Contact
LifestreamOn the topic of scientists in the media and the general role of science in society. In November last year, nine geoscientists got together to form RealClimate. A blog of sorts that would allow for open debate and educated information regarding climatological events.
Can’t say I blame them for the effort. What should one do when one’s clearly superior knowledge of events is being sidetracked by mercantile interests and nonsense politicians. Some people are most likely fuming over this. My standpoint on whether scientific specialists should get into public debate is shifting depending on what field and issue we’re talking about. Generally I would encourage academia to get involved and put their knowledge to good use instead of filter it through non-scientific personnel. But it is no secret that certain academic fields have their own channels through which they control most of society already. So if you’re a manager, economist or similar then don’t bother. Also if you’re a low brow political scientist (like in Comparative Politics, International Politics, Political Philosophy, National Politics) you need not apply. You have done enough already.
Natural science in its purest form, biology, and behaviorial sciences are most appreciated though. And so are of course the geo sciences, which are generally hopelessly overlooked.
The point is that in a world that has already been skewed and corrupted, where no one knows his or her place, I see no problems with academia taking on a second role. Since they themselves are often puppets in the grand scheme of things they can without dishonor strike at the puppeteer as it were. The power situation allows for it. And we’d all be better off.
Anyway .. about RealClimate …
Right … well .. they can have the ambition of course. From what I’ve seen so far they pretty much speak their minds. They don’t use politics explicitly but implicitly you get all the politics you could want. Very well put and formatted that way. They don’t need to get ideological because their science speaks for itself.
RealClimate got a considerable boost in the December issue of Nature (which is also where I spotted them). Kudos to Nature for pointing out something useful. RealClimate obviously has a great deal of mixed feelings about this. They conclude that getting a paper published in Nature is hard (I’m sure they have tried over the years) but getting a blog in the editorial, no less, is quite easy. Maybe they are underestimating the impact of what they are doing and the bold future that it paves for science, being the master of its own destiny.
If scientific blogs are your thing then there is a similar movement called The Panda’s Thumb in biology, which has for about a year now been campaigning against the delusions of the broad antievolution movement. Quite thoughtful. It pleases me greatly that at least some scientists have realized that they have to take matters into their own hands or continue to be sidetracked and oppressed in this not so ideal world.
Don’t know if you’ll get this since I’m commenting on an old blog entry, but I want to thank you for this thoughtful entry.
I’m (in process of becoming) a biochemist in the biomedical sciences, I agree with many things you’ve stated here. I’m quite sure scientists — especially those in the life sciences now that cloning/etc is such a big issue — want to make their voices heard and clarify some of the confusion that the media and government place upon the general citizenry. But sometimes communicating scientific ideas to a non-science community — as in public debate arena — can be difficult, due to differences in education and "jargon". That’s where the media can potentially be very helpful in bridging the gap between scientists and the masses.
But you’re right: scientists sometimes have to get out of their scientific world and engage with the public a bit more. I find that the deeper one is in basic research that doesn’t produce an immediate cure/drug/application, the more difficult to realize that the general public don’t necessarily understand why such research has to be done and how it benefits humanity.
In all cases, scientists should engage in public debate, to make their science more accessible to the public, and also, I suppose, to "strike at the puppeteer" — especially the ones that decide who and what to give research grants to.
Thanks for stopping by. And don’t worry, I get an email confirmation every time someone submits something.
I was ranting on a bit perhaps. Glad you got something out of it nevertheless
Not to mention actually taking the time to comment.
I have to admit the whole issue of whether scientists should get involved or not still bothers me a bit. Obviously there are those that for political reasons feel intimidated and would like scientists to "stick to their last" so to speak. I have met this attitude even in this blog from time to time. And then there are those scientists that themselves have ideological / political agendas.
But that aside, I’m still divided. On the one hand there could be consequences in the long run if scientists are to take on two jobs. One the other hand, commercial and other special interest groups have already overstepped their authority in most democratic societies.
Also, I would hate to see some repetition of Lysenkoism for example. Hmm. The sceptic in me is telling me that somehow the worst case scenario always wins. Good intentions paving the way to hell and all that …
And you’re right, the media could be very helpful. But as it stands they are the source of much of the confusion, much of the sensationalism and much of the political antagonizing. It’s Iraq, Iraq, Iraq .. Sports, Sports, Sports … Pope, Pope, Pope and then some Paris Hilton or whatever. At least that is what the model media consumer is getting.
Also, about basic research, this is a problem like you say. And not just since people don’t get it but also since there is no money in doing basic research. Especially not in your field I would assume. Hence no grants, no corporations willing to finance your research.
Gah. I suppose I would still say that the whole issue depends on … how serious the issue is, how much spin it has been given by other interests and how well the public is informed.
For me, this has almost become a "meaning-of-life"-type Sisyphusian quest. As E O Wilson would put it: "The future, if we are to have one, is increasingly to be in the hands of the scientifically literate, those who at least know what it is all about." (http://battleangel.org/blog...)
Anyway. Good luck with your future career! You seem like one that thought as well as studied.