Science literacy — why we have almost lost a battle we didn’t even know we were fighting

This is science literacy week and it even has its own hashtag (#SciLit17). The Ontario Science Centre published a survey of Canadians regarding their attitudes to science (as reported by CBC). It’s sobering. Correction, it’s an R-rated horror story. It should also be a wake-up call for the all-out battle that science currently finds itself in. Some sickening highlights:

• 47 per cent agreed that “the science behind global warming is still unclear,” despite what scientists have been calling for years “unequivocal” evidence.
• 19 per cent agree “there is a link between vaccinations and autism,” even though the study that made the link was found years ago to be “an elaborate fraud.”
• 31 per cent of respondents agree that “because scientific ideas are fluid and subject to change, they can’t be trusted.”
• 68 per cent agree that media coverage of scientific issues is “reported selectively to support news media objectives.”
• 59 per cent agree that media coverage of scientific issues is “presented to support a political position.”
• four in 10 Canadians think that science is a matter of opinion

That’s regular, Tim Horton’s drinking, snow-shovelling Canadians who elected Justin Trudeau. These are not people like the “not actually anything even close to a scientist” Chief Scientist of the USDA (handy list of the many other ways the Trump administration has put science into its crosshairs).

Seriously, do these people think it is a matter of opinion that the aeodynamics of the plane they are about to board could do with some alternative input? Or the drug their father takes every day to reduce his risk of heart failure could be replaced by an M&M?

A major part of the problem is that most people, especially scientists, have no freaking idea what is going on, who is behind it, let alone are actively tackling it. At best, they see misinformation or #fakenews as something that is due to innocent ignorance that will self-correct. Facts always win out, afterall. At worst, they think this is healthy scepticism and an inherent aspect of the scientific process.

This is so wrong-headed. This is not a battle played under the rules of science where nothing is ever settled but the preponderance of evidence wins the day. There are no rules in this battle and we (scientists, science communicators, science policy makers and people interested in science) are pathetically ill-prepared. In many ways, we are simply not up to the task and perhaps we need to consider passing the baton for the defence of science to a bunch of cold blooded experts who lack our gentle, liberal sensitivities.

Here are a few of the ways we disarm our own arguments:

1. We rely on complex arguments illustrated with sophisticated mechanisms and algorithms that we struggle to explain to our best friends. It may as well be in Klingon.
2. We require and are proud of the decade or more of intensive further education and the associated qualifications and certifications that we have earned.
3. We perform science under the watchful eye of government or charity funders who run open competitions and announce what look like very large sums of money for projects that are often esoteric or lack obvious short term benefit.
4. We congratulate ourselves publically with awards and prizes that we nominate and select behind closed doors (applies to grants too). Side note: Nobel Prize week 2017: Oct 2
5. Our “product” is ephemeral manuscripts published in journals that have lower subscription numbers than some local, free newspapers and cost thousands of dollars. We largely rely on others to translate some of this into digestible sound bites that compete with the cute puppy stories, natural disasters and political corruption in the news.
6. We believe in evidence and the scientific method and assume everyone else does too.

All of these elements used to work just fine. Jeez, 60–70 years ago we still didn't know how the fundamental process of biology worked in molecular terms — we knew DNA was important but how it was employed by cells to result in proteins was conjecture. Science in those days was seen as a mysterious activity conducted in mouldy labs on university campuses by misfits and weirdos (at least that aspect hasn’t changed much). But then science came into its own in a very public way — at least, in a way by which the public could immediately sense and understand the value of science. This is best illustrated by the space race which captured imaginations (at least until Apollo 11) and the equally astronomical benefits of vaccination (less appreciated but just as important was broader public health infrastructure, clear water, access to antibiotics, etc). These benefits were astounding and, in many cases, occurred within a short time. Children were protected from horrible illnesses, technology was advancing faster than ever, quality of life increased, longevity increased. Governments saw that the public (the voters) appreciated these advances and were willing to pay for them through taxes. The connection between scientific discovery and societal progress was obvious and relished. New industries were born, new research facilities founded or expanded. New knowledge was created. New frontiers were advanced.

Then something happened. More accurately, there began a slow decline of the perception of the value of science. During this time, the scientific community and investments in science steadily grew over the 1970s to 2000s and the influence and impact of science became ever more integral to modern society. Witness the devastation caused by hurricanes Irma and Maria to many Caribbean islands to understand how fragile modern society really is and how dependent we have become on telecommunications, access to consistent power, hospitals, transport, etc. As investments in science increased, the benefits became less apparent and more taken for granted. Major scientific advances still occurred but were received by an ever more sceptical and increasingly disinterested public who felt no closer to the scientific enterprise than they’d been 100 years ago. The connection between progress and science was eroded.

