On April 22, people around the world will join in one of many “March for Science” events. To many, the term “March for Science” might seem like an oxymoron, since a march is designed to elicit emotional responses and the scientific method endeavours to exclude emotional input.
We, the marchers, agree with this sentiment, but we see no way around this contradiction when trying to mobilize people to defend the use of scientific facts in public-policy decisions. While scientific results are emotionally sterile, they should be the centrepiece of any policy decision that can draw on scientific facts, even when the decision has to be made in an emotionally charged political arena.
One of the ideas we would like to convey is that there is so much scientific knowledge that it is impossible for individuals to be experts in any but the narrowest of disciplines. In the latter part of the 20th century, there was an explosion in scientific research, and this resulted in the hyper-specialization of scientists. Before the middle of the 20th century, a working scientist might be knowledgeable in the important discoveries in many areas of science, including areas that the scientist would consider outside of his field of expertise.
Nowadays, it takes decades of study and active participation in a scientific field to become an expert in any one area. For example, a cancer biologist might be overwhelmed with breakthroughs in just her own field and have only a layperson’s appreciation of advances in areas such as physics, chemistry and geology.
This same cancer biologist would typically have only a shallow understanding of advances in the dozens of other sub-specialties in biology. Her broad training in biology would allow her to comprehend areas such as forest ecology or marine diversity, but she would not be regarded as an “expert” in these fields by any stretch of the imagination.
Few human beings have the time to follow multiple areas of science, even areas that might appear to be the “same” to a lay person.
Thus it is surprising that many a politician or media commentator thinks that they have enough of an understanding of a scientific area to reach important conclusions, and this after merely listening to a TED talk or watching an online video. Even more disturbing is that such people, wildly incompetent in the subject matter they are addressing, are so often taken seriously.
Apparently, most non-scientists are not aware of the enormous amount of scientific information currently available, nor of the hyper-specialization. It is also clear that most journalists are unaware of this phenomenon; otherwise they would never use the expression “scientists” when trying to describe a scientific consensus. We often hear journalists saying “scientists think” when they should be saying “scientists who specialize in this area think.”
One obvious problem is the media’s penchant for reporting any scientific study that might capture the public’s attention, regardless of whether the study was published in a prestigious international journal or in a parochial journal that functions as a publication trash bin for lazy scientists. Journalists know that boring articles do not attract an audience, and tend to exaggerate the possible significance of a scientific study while ignoring the real possibility that the findings of a study could be marginally significant or simply wrong.
One would think that if there were certainty in every scientific finding reported by the media, then either all humans should be dead or all human diseases cured.
So is it impossible for a non-scientist to find reliable sources of scientific information? Of course not. The places where you expect to find good science reporting, such as the CBC’s Quirks and Quarks, the Guardian, Scientific American, the BBC and many other news outlets, deliver just that. For complex problems and definitive answers, governments can rely on large scientific societies, especially the national (often “royal”) academies of sciences that have existed in free and open societies for decades.
The ultimate problem of applying valid scientific facts to public-policy decisions is that most people want decisions that favour their financial or ideological needs, and they find both “science” and “public policy” unbearably boring topics. But if we want good health care, a clean environment, and safe and reliable consumer goods, we have to have the discipline to rely on well-accepted scientific facts when making important decisions.
The Victoria March for Science begins at 2:15 p.m., Saturday, April 22, in Centennial Square.
Francis E. Nano, PhD, is a professor in the department of biochemistry and microbiology at the University of Victoria.
