Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Saturday August 03 2019, @08:46AM   Printer-friendly
from the good-science dept.

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."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 03 2019, @12:46PM (3 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday August 03 2019, @12:46PM (#875086) Homepage Journal

    I don't. That's the whole reason behind their results needing to be reproducible. Faith has no place in science.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 03 2019, @01:17PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 03 2019, @01:17PM (#875106)

    Yes, scientists reproduce each others work. That is not what is going on with this other practice I call "research". Doing direct replications is actively discouraged. In the rare cases they are done the results are only " reproduced" something like 25% of the time. And that is using a weak definition of reproduced that only considers whether the results are statistically significant (a BS concept to begin with) in the same direction.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 03 2019, @10:56PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 03 2019, @10:56PM (#875276)

      Best thing is if you get a degree duplicating research that was done 35 years ago, but by this time your committee and their friends on the program committees have forgotten about it.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 04 2019, @08:20AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 04 2019, @08:20AM (#875425)

      My sole disagreement with your post would be in calling them "researchers". I would say that people doing research can still be honest.
      Heinlein called them "bottle-washers and button counters", but that is a bit of a mouthful. "Quack" has the correct connotations, but belongs to the medical profession. We need another word. Best I can come up with is "pretenders".