Is science doomed by its own bad image?

It is not a random accident that US students are generally rated as poorer in math and science than those of most other wealthy countries. But, the stereotypical mad scientist is usually depicted as some kind of lone genius-gone-wild renegade. Sometimes, the "good scientists" are actually part of the means by which the mad one is defeated. The "general mistrust towards climate scientists" comes much more from the over 40 than the under 20. And, it doesn't come from having watched movies (while growing up in the '60s and '70s) in which James Bond or Captain Kirk overcomes the evil iconoclast scientist in a showdown at his secret hideout.

This is the more likely culprit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Fear

"The American Geophysical Union, consisting of over 50,000 members from over 135 countries, states in their newspaper Eos in 2006: 'We have seen from encounters with the public how the political use of State of Fear has changed public perception of scientists, especially researchers in global warming, toward suspicion and hostility.' "

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/national/09prize...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/national/19warmi...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005...

http://heartland.org/press-releases/2005/01/11/mic...

First, this isn't an actual empirical study and the article is earmarked as opinion. As you progress through the article, the emphasis moves from all scientists to settle on climate change. Clearly a denier oriented opinion.

Well you are bending the results here by asking about the general mistrust of climate scientists, when the article was clearly based initially about ALL scientists.

The answer is NO. A picture is not indicative of the actual belief of the child. And if the child actually fears scientists, then the parents need to be accountable for allowing the children to watch movies that scared them.

Actually if I look at the movies and the portrayal of other professionals, I would think a child would fear police officers, because many movies represent them as dirty cops who kill innocent people.

SO why not have the child draw a cop, a doctor, a nurse, a coach?????

There is a strange love hate relationship between scientists and politicians representing public opinion in North America. In Canada, the federal government recently decided to close down four local research institutions that I have contacts with. Two of the institutions (Experimental Lakes and MB Model Forest) attracted scientists from around the world to study effects of environmental change on lakes and forests. Those studies were apparently inconvenient for a government promoting the oil sands. For the last 90 years, Canadian scientists have bred the world's best wheat cultivars. The Cereal Research Center was cut and that jeopardizes Canada's capability to remain on the top rung for quality in the grain business. The Institute for Biodiagnostics (which does the same type of research as my lab) was cut. When Nuremberg 1934 happens in 2012, one tries to rescue as many books from the fire as possible. The scientists will migrate elsewhere taking the economic benefits that the Canadian taxpayer has already paid for with them. I think the cuts are short sighted. The minister will save perhaps $50 M/yr of current expense and lose perhaps $1B/yr of future economic growth. While that is bad for the taxpayer, it is mildly positive for my company because we can mop up at least some of the best scientists and IP before they leave the country. The cuts are too fast for us to absorb as much as we would like. The minister is now going on a tour in search of photo opportunities to show how much he supports science.

Too much of the public see R&D as an unnecessary expense. Most R&D projects do not produce an immediate payback, but some R&D projects produce huge returns. The average return on R&D investment is 20%, which is more than the government cost of financing. Politicians try to take the benefit of R&D without paying the cost. If they were good at funding only the winners, the average return would be 1000%. However, politicians are not good at deciding which R&D projects will pay off at an early stage. My lab received new grants this year when others are being cut because after 5 years of R&D the economic payback is evident, immediate and large (more than 1000%). We also benefit in the eyes of research grant agencies because as a private lab our R&D cost per patent is about 20% of the cost in the government labs we compete for grants with. 75% of the staff in government labs are administrative and 25% technical/scientific. My company does not hire bean counters. All of our staff are scientists, engineers or summer research students. To get science done, spend the money on scientists. Two years ago, the same politician would likely have cut my lab's funding despite our 2 year lead on a USDA lab working on the same problem (we got the patent for being first and the USDA lab confirmed our results and spent a lot more money in the process). Science should be well funded long term because on average R&D expands the economy providing jobs and wealth to everyone. The public and the minister need to better understand the role that science can play in the economy. The minister will visit my lab next month and I will duly acknowledge his government's support for the benefit of the press.

