Bridging the Divide Between Scientists and Engineers and the Public They Serve

By Chris McManes

If only Americans weren’t so scientifically illiterate, they would better understand the benefits of science and technology...

That belief, unfortunately, is shared by many scientists, engineers and science educators. But is it really just the public's fault that so many people don’t trust the science underlying things like childhood vaccinations, global warming and the safety of Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste repository?

Probably not.

Perhaps if scientists and engineers better understood the public and how its views are shaped by, among other things, ideology, values, priorities, misinformation, and yes, a poor understanding of science, the public would be more accepting of generally sound scientific data and theories.

The American Academy of Arts and Sciences commissioned a study to find out just how well scientists and engineers understand the public’s point of view on scientific issues. Its findings and recommendations are contained in an essay, Do Scientists Understand the Public?, which was unveiled at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Washington, D.C., on 29 June.

Essay author Chris Mooney, who just completed a Knight Science Journalism Fellowship at MIT, was a featured speaker. He was joined by Robert Fri, a visiting scholar and senior fellow emeritus at Resources for the Future.

The American Academy study, “Improving the Scientific Community’s Understanding of Public Concerns about Science and Technology,” included four off-the-record workshops that examined subjects where the public is particularly skeptical about scientific work: “The Next Generation of the Internet,” “Public Perceptions of Nuclear Waste Repositories,” “The Spread of Personal Genetic Information” and “The Risks and Benefits of Emerging Energy Technologies.” Fri led the last workshop.

Participants included scientists, engineers, public policy experts, journalists, attorneys, ethicists and public officials. Their charge was “to explore how scientists understand their obligation to the broader social and cultural contexts in which their work is received, and to examine ways to improve engagement between the scientific and public communities.”

Differing Perceptions of Risk

One reason for the mistrust between society and scientists on certain issues is that each perceives risk differently. Take Nevada’s Yucca Mountain, for instance. Scientists, engineers and federal policymakers who have studied the site believe it is a safe place to store the nation’s spent nuclear fuel. This isn’t to say they don’t have any safety concerns, but that they think the risk is minimal.

But Las Vegas residents, living just 90 miles southeast of the mountain, don’t want to take the chance that an accident either at the facility or in transporting the waste could endanger their lives. They’re also not crazy about the idea of their state being perceived as the nation’s nuclear dumping ground. Both of these concerns have merit.

A June 2010 statewide poll of 600 likely voters found that 76 percent of Nevadans oppose the project. Thus, you have scientists on one side with their studies promising safety and Nevada residents on the other fearful of dying.

“If scientists who specialize in nuclear issues often feel unfairly attacked by the public, scientific and technical justification alone — however sound — do not suffice to quell their fears about nuclear waste disposal, its long-term safety, and its proximity to where they live,” Mooney wrote. “In other words, on a topic that stirs emotions as much as this does, the science can very easily be good enough for the scientists but not good enough for everyone else.”

“It’s true that where people have their values is going to influence their opinions,” Fri said. “… “It’s not necessarily an understanding of what scientists are saying, it’s a I-just-don’t-happen-to-believe-what-they-say problem.”

Yucca Mountain exemplifies the “decide, announce, defend” way of working with the public on an important issue. Under this model, a community is only consulted after decisions have been made. The public is basically told what’s going to happen and is asked to give its blessing. This approach usually fails.

Canada’s Nuclear Waste Management Organization has taken a different course of action: “Engage, interact, cooperate.” This approach accommodates the public’s views and concerns from the outset and strives for mutual trust and ongoing communication.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which is reviewing applications to build the nation’s first new nuclear reactors in more than 30 years, has recently adopted Canada’s way of thinking. Mooney reports that “steps include improving the ability of government scientists to engage with citizens in well-designed, effective public meetings.”

Better Communication Needed

Improved communication between scientists, engineers, technologists and society is one key toward overcoming the divide that often separates the two groups.

In Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, Mooney and co-author Sheril Kirshenbaum, write, “It is undeniable that the troubling disconnect between the scientific community and society stems partly from the nature of scientific training today, and from scientific culture generally. In some ways science has become self-isolating. The habits of specialization that have ensured so many research successes have also made it harder to connect outside the laboratory and the ivory tower.

“As a result, the scientific community simultaneously generates ever more valuable knowledge and yet also suffers declining influence and growing alienation. Too many smart, talented, influential people throughout our society don’t see the centrality of science in their lives; and too many scientists don’t know how to explain it to them.”

Despite this, Mooney and Kirshenbaum do see a ray of sunshine: “For every scientist who shuns or misunderstands the broad public, there’s another who deeply wants to find better ways to connect and who may exert considerable energy and ingenuity to that end.”

Science journalism is often the conduit through which high-tech information is conveyed to the public. But, Mooney pointed out, between 1989 and 2005, the number of daily newspapers with weekly science sections fell from 95 to 31. The Dallas Morning News dropped its science section in 2004, CNN’s science unit ceased in 2008 and the Boston Globe ended its health and science section last year.

In its 2008 “State of the Media” report, the Pew Research Center reported that if you were to watch five hours of cable news, about one minute would have been devoted to science and technology. So with technology advancing at such a rapid pace and often having the potential to improve our quality of life and, in some cases, to save lives, less air space and printed pages are being devoted to science journalism.

This means that scientists and engineers often have to speak directly to the public or work with a member of the media who has little understanding of science, technology, engineering or mathematics. Holly Morris, who specializes in live reporting for Washington’s FOX5 Morning News, has a bachelor’s degree in civil and environmental engineering. So when she’s reporting on a high-tech subject, she has at least a basic understanding of the underlying science and engineering. This helps her to ask the right questions and better comprehend the answers. She’s then able to convey that information so a non-technical person can understand.

But Morris is the exception, not the rule.

IEEE-USA’s high-level volunteer leaders undergo media training every other year to improve their communications skills with the media, lawmakers and the public. Participants are taught how to convert complex engineering principles or public policy issues into easy-to-understand layman’s terms. After all, communication is only successful if your audience comprehends what you’re saying.

Well-prepared interviewees can help shape the public’s opinion on a particular subject in a way that is favorable to an organization or a particular cause. By viewing members of the public as partners rather than adversaries, a sense of mutual trust and understanding is more likely to emerge.

“We need more preparation of scientists as communicators,” Mooney said. “We need more engagement with the public.”