Simple schematic of a Helium atom with its two electrons. According to the Pew study, only 46% of those surveyed answered correctly that an atom is larger than an electron.
Preamble
Before we officially launched the Gotham Skeptic, we spent about a month testing out articles on each other. During that time, I wrote an article that got Page and I into a bit of an argument. We never put up that first article.
Some of the points that both she and I made were raised at the recent NECSS and so, believing ourselves to have matured since those heady early days, Page and I decided to put forth a couple of opposing posts in order to create, hopefully, an interesting discussion for all of you, our good and loyal readers. We hope you will be able to take the time to participate alongside us.
A Skeptical Argument: Opening Salvo
The article that launched this whole kerfuffle was one from the New York Times a few months back. The article was about the disconnect between scientists and the general public, particularly on the ideas of evolution and climate change. Part of the discussion in the article was on how little scientists wind up speaking to the media. This is a massive problem.
On science topics, scientists are the subject matter experts. They’re the ones who actually know what the new studies mean, what information the majority of scientists are agreeing has been properly vetted, and why the other information is wrong. If they’re not going to inform the public on these matters, who is going to?
There are, undoubtedly, problems with communicating to the media. Even if the majority of working news people want to tell a truthful story, there are other interests to which news media outlets are accountable. Editors, publishers, sponsors, stockholders; all of these people have a bigger interest in the bottom line than the truth, and they will, at the very least, be tempted to sensationalize the story in order to improve its circulation. Misleading headlines, stories that imply that a new discovery is “overturning” an old theory, instead of simply adding to it, these things put our teeth on end, and rightly so. But they are not an excuse to cut off contact with the news media. They are still the bridge to the public, and not talking to the news media means the information is not spread outside the scientific community.
Is it difficult to communicate science to the media, and even more difficult to communicate it to a largely scientifically illiterate populace? Yes. And obviously, we lack today the great scientific popularizes like Sagan, Gould, and Feynman. People like Dawkins and Hitchens are simply too confrontational to take their place, and folks like Eugenie Scott and Kenneth R. Miller have not been able to get themselves out there enough. They are trying though, but still, those talking to the media and the public are a minority in a minority attempting to speak with the majority. I applaud their efforts, but we need more members of the scientific community to start trying.
I’m not saying this task is a fair or an easy one. And I certainly don’t want it to seem like I believe scientists are responsible for the decline in the public’s scientific illiteracy. Obviously, we need to improve our education and our news media. But if you ask me, the job has to start with scientists doing more to speak out about their work. More scientists spreading their joy of knowledge will mean less excuses for reporters to get the story wrong. More good science to enlighten minds will help teachers get excited about their subject matter and pass that excitement along to their students. The first step must be taken by our working thinkers.
We need our scientists to see bringing complicated ideas to the public as part of their job, and though most will be unable to, if more try we’ll find more who can. If scientists won’t speak for science, who will?
