Chuck Niederriter on Science and Society

OurBlook interview with Chuck Niederriter, professor of physics and director of the Nobel Conference, Gustavus Adolphus College.

With the country embroiled in public debates around health care and the economy ... and upcoming with U.S. energy policy ... what problems do the public and experts face in discussing science and statistics? If science can be used, can it also be abused?

CN: The major problem that experts face in discussing science with the public is the difference in language. It might actually be easier if it were truly a different language that we used. But, the differences are primarily in how we use certain terms, like theory, and the precision of the use language. So, there needs to be more education of the public, or some form of translation that occurs.

Some of this will occur naturally if there is more communication between the experts and the public. At the recent Nobel Conference at Gustavus, more than 5,000 students and interested adult learners watched as seven experts discussed the issues surrounding our Earth's water resources. In observing that process, the audience was introduced to the concepts of scientific debate as they observed a sort of public think tank. I believe that this goes a long way to help the public understand.

I will suggest watching a brief portion of the Q&A session following Peter Gleick's lecture. The entire Q & A session is on YouTube. The particular question and answer begins at about 22:50 in the clip.

It is possible that scientific experts can abuse the communication issues but science provides checks and balances against this. Scientific ideas and discussion are under constant scrutiny by other scientists. In a very real sense, science continues to retest all of the ideas that have come before.

You have said that scientists should be proactive in bringing science to the public, and have mentioned science cafes, lifelong learning institutes and the Nobel Conference held at your college. Can you elaborate on these methods and why you feel that way?

CN: Science cafes, having experts participate in life-long learning institutes, and conferences like the Nobel Conference provide opportunities for the education of the public to occur. Hopefully this education started in the public's formal education, but these opportunities allow more interactions with experts so that members of the public learn more about the language differences and begin to understand how science works.

How does science benefit from the public better understanding it and the possible practical consequences of the work?

CN: I'm not sure that science itself benefits from the public better understanding it, but our entire society will benefit. It will allow the public and the experts to be equally involved in discussions and decision-making processes over the most important issues of the day, like energy policy, health care, and even climate change. It is not that we will debate the scientific issues themselves, but we will be able to discuss what to do about the issues in an informed way.

It should be noted that the many of the practical consequences of science are in use by the public in the form of mp3 players, cell phones, lap top computers, etc. I would quote Sylvester James Gates in this regard, "science is the DNA of the world's technology."

In a survey of 937 scientists who are members of the Society of Toxicology, the Center for Media and Public Affairs and its affiliate site stats.org found that WebMD is the only news source a majority of them (56 percent) regard as accurate in covering chemical risk. Wiki came in second at 45 percent. Trailing badly at 15 percent were the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal. USA Today took the print booby prize at 6 percent, and network broadcast news recorded an embarrassing 5 percent. Why are even the most prestigious mainstream media organizations so mistrusted by scientists?

CN: I think that there are many reasons for scientists to mistrust the media and not all are universally true. But, behind many of them are changes in how society uses mainstream media, which may stem from the business models used by many. When the financial bottom line became more important than keeping the public informed, society and the media became entangled in a competition to provide interesting news in decreasing length and detail. It is difficult to do justice to the complicated scientific discussions in the sound bites that have become so common. The fact that many of the stories about scientific issues are written by journalists with minimal background in science exacerbates the issue. If the author does not understand the science and the issues, she or he cannot communicate that to the public.

If there is a serious problem, how can the media do a better job in dealing with science and statistics?

CN: The media can enlist the help of scientists in this communication effort. Not all scientists would be willing or capable, but many are accomplished communicators in their own right. A partnership between a journalist and expert can go a long way to improve the understanding the public gets of complex issues. I suspect that this would not fit well with some of the current models used by media organizations. In particular, the practice of many editors of not sharing stories with those who are interviewed before publication would need to change.

In recent years, the American public has been told that there is an ironclad scientific consensus that global warming is occurring, that it's an extremely serious problem and that human activity is a leading cause, if not the primary cause. Yet the National Climactic Data Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that the average October 2009 temperature of 50.8 F was 4.0 F below the 20th century average, and this meant "for the nation as a whole, it was the third coolest October on record." Do scientists, as well as the media, have a credibility problem? What is the ethical duty of scientists to the public when totally conflicting information such as this comes out?

CN: I think that the only problem here is, again, a problem of language. There is a difference between weather and climate, but most people ... even some scientists ... mix these terms up. Weather generally refers to short term atmospheric phenomena, while climate is long term. The cool October is an example of weather, while climate change refers to changes in the long term averages (of, say, temperature). So, there really isn't a credibility problem at all. The media and scientists should make sure that the public knows the difference between these terms and their usage. Perhaps someone should run a story on this issue. Many climate models actually predict larger swings in weather, at least for certain locations, so the cool October might be proof of climate change. But, I think most people would say it is too early to say for sure.

Is there anything else you'd like to say about the future of science and its role in the public discourse?

CN: I believe that science has an important role in many or all of the current and future issues that are critical to society. So, improving the relationship between science and society in public discourse is essential to good decision making. The issues of the day, and the future, are, and will be, much more complex than they have been in the past. Therefore, a more complete understanding of the whole picture will be required in order to find the best solutions.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)