In a world where people believe that
that MMR vaccines cause autism, that “frankenfoods” will poison children, that
presenting the scientific case for decriminalising drugs is a sackable offence
and that creationism is a viable alternative theory to evolution and should be
taught in schools – public engagement with science is absolutely paramount.
The iceberg
floats deep. Despite the best efforts of
Copernicus, half a millennium ago, one in four Americans still believe
that the Sun rotates around the Earth. This is, clearly,
bonkers. As is the claim that a
celestial being made the Earth in 7 days, leaving two white people in a jungle
who, despite the lack of signs of inbreeding among us, then spawned the
entirety of the human population we see today in a period just short of 10 000
years. Darwinism has passed its 150th
birthday yet even this beautiful theorem on the origins or life is besmirched
by some who don’t care to understand the science behind it. However, when people read poorly-researched,
sensationalist headlines in tabloids such as the Daily Mail, it’s difficult to
blame them for their false perceptions, such as the woefully misguided claim
that the MMR vaccine can lead to autism in children.
Then there
are subjects such as climate change and the use of genetically modified
organisms. As a field, science isn’t
very good at selling itself or its research outside of funding bodies through
grant proposals. The reason that Europe
shows such apprehension towards genetic engineering – a process hardly removed from the conventional techniques we
have used for over 10 000 years – is that Greenpeace pulled off one of the greatest
marketing campaigns ever witnessed in order to swing public opinion against
genetically modified organisms. Science
and scientists had no vociferous answer to this, so we have been left
struggling to lift excessive legislation over genetically modified organisms
ever since the Flavr Savr Tomato hit UK supermarket shelves (which had no
injurious effect despite almost 2 million sales between 1996 and 1998). However, recent support of genetically
modified crops by the UK government and approval by the European Food Safety
Authority mean that
we could see GM crops grown in the UK within five years.
What’s
the problem?
As
scientists, we have a duty to disseminate our research to a wide audience –
considering especially that many research institutes are directly funded by
taxpaying members of the public.
In order to investigate attitudes
towards public engagement among scientists, I asked scientists working at TGAC
if they thought that public engagement was a waste of time. 92% said no, while providing a variety of
reasons why public engagement is important.
The reasons
for why public engagement is important were many and varied but consisted
mostly of a need to share our research among the wider community in order to
inform and educate, enthuse and inspire, and also to prove to taxpayers that
their money is being wisely invested in biological science research.
However, despite public engagement
being perceived as important by scientists, time constraints and the importance
of publishing peer-reviewed science to institutes and career academics mean
that public engagement can often be overlooked.
When asked, “what is the biggest barrier preventing you from public
engagement?” TGAC scientists listed time as the main constraint. Another concern is that public engagement
isn’t as valued or as well recognised as publications and grants, therefore the
effort invested might not be equally rewarded.
Effective
science communication:
Thankfully,
there is a dedicated and ever-growing community of people who are interested in
spreading the word about scientific research in the realm of science
communication and public engagement. To
attest to this, hundreds of science communicators from across Europe came
together at the British Science Association Science
Communications Conference in Manchester this year.
Hundreds more will attend the BIG STEM Communicators Network BIG Event at the John Innes Centre in July
this year.
Indeed, when asked whether having a
dedicated public engagement team was a valuable addition to a scientific
institute, 92% of TGAC scientists said yes.
The main reason given for this was generally that it’s important that
professional communicators can initiate engagement activities and provide
expertise in communicating complex concepts to a wide range of audiences. Many scientists mentioned that one of the
biggest barriers to doing public engagement is the difficulty in explaining
complex concepts to a lay audience, therefore having enthusiastic and dedicated
experts in science communication is vital and necessary.
However,
even among science communicators, it is sometimes difficult to come to a
consensus as to what constitutes good public engagement. On the one hand, there is the need to promote
science to a wide audience in order to inform, educate and inspire the next
generation of scientists. On the other
hand, there is also a need to engage effectively in public dialogue, as public
opinion on scientific issues can have a significant effect on policy at the
government level, while our research must also be accountable to the taxpayers
funding it.
These two
strands of thought are inextricably linked and public engagement must involve
both education and dialogue. Without a
properly informed general public, is it possible to engage in effective public
dialogue?
The
prevalence of misconceptions:
Over 150
years since the dawn of Darwinism, only 41% of the population of 23 of
the world’s wealthiest nations believe that humans evolved from an ape-like
ancestor. Despite
the fact that we have tail bones, look almost exactly the same as the great
apes and the abundant fossil and DNA evidence to support evolution, 28% of
people in these countries still believe in creation theory and another 31% are on the
fence. Linked to this, 4 in 10 Americans also believe that
the Earth was created by a god 10 000 years ago, which is nothing short of baffling.
There are
other non-scientific beliefs held by vast proportions of the population despite
a huge weight of evidence to the contrary.
For example, in Britain, 39% of people believe homeopathy to
be an effective treatment for illness and another 49% believe the same for
reflexology, when a
glass of orange juice would be just as effective.
However,
creationism, homeopathy and reflexology – though complete nonsense – are not
immediately and obviously threatening to society as are some of the other
widely-held misconceptions. A survey of
American adults suggested that just over half of respondents are
confident that vaccines are safe and effective.
This means almost half of the population of the USA think that vaccines
don’t work. This is despite the mass
discrediting of Andrew Wakefield’s claim that MMR vaccines could lead to autism
after damaging the brain. This all means
that fewer than the 95% of the population needed for herd immunity are
vaccinated, which has led to outbreaks of a
disease which should have all-but-been eradicated.
Considering the distinct lack of tuberculosis, polio and smallpox
amongst American people, this mass disbelief in the effectiveness of vaccines
is folly.
The list
goes on… Only a third of American adults
believe that human activities are causing global warming, when just one look at the graphs generated
by climate scientists worldwide suggests they are completely misguided.
Despite the incredible results demonstrated in
Portugal through decriminalisation of drugs, including reduced rates of drug use, deaths through
overdose and prevalence of HIV/AIDS among drug users, we are currently debating
whether to ban legal highs in the UK instead of looking at a
similar policy to the Portuguese. This
is bizarre, considering that most illegal drugs are far safer than alcohol –
the nation’s favourite – yet David Nutt was sacked from government
for stating this fact. A mild bit of reading into the history of Al
Capone and the Chicago Mob should have put prohibition firmly out the equation
a long time ago.
The role
of science communication:
Clearly,
there is an absolute necessity to properly communicate the findings of
scientific research to an audience that can, clearly, be extremely cautious to
accept it. We need to foster an
environment in which learning and disseminating scientific concepts is
ingrained in our culture so that the population can be better informed to make
the best choices based on experimentation and evidence. Considering the wide-ranging applications of
modern, complex biological sciences techniques, from genetic modification and
synthetic biology to DNA sequencing and bioinformatics, public engagement with
science is as important now as it has ever been before.