Other factors, such as increasing disparities in wealth distribution and suspicion of elites (or anyone who was deemed distinct in some way) started to undermine support and raise questions of the cost of science. By the time of the economic crash in late 2008, science budgets were an easy target, especially outside the US and countries such as China where investment of science was still seen as a way to climb out of the hole. As government funding began to stagnate, research institutions began to rely upon other sources including philantropy and, in order to entice donors, made ever greater and unrealistic promises. Scientists were increasingly rewarded for how bold their promises were. Ideas were cheap, but large labs and massive funding initiatives became the goal as administrators realised politicians were more likely to be attracted to “moonshot” projects than to incremental advances. In doing so, science sold out its primary asset: diversity and ingenuity afforded by independently curious minds.

Science over the last 30 years also began to raise uncomfortable questions. Climate change, alternative energies, AI, genetic manipulation (GMOs, gene editing), increasing costs of drugs, ever more expensive and seemingly out of touch gadgets. This, coupled with increasing competition for the publics’ attention and emergence of click-bait and sensationalist news which each fed off increasingly grandiose and outrageous stories, meant that whatever scientific news was being reported was often either lost in the cacophony or trivialized to match the media format it was competing within.

“Democratization” of information exchange through the advent of social media added the last ingredient/nail to enable a full scale war on science. Through these networks, conspiracy theorists could reach a whole new audience, much larger than the dank basements of society they normally inhabited. They multiplied virally and spread seeds of doubt. Their authority was increased by sheer volume and they played by different rules. Likewise, large, incumbent corporations ramped up public awareness campaigns to counter the warnings of scientists, just as Big Tobacco had done in the 90s. They realised to be most effective (especially in light of experiential evidence for an increasingly volatile planetary climate) they had to undermine the credibility of scientists themselves. That was a price they were willing to pay to maintain their carbon economy-based businesses. Some were willing to undermine national elections and plebicites - so what matter the profession of science?

Associated with the increasing scepticism, often fuelled by outright lies and misinformation, was a rise in pseudo-science. This, ironically, added to the general malaise and distrust of science as the difference between actual vs fake science was muddied. Sites such as Goop attracted audiences eager for solutions that proper science couldn’t provide (and charged their clients for that service). Stem cell clinics promised miracle cures — modern day snake oil — riding on the hyperbole increasingly employed by bona fide scientific organizations to promote their research.

Scientists, predictably, responded by bringing pea-shooters to an assault rifle fight. The 6 principles (listed above) made for easy targets. Scientists were (1) unintelligible, (2) elitist, (3) expensive and self-indulgent, (4) incestuous and secret, (5) inaccessible and (6) expected to play on their home turf using their own rules. The results to date have been catastrophic. Science has been no match for popularism. Even as the human species (not to mention millions of other species we cohabit the planet with) faces existential threats and society takes for granted scientifically based engineering marvels and forgets the scourge of infectious disease, some of the most powerful politicians now openly deny consensus science, disparage and ignore the people who generate the evidence and work to undermine and de-fund efforts to mitigate the effects of harmful human actitivies. The power of this anti-science influence is so strong that even people in flood-prone coastal and low lying areas are convinced that anthropomorphic climate change is a myth. Despite some of the most insightful medical minds pleading for increased vaccination to protect against diseases that were largely eradicated 20 years ago, disbarred and disgraced vaccine denialists are given attention and oxygen to spew their dangerous opinions. Our pharmacies are stocked with remedies and homeopathic concoctions that would have a more appropriate home in Macbeth’s witches’ cauldron. At a time when knowledge is being accumulated at unprecedented rates and understanding of our universe has never been so high (recognizing we still have far more to learn), it is a disgrace to humanity that we have let base instincts of ignorance, profit, selfishness, racism, xenophobia, misogyny, homophobia, hatred and celebrity flourish at the expense of rational thought and the time-proven scientific method.

Scientists, policy experts, communicators and research organizations had better up their game in convincing the world that the emporer of ignorance and popularism not only has no interest in their well being but is actively campaigning to deny a bright future to their children. Our own self-aggrandisment, arrogance and confidence are contributing to the situation. We have largely ignored or otherwise been condescending to the public and this neglect opened up opportunities for those who seek to exploit others for their own gain. So, in a week promoting science literacy, we should examine the role our own incompetence has contributed to the situation.

What can you do?

If you’re a scientist, reach out to the public. Spend time putting your work into a context others can appreciate. They provide you with the privilege of being a scientist. You owe them an explanation.

If you’re a science communicator, examine your writing and expunge it of sensationalism (if I see the word/hear the words “transformative”, “ground-breaking” or “breakthrough” I’ll find you!). Dig deeper and experiment with new formats.

If you are working in science policy, think about fundamental goal of science. It is not about allocating more money through over-sized promises. It is about enabling the best ideas to emerge over time by ensuring every bright mind has an opportunity to express and test their ideas. History teaches us this.

If you’re a politician, help scientists help you. We’re delicate creatures who are generally clueless in framing debates and making our case. You know how to compromise, drive around opponents and stay alive for the next fight.

If you’re a member of the public, demand better: of your scientists, of your politicians and of yourselves. Learn to discriminate garbage from the real thing, seek out the sources, ask pointed questions, keep an open mind, don’t absorb yourself in an echo chamber. In other words, become your own scientist. It’s not hard and you’ll realise we’re just like you and have the same aspirations and hopes.