Despite skeptics, science must lead the way

Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 15 May 2020.

It’s no surprise that people, generally, don’t like uncertainty. The COVID-19 pandemic has created a level of uncertainty for everyone, beyond what most people ever experience. Research into personality suggests that some people cope with uncertainty better than others. Nonetheless, generally, humans do what they can to reduce uncertainty, including creating “stories” and social structures to make the uncertain seem more certain.

Our fascination with trying to predict the future is a good example. Whether it be astrology, fortune tellers, prophesy, whatever kind of oracle into the future you choose, it all stems from the same thing, an attempt to cope with uncertainty. Another “story” to cope with uncertainty is a conspiracy theory, with a common feature that the conspiracy is attempting to further some kind of future that “good” people don’t want. Epidemiological modeling is a very modern attempt to cope with the uncertainty of a new and deadly virus.

Unlike many people who don’t read the comments on news stories, social media posts, and other public postings, I do. People’s reactions are more interesting, to me, than the original posts. What I see a lot of though is a significant misunderstanding of what science is and how science progresses. Add in the almost (and understandable) desperate search for something “certain” in the face of extraordinary uncertainty and I see a turning away from science, even when misunderstood.

Take our basic “popular” score card for the COVID-19 pandemic. We have those tested, positive cases, and deaths. By now, I think most folks know that not everyone is being tested although in some states (and countries) who is being tested varies. That variation in who gets tested makes comparisons between states and countries really meaningless (thus uncertain). Counting deaths, however, is comparable, although some states, like Florida, apparently don’t’ want to count tourists or part-time residents in their count.

Deaths, however, are fairly reliable, but there is still some noise in who gets counted as a COVID-19 death and who does not. And we see a lot made of this, that on the one hand, there is an undercount of true COVID-19 deaths or on the other an overcount of COVID-19 deaths. This “scorecard” seemed appropriate and helpful at the beginning. It’s seeming less and less “certain” as we move forward.

As we learn more about the disease, not just how it kills and what raises the risk for dying, we are beginning to learn that it affects other internal organs of those who survive. What is state-of-the-art knowledge today is not state-of-the-art knowledge tomorrow. That inherent uncertainty right there is hard for many people to cope with. As the knowledge base expands, as it should with more data and analysis, many view this as wrong, as evidence that the “scientists” don’t know what they are doing, as in “make up your mind!” So, some begin to reject “science” in order to reduce their uncertainty.

Scientific knowledge is always changing. It doesn’t help that scientists are vulnerable to all the human foibles like the rest of us. The rush to be “first” or to “solve the riddle” is present and often can and does distort things. Releasing results prior to peer review, as we are seeing a lot of right now, and the press liking the horserace analogy plus the drama of someone being “wrong” only fuels the uncertainty. Then, many, who do not know or understand the scientific process are quick to vilify the scientists (sometimes adding it to a conspiracy theory) thus contributing to an overall anti-science and anti-expert discourse.

Perhaps the most profound display of misunderstanding science are commenters that pick out words that convey uncertainty such as “may,” “likely,” and “probable,” as a means to discredit the results. So, the measured, careful, language of science now appears to be not what we think science is (or want it to be) and people move to discredit it.

Scientists are in the business of producing new knowledge and they are doing it at remarkable speed, even if many in the public and our leaders don’t understand. No doubt, our leaders, too, are unsettled by the ominous uncertainty of COVID-19. Nevertheless, it is their job to lead us through this and while the governors appear, generally, to be doing a good job based on polls, the federal response has probably done more to create uncertainty than to settle it.

Thomas L. Steiger is a professor of sociology and director of the Center for Student Research and Creativity at Indiana State University. Email: thomas.steiger@indstate.edu.

Nothing to like about lack of scientific knowledge in U.S.

previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star 2/1/09

TERRE HAUTE — “Don’t you like America?” A student asked me that question in a class last week. What prompted such a question? I was discussing science and stated that Americans generally do not understand what science is. Indeed, a few minutes prior to the student’s question I asked this class of 80 students, “what is science?” I got no response.

As I answered my own question (a philosophy of knowledge) I was going over the limits to science which has something to do with the kind of question that science can answer. The student raised her hand right after I said that Americans’ lack of scientific understanding caused us to waste considerable energy arguing over the teaching of evolution in school and global warming.

I am probably over-reacting, but I teach a lot of first- and second-year students in that class. Students change over time. They are products of the times, the product of the state approved high school curriculum, they are even influenced by the president of the United States. Students were more conservative in the Reagan years and, without knowing what they were doing, embraced the romantic post-modernism of President Bush. I hope future cohorts of students embrace President Obama’s inaugural promise to “… restore science to its rightful place …”

Is it disliking America to cite the National Center for Educational Statistics report on an international comparison OECD (Organization of Economic Co-Operation and Development) member states on the scientific literacy of 15 year olds, that U.S. 15 year olds’ score was below average? Countries like Canada, Germany, and Australia have higher scientific literacy scores than the U.S. So does Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Estonia. Does the stating of these facts equal bashing America?

