Science dodged a bullet with the end of the Trump presidency but the threat has not gone away. The concepts of truth, transparency and empiricism are universal. For too long, scientists have stood aloof from these conversations – to society’s detriment.
Science has not been at greater risk since the times of Copernicus and Galileo. While science, including its role and authority, appear to have dodged a large bullet with the end of the Trump presidency, the threat to science has not gone away: anyone including the mischievous, the uninformed and self-proclaimed ‘influencers’ can still command extensive media coverage on unsubstantiated claims or by assertions of ‘fake news’.
It would be foolish to think that science has entered halcyon days merely because most political leaders have openly and unhesitatingly deferred to the opinions and expertise of scientists on how to respond to the Covid-19 pandemic.
While some politicians are no doubt genuine and some have had Road to Damascus conversions, others are content to use science as a convenient ‘cover’ for making some difficult health policy decisions. And there remains a rump of politicians who assert with pride that facts can sometimes be ‘contentious’.
It is timely, therefore, to reflect on the importance of science and how science (in all its STEM manifestations) might be better protected, defended and embraced in the future.
Science has a proud history of contribution to concepts such as truth, transparency and empiricism, dating back to the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution. Writings by Jacob Bronowski (Science and Human Values) and Carl Sagan (The Demon-Haunted World) make this point well and are eerily prescient about our current circumstances, despite having been published many decades ago.
Yet there is something even more fundamental to the role and purpose of science: society as we know it depends on science. Moreover, the health of the science sector is a proxy for the health of all of society.
A key revelation from recent events is that truth is the central value from which all others derive. In times past that might not have been so obvious; at best it was an implied and silent assumption. Now it is clear: without truth, there can be no social contract.
It is critical for citizens in democracies all around the world to start a conversation about the deficiencies of the current ‘social contract’ that has been largely unchanged for centuries, since the times of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. It needs to catch up quickly to the 21st century.
Even though the social contract and social contract theory are generally seen as the domain of those who study or practise the humanities, the concepts of truth, transparency and empiricism are universal. For too long, scientists have stood aloof from these conversations – to both their and society’s detriment.
A commitment by individuals and across society to truth, as well as to transparency and empiricism and the protection of the environment, need to be enshrined in the social contract and be seen as no less important than freedoms of speech and religion and an absence of arbitrary discrimination.
The list of values identified above is deliberately brief. It could easily be expanded to include other virtues of science and scientists such as tolerance and open-mindedness, not making wild claims, the courage to make bold guesses, not concealing error, rejecting dogma, encouraging collaboration, not appealing to either prejudice or authority, and being frank about one’s ignorance.
Scientists, like all citizens, need to be reminded by history that authoritarianism emerges and thrives when truth is disparaged and no longer matters.
Science is much more than the identification and assembly of facts. A creative activity, science has much in common with and, indeed, complements the humanities. Society would function more effectively if more people were familiar with CP Snow’s The Two Cultures and its warnings against isolating scientists from society.
With these things in mind, it is timely (indeed, well overdue) to revisit junior and senior high school and university science curricula. It seems inexplicable that the science curriculum does not contain express components that teach and examine science ‘civics’ and that introduce students to a basic outline of the history and philosophy of science.
At the very least, there should be formal instruction on:
- defining the concept of science including emphasising the scientific method and rational thinking as great and crowning achievements in their own right, separate from and at least as important as individual science accomplishments and the latest gadgets;
- the important and acceptable role played by error and failure in getting to the truth; and
- how to recognise and debunk bad science and pseudoscience.
Maybe it is time to think about a Science Oath for science graduands, not dissimilar to the Hippocratic Oath for medical graduands and the oath that lawyers take before a court to ‘conduct themselves well and honestly in the practice of law’. The core element of a Science Oath should include a commitment to truth, transparency and empiricism.
Oaths on their own do not thwart or stop ‘bad eggs’ but they are the capstone of successful undergraduate outcomes and the entry into a profession. Oaths and the solemn proceedings that accompany them set moral and ethical boundaries and are a good reminder to all of noblesse oblige. Oaths are instrumental in calling out unacceptable behaviours by professionals and disciplining or even expelling recalcitrants from professional bodies. Deans of science might want to reflect on this and initiate action to develop a science oath.
if we are serious about protecting, defending and embracing science:
- scientists need to be better communicators so they can explain and defend science;
- formal training in effective communications and media should be part of the university science curriculum; and
- the basic education about science for all citizens should not be limited to the ‘wonders of science’ but should cover the inherent values, virtues and authority of science.
Adjunct Professor Trevor Danos AM FTSE FRSN, Chair, Northern Sydney Local Health District
Comments
12 responses to “Society depends on science: we need to get serious about protecting it”
Science is indeed being ignored and/or misused by politicians, vested interests and sections of the media, e.g. with respect to human-induced climate change. On many issues, science can and should provide a valuable input to social and environmental decision-making. But let’s not go to the extreme of scientism. While truth, transparency and empiricism are desirable in decisions by government, science cannot determine an ethical framework for decision-makers or how they should weigh up the influences of different interest groups.
