Category Archives: social implications

Guinea pigging and a walk down memory lane for Remembrance Day 2024

While this isn’t one of my usual areas of interest, there is a personal element for me (more about that at the end). Some people earn their living as subjects for drug tests; it’s called guinea pigging. (There’s more here in a July 1, 2015 posting; see the first three paragraphs after the information about cross-posting and the circumstances under which I wrote the article.)

Earlier this fall (2024), the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) released a documentary, Bodies for Rent, focusing on two guinea piggers. Here’s more from a September 25, 2024 CBC online article about their documentary,

Before a drug becomes available on the market, it must undergo rigorous testing and multiple levels of clinical trials to ensure its functionality and safety. Every year, thousands of people in Canada and the U.S. take part in these trials, and may receive financial compensation for doing so. 

A new documentary highlights how some volunteers are attempting to earn a living by putting their bodies on the line. Bodies for Rent follows two men who spend their days searching for eligible clinical studies, and shows the lengths they’ll go to in order to complete a trial and get paid.  

A way to make a ‘living’

Participating in a trial for a medical drug still under development involves reporting any side effects. It’s a potentially dangerous “job,” but for many volunteers, the rewards outweigh the risks. 

“I think I’ve done more than 40 studies,” says 55-year-old “Franco,” who conceals his real identity with makeup in the documentary. “I was struggling to pay my rent. And I saw an ad at the subway in Toronto, and they said, ‘Would you like to make up to $1,200 over a weekend?'”

“I usually make [$30,000] to 40,000 a year. Before, I was making, like, $18,000 working at a factory.”

Raighne, an artist living in Minneapolis, was raised by a single mother and grew up on welfare. “I’ve done about 20 or 30 drug trials,” he says in the film. “And nothing makes money like clinical studies.”

Trying to get out of debt and manage an unstable business, Raighne sometimes spends days or weeks away from home while participating in a study. “I had a friend describe it as, like, ‘drug jail,'” he says. “Because you’re trapped for a set amount of time. You’re under observation.”

From testing on prisoners to testing on the poor

Before the 1970s, most Phase I clinical trials — which look at a drug’s safety, determine the safe dosage range and see if there are any side effects — were conducted on prisoners. This allowed researchers to control and monitor every aspect of participants’ lives. 

“These studies did the most unimaginably horrible things you can think of to prisoners there,” says Carl Elliott, a University of Minnesota bioethicist featured in Bodies for Rent and the author of The Occasional Human Sacrifice: Medical Experimentation and the Price of Saying No [emphasis mine]. 

“For example, they injected inmates with herpes. They injected them with asbestos. They even tested chemical warfare agents on them.”

Public outcry and new reforms eventually made research in prisons much more difficult. “The question was, ‘Well, who do we do Phase I trials on now?’ We can’t do them on prisoners anymore,” says Elliott. 

“The answer is poor people.”

‘A financial incentive to lie’

When testing in prisons stopped and financial incentives were introduced, students and people impacted by poverty became more common test subjects. However, the promise of money at the completion of a trial has added complications. 

“When I started doing studies, I used to be very honest,” says Franco. “I [would] tell all the side effects that I was going through.” 

But after reporting severe migraines during one study, Franco says he was forced to leave — with less than 20 per cent of the promised payout. He says he was also blocked from doing further studies with that company. 

“I [was] being penalized for being honest. So, after that, I kind of learned my lesson and I decided to tone down the side effects,” he says. 

Once in a study, the risks persist. Franco says that after participating for nearly two months in a study worth around $20,000 to him, he received a call from the clinic saying he had inflammation in his pancreas. The study manager told him he was being removed from the study, and later, the clinic advised him to go to an emergency room immediately. 

“I hope it’s not permanent. If it’s permanent, then I’m gonna be upset,” Franco says to the camera in the documentary. “I was supposed to get around $20,000. If I don’t get the full amount because I am getting side effects, I think that it’s unfair.”

In the end, Franco was paid $9,000. 

The September 25, 2024 CBC online article also includes an embedded video about testing on prisoners. “Bodies for Rent” can be viewed on CBC Gem. (You do have to create an account in order to view the documentary or anything else on CBC Gem.)

A walk down memory lane for Remembrance Day 2024

When my father was in basic training for the Canadian army and preparing to fight in World War II, he participated in some kind of experiment. The details are fuzzy as he didn’t talk about it much but he did insist that some of his medical problems (specifically, the problems he had with his skin) were directly due to his experience as a guinea pig and that he should be compensated by the Canadian government. If memory serves, he felt the army had misled him into participating in the experiment. .

