Good article but typical for the Left, it ignores how Leftists can also 
be anti-science. Think Steve Jobs and his refusal to seek medical
treatment until it was too late. And why do you suppose feminists
are anti-sociobiology? Its not because they are Right-wing
religious kooks,  is it?
 
Otherwise, worth reading
 
BR
 
----------------------------------------------
 
 
 
Poll Reveals Rift Between Scientists, Regular Folks
When it comes to food, energy, and education, Americans don't  follow 
experts' lead.

 
 
Dan Vergano 
_National Geographic_ (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/) 
 
 
Published January 29, 2015 
 
What do the International Space Station and bioengineered fuels have in  
common? They're about the only technological advances that both scientists and 
 the American public actually like. 
On most other scientific matters, a widespread "opinion gap" splits  the 
experts from everyday folks, pollsters at the _Pew Research  Center reported _ 
(http://www.pewresearch.org/science2015/) Thursday. The rift persists in 
long-running issues such as  the causes of climate change and the safety of 
nuclear power. And it crops up in  the news today in battles over outbreaks of 
measles tied to children who haven't  been vaccinated. 
Scientists say this opinion gap points to shortcomings in their own  skills 
at reaching out to the public and to deficits in science education. On  the 
last point, at least, the public agrees, with majorities on both sides  
rating U.S. education as average at best. 
That's bad news for the future, says American Association for the  
Advancement of Science head _Alan Leshner_ 
(http://www.aaas.org/person/alan-i-leshner) , if Americans want to keep 
enjoying the  benefits of science. 
"There is a disconnect between the way the public perceives science  and 
the way that scientists see science," says Leshner, whose Washington  
D.C.-based organization collaborated with Pew on the polling. "Scientists need  
to 
do something to turn this around." 
_In an editorial_ (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6221/459)  in the 
journal Science, Leshner  called on scientists to personally stem a swelling 
"unbridgeable chasm" in  attitudes between researchers and the taxpayers 
who largely fund essential  research. 
Mind the Gap 
In a head-to-head comparison of expert and everyday attitudes, the  two new 
polls asked 2,002 U.S. adults and 3,748 AAAS members (described as "a  
broad-ranging group of professionally engaged scientists") identical questions  
about their views on scientific achievement, education, and controversial  
issues. 
"People are still mostly positive about science," but compared with  five 
years ago, "we are seeing a slight souring of the views," says Pew polling  
expert _Cary Funk_ (http://www.pewresearch.org/staff/cary-funk/) . "When you 
look across the questions, you are  struck by large differences in citizens 
and scientists." 
On the safety of genetically modified food and pesticides, for  example, 
experts and the public differed by 40 percentage points or more in  their 
approval, with the majority of scientists saying GMO foods are safe to  eat. On 
their beliefs in human-caused climate change and human evolution, the  
groups differed by more than 30 percentage points. Differences nearly as large  
are seen on _vaccination_ 
(http://damemagazine.com/2015/01/28/entitlement-infecting-us-measles) , animal 
research, and offshore oil  drilling.

 
"We are seeing the gaps as larger now across a large set of issues,"  Funk 
says, compared to past polls. 
Political Science 
Though scientists point to a lack of public understanding of science,  
"having scientists speak at Kiwanis club meetings is not going to change a lot  
of people's views about science," says polling expert _Jon  Miller_ 
(http://www.soe.umich.edu/people/profile/miller_jon/)  of the University of 
Michigan 
in Ann Arbor. 
The survey results don't differ a great deal from past polls, but  this 
only reinforces anxiety over the future of science, Miller adds. Support  for 
research has gone from a bedrock American principle to one suffering  
fissures from political fistfights over human evolution, embryonic stem cells,  
climate change, and other issues. 
"A lot of scientific issues have become politicized," Miller says. "I  
think this report is kind of tiptoeing around that reality, where the [U.S.]  
Republican party has sought political support from voters with religious views 
 who are often hostile to science." 
To his point, an _American Sociological Review study_ 
(http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-01/asa-mrp012615.php)  also 
_reported on Thursday _ 
(http://www.asanet.org/journals/ASR/Feb15ASRFeature2.pdf) that roughly one 
in five U.S. adults  is deeply religious and accepts astronomy, 
radioactivity, and genetics as  settled science but rejects human evolution and 
the big 
bang. These are  high-income, well-educated people who are "scientifically 
literate" and view  science favorably, according to study lead author_  
Timothy O'Brien_ (http://www.evansville.edu/majors/sociology/faculty.cfm)  of 
the 
_University of Evansville_ 
(http://www.evansville.edu/factsandtraditions/history.cfm)  in Indiana. They 
just toss  overboard science that clashes with 
literal readings of the Bible. 
Over the last decade, public opinion researchers such as Yale's _Dan Kahan_ 
(http://www.law.yale.edu/faculty/DKahan.htm)   have found that people's 
views on many scientific issues, _such as climate_ 
(http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2459057)  and evolution, 
are largely driven by their 
 cultural views. Sociologist _Robert Brulle_ 
(http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~brullerj/)  of Drexel University in Philadelphia 
likewise  found that when 
_political leaders change their views_ 
(http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/climthreat.htm)  on climate change,  
voters are more likely to be swayed than 
they are by the voices of  scientists. 
Leshner, however, disagrees. "Political leaders don't carry the same  kind 
of credibility that well-informed scientists do," he says. 
He argues that scientists can better sway public opinion by making  the 
case for science in smaller venues, such as retirement communities or  library 
groups, instead of the traditional lecture hall. "It is important that  the 
public understands that scientists are people  too."

-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to