As a practising scientist for over 50 years, I must acknowledge that much scientific research contains subjective judgments, e.g. selection of problems to study, of data, of methods for analysing the chosen data, and of assumptions about unknown variables. Furthermore, in presenting the results of this selection process, the scientist has to make selections of definitions and terminology, and of the context in which the results are exhibited. In subsequent decisions about the implementation of related public policy or about the marketing of a product of science, further subjective judgements are made on whether the onus of proof should rest with the promoters to demonstrate safety or with the opponents to demonstrate risk. Value judgements must also be made concerning the risks and benefits of the policy or product when one group of the population stands to gain most of the benefits while another is likely to suffer most of the risks.
Although this is just basic knowledge from the social studies of science (see e.g. Alan Chalmers: What is this Thing called Science?), few scientists are ever exposed to it. When is it presented to them, some are resistant, clinging to the myth of purely objective science. Yet without this understanding, it is difficult to see through and refute the subtle misuses of science by vested interests.
Carl Sagan was nothing if not prescient. His foreboding has turned out to be real, and it is just as valid for Australia.
“I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time — when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness…
The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance”
Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
I don’t know that its science that needs protecting, rather its certain societies where the significance of science is being denigrated that need assistance. Three members of the “Anglosphere” most prominently – UK, US and Oz.
Science itself is thriving as seen in the accelerating volume of quality research produced by yearly larger numbers of STEM workers and by the finer, deeper and broader depth of understanding developing across all the natural sciences (the social sciences are another matter). This is part of the social problem. In putting forward new knowledge science has always confronted existing ideas and associated social structures. Those with obscurantist world views (some in senior positions in Australian politics) or entrenched interests in obsolete industries (coal mining, print news distribution) find science discomforting and want first to ignore it, then to discredit it.
Societies ‘on the move’ embrace science for the assistance it provides in bringing change – China (“science superpower”) most obviously – not surprising as the culture is pragmatic and largely unhindered by religious superstition. But we also see science valued in countries of the same group (“on the move”) where fundamentalist religious views have great influence – India and Iran – because the value of science is recognised. Science in both is thriving.
Science itself is doing pretty well UK, US and Oz but attention is needed to alter the appalling ignorance among most of the establishment of lawyers, financiers, politicians etc. – abetted by a largely foolish media.
Is it a coincidence that all three, the UK, US and Oz remain in thrall to one Rupert Murdoch? The damage that this one man has done to progressive politics, and indeed to society, in the last few decades will need to have the bright light shone on it. Aren’t the UK and US lucky that they also get to share in this Australian’s very special talent in spreading his malign influence?!
Sir, we are in this mess because we have too few scientists or science related professionals in Parliament. China made tremendous progress after Deng Xiaoping because their leadership was dominated by scientists and technologists. Xi Jinping himself was trained as a chemical engineer. There was a time during the Hawke government when we had Barry Jones guiding us in technological development. Now we have government MPs who are really good at winning debates in Parliament but who think that the same skill alone is enough to be a winner on a world stage. Science based professionals such as engineers are doers. They plan projects, set targets and time lines, monitor progress, examine strengths and weaknesses, learn from their mistakes and correct them, and take responsibility for their actions. If we do not have enough people with the skills of scientists, the least that the political elites today could do is to emulate their ways.
Modern civilization is founded on science which, along with its progressive nature, for example in medicine, is also a double edged sword, where it gives rise to uncontrolled inventions and the development of fatal technologies, the prime example being nuclear energy and weapons and also a wide range of poisons polluting the biosphere.
Until the species learns how to control its dangerous inventions the species will remain self-imperiled.
Predicting whether short-term benefits involve long-term costs, and determining whether what we do is sustainable are matters for science. Organising a sustainable human population system is a matter of engineering dependent on science, necessarily including the science of human behaviour. Putting power into the hands of people whose rhetoric is determined to be the most effective by carefully counting votes (in which wisdom and ignorance are counted equally) hasn’t been much help in organising a sustainable human population system.
All true,
And then science, ethics and democracy are not exactly the same thing.
Given enough propaganda even elections can give rise to monsters, as in 1933 and 1996
Like Trump in America, the Morrison government sees science and evidence based truth as their enemy, or at least as a threat to some of their key supporters and ideological fellow travellers. Especially as regards the fossil fuel industries and religions. As evidence for that assertion, look no further than the fact that the government went out of its way to deny JobKeeper funding for university staff (except for Catholic and private universities of course) while at the same time, allowing the subsidy for Catholic priests. Put baldly, given a choice of backing the enlightenment or superstition, Morrison plumped for the latter. Things are dire.
Morrison believes in miracles, especially Christian miracles. He probably also believes the Universe and our world was created 6,000 years ago, and our earth is flat. And I am sure he believes all of us, non-believers, are destined for Hell.
But hey! We have to give him full marks for being able to speak in tongues with his fellow prejudiced conservatives who are variously anti-Science, anti-Foreign, anti-Chinese, anti-Black, climate change deniers, and of course other simpletons who just love the fear and loathing!
How did we get here, Australia?
They are anti-Australian too
We got there by them getting hold of the media in order to sing their tune, and often choosing short gain$$$ grants and mythical tax cuts over the good of the country when voting.
A bit of Orwellian fear, and Huxley’s soma-distraction consumerism helped too.
And of course:
“But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.”
And,
“voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”
Hermann Goering
I wonder who is apparently attacking us now?
Contentious Facts is an oxymoron.
A fact is supported by verifiable evidence. Therefore a fact is a fact. The link to Michael McCormack clearly demonstrates that he does not know the difference between a fact, an opinion or prejudice>