There has been a flurry of communication lately about the communication of science. There were sessions at the recent American Association for the Advancement of Science Meeting that included science bloggers. There have been other talks about journalists and scientists talking to--and sometimes past--each other. Science bloggers are working among their community to figure out how to deal with cranks. (This post had a particularly good discussion going on, I thought: Saying no to intolerance) There was Paul Nurse's recent BBC show that I discussed here: Science Under Attack.
I think this is all good news. Not that we've all found solutions yet--but that we are seeing so many people who want science communication to be better, and for the citizenry to be better educated to make evidence-based decisions. We don't want susceptible people to be taken in by cranks and pseudoscience and junk science. It may actually be one of the few silver linings of the Andrew Wakefield and vax/autism debacle--it shook us all up.
I think the new push by Paul Nurse and the Royal Society is especially good news. I think he really is concerned about this topic and wants to work on it. I hope that he will provide institutional effort to enable scientists to spend time doing public outreach which gives them career rewards and is subsidized appropriately for their time. So when I saw this lecture sponsored by the Royal Society I was delighted to have a look. (And, may I say, kudos to them for putting up the high quality recording so quickly.)
A well-respected scientist, Professor Jocelyn Bell Burnell, provides a talk on an issue that has heated up parts of the intertubz: the Mayan calendar, 2012, and potential disasters. She capably eviscerates each one with data and facts. She touches on who benefits from these kinds of scares. And she touches on who falls for them. It's a great lecture, and good questions follow in the discussion. If you are interested in this topic, and in science communication, this is worth your time. Go watch.
What struck me about this was that it was the same story we see over and over. It's practically a template for a number of issues we are facing on so many science and science policy topics. It also got me thinking about the people who are falling for these things. That's definitely something I need to understand better.
The discussants were in broad agreement: Yes, people aren't prepared to understand the science. They are being taken in by charlatans. This does have consequences in people's real lives, even though some of it may seem silly to us. But I don't think they had immediate solutions. At least increasing awareness of the problem, and the scope of this problem, has to help.