SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Bytram
Public trust that scientists work for the good of society is growing
These days, it can seem as if science is under assault. Climatologists are routinely questioned about what's really causing global warming. Doctors can be disparaged for trying to vaccinate children against disease.
But for the U.S. public at large, scientists are generally seen as a trustworthy bunch. In fact, 86 percent of Americans hold at least "a fair amount" of confidence that scientists work for the public good, according to a survey released August 2 by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center in Washington, D.C.
That's far better than how respondents felt about what motivates politicians (only 35 percent said they were fairly confident that elected officials acted in the public interest), journalists (47 percent) or even religious leaders (57 percent). And that general trust in the goodwill of scientists has grown steadily over the last four years, from 76 percent in 2016.
But confidence falters on narrower questions of scientists' trustworthiness. For instance:
- The kind of scientist matters. Nearly half — 48 percent — thought doctors gave fair and accurate information, but only 32 percent thought the same of medical researchers. Dieticians also were considered trustworthy by 47 percent of respondents, while that number fell to 24 percent for nutrition scientists. Overall, scientists whose work involved engaging with the public tended to be more trusted than those focused on research;
- How research is funded matters. More than half of respondents — 58 percent — said they are less trusting of studies financed by industry. And there's skepticism that scientists reveal all of their industry ties: Fewer than 2 in 10 people thought scientists always disclosed conflicts of interest with industry, or faced stern consequences for failing to do so;
- Sometimes, who is being asked matters. On questions of scientific misconduct, black and Hispanic respondents were more likely than whites to see it as a "big problem." That could reflect wariness due to past cases of experiments being conducted without patients' consent, such as the decades-long Tuskegee Study in which hundreds of black men with syphilis were denied treatment (SN: 3/1/75, p. 134), the Pew report notes. Or it could reflect the fact that, when it comes to environmental justice, these communities are often more likely to be affected by unchecked pollution (SN: 12/6/97, p. 366).
"The issue of trust in scientists is part of a broader conversation that society is having on the role and value of experts," says Cary Funk, the director of Pew's science and society research. "What we wanted to do was get a look at the potential sources of mistrust."
(Score: 2) by looorg on Saturday August 03 2019, @11:26AM (6 children)
I'm more surprised that about half the people still think journalists are somehow trustworthy and working for the good and betterment of society along with about 1/3 for the politicians.
For Scientists tho it's as noted probably in large dependent on what you do and whom you do it for. If you do research for big Tobacco or someone and conclude it's all great, healthy and cool then your credibility is around zero. That said "... said they are less trusting of studies financed by industry.", that is how a lot of money are coming into it now, via industry and various foundations that are usually started by wealthy industrialists and their families. If it wasn't for them there would be a lot less science and studies going around. As an example for about the last five years or so the projects I worked on have been paid for by a foundation that was started by industrialists (multinational packaging industry). That said none of the science worked on had anything to do with their core business (or even remotely related to their business), still it was industry money and without it things would probably not have gotten done. All they get out of it is their name and our "eternal" thanks, I guess they also get some big tax deductions or something on/in their end.
That people are still dragging up the Tuskegee experiments, etc, is unfortunate. It's not that it, by example, was not bad but it feeds into some form of eternal victimization. It was about 90 years ago since it started now and it's been over with for about 50 years or there about. But then I guess there are people that still feel entitled to slavery reparations to and that was even longer ago. When is the past the past? I guess most if not everyone can drag up some even in the past then as an excuse for victimization.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Saturday August 03 2019, @03:48PM (3 children)
90 years isn't all that long ago, really. I'm 62, and I remember my father's generation, my grandfather's generation, and my great grandfather's generation. That is, I distinctly remember real people who lived through those days. If I were black, if I were from Alabama, then, I may very well have personally known some of the people affected.
But, to add to that sense of victimhood you mention, https://www.thoughtco.com/u-s-governments-role-sterilizing-women-of-color-2834600 [thoughtco.com]
Further, the US, through various aid groups, has been a prime mover in the forced sterilization of women in Africa - and still is. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/african-women-fight-back-against-forced-coerced-sterilizations [lifesitenews.com]
Reparations? No, I'm not into that. But, simple respect for human rights? I'm into that, sure enough!
(Score: 2) by looorg on Saturday August 03 2019, @05:06PM (2 children)
It could all be relative. 90 years is a fairly long time when it comes to science on/with people. It's about three human generations. Which is a fairly long time. That said it might not really be the core issue at hand here. It might be more about how long can you hold a grudge or have beef with something? Can you have it if you were not personally tested on (or denied treatment for your horrific (un-)diagnosed syphilis infection might be more accurate here). There is probably less then a handful of victims (or test subjects) alive today, the others are some kind of proxy victims? When should they so to speak "get over it".
