A May, 2009 post on this site presented the results of a cooperative Yale and George Mason Universities study which reported that only about 51% of Americans believe that climate change is real and a serious problem. Other, recent polls are in agreement that only a slim majority believe in the reality of climate change, and some report that the number is declining. These findings are at odds with most other nations of the world. The United States also has a large number of stridently vocal “climate change deniers”, another apparent difference from other nations.
If we are to make meaningful progress in curtailing global warming broad public support and involvement will be necessary. Attempts to gain such support have received little attention, and examination of the disparity of public attitudes between the U.S. and other nations even less. There can be no question that the sciences will become increasingly important in the future of mankind. Technological advances in electronics, medicine, and communication have altered lives in the developed nations and promise to rapidly transform the developing nations in unforeseen ways. An understanding of science is also necessary to the understanding of climate change and, critically, our adaptation to a changing environment. Much of the responsibility for enhancing the role of science must fall on scientists. In fact, as a scientist I feel that because we have shirked our responsibilities to our fellow citizens in the past we don’t know how to react now to those who are skeptical of our motives. I wonder if part of our problem as scientists trying to communicating with a lay audience is that we do not present a consistent message. Apart from humans being predisposed to being against any apparent threat, the climate deniers are effective because they have a clear, simple and consistent message. On the other hand, due to the very nature of science our message is constantly being altered as new information becomes available. I fear that by attempting to being super-accurate, we are perceived as inconsistent and lose our creditability with the lay-public. I am rapidly becoming convinced that those of us concerned with with the future role of science in the United States and in presenting the climate change message might be wise to re-focus our efforts to embrace three core objectives:
- The re-establishment of the Office of Technology Assessment within Congress. After 20 + years as a Congressional agency, the 200 person OTA was eliminated as a budget reduction action in 1995. Their mission of providing impartial advice and analysis to the Senate and House has not been replaced and is sorely needed as in addition to climate change Congress will face increasingly complex scientific issues in the future. Currently Congress relies on lobbyists and others with a special interest to promote for information. As employees of Congress, staff of the OTA was accountable to Congress, not some outside, special interest. The reestablishment of the OTA should help avoid such debacles as the ethanol program and would be a tremendous bargain for the taxpayers.
- Strengthening science education in our schools. Educators say that students really need a solid understanding of science to readily accept the reality of global warming, when once achieved the task becomes simple. An a broader basis, a solid foundation in the sciences, math and engineering will be necessary to merely cope in an increasingly technological world, and absolutely critical for a competitive workforce. The Obama administration has recently an additional $250 million in support of the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) program. In announcing this public-private venture, John Holdren, Director, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, stated “we really need all hands on deck from the private sector and the philanthropic sector because the government can’t foot the whole bill for this”. I would say that we can’t afford not to foot the bill for this. We must make the scientific education of our children a national priority. And by the way, the White House (executive branch) has an Office of Science and Technology Policy – why doesn’t the legislative branch have a comparable office?
- Scientists must learn to effectively communicate with the general public – and then actually do it! Scientists are currently trained in “scientific writing”, a style of writing designed to ensure accuracy and objectivity. Due to the increasing complexity and specialization of science, scientific articles are best understood only by fellow-scientists in the same specialized field, and are often totally incomprehensible even to scientists in other fields. Unfortunately, scientists are not trained in communicating to non-scientists and thus lack the skills to translate their results so that they may be readily understood by a lay audience. Additionally, science is an increasingly competitive endeavor and many scientists are either unable or unwilling to devote time to activities that do not hold the promise of an immediate return. Especially for publicly supported university and government science this situation should no longer be acceptable. Training of scientists should include social responsibility and communication skills. Public outreach and communication should be a job requirement for every scientists on public funding. If we keep hiding in our labs and communicating only with each other scientists will have no one to blame but ourselves when we are ignored by the public whose support we need.
We as citizens must demand more from our legislators, educators and scientists. The need for immediate action on global warming is critical and cannot wait for the education of a new generation of scientists. However, we also have an obligation to ensure that future generations will have the skills and knowledge to make wise decisions and deal with the changing climate that will be our legacy to them.
