extended arguments with my highly educated family. They seem very wary of scientific “arrogance”. When a scientist says there is “broad scientific consensus” it get there hackles up. They feel that they are not being listened to. I am trying to figure out better ways of engaging. My husband and I gave a talk to 325 people recently and there were some hisses in the audience when I said things like, “there is no conclusive evidence that organic produce has more nutrients than conventionally grown produce”. Even though I explain organic farming plays a critical role reudcing fertilizer and pesticide, the idea that it is not “healthier” is so against what they hear in the media that they just cannot believe it. Cooincidently the very next day there was a widely publicized peer reviewed study that came out confirming again that organic produce is equivalent to conventional.
@Michael: Nice to be described as ‘wonderful’. Keep saying things like that, Michael. Does my ego no end of good.
@Pamela: there were some hisses in the audience when I said things like, “there is no conclusive evidence that organic produce has more nutrients than conventionally grown produce”
That’s truly, truly horrible.
In my view the non-scientific public has a conflicted relationship with scientists. On the one hand, scientists are seen as wizards possessed of hermetic secrets (magic spells) that give us wonder-drugs and m*****g l***s. We mut bow down before their superior knowledge and skill, to which mere mortals can never have access.
On the other hand, scientists are seen as members of an evil conspiracy of materialism who are intent on wreaking havoc on we, the public, our society and our beliefs. We often fear that which we cannot understand.
It’s not surprising that people are confused, heated and angry, boxing at shadows, locked in an internal good/evil struggle.
GANDALF: You can’t use your mind-tricks on me, Jedi.
SARUMAN: I’ll be back.
Let’s try to unpick this.
One reason that the secrets of scientists are seen as impossible to access by lesser breeds is the popular, even fashionable conceit in which it is acceptable for arbiters of taste and judgement to admit that they’re lousy at science or maths – where they wouldn’t dare say that they were ignorant of fashion, sport or politics. In this way the public’s engagement with science, if any, is thwarted before it even starts. Moreover, such an admission is a kind of backhanded compliment, such that people who do admit to knowledge of science or maths are dismissed as geeks. This concit must be addressed, politely but firmly, at each and every instance of its occurrence.
Another problem, and it’s a big one, is that such science news as we read or hear or see is controlled by news editors, who will not have any particular interest or knowledge of science except inasmuch as it will serve to perpetuate the particular political line of the organization in which he works. If the news organization has no particular line, the science news will be treated as a bedtime story for children, with, rarely, the kind of insight and maturity one expects in arts or politics output.
This is particularly true of stories about dinosaurs or fossil humans, concerning which most journalists lose all sense of proportion and journalistic detachment flies out of the window.
There are exceptions, to be sure … but this explains why I tend to get my science from bloggers who reference their sources properly and discuss matters with clarity.
@ Henry, any time my friend, any time…wait…provided that from here on out you start a committee to bring The Seldon Plan to Europe for a tour. Otherwise, I am sorry but I have to cut your ego off.
@Pamela I had begun to post a long response here in the comments but “the wonderful” Henry Gee really touched on all my points, that is why he is “wonderful”.
I will add that I think that we have a special problem here in America with science, because of our history with evangelicalism. (I am not saying religion is not important…I do not conclude like some scientists ahem R.D., to have settled the question for all the world.) But there is a distrust of science that is almost bred into the culture.
I blame this on the combination of evangelicalism reinventing the laws of physics for people and the ridiculous amount of litigators who try to “challenge” scientific findings in the courts. This in a small way, undermines the credibility of science in the popular culture.
There are people in this country who think doctors “are stupid, money grubbing people” (as was recently stated on CNN during a debate on health care reform).
What that tells me is simply that we need better propaganda. I have been kind of restating this thesis for about 6 months now, because I am getting really worried that the U.S. the once leader in science, is heading for a dark age of science, even though funding for certain programs have increased.
I look at the pop science sites and for the most part my response is “how dorky”. If I have that response, you can be sure that the public has more visceral response…
I look at the pop science sites and for the most part my response is “how dorky”
Funny that, That’s what I think, too. No wonder it’s hard getting teenagers as interested in science as they were when they were little kids.