The ASR
findings provide us- as writers, scientists, and citizens-with a wealth of
information about what the general public feels about the scientific
community. Not only does it shed some light
on this image: it also allows us to envision
a way in which we can work together as citizens to improve that image by
providing relevant and useful scientific information in a way that anyone can
understand. The article shows that among
conservatives, especially those that are considered ‘educated’ on their scale, showed
the greatest decline for trust in science over the last few decades, compared
to moderates, and liberals. Speculations
that have been derived from these results hint to the idea that, maybe, educated
conservatives are less likely to believe something that is outside of their repertoire
of beliefs because they are more educated on how to defend their opinions.
As a science
writer, the best way we can interpret the ASR findings is that there is a clear
problem that needs to be addressed with regards to scientific literacy. It is crucial that we make the general public
not only aware of scientific discoveries and theories, but that we instill in
our citizens a desire to learn; to
question; to trust in science. If we
recognize that certain groups of people are not going to believe in global
warming because of their personal beliefs, then we must learn how to help them
see that it is a legitimate and imminent concern. We can do this by serving as a liaison between
the scientist and the citizen. We have
the access to – and knowledge of – scientific information that is relevant to
the general public and must find a way to make this knowledge comprehensible. A good science writer should be able to
explain the same concept to a neuroscience graduate student and a curious
10-year-old.
The scientific writer must
focus on providing not only information about global warming, but also: the
research behind it, global trends in temperature, alternative energy sources,
opposing theories and their legitimacy, and etcetera. The story must include a
title that is neutral yet controversial and intriguing: “The Scoop on global
warming: is it real and should we care?”
This title (rough draft, I know) states what the article is about, shows
no bias to a specific side (in order to appeal to a more general audience), and
intrigues the reader by playing to the controversial nature of the topic.
Another important lesson that
we can take from the ASR article is the importance of writing about information
that is backed up in academia. One must
not be tempted to write about a topic based purely on its ability to generate
publicity or stir up controversy. If we
truly wish to increase scientific literacy we, as writers, need to write about
scientific information that is not just mainstream issues but also issues that
are not being addressed, such as GMO’s. This
would eliminate some of the problems that we see with articles on the same
topic that conflict and cause confusion – does coffee help with stress or cause
our hearts to explode? - for example. We
must strive to write articles that are informative; provide the reader with
further resources and data; create an environment that facilitates an
inquisitive mind.
As a scientist, it is crucial
that we must first deal with the problem of reputation among the scientific
community. As clearly shown in the ASR
article, there is an issue with the legitimacy and reliability of science
because the general public is losing their faith in the field. In order to restore this faith, scientists
must strive to do honest research on information that is relevant to the
general public. If you know people are
less willing to trust your data, do things to build a better reputation such as
working on your reliability and validity and not reporting results that are
irrelevant or misleading. As a scientist,
it is our duty to make your research known.
It is important to make someone understand why your research is pertinent
and what implications it has for the average person. As a scientist you must: make your research
relevant, make it relatable, and make people care. As a scientist, one must not always be so stuck
writing in the prose of a scientific paper, but also be able to explain the
ideas in a way that your average Joe would be able to read and interpret. From the ASR paper, we see the decline in trust
in science; we must act now in order to rebuild the bridges we have burned –
perhaps this time, more stable, and with a bit more transparency in our methods. In order to build a better reputation for
science as a whole, it is important to operate on a basis of honesty and
relevancy.
As citizens, we must also be
aware of the influence that we have in creating a world that is more
scientifically literate. One of the main
problems here lies in education. The ASR
article highlighted the problems with education among conservatives, but did
not touch on the holistic problem of education in this country. It is important as citizens to take matters
into our own hands; we cannot simply rely on writers or scientists to provide
us with information. It is important to
ask questions, to do follow up research, to create your own experiments. Although, this may seem unlikely, at the very
least we need to create a society of people that are, once again, inquisitive.
We must work on recreating the
education system to one that will foster creativeness and inspire an inquisitive
mind. We must create a system that encourages
children, at an earlier age, to question whatever personal belief system they
may have – whether they be derived from family, religion, or personal
preferences. If children are taught at
an earlier age to question everything; they are more likely to be able to
develop their own opinions at an earlier age: which may decrease some of the issues
with educated conservatives in the ASR article.
Perhaps if one is more educated from an earlier age, and taught to be
more hesitant about receiving information, perhaps this would carry over to
adulthood and one would be more likely to question an article on the
effectiveness of tomato juice in curing AIDS.
It is our duty as citizens to establish a better system that will
hopefully foster the creative and questioning minds that make it possible for a
scientifically literate community to exist: this starts with education.
Overall, it is important that
we all- writers, scientists, and citizens- alike, work together in order to
inspire the general public alike to be interested in and pursue scientific
information. Scientific writers must
work on their ability to provide scientific information that is more relevant
and more accessible. Scientists must
work on improving their reputation by carrying out and reporting validated data
and results. Citizens must work on creating
a society that desires to learn about science and questions what they read or
hear on TV. It is important that we
address these problems that were highlighted in the ASR article, and work
together in order to create a nation that is more scientifically literate.
