Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Laboratory >

Public understanding of science

08:09 / 03.10.02

Snow's basic thesis was that the breakdown of communication between the sciences and the humanities (the "two cultures" of the title) was a major hindrance to solving the world's problems.

So I was reading about C.P.Snow and it reminded me of this post in the AI thread by Lurid. So the question is how do we divide power between the expert and the public. The production and presentation of scientific fact should be the object of scrutiny - but by who?

The favourite example in my house is organic food. Widely believed to be better in every way, but in actual fact (as I am reliably informed by people who study this full time) often just as bad if not worse than conventional production techniques. Intuitively it would seem better, but scientifically it isn't, yet it is still a commercial success.

What about the human genome? As public a property as anything could be yet patented and researched for private corporate interest. Science is the only authority able to control something this complex, yet it can’t be allowed to abuse that ability for private rather than public gain.

So what do you think? Science or public? Perhaps read the AI thread again. It might change your mind.

17:10 / 03.10.02

A tangential question that may prove central to the discussion:
What do you mean by organic food being "bad" or "worse"?
On what scale are you measuring?

19:15 / 03.10.02

I've been meaning to start a thread about this for some time. However, I've still not been able to find a transcript of Snow's famous lecture. If anyone can suceed where I failed, it would provide a good point of departure.

Buk: Keeping up with science is probably easier than keeping up with current affairs. Plenty of people do neither, of course. But you would imagine that in our technological times, an interest with politics would stimulate an interest in science. In fact, that interest is often present but I wonder why people are so often intimidated by science. Perhaps I am reading it wrong, but I think the culture divide is alive and well.

The other side of the divide is more depressing but probably less consequential. I've met plenty of scientists who dismiss overly "Arty" pursuits. Sad, in a way. However, in a representative democracy, it is the speakers who have power and not the inarticulate scientists.

So, Buk. I'm no expert, but I have kept my eyes open and I've never seen any evidence for the benefits of organic food. I've heard it said that it tastes better, but I've never had the money to afford enough of it to judge. Organic food is, however, a small part of a campaign to return us to more "natural" ways. I can agree with some of the ideals, perhaps. But your intuition about it is little more than credulity in the face of advertising. Isn't it?

Also, putting science versus the public is a misframing of certain problems, in my view. It would be like blaming "sports" for exploiting child labour when the culprits are probably multi-nationals and the unconstrained power of capital.

20:53 / 03.10.02

I'm not sure that the abstract here makes much sense. "How involved should the general public be in science?" In what way? In terms of deciding what the goals of scientific research are... well, since scientists are part of society and their goals are based on that, in a way they are already. You wouldn't have scientists developing GM technology, for instance, if their goals weren't societal ones (making money or feeding the world, depending on who you listen to). So in the sense that any human being is involved in what another human being does, the public are already involved.

If anyone is trying to suggest that scientists should confine their thoughts, imaginations and research to exactly that which would produce results the majority would approve of, then I'd oppose that.

09:19 / 04.10.02

Don't be dissing the abstract. Fridge, to take your example of GM technology. So much of the research here is carried out in the name of private corporate interest not the public good. I suppose you could argue that making profit is ultimately in the the interest of the public (trick down effect, all that) rather than just shareholders, patent holders, etc.

So in the sense that any human being is involved in what another human being does, the public are already involved.

No! This doesn't make sense. If a board of directors decide to do something for the benefit of shareholders...well that is for the benefit of an exclusive club not for the public, even if they are at the same time members of the public.

If anyone is trying to suggest that scientists should confine their thoughts, imaginations and research to exactly that which would produce results the majority would approve of, then I'd oppose that.

Totally, and this is what makes it so difficult. For instance, the reaction to the testing of GM foods, "monster crops", seems to be led by intuitive public distrust rather than objective scientific examination. Is there a balance between these two sides? Can we say ok scientifically you might be correct but that isn't the whole story?

The production of scientific fact (this is safe, this isn't) has to be the subject of scrutiny. But by who? The general public who might not understand complex scientific issues or scientists who might act in the interests of science rather than public interest.

Democratic government needs an independent, publicly funded research community. It has a responsibility to fund research will question industrial and scientific interests. Science can't be left to scientists, and especially scientists in cahoots with business, but what if some subject areas are so complex as to be only understood after long and careful research...well who is fit to decide then? Surely only the people who are immersed in the research...

12:09 / 04.10.02

The public certainly has a right to oppose scientific research on non-scientific grounds. An uncontroversial example of this would be an insistence on ethical practice, at least in its basic expressions.

So it is tenable to object to embryo research on ethical grounds. Likewise, trying to stop GM foods because they aren't "natural" is or should be within public power. (In fact, there are good scientific reasons to be wary of GM foods, not that that would make much difference to many campaigners.)

The failure to express a restraining power has little to do with science. But it is an extreme step to take that limits intellectual freedom and should only be exercised when absolutely neccessary. I disagree with,

Science can't be left to scientists, and especially scientists in cahoots with business, but what if some subject areas are so complex as to be only understood after long and careful research - Buk

If you were to make an analagous statement like 'writing shouldn't be left to writers in cahoots with propogandist publishers, especially when the material is so subtle it can only be understood after long and careful research', then you would sound like an overzealous censor. Science is obviously left to scientists, that is practically tautological. The decisions about what to do with discoveries, which to fund, how to exploit and limit them are with politicians. They have been for some time now.

The process of seeing "scientists" as a shadowy group who wield power in complex ways is ultimately born of fear and ignorance. Lots of groups in our society are important and have an impact on our lives. We should treat them equally. Allowing freedom where possible and restricting them only when required.

16:43 / 07.10.02

The public certainly has a right to oppose scientific research on non-scientific grounds.

It is one of those questions with no easy answer. Does anyone remember a thread in the conversation a while back. It concerned a "fun" mathematical problem. A game show host lets you open one door then you pick one and you then have to decide to switch your choice or not. You know the one I mean.

Now the intuitive answer is that you are left with a 50/50 choice but the mathematical answer is that it is better to switch. Very non-intuitive but mathematically correct. Now I remember this being explained repeatedly and one poster just would not accept the mathematical answer. Someone ended up saying, something along the lines of, look I study maths, I have lots of letters after my name, if you can't follow the explanations then you are just going to have to take it on trust.

And that is what much of scientific research comes down to.

17:02 / 07.10.02

Errmm, yes I do remember that thread. Actually, I specifically said that people shouldn't take my word for it despite my quals. I know what you mean and the point you are making, but the details of this are important to me.

To be honest, I thought that after several explanations, almost everybody got it. My counterpoint is that we shouldn't underestimate people's capacity for understanding. There is a problem, in my view, with people "deciding" that they cannot understand science. Informed decisions are well within almost anyone's grasp.