In spite of some apparent victories for science — like the primary election that should install a mostly moderate State Board of Education in Kansas, which in turn should mean an end to the effort to include intelligent design as a theory in science curricula for the state’s public schools — scientists may be losing ground with the public on such vital issues as the teaching of evolution or the need for research on stem cells.
The abutment of science with moral or religious values is straining the relationship between science and society. The National Science Board reports that a large majority of Americans (more than 70 percent in every survey since the early 1970s) still believes the benefits of science outweigh its risks to health or the environment. Yet many Americans don’t understand science. Almost half believe that astrology is scientific and do not think that humans evolved from other species. More than half believe in extrasensory perception.
Many scientists argue that the solution to the tension between science and society is to increase public understanding of science. But the problem is not simply a lack of comprehension. The case of stem-cell research is instructive: It is not that opponents do not understand somatic-cell nuclear transfer; they do grasp the fundamental nature of the process, and they don’t like it. The notion of destroying an embryo, no matter how noble the cause, conflicts with their core religious beliefs about when life begins, and its sanctity. More education would not be enough.
Simply lamenting the tension or protesting attacks on the integrity of science and science education won’t work, either. We’ve been doing those for decades, if not centuries, and, as the saying has it, insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.
Instead of simply increasing public understanding of science, scientists need to have a real dialogue with members of the public, listening to their concerns, their priorities, and the questions they would like us to help answer. We also need to find ways to move science forward while adapting to their legitimate concerns.
Sometimes called the public-engagement movement, that approach has taken hold in Canada and many countries in Europe, and it is gaining ground in the United States. Scientists are learning that a respectful dialogue with the public is much more effective in finding common ground than a more traditional, instructional monologue. The extensive efforts at public engagement that surrounded the launching of the Human Genome Project show how such dialogue can help assuage public fears about new areas of research. Moreover, after two decades of working on these issues, we have learned the following important — and often humbling — lessons.
- Never pit science against religion. Those two fields of inquiry are concerned with different domains and types of questions. Most mainstream religions generally coexist well with science, despite zealots in both camps. Evangelical atheists among our scientific colleagues are as intractable and harmful to genuine dialogue as are evangelical religious fundamentalists: Whether God exists is not a question that can be answered scientifically, and we should stick to our own area of expertise.
- Never debate a known ideologue. That is really a corollary to the first lesson. Scientists are bound by data and their limits. Ideologues are not; they are free to say whatever they want. It is therefore nearly impossible for even the smartest among us to win a debate with an ideologue.
That principle is extremely difficult for scientists to accept, as debate is such a central part of the scientific enterprise. Moreover, we in science believe that facts always will win out. But again, ideologues are not bound by the facts, and there is a limit to the number of times one can accuse one’s opponent of fabricating or distorting facts before appearing overly aggressive and losing credibility with the audience. Those of us who were involved in early discussions of evolution and intelligent design learned the hard way that by debating advocates of ID we inadvertently gave them scientific authenticity.
- Protect the integrity of science. Credible scientists never contradict or go beyond the available data. We should never insert our personal values into discussions with the public about scientific issues. On the other hand, it is important to recognize that the rest of society is not constrained in that way and can mix facts and values at will.
That is another principle scientists find hard to accept, as they often have strong moral values. When a scientist brings personal views on, say, the beginning of life into a supposedly scientific discussion on the use of embryonic stem cells in research, his or her credibility as a source of neutral facts is automatically diminished. No matter what a scientist believes about moral issues, if an opponent in a debate introduces values or beliefs, the scientist should disclaim any ability to comment on those issues as outside the scientific realm.
- Be very clear about the nature of science. We need to help the public understand what is and what is not science: what scientific inquiry cannot cover, like the existence of God; what are data and what are not — “the plural of anecdote is not evidence” is a useful cliché here; and how the word “theory” is used differently in science and in common speech, so that evolution and gravity are equally “just” theories.
- Go “glocal.” Most people relate best to matters that affect them personally. We must make global scientific issues meaningful at the local level. One way is by working with local news media and religious and community leaders.
We also need to stop expecting people to come to us at our universities or conferences. Scientists should volunteer to meet with local religious groups, fraternal organizations, and school groups. And they should include in their discussions with those people the relevance of their work for everyday life.
It can take a great deal of time to reach out to local groups. But that is the best way of getting our work understood by those who support it through their tax dollars, and on whose behalf we ultimately conduct our research.
- Work with small groups for true interaction. An academic’s normal tendency is to give a public lecture, then allow members of the audience to ask questions. But such events are only preaching to the choir — those people already interested in the topic. And public lectures can easily be taken over by zealots, who hog the microphone or intimidate more mainstream participants from speaking out.
Public engagement works best when scientists and members of the public work together in smaller groups to discuss and develop solutions to real-life problems. Effective techniques have been described by Daniel Yankelovich and Ruth A. Wooden, leaders of the nonprofit group Public Agenda — a nonpartisan opinion-research organization that sponsors civic engagement to help Americans explore and understand critical issues. Yankelovich spelled out their philosophy, and how it might be applied to science, in the summer 2003 Issues in Science and Technology.
- Listen. The most important — and most difficult — lesson to learn is that public engagement involves genuine dialogue, which means both parties must listen and be willing to modify their own positions. Studies conducted for the Department of Trade and Industry, in Britain, have suggested that the public is very skeptical of so-called public-engagement events. We have to mean it when we do it. The practice of some agencies, like parts of the National Institutes of Health, of including members of the public in committees that review grant proposals is an example of how to overcome such skepticism.
The Center for Public Engagement With Science and Technology — which is part of my organization, the American Association for the Advancement of Science — has held town-hall events, including one designed to provide science teachers from middle and high schools with information about intelligent design, an effort covered by The Chronicle (“On the Front Lines in the War Over Evolution,” March 10). A similar event on global climate change, designed to help high-school students and teachers understand the issue and keep them interested in science, is planned for the February 2007 AAAS annual meeting in San Francisco. We also have played host to occasional salon-type, informal discussions between well-known scientists and members of the public, and we have dispatched representatives to meet with church and synagogue groups.
It is not yet clear whether the public-engagement approach will significantly reduce the tension that is weakening science’s relationship with society. But at a minimum, it should bring scientists into closer proximity with their fellow citizens, which in turn should give each group a far better understanding and greater empathy for the perspective of the other. That is a critical first step toward any real progress.
Alan I. Leshner is chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and executive publisher of Science.
http://chronicle.com Section: The Chronicle Review Volume 53, Issue 8, Page B20