In the third and fourth chapters of Science in Public by Jane Gregory and Steve Miller, the authors discuss the popularization of science and the various ways in which science can be transferred to the public. The third question starts off by asking: Is making science publically assessable harmful to the scientific community and understanding, or is it beneficial? Scientific knowledge has been used as both a means for political power and social control. It is true that knowledge is power. That is why I think the popularization of scientific knowledge is an important part of becoming informed citizens. I understand there are a lot of dangers to popularization; the book uses TV shows such as The X-Files that misguide people from scientific fact. But falsities about all walks of life permeate through the media. If false facts are going to find their way into tabloid media, then it is even more important that the “truth” is covered as well.
Having science in the public discourse is vital to making informed decisions; however, it is also very important for people to know where their facts are coming from. People using science for their own agendas has become a dangerous trend, especially in American politics. An example: I remember getting into an argument with my friend about abortion. She is an avid pro-life supporter while I am on the opposite side of the issue. She tried to argue with me that abortion should not be allowed in any case, even in rape. Her argument was that women cannot become pregnant when they are being raped because their bodies produce too much adrenaline for their eggs to become fertilized. As our discussion was taking place, I kept in mind how strongly tied my friend’s beliefs were to Christianity. I received “the talk” properly from my medical parents and was well aware that anytime there is a penis and vagina intermingling, babies become possible. Where am I going with this? I asked my friend to show me where she received her scientific facts and she showed me a Web site run by a very extremist Evangelical organization. It was “quack science” very effectively portrayed as objective, practical scientific research. My friend still doesn’t belief me – however this is still a perfect example of how the popularization of science has lead to the circulation of misinformation.
Gregory and Miller also address this topic in the fourth chapter of Science in Public: is the general public capable of understanding science in its entirety? Many think not, and that people can acquire a sense of “scientific literacy,” but this doesn’t mean that people always fully understand science. While the general public might not fully understand scientific phenomenon (I certainly don’t consider myself scientifically knowledgeable) I think people are aware of the possibilities of mistakes in research, which may be why a kind of “anti-science” movement has developed. For the most part – people like my friend as an exception – people don’t believe everything they hear right away.
Presenting scientific knowledge to the public should be continued, both by scientists and the media alike, because the people have a right to know what goes on in America’s science labs. Scientific research – while beyond the realm of most people’s aptitude – should not be regarded as something so “high class” that it can’t be shared with anyone who’s curious. It is the responsibility of everyone to make sure the passing of knowledge provides an accurate portrayal of what’s being presented. Scientists need to be open and clear about what they are doing, media personnel need to be precise, concise, and thorough in their research and writing, and the public receiving this information need to educate themselves about having a proper media diet.
Discussion questions:
How do Marxist and feminist views of scientific knowledge differ, and how does using the words “Marxist” and “feminist” shape the way people receive these theories?
How has A Brief History of Time and Science in History shaped the public’s attitude toward science? What about The Golem?
