The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the CO2 Coalition.
By Tom Hartsfield
This weekend RealClearScience ran an editorial bemoaning the public’s distrust of science. The author explains away the problem by insisting that the public is naive, rooked by Republican “pandering,” and uninterested in a scientific establishment “too old, too male,” and not “representative.”
In essence, she answers her own question. Reasonable people distrust science because of the way scientists treat them.
The truth is that many scientists pick political sides
, look down their noses at the public, and play politically correct
games. I think the public is on to something. I wouldn’t trust us either.
The condescension is the worst part. Many research scientists who fret and wail about public ignorance live off the public dime. Our microscopes, our labs, our pipettes and our particle colliders are bought with taxpayers’ money. They pay our salaries too.
So when we tell them how stupid they are, how ignorant and backward and wrong they are, why shouldn’t they be angry? Belittling someone in an argument never wins his support. How much more arrogant and foolish is it to belittle the people who write your paycheck?
If the public doesn’t understand why we believe certain things, that’s our fault. We owe them better communication. We need to demonstrate the value of our work and ideas, not demean theirs.
The other big problems in scientist-citizen relations arise from politics.
Scientists have increasingly become overtly political rather than maintaining distance. Worse, they usually fight for one side only. Then they turn around and act shocked when the enemies they have unnecessarily made don’t trust them! There’s condescension here too: how dare these ignorant little people not fall in line behind their intellectual superiors!
The public trusts those with strong moral codes lying in a plane above politics. Four of the five most trusted institutions in the United States are the military, the police, the church, and medicine. All of which are supported by apolitical moral backbones.
Congruently, we distrust those possessing no morals above the political. Among the least popular institutions in this country: Congress, TV news, organized labor, and newspapers.
Every time science picks sides in politics, it slips away from the trusted group and sinks toward the disreputable one. Science is selling away its considerable moral stock by choosing to fight for the momentary goals of its political favorites. That’s a terrible, shortsighted bargain.
Just as science needs a system of morals outside of politics, it needs a system of discerning merit outside of politics too. Scientists should be choosing and rewarding their leaders and workers by quality of output and scientific ability. When we trade this honest system of merit for politically correct affirmative action, we throw away the confidence of a huge swath of the public.
“Too old, too male, out of touch.”
These are politically correct cries that endear scientists to the press, to the bureaucracy, and to a subset of the public. But they create many more needless enemies. Here again we sell out our moral stock for a shallow bit of momentary political and media affection.
If the public does not trust science, I say many scientists have given them good reason. Scientists need to be more trustworthy. We need to stop looking down on the public. We need to stop playing politics and taking up the banner of political correctness
. Otherwise we become just another snooty political faction, trusted fleetingly by our friends of convenience but permanently loathed by our growing legion of self-inflicted enemies.
This article appeared on the RealClearScience website at http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2016/08/the_public_should_mistrust_science.html