The Public Doesn’t Trust Science. It’s 2017. We Need to Fix This. – Futurism

Living in a Post-Truth World

In this post-truth world plagued by fake news and alternative facts, a massive divide has emergedbetween the science communityand muchof society, and the problem isnt limited to just one issue, either.

Despite scientists telling them otherwise, asignificant number of people still believe genetically modifiedfoods are unsafe to eat, others are worriedthat vaccines do more harm than good, and an alarming number of people arent convinced that climate change is a man-made phenomenon.

The public is nervous. They worry, Are scientists trustworthy? Can industry be trusted?, Arthur Caplan, Founding Director of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University, explains to Futurism.

Thankfully,Caplan believesthe scientific community has the power to regainthe publics trust.

According to Caplan,rebuilding trust starts with better communication.Scientists can spend years or even decades dedicated to one field of study, and their work can be extremely complicated. Not every research projectlends itself to snappy headlines and easily digestible results, so the science community needs to focus on finding people the public can trust to explain its work instead of relying on the press to act as the middleman.

We have to have more scientists learn how to communicate better, asserts Caplan. We dont have many good spokesmen. Out of hundreds of thousands of scientists, we have roughly six that can communicate.

Having more charismatic, trustworthyscience ambassadors like Neil deGrasse Tyson and Michio Kaku who can explain scientific facts and breakthroughs in a relatable way is especially important when it comes toareas of science in which ethics are a concern. Caplan cites gene editing as one such example.

Many people dont understand what thetechnology is all about, he explains. They fear its going to be used by bad people to do bad things, and they dont really understand the upside or the benefits. The public needs to see that scientists arent egomaniacs trying to play God with genetics, but regular people who see ways the technology could save lives.

By focusing first on building better lines of communication, the science community has a chance to regain the publics trust, and the implications of thatwould be extraordinary.

For example, addressing the issue of climate change would be much easier ifan additional 37 percent of the public believed it wasprimarily caused by man (bringing the rate in line with that of the science community in the Pew Research survey). If politicians wanted to be re-elected, theyd be forced to write legislationaddressing the issue, and an additional third of the population would be more likely to make changes on an individual level to address the problem, such as transitioning to electric cars.

Even more important than regaining the publics trust, however, might be building it from the ground up with future generations, particularly in regards to controversial areas of study. Todays youth may not have the established biases of older generations, andcurrently, the science community does little to connect with them.

We need some serious ethical and science-related discussion related to [these topics] in high school. After all, its the next generation that will answer many of these issues, and most of them dont get any discussion of these topics even though theyre keenly interested in all of them, says Caplan. We neglect high school, and if you produce an illiterate population with respect to science, you suffer the consequences.

This interview has been slightly edited for clarity and brevity.

View post:
The Public Doesn't Trust Science. It's 2017. We Need to Fix This. - Futurism