This bad news comes at a time when we need an appreciation of science—an understanding of its fundamental role in sound policymaking and the future of the economy—more than ever: to help solve our intertwined climate and energy problems, to bolster our long-term technological competitiveness, and to prepare our society for the coming controversies that research in fields like genetics and neuroscience stands ready to unleash. Instead, the communication gap between scientists and ordinary Americans has brought about (or helped to perpetuate) a number of home-grown anti-science pathologies. A seemingly immovable core of Americans don’t believe in evolution and think the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, nearly half of us, according to polling data. Americans are also more likely to reject the Big Bang theory than are people from other countries.

Mooney seems to suggest, though, that continued focus on the battle between religion and science, perpetuated both by “New Atheists” and religious fundamentalists, contributes to the widespread rejection of science by broad swaths of the American populace. Such a conclusion is unfortunate insofar as it implies that both sides in this “debate” are culpable in furthering the lack of public understanding and acceptance of key scientific principles. While it is true that being too strident in using scientific fact to upend religious tenets can cause a backlash, it is the willful ignorance and suspension of reason embraced by some religious zealots that perpetuates this divide.

Mooney is right when he calls for improved communication of scientific advances. But what we really need is a better educated electorate, able to critically evaluate conflicting truth claims. With the end of the Bush era, perhaps Americans will once again be prepared to celebrate accomplishment, and intellectualism will be, if not in vogue, subject to a reasonable level of respect and admiration.

Similar Posts:

• Communicating the Risks of Climate Change
• No Mo NOMA?
• Palin’s Remarks Fly in the Face of Science

But a Manhattan Project cannot solve the climate problem. The bomb was developed in secret, with no role for the public. In contrast, reducing [greenhouse gas] emissions requires billions of individuals to cut their carbon footprints by, e.g., buying efficient vehicles, insulating their homes, using public transit, and, crucially, supporting legislation implementing emissions abatement policies. Changes in people’s views and votes create the political support elected leaders require to act on the science. Changes in buying behavior create incentives for businesses to transform their products and operations. The public cannot be ignored.

Addressing the public’s inability to appreciate the urgency of the issue at hand, Sterman has a three part prescription for the scientific community that includes issuing scientific findings and policy recommendations in plain language, finding useful analogies and other cognitive tools to help people to understand the implications of climate policies, and improving the communication of science.

[C]limate scientists should partner with psychologists, sociologists, and other social scientists to communicate the science in ways that foster hope and action rather than denial and despair. Doing so does not require scientists to abandon rigor or objectivity. People of good faith can debate the costs and benefits of policies to mitigate the risks of climate change, but policy should not be based on mental models that violate fundamental physical principles.

Matthew Nisbet, commenting on this piece at Framing Science writes:

[T]he problem in waking policymakers and the public up to climate change isn’t an absence of science literacy, as so many scientists (and bloggers) continue to bemoan, but rather simply the nature of human cognition and the realities of our media system.

Unfortunately, though, there is an astounding level of scientific illiteracy in the U.S.A., sustained by a culture of anti-intellectualism and a superficial understanding of the world. The role that can be played by framing science is in demonstrating the relevance of the scientific endeavor beyond the ivory towers of academia. A greater appreciation for the science of climate change can be fostered by discussing it in terms of its public health impacts, economic costs and opportunities, and national security risks. Translating scientific fact into a public call for action will require, too, that this issue be understood in the context of social responsibility and as a cross-generational moral issue. Communicating science, especially when intended as a call to action, requires more than providing a lay abstract  – we must be more effective at answering the “so what?” questions for the public.

Similar Posts:

• End of the War on Science?
• No Mo NOMA?
• Palin’s Remarks Fly in the Face of Science