March seems to always be the month of lots to do. Tests, papers/presentations, conferences, and the never-ending pile of things that I need to get started or finished up in the lab (this list is always long, though, so I've gotten used to not worrying about it). I feel almost overwhelmed for some reason today, not really wary of what needs to get done but just not wanting to do it. I think a chance to sit outside while writing a new blog post and sipping on a starbucks Italian roast will help boost my mental energy reserves, though!
So lately I've been listening to the Best of the Left podcast quite a bit. It's got a nice mix of topics and talk show hosts/commentators and is a good way to keep my mind going when I'm doing the more mundane lab tasks. Today's podcast was about global warming. Not a scientific issue I feel strongly about either way but one of the last segments by NPR did bring up something I have more thoughts about.
The hosts discuss a few studies about how people perceive science, and in general people regard scientists (or the "traditional" image of a scientist as a crazy old guy in a lab coat) as less trustworthy than an "average joe" type of character or a person dressed more business-like. Part of this study was spurred by the fact that as of now only about 50% of people believe climate change is happening, a dramatic drop over the past few years. This can likely be attributed to several things, "climategate" and the media's negative perception of Al Gore and other faces of the climate change movement. Massive snowstorms also seem to further the opposition's stance (though many scientists agree that these extreme weather events are more indicative of the climate change argument).
What really stood out to me was one of the last sentences of the segment regarding what scientists need to do to about public perception: "The goal has to be to create an environment that allows them (the public) to be open minded"..."and this can't be done simply by publishing more scientific articles."
Wow. Perhaps without even knowing it, this statement becomes incredibly powerful, at least from a scientific perspective. Throughout our careers, budding young scientists such as myself are taught the importance of many things, not in the least of which is publications, publications, and then more publications. It's probably one of the biggest things to obtaining and keeping a job in the scientific field (besides good networking skills, as I learned at SOT). But as we become further embedded in our own research fields and project, I believe we forget that we don't live in a vacuum: as scientists, what we find and do on a daily basis can have wide-reaching implications, whether we are aware of it or not.
A staggering example of this is with autism and vaccines. Vaccination rates have been decreasing dramatically after an article was published in the 1990's stating a correlation with autism. As of a couple months ago, the article was officially rescinded for errors in the statistical analysis. BUT: will the public be made aware of this? Has the media taken off on this half as much as they did 15-20 years ago, or has the damage of this research taken out of context and out of proportion already been irreversibly done?
That's why it is my goal throughout my career, wherever it take me, to be part of a movement to increase both awareness and participation of those in the public sector with scientists. I hope to reach out to the public so they can make informed decision about the scientific results that the media tries to inundate them with daily, and also to remind scientist that the strongest impacts of their work often falls outside the lab bench.
How am I going to do this? Still a work in progress. Hopefully my multi-weekly blog posts, increased interactions with both the scientific and regulatory communities, and of course the daily lessons learned as a graduate student, will help me build this path.
No comments:
Post a Comment