No, I don't think it really has anything to do with that. I do wish that scientists were more accurately portrayed in fiction and the media, but that is nothing new. The idea of the "mad scientist" goes back at least to the writings of Mary Shelley. Despite that, I think that people in the 50's and 60's generally had a very high opinion of science and scientists. Unfortunately I think in the last 30 years or so there has been a "dumbing-down" of America, where style is now emphasized over substance. Combine that with the increasing polarization of American society, and you're left with a system where people mistrust scientists because they don't know what they do or how they do it. Unfortunately I don't see how things will change until today's conservatives stop rejecting science and knowledge.

EDIT: So Ian, you knowledge of science and scientists comes from what, reading comic books? It would amusing to see you try to stay above water in the classes which I took as part of my climate science Ph.D. Although perhaps as part of your vast education in science you've already taken classes in asymptotic methods of differential equations or geophysical fluid dynamics and so on.

Ottawa Mike, I don't think I'm driving the polarization just because I make the observation that today's conservatives are rejecting science. I know you're Canadian and perhaps aren't completely up on American politics, but I was a registered Republican almost my entire life. I know other (famous) climate scientists with similar backgrounds. Unfortunately believing in widely accepted science can get you labeled a "RINO". Conservatives cater more to creationists than they do those literate in science. I don't want it to be that way, and I don't accept that by observing that's the way it is that I'm contributing to it. Republicans are now the anti-science, anti-intellectual party. That doesn't mean I'm a big fan of the democrats, but at least they don't try to drum you out of the party for believing in science.

I don't put a lot of stock into the so called "soft" sciences. This for example is an interesting read: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id... (free .pdf download: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID19... ) I wonder if that would apply to climate science or any other science for that matter?

And frankly, reading that article you linked was tiresome. My theory is that grade school students get visual images of scientists from their Saturday morning animated TV shows. So I'm not sure how you can ask them to draw a scientist or pick one from a bunch of pictures and conclude something scientific (Although that's a good example of how the soft sciences work.)

Now I'm not saying soft sciences are useless. For example, the link at the end of your article is interesting: http://ed.fnal.gov/projects/scientists/index.html

However, in answer to your question, I don't think any of this has anything to do with mistrust of climate scientists. I believe that is mostly politics, especially the ones that are mixing politics and science which I think is very unfortunate.

__________________________________________

Edit@pegminer: I agree with you on the mad scientist/Frankenstein TV connection as that's what I was also saying. And I also agree with you on public perceptions of science and scientists post WWII and that it has changed over the past 30 years.

Further, I agree with your statement where style has trumped substance and I'll also add (which I think you'll agree), the attitude of "I want it all and I want it now". Even further, I agree with your thoughts about polarization playing a part.

However, you should sit back and think for a moment if your wording "...I don't see how things will change until today's conservatives stop rejecting science and knowledge." is part of that polarization. Remember that a large part of polarization is an "us" vs "them" attitude where we're right and they're wrong. I'm just asking you to think about it.

As for how and/or why perception of science and scientists has changed over the past 30 years of so, well that's a pretty large area of discussion and would probably make for a good question.

I don't think scientist have a bad image. Sure I get pissed off when I find out hundreds of thousands was spent on penis size and how it effects if homosexual men were top or a bottom. I don't think the study itself was all that useless, it produced at least an interesting fact and if it helps someone make a few bucks while they find something really worth doing then I have no problem. However the cost of the study was outrageous, I don't understand a questionnaire and ruler cost $800,000. I get incensed when I hear a study was done to determine why you spill your coffee in the morning. Guess what, it's caused by walking with the cup in your hand. Yup, our tax dollars at work.

But I watched a documentary the other day and learned more than I ever knew about the Sahara Desert, the cycle it goes through, the oceans of water below the ground, how it's last change back to desert was probably the cause of the birth of one of the first great civilizations. That's science I like paying for.

For me climate science is more on par with measuring penis size than actually coming to a valid conclusion or predictions about unprecedented climate changes.

Edit: To the Warmons,

Thanks for clarifying how much smarter you are. You get labeled a RINO for agreeing with ignorant ideas or plans to fix something that isn't broken or for accepting a plan that won't fix something that is actually broken.

