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 Runaway1956 on Saturday August 03 2019, @03:33PM (6 children)
'Zumi refers to irony in your post. If I may, I'll point out just one flavor of that irony. We've had multiple articles posted on SN, regarding worthlessness of many "research" papers. In various discussions, it has been pointed out that many published papers never do get a peer review - along with reasons for that. Additionally, time and time again, it has been shown that research is NOT repeatable.
As intangible as opinion poll results might be - yes, maybe they are > than peer reviewed research?
To be fair, if I were to kind of shift the emphasis around on the words in your post? Only considering experiments that are actually repeatable, and do get peer review? Yeah, that kind of research beats public opinion to hell and back.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 03 2019, @06:50PM (5 children)
Look there is ZERO incentive in science to repeat others' work.
The funding goes to the shiniest and the most novel. It doesn't matter if it actually works, just make it SHINY. And FAST.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 03 2019, @10:45PM (1 child)
Capitalism infecting academia. Oddly the capitalist apologists are the ones who bitch about that the most :O
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 04 2019, @04:46PM
No, you can clearly see science going along nicely until about the 1940s when the government got involved after the success of the Manhattan project. Then everything starts going to shit in every single field. The less advanced the field the earlier it devolved into pseudoscience.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 03 2019, @10:51PM
Maybe just a little bit. New grad students may be tasked with repeating an experiment.
(Score: 2) by Coward, Anonymous on Sunday August 04 2019, @07:00AM (1 child)
But to do something shiny and novel, you often have to build on other people's work. If a research direction is flawed due to long ago errors, that will reveal itself as lack of progress.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 04 2019, @04:44PM
Yes, it has been revealed. Look at what happened since the "war on cancer" started. After a trillion dollars and a generation of researchers they concluded "cancer is many diseases so there can be no cure". That is what lack of progress looks like, everything gets more difficult to understand vs finding universalities that make it easier to understand.