Author: Kevin Bonney
The politicization of science is an important contemporary issue with local and global ramifications. In my Life Science course, I use climate change, evolution, and vaccines as examples to promote critical analysis and evaluation of how the politicization of science impacts students and society. This posts describes some of the resources I found helpful for this endeavor. I will also discuss some of the reasoning we examine in the classroom, including the roles of science communication and cultural cognition (the tendency of cultural identities and values to influence beliefs about disputed factual matters) in shaping the way science is viewed in the public sphere.
The implications of man-made climate change, justification for teaching evolution in public schools, and safety and efficacy of vaccinations are three scientific issues of great importance in the world today. Accordingly, these issues elicit considerable discussion by the public at large, elected officials, and the media. These discussions often focus on “controversies” and the need to resolve them rather than on implementing other productive actions. This position is seemingly fueled by the notion that the scientific community is similarly mired in conflict, unable to identify or agree upon clear guidelines for how to be best address these issues. However, the majority of expert scientists have long reached consensus on the significant details of these issues, and gone on to produce and disseminate clear guidelines and explanations backed by extensive assemblages of evidence. If such well-documented expert consensus exists, why does the perception of an ongoing controversy persist and continue to stymie implementation of evidence-based practices?
One possibility is that scientific knowledge is so esoteric that it is essentially unknowable to non-scientists. In recent years this explanation has become a mantra of certain social and political circles. For example, the phrase “I am not a scientist” has become so closely associated with a certain group of people that the widely popular site Wikipedia now defines those five words as “a phrase that has been often used by American politicians, primarily Republicans when asked about a scientific subject, such as global warming” (1). In contrast, Democratic President Barack Obama once stated, “I’m not a scientist, either. But you know, I know a lot of really good scientists at NASA, and at NOAA, and at our major universities. And the best scientists in the world are telling us that our activities are changing the climate” (2). Although this statement reflected a level of uncompromised acceptance of the existing scientific consensus, it stopped short of disabusing supporters of the notion that science is a technocracy.
After repeatedly observing students with no professional science background develop the ability to independently evaluate and analyze the veracity and meaning of scientific claims over the course of a semester, I find this the suggestion that non-scientists cannot glean scientific knowledge to be counter-intuitive. Indeed, studies have shown that some conservative Republicans, who reject the scientific consensus on man-made climate change and other issues, actually do have a high level of science comprehension (3, 4). An alternative explanation for why perceived controversies involving scientific issues persist despite contradictory evidence has been put forth by Yale University’s Cultural Cognition project, led by professor Dan Kahan. Kahan cites the “failure of compelling scientific evidence to resolve public disputes over risks and similar facts,” which he terms “the scientific communication problem,” as one explanation for the lack of congruency between what the scientific community agrees upon and what many members of the public believe (5). That is to say, the problem lies in the way expert scientists share their knowledge with non-experts, rather than resulting from an inherent inability for non-scientists to understand that knowledge.
If science communication was generally effective, understanding of scientific concepts should be positively correlated to levels of exposure to science communication; as a member of the public receives more factual information about a scientific concept, their reported knowledge of that concept should increase. However, Kahan has found that in regard to contentious issues such as mandatory childhood vaccination, the opposite is sometimes true; for some people, receiving more factual scientific information actually causes their beliefs to become less accurate (3, 4). Independent research published by the Ohio State University and the University of Michigan in 2017 confirmed that some individuals perceive “facts” as political constructs rather than evidence-based truths, and that these individuals are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories and misconceptions despite substantial contradictory evidence (6).
This observation can be further explained by what Kahan calls “cultural cognition,” which is the inclination to conform one’s beliefs about potentially controversial matters to align with the pre-conceived values that define their cultural identities, rather than basing beliefs on evidence and facts (3, 4). Using climate change has a barometer; cultural cognition was measured by asking a spectrum of Liberal Democrats and Conservative Republicans if they agree “There is “solid evidence” of recent global warming due “mostly” to “human activity such as burning fossil fuels,” which is a true statement (4). As expected, the more Liberal Democrats knew about science, the more likely they were to correctly identify this statement as true (3). On the contrary, the more Conservative Republicans knew about science, the less likely they were to express a correct understanding of climate change (3). I have used this study, and many other findings published by Kahan to spark debates and discussions in class, which has resulted in great success as evidenced by thoughtful and lively class discussions, insightful student reflection essays, and unsolicited reports of engagement and satisfaction by students. The concept of cultural cognition provides a lens through which many other concepts can be examined.
Yale University’s Cultural Cognition project provides a wealth of resources useful for teaching about evolution, vaccines, and other relevant issues (culturalcognition.net). This is just one of many freely available resources that can be used to facilitate classroom analysis and discussion of the politicization of science. Other resources I found helpful for promoting active, thoughtful discussion in class include the special report on climate change published by The Economist (7), vaccine case studies published by The National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science (8), and the Understanding Evolution site maintained by The University of California, Berkeley (9). Additionally, I regularly search for newly published articles about relevant current events to provide as supplemental reading (i.e. articles describing the South Dakota’s SB 55 in 2017, which attempted to change state regulations related to the teaching of evolution in public schools). With all of these topics, I provide students evidence that supports both sides of a debate, then instruct them to summarize the evidence supporting each side, evaluate the strength of that evidence, and synthesize an argument about which position is best-supported by the evidence. Having instructed students to first read the material before class, I use class time for whole-group discussions and debates, sometimes prefaced by small group think tank sessions. I have found students tend to be highly engaged by discussion of relevant current events, especially in classes that are not within their major field of study, so this approach is especially effective when teach non-majors biology courses.
Works Cited
Garrett, K.R. and Weeks, B.R. (2017) Epistemic beliefs’ role in promoting misperceptions and conspiracist ideation. PloS One 12(9): e0184733
Kahan, D. (2013) A Risky Science Communication Environment for Vaccines. Science 342, 53
Kahan, D. M. (2015) Climate-Science Communication and the Measurement Problem. Political Psychology, 36: 1–43. doi:10.1111/pops.12244
Kahan, D., Jenkins-Smith, H., and Braman, D. (2011) Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus. Journal of Risk Research, Vol. 14, pp. 147-74, 2011
Oremus, W. (2015) Obama Calls Out Republicans for Their “I’m Not a Scientist” Line. Slate Last Modified: 20 January 2015. http://slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/01/20/sotu_2015_obama_mocks_gop_s_i_m_not_a_scientist_line_on_climate.html
Special Report on Climate Change. (2015) The Economist. Last Modified: 28 November 2015. http://economist.com/sites/default/files/20151128_climate_change.pdf
Understanding Evolution. (2017) University of California Museum of Paleontology. 22 August 2008 http://evolution.berkeley.edu/.
Wikipedia contributors. I’m not a scientist. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Accessed: 19 September 2017. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_not_a_scientist
Zavrel, E. and Herreid, C. (2008) Sex and Vaccination. National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science. http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/files/hpv.pdf