This idea that all scientific research is necessary because people just don't understand how science or scientist work is pure hubris. The public does not see R&D as an unnecessary expense. They simply don't understand the logic behind even starting a coffee spill study when anyone who's walked holding a cup of coffee in their hands and spilled it know exactly why it spills. I didn't need to pay someone to tell me; Coffee drinkers often attempt to walk quickly with their cups, as if they might manage to reach their destination before their sloshing java waves reach a critical height. This method is scientifically flawed. It turns out that the faster you walk, the closer your gait comes to the natural sloshing frequency of coffee. To avoid driving the oscillations that lead to a spillage, walk slowly.

My belief that this study was stupid isn't negated by your belief that all research is necessary.

You should read "Drunken Goldfish and other relevant Scientific Studies"

and" Elephants on Acid "

Some Scientist do a lot of wacky things to study .

Remember last years pork barrel study Shrimp on a treadmill ?

The relentless two dimensionality of the Liberal mind is painful.

Since Global Warming is TRUTH, & Climate Scientists are telling it ....

... then where have we gone wrong in teaching our children since skepticism abounds?

And never a glimmer that Science is based on Skepticism.

Or that the mistrust towards Climate Scientist just might be based on it being pathological.

Religious Environmental Socialists revile the unnatural world created by Scientists while simultaneously holding them up as unquestionable authorities in matters of Climate Change....

...and then wonder why people think Climate Change 'Science' might be politically driven.

The generic ambiguity of feeling toward Scientists is NATURAL. It's the way we feel about Warriors.

Is the intellectually or physically superior man good or evil? Well that depends on whether they are on our side, doesn't it?

Ask a kid to draw two pictures of a Soldier, the first will probably the Defender, & the second the Attacker. Ask for two pictures of a Scientist - you get the one working for humanity & the one working against it.

The stereotype is not a misconception, it's just reality.

Science is Power, Power can serve or destroy.

As for Politics, Science is a lot like Religion.

The King wants the blessing of the Priest because the Priest is SUPPOSED to be a man who seeks God's Truth, rather than the worldly gain of politics.

But we all know it's pretty easy for a Priest to get corrupted by Politics, don't we?

Modern Politicians want the blessing of Scientists, because Scientists are SUPPOSED to be seeking Truth, rather than the worldly gain of politics.

Those Carbon Credit taxes are for the good of mankind, not the enrichment of Socialists.

But we all know it's pretty easy for a Scientist to get corrupted by Politics... well Conservatives know.

Liberals still think Scientists are the new uncorrupted Priests, at least so long as they preach the TRUTH of AGW & the dire need for Socialist intervention.

Mistrust must be the work of demons, which they commonly refer to as Republicans.;-)

Now all this said, Science is Power & Power cannot be 'doomed' by it's own bad image.

If you get rid of YOUR Warriors because Warriors are dangerous,

you simple guarantee you will get your *** kicked by THEIR Warriors.

And so too have God & Darwin decreed that those with the best scientists will typically dance on the graves of those with substandard ones.

If you think compressed hydrogen is a good fuel, you're listening to a scientific dimwit.

EDIT

@pegminer - If I have to listen to one more clueless Liberal blather about Republicans being anti-science I think I'm gonna puke. AGW is PATHOLOGICAL. It's like Eugenics or Creationism, a bunch of White guys working very hard to 'prove' what they have already presumed to be TRUTH.

And if you point out that that's more Religion than Science, you get called anti-science.

When your 'science' must be good enough to make a company profitable... THAT is where you find Republican Scientists. When you're blowing smoke to get the Government to force taxpayers to fund your research - THAT is where you find Liberal scientists.

Kids believe in Santa Clause and the tooth fairy. But they don't vote.

It's just politics. If you have a unique way of circumventing the legislative process, I'm all ears.

I wouldn't really classify climatologists as scientists. I would put them in the same category as psychics and astrologists. A real scientist makes a hypothesis, compares that to actual evidence, tries to learn from his mistakes and makes corrections. A climatologist makes a hypothesis, compares that to actual evidence, adjusts the evidence to fit his hypothesis or just ignores the evidence altogether.