There is a correlation of .61 between the scientific literacy scores of 56 countries (both OECD and nonOECD) and average life expectancy. In other words, as the scientific literacy scores increase so does average life expectancy. This doesn’t prove that scientific literacy causes a longer average life expectancy, but economic and social development, which does have something to do with life expectancy, is related to scientific literacy.

There are 30 countries in the OECD. Fifteen of them scored higher than our 15 year olds did on scientific literacy. Ten of those 15 countries have a higher life expectancy than we do. Is our lack of scientific literacy shortening our average life expectancy? It is a good thing that we welcome other countries’ scientists and science students with open arms. Too few native born Americans pursue scientific careers to supply the demand for them.

According to the 2000 Census, there were 582,000 physical and life scientists in the United States. In a labor force of just under 130 million workers, scientists make up less than one-half of 1 percent. If we add engineers to that total, then 1.6 percent of the workforce is made up of scientists and engineers. There are significant shortages of scientists and engineers in this country. There are about as many entertainers in the U.S. as there are scientists. There are about as many people who “sell” things as there are scientists and engineers.

No one should be surprised to learn that there are more lawyers than scientists in the United States. I can’t find the data to make the following claim, but I’ll bet there are more foreign born citizens among our scientists and engineers than among our lawyers and vast marketing and selling industry.

At ISU far more students major in criminal justice (in order to work in law enforcement or corrections) than major in science or mathematics. Of course, not everyone who majors in science ends up working as a scientist, but their scientific literacy is likely greater than the criminal justice majors. And more “literate” people help everyone in society, not just themselves.

In the most scientifically and technologically advanced society in history, where the unquestioned assumptions of science are common sensical, is it unreasonable to expect that our citizens should know what science is? Shouldn’t Americans be able to differentiate science from political/public opinion as easily as we differentiate an iPod from just any mp3 player? Shouldn’t we be able to differentiate between religion and science?

As a sociologist and citizen, I point out that we don’t do a very good job at it. Does that mean I dislike America? If it does, then my next question is, who or what groups in our society benefit from such ignorance?

Science is the radical viewpoint

I encourage my half dozen or so readers to read this editorial in last Sunday's NYT. It is written by a physics professor at Columbia.

To tease you, here is an excerpt:

And when we look at the wealth of opportunities hovering on the horizon — stem cells, genomic sequencing, personalized medicine, longevity research, nanoscience, brain-machine interface, quantum computers, space technology — we realize how crucial it is to cultivate a general public that can engage with scientific issues; there’s simply no other way that as a society we will be prepared to make informed decisions on a range of issues that will shape the future.

While I follow politics and the so called culture wars, as a social scientist, I know that much of what we argue over is "testable" and science could answer many of the questions that face us. No, it cannot answer question about whether abortion is right or wrong or gay marriage is right or wrong, but many of the claims made about factual matters, abortions are dangerous to women or gay marriage will undermine the foundations of society, are answerable by science. For instance:

But here’s the thing. The reason science really matters runs deeper still. Science is a way of life. Science is a perspective. Science is the process that takes us from confusion to understanding in a manner that’s precise, predictive and reliable — a transformation, for those lucky enough to experience it, that is empowering and emotional. To be able to think through and grasp explanations — for everything from why the sky is blue to how life formed on earth — not because they are declared dogma but rather because they reveal patterns confirmed by experiment and observation, is one of the most precious of human experiences.

So many people turn to religion for hope and inspiration. But the physics professor sees science providing that:

It’s striking that science is still widely viewed as merely a subject one studies in the classroom or an isolated body of largely esoteric knowledge that sometimes shows up in the “real” world in the form of technological or medical advances. In reality, science is a language of hope and inspiration, providing discoveries that fire the imagination and instill a sense of connection to our lives and our world.

I completely agree with this next paragraph:

Science is the greatest of all adventure stories, one that’s been unfolding for thousands of years as we have sought to understand ourselves and our surroundings. Science needs to be taught to the young and communicated to the mature in a manner that captures this drama. We must embark on a cultural shift that places science in its rightful place alongside music, art and literature as an indispensable part of what makes life worth living.

Science cannot answer all questions. Science cannot really reveal, for insance, who we should vote for. Elections are really about values, but governing is about science. Science can help so much in our policies. Sure, some of the obvious ones like global warming and environmental protection, but education, too. Politics screws all that up. In part it is because of value differences, but for the most part it is because of an ignorance of what science is.