Installment 2
After my presentation, there was some dispute over the answers to two of the questions on the quiz. I reviewed the questions, my wording and answers, and determined that I interpreted appropriately, and disseminated the correct answers to the class. To avoid any confusion, I'll repost the link, questions, and highlighted answers here:
Quiz on American Scientific Awareness: use this link if
you’re in need of an answer source: https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/content_files/NisbetMarkowitz_ScienceAttitudesReview_AAAS_Final_March10.pdf
1 1.) T/F: In comparison to business, political or
religious leaders, scientists are publicly regarded as having the greatest
level of expertise?
2 2.) T/F: 97% of climate scientists agree that
human caused climate change is occurring?
3 3.) T/F: The strongest public predictor of GMO
health fears is uncertainty.
4 4.) T/F: In 2014, the PEW research institutes
conducted an analysis that determined only 37% of Americans thought GMO foods
were safe, while 57% thought of them as unsafe
5 5.) T/F: The general public is not at all
skeptical of vaccines.
6 6.) T/F:
The herd immunity goal of the CDC in 2014 was met or exceeded, where the goal
was 90%.
7 7.) T/F: The flat earth hypothesis is reasonable,
and well grounded in scientific fact, and mathematics.
8 8.) T/F: Only 23% of parents said they had NO
concerns about vaccinations
9 9.) T/F: The idea that vaccination may lead to learning
disabilities and/or autism is among the most prominent concerns of
parents in terms of vaccination.
10.) T/F: Dr.
Wakefield’s study, published in “the Lancet” was completely legit, with minimal
shady undertones.
My presentation was about scientific awareness in America. I wanted to bring to light some trends in american public perception as per statistical analysis. My thinking was that as a class composed of about 50% science majors, it would interesting and important to think about public perception of the field as a whole.
Scientists are generally held in high regard, as opposed to other professional careers like pharmacy, and the medical field. This public regard is in no way permanent. It's important to remember that scientific dishonesty can and will detract from public perception if gross misconduct is a recurring theme. In light of some of the common predatory practices of scientific research, the most erosive in my opinion is also the most common, whereby businesses with a special interest pay a research team under the (unspoken) pretense that a desired outcome will be had, benefiting the payee's business in some way. Sometimes in these cases, the conclusions asserted by the research team are not the most scientifically viable. Something I could have done to better the presentation is discuss potential fixes to such a systemic problem in the research community. While no one fix rings true as a perfect option, I think a great option would be a system of checks and balances, whereby the scientific validity of a report was first assessed by a third party for falsification and/or malpractice before publication. The problem therein is expenses. Such a practice, as ideal as it may be, is not feasible because of the astronomical expenses it would generate. Every project would double in cost. This would be a crippling blow to a community that already struggles to generate the necessary revenue for research projects. Alas, we trust the scientist to be honest, and maintain some level of integrity.
I wanted to get some class feedback with this report, particularly with respect to some practices that we as future scientists can do to better public understanding of the hard sciences, and thereby increase public trust in the validity of scientific conclusions. The class gave some great feedback. One answer was to begin with young school children, building a foundation of understanding that would surely carry into the future. Another was to make alternative publications for the demographic of the general public, whereby scientific research would be published in more understandable terms. Both of these are awesome answers. I would insert one thing here that I think would benefit the scientific community, and bring many great minds over to science. We've got to make science cool!
Some may perceive scientists as nerdy, bespectacled lab rats, cooped up in some dark lab looking at microscope slides. This sort of perception just isn't true. While some scientists may finish a hard days work in the lab, and then return to their mothers basement to paint figurines, and play world of warcraft, not all researchers are nerdy weirdos!
So what is science all about? I suppose such a subjective question depends on who you ask, but to me, science is about critical thinking! It's about applying said critical thinking in tandem with an understanding of biological and natural processes that is brought on by years of rigorous study of tough material. It doesn't come easy, and it doesn't come quickly. Science is hard, but anything that's worth doing is.
Very nice follow up Vincent. I really like the way you did your T/F questions with colorization and emboldened words.
ReplyDeleteI think children should be exposed to elementary logic alongside their normal mathematical regemin of multiplication and division. It may far more important to the underlying structures created neurologically which make up their thinking.
The social media culture transition from the 1990's style has certainly came with its flaws. But, the problems you're pointing out still existed in the 80's and 90's and social media has at least exposed that there is a terrible gap between academics and lay people.
Some of the greatest peer reviewed studies are only ever read by a handful of people. We would do well to transition our culture to one that was more concerned with facts and studied scientific papers. Often times however, there is a paywall to gain access to this valuable information. I propose that important scientific papers be drafted with many versions that stretch down to the 8th grade reading level. Then maybe they can put up their paywall for people who have credentialing to give meaningful peer review, at the PHD level of the these layers, perhaps.