Nature: To know science is to love it.

[pmbryant]

From Nature: Feb 22 2005

To know science is to love it
Helen Pearson

Bolstering support for the field remains a thorny problem.

An analysis of studies in 40 countries around the globe proves a long-standing assumption: that the more a person knows about science, the more he or she tends to support scientific endeavours.

The issue is a fundamental one for scientists and science teachers. They often assume that improving people's scientific literacy will boost support for research, encourage young people to choose science careers and clear up damaging misconceptions about miracle cures or pseudoscience.

In fact, studies that have tested the link between a person's level of scientific knowledge and attitudes towards the field have generated mixed results. "It's been a very vexed question," says sociologist Nick Allum of the University of Surrey in Guildford, UK.

To try and resolve the issue, Allum and his colleagues pulled together the results of nearly 200 surveys carried out between 1998 and 2003 in countries from Australia to Bulgaria. These studies assessed, for example, whether participants knew certain scientific facts and whether they supported developments in genetically modified food or nanotechnology.

...

His finding cannot, for example, show whether better science education will bump up general support for the field. This is because researchers have yet to figure out whether people who learn more about science then tend to like it or, conversely, whether people who already like and support science are simply inclined to learn further facts.

...

More: http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050221/full/050221-8.html

[whistle]

1. Including Paleobiology and evolution!!!!

[Crunchy Frog]

2. I'm not certain that it's completely fair

to equate support for genetically modified food with support for science in general. I feel that it is possible to have legitimate concerns about GMOs while still liking and supporting science in general. Perhaps they should have gone with issues that are less politically controversial.

Also, trust in science, or rather, trust in the efficacy of the well established processes of the scientific method to unearth facts about the natural world, is not the same thing as trust in technology. I wish that they wouldn't try to fuzzy those distinctions.

[NNadir]

3. "Politically" controversial?

Actually, that about cuts to the core of the problem.

Genetic variability occurs all of the time. Whether or not it is engineered by humans or occurs through natural variability, the effect is about the same. From my perspective, the more you understand biochemistry and genetics, the less problem you have with GMO.

I frequently rail against exactly the same thing when it comes to energy. The people who rail against nuclear energy, which IS the safest form of energy save windpower, are exactly the people who have the least understanding of it.

For me, this is a QED.

[Crunchy Frog]

4. Well, there is a huge difference between

naturally ocurring genetic variation and wholesale genetic exchange accross phyla. It's simply being disingenuous to compare the two in my opinion.

I'm not a professional scientist, but I probably am more knowledgable about science, particularly biology, than most laypersons. I would probably score fairly highly on a test of general scientific knowledge. I have to say that I do have some real concerns about GMOs. I believe that the genetic alteration is far more profound than what normally occurs in nature, and there are potential unforseen consequences. There are also other issues beyond those simply of biological risk.

There is the whole issue of patenting lifeforms and the effects on traditional agriculture when patented seeds supplant traditional ones, or patented crops genetically contaminate them leading to corporate legal action. There is also the whole issue of consumer rights, specifically the right to know whether or not food is genetically altered and to have the freedom to choose whether or not to put it in your body.

There have been reports out of Iraq that large biotech corporations are going to essentially make it illegal for Iraqi farmers to practice traditional agriculture. Those are political rather than scientific issues, but they inform much of the criticism of GMOs.

As far as nuclear energy goes, I don't know a whole lot about it, but my understanding is that the waste byproducts are the most hazardous materials known to man, and that the issue of how to safely dispose of them has never been worked out satisfactorily.

My dad was a nuclear physicist and I believe that he was not a big fan of nuclear power, although I can't ask him about it now since he's dead.

What probably helps to make those issues more politicized than most is both of their connections with major industries that make huge amounts of money for big corporations. Given that they are not purely scientific issues, but intersect strongly with industry and economic and corporate matters, it is hardly surprising that they are politically controversial. I continue to hold with my opinion that it's unfair to use attitudes towards those particular issues as a general measure of support for science.

[NNadir]

6. QED again.

"as nuclear energy goes, I don't know a whole lot about it, but my understanding is that the waste byproducts are the most hazardous materials known to man"

This is not even remotely true about the waste by products. Ralph Nader (who does not know anything about nuclear energy either) was once challenged by a prominent scientist (who did know something about nuclear power) to eat as much caffiene as the scientist would eat plutonium.

Unfortunately for the history of the world, Ralph declined.

It is probably true that the most hazardous waste product known to man is carbon dioxide.

There are zero people in the United States who have died from the storage of spent nuclear fuel. There are many, many, many thousands of persons who die in this country from fossil fuels. So which is more toxic and more hazardous, that which kills no one or that which kills thousands, millions really?

As for your concerns about GMO, most of your concerns are legal and economic. They are not scientific objections at all. My remarks were about science, not business and economics.

[Crunchy Frog]

8. That's my problem with the study in question.

They took issues that have alot of legal, economic, and political baggage attached to them and then seem to have equated one's particular attitude towards those issues with one's attitued towards science as a whole. I consider that to be disingenuous on their part.

I won't try to argue nuclear energy with a nuclear physicist, although I do know that I come into contact with CO2 every time I respire, and I'm not aware of having come into contact with plutonium. Is that sort of like saying that because more people die from slipping in bathtubs than die from cyanide poisoning, therefore, bathtubs are fundamentally more dangerous than cyanide? I don't know.:shrug:

I do have some concerns about GMOs possibly having some unforseen negative health or environmental impacts. I may have my head totally up my ass for having such concerns, but I do nevertheless. That does not mean that I'm anti-science. I love science as a matter of fact. I just have some concerns about certain types of technology.

[gbwarming]

9. If I inhale a gram of caffeine will you INHALE a gram of PU?

I think that challenge to Nader was a straw man for the safety of PU - Please educate me if I'm wrong, but the absorption of PU through the digestive system is low and the residence time is only hours. PU isn't very toxic as heavy metals go, so it should be pretty safe to eat a pellet of PU and pass it the next morning. The danger, I think, is from long term effects in from residence in organs, particularly the lungs.

Regarding GMOs, we have a long history of unintended consequences from the introduction of foreign species both intentional and accidental. Kudzu, zebra mussels, rabbits are a few examples. We also have a history of producing drug resistant bacteria by overuse of antibiotics, and pesticide resistant agricultural pests by overuse of pesticides. I am uncomfortable with the potential for unanticipated consequences from GMOs and I'm skeptical that biotechs and agribusiness will be careful enough.

edit- spelling

[DemBones DemBones]

5. I agree. I don't support certain technology because in my view it is

science being misused. But I love science, have degrees in biology with chemistry minor.

[Igel]

7. Risk aversion?

A lot of people I know took college-level science, but went in with the attitude that all this stuff is dangerous. Science can appear to have a downside, if it's misused. They assume it will be. (Michael Crichton redux.)

Others went in thinking it was really, really cool. Many didn't care that some kinds of science could have horrible uses; they loved the exploration, mental puzzles, and neat insights. (The most fun--albeit strange--group of people I've ever known was the UCLA science fiction club "Enigma", dominated by astronomers when I was there. The results of scientific method when applied to homemade beer should *not* be tested on graduate students. Triple-hop mango beer ... yettcccchhhhh.)

Low risk/high risk? Pessimistic/optimistic?