Assignment 2

The ASR findings came to a few major conclusions. One is that on average public trust in science has not declined in this country over the last 40 years. Only two groups have had drops in there trust in science: conservatives and church-goers. Other groups have stayed fairly level in their trust in science. The other finding is that education does not correlate to trust in science. A more educated public does not mean that public trust in science will increase.

Essentially, this report is a very long way of saying, "People are stubborn." I do not understand why any of us should be surprised by any of the results of this finding. The conservative base is so far removed from science that is scary at times (the opposite is also true, however, where liberals are sometimes too married to it).

We have long known that people are stubborn. Very rarely do people have epiphanies about religion or science and change their whole way of thinking. Sure there are born-agains and people who lose faith, but there are a slim margin of the population. The decline in trust in science among conservatives is likely not due to a bunch of "science-believers"  suddenly denying its veracity, but rather people switching parties or becoming independents or moderates.

So, how does this information make me become better science writers? It doesn't. It can't. My audience is now more partisan, more biased, more one-sided.. The audience of science readers is moving left and that means we do not need to worry much about alienating our conservative readership because they are already being alienated. The report tells me some people, no matter how educated they are, do not trust science. Will they even read the articles I write if they are outright rejecting the subject matter? No matter how much evidence I present I cannot reach that particular part of the audience if they never even read past the title.

Does this information make me become a better scientist? Probably not. My job as a scientist is to perform scientific experiments and increase our understanding of the natural world. Whether a minority of people wish to accept that information or not is up to them. As a scientist and student of the physical world I need to be concerned with performing experiments. It is not my role to interfere politically and socially in an attempt to make my work more appreciated or trusted.

Does this information make me a better citizen? It can or it can't. With this information I have the power to say, "Those darn conservatives/Charlie-churchers will never get science so this is all the more reason not to try to talk with them about it" or it is my opportunity to try and show them that science is something they should trust. I hope I can make the latter choice. Most people take medicine and use computers. That is science that they have put their trust in so why should other science be different. It is all done the same way. It is my job as a citizen, more than as a scientist or science writer, to talk with them and try to make them see that science is not trying to lie to them and dissuade them from their beliefs or principles. By reasoning logically with people and starting to convince them that science is not only trustworthy, but also their friend, I hope at least a small fraction of people will come to believe that that is true.