It's also not a US specific issue really, more or less all of the western world sterilized, or experimented on, people left and right up until about 40-50 years ago for what can today be seen as quite flimsy reasons. But it was "science" at the time. From what I recall now (and it could be wrong) the people involved in the experiment acted as some kind of control group in what happens if you don't get penicillin and just let it run to it's natural conclusion, and the follow up autopsy. Most of them already had syphilis when they joined or got signed up -- so it's not like the doctors injected them with it or did they? More questionable and horrific if they did, but I don't recall that being the case -- but as noted I could be wrong.
Human rights and the respect that follows appear to have a tendency to evolve and change over time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 03 2019, @08:25PM
Grudges can easily turn self reinforcing. Just look at how many people want reparations for slavery, or Ireland/North Ireland, or China/Korea/Japan, or Protestant vs Catholic, or Sunni vs. Shia.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday August 04 2019, @01:25AM
Wow.
I mean, I'm just a little astounded that someone could ask this question. Yes, I completely get that the argument over slavery reparations can seem quite distant, with people many generations removed from the situation arguing over its effects and who is culpable.
But the Tuskegee experiments were nowhere near so long ago. No, no subject is still alive. The last one died in 2004 [cdc.gov]. But I'm sure there are lots of people who are still alive who had fathers or uncles or grandfathers involved. Are you seriously questioning whether it's reasonable for such a person to have a bit of suspicion about doctors or researchers? If my uncle or grandfather had been systematically lied to and denied treatment by physicians, I certainly might be suspicious myself. That's not a "grudge." That's prudent and cautious behavior based on someone who was very close to you who had been treated like a human guinea pig.
Yes, though it's important to note that a lot of this experimentation decreased significantly after WWII and the revelations about the Nazis and their experiments. There were still experiments that were unethical by today's standards going on, of course. In any case, I think anyone who had a close relative involved in such a situation even 40 or 50 years ago might have good cause to maintain a bit of suspicion.
Wow, so you're really talking out of your ass here, huh? You are complaining about people holding a grudge, yet you don't even know the details of the study?? Okay, start at the FAQ I linked above. You are correct that men were not deliberately infected at the beginning of the study. That said, at least 50-60 people did subsequently become infected with syphilis, being the wives of the study participants (who were unaware they were married to someone who had been quietly diagnosed with an STD) and children (born with congenital syphilis).
Indeed. But that doesn't mean people who have very close personal relationships with people who were lied to or treated with great disrespect may not continue to have some suspicion. Forget "victimhood" -- we're talking about the fact that your father or uncle or grandfather may have died because of "research" that involved significant deception. It may not be rational, but it's reasonable.
Oh, and just a final note about the slavery issue -- keep in mind that some people have children very late in life. As of last year, the U.S. government was still paying a Civil War pension [reason.com] to a child of a Civil War veteran. I remember a few years back reading a story about the fact that there were several of those children still receiving benefits. And I remember reading an interview with some of them talking about their memories of their fathers. I doubt there are many (or any) children of slaves still remaining, but there are likely MANY who can remember their grandfathers talking about a first-hand experience.
I'm not arguing in favor of reparations by the way. But it's understandable that some wounds can still be very personal after a long time. And let's not forget the revival of serious racism/segregation/Jim Crow in early to mid 20th century. That stuff is well within memory of many people still alive. It may not be slavery, but I heard a story just a few months ago from a living person I was chatting with about how he had almost been lynched as a child. Seriously.
I'm not saying things haven't changed. But it's understandable why people might still have serious reservations accepting that everything suddenly is perfect and racism just dissipated magically into the ether.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 03 2019, @05:48PM (1 child)
50% of people watch MSM where they constantly harp on how they are the fourth estate keeping government honest?
50% of people remember a different time when journalism was a somewhat respectable position (eg when Tintin and Superman came out)?
I've never lionized journalists, but there used to be a time when media competed on quality, and quality media had courageous journalists working for them. Now with the democratization of media, it's all about being shrill and playing to your filter bubbled audience, get the clicks, likes, retweets and ad views, avoid shit storms, and fuck the truth.
For example, I remember what CNN used to be, and its current state makes me sad, but unfortunately they are in the business of making money, not disseminating rational facts and encompassing analysis. Can't dwell upon the past.
(Score: 2) by Coward, Anonymous on Sunday August 04 2019, @07:08AM
I remember their night vision and weapons footage from the first Gulf War. I'm sure they were lying to us then already. It was just a different kind of lying.