Papa was 15 1/2 when he lied his way into the army. Not too long after, the army realizing its mistake kept him back from the front (in some training camp in the Prairies), which is when he became a medical experiment for a time. On reaching the age of 18 the Canadian army shipped him overseas.

When he finally did try to speak up about his experience as a guinea pig it was the late 1960s and he didn’t pursue the matter for long being of the opinion that no one would pay much attention. He wasn’t wrong.

It wasn’t until details about the infamous Tuskegee Syphilis Study were revealed that there was serious discussion about informed consent (about 1972) in the United States. I don’t know when it became a serious discussion in Canada. Even then, some of the research from the 1970s is stomach churning as I found on stumbling across a study from that period. The researchers were conducting an experiment with a drug they knew was not going to work and that had bad side effects as was noted in the abstract. The testing took place on patients in a hospital ward.

There is still a long ways to go as evidenced by the “Bodies for Rent” documentary and Elliott’s 2024 book “The Occasional Human Sacrifice: Medical Experimentation and the Price of Saying No”. I hope there are changes to how drug testing is done as a consequence of added awareness but it’s a long hard road to change.

For my father on Remembrance Day 2024: you were right; what they did to you was wrong. And still, you went and fought. Thank you.

From AI to Ancient Greece; the 2024-25 theatre season at Concordia University (Montréal, Québec)

An October 30, 2024 Concordia University news release by Vanessa Hauguel announces the upcoming theatre season, which features a focus on how current technology and historical narratives intersect, Note: Links have been removed,

The Concordia Department of Theatre recently announced its 2024-25 season, featuring a diverse lineup of scripted and devised works. The program delves into themes relevant to today’s world, from artificial intelligence (AI) and deepfakes to the timeless human experiences and societal change.

Two upcoming productions highlight the department’s wide range of creative approaches. The first is Concord Floral by Jordan Tannahill, directed by Emma Tibaldo. The second is a devised adaptation of La vida es sueño (Life is a Dream), based on Pedro Calderón de la Barca’s classic play, directed by Peter Farbridge.

While these two productions kick off the season, additional performances are planned throughout the year until April 2025, continuing the department’s exploration of contemporary and classic themes. Directors Farbridge and Tibaldo, as well as this season’s artistic producer, Noah Drew, share the creative vision behind the shows and the thematic connections between them.

Modern ghost story

Concord Floral, by Canadian playwright Tannahill, is a modern ghost story set in an abandoned greenhouse where a group of teenagers face a buried secret. Directed by Tibaldo, a Concordia theatre graduate, 99, and artist-in-residence, it incorporates cutting-edge technology to navigate themes of guilt, adolescence and the weight of collective silence.

Concord Floral is a play that sticks with you,” Tibaldo explains. “It speaks to growing up, discovering yourself and grappling with your accountability to others. The haunting or ‘plague’ in the play is represented through movement, lighting and sound, creating a visceral embodiment of guilt and regret.”

The play draws on The Decameron as a point of reference, adding a sense of timelessness to the teenage experience. “During our teen years, we often react or make impulsive decisions, as we’re discovering or aiming to break boundaries, and sometimes they come with lasting consequences,” Tibaldo says. “This play will resonate strongly with many, as it captures that intense, confusing period of early adulthood.”

La vida es sueño: mixing AI, deepfakes & philosophy

Meanwhile, La vida es sueño offers a reimagining of Calderón de la Barca’s work, making allusions to contemporary issues like AI deepfakes. Farbridge, MA 22, explores the philosophical themes of illusion and reality in this adaptation, examining how modern technology manipulates perception.

“At the heart of the play is the idea that our lives are shaped by false narratives, a timeless concept that feels increasingly relevant in today’s world,” Farbridge says.

“Our adaptation looks at how political systems manipulate truth on a massive scale. And the deeper question we’re asking is, if belief in what we see and hear in online media collapses, where will we land?”

Farbridge’s production will use a combination of video screens, shadow-play and physical performance to explore these themes. “We’re experimenting with form and trying to find new ways of engaging with the audience. It’s an exciting process, and unnerving too, as we won’t know the full impact of it until the public is in the theatre with us..”

A season of learning and innovating

As this season’s artistic producer, Drew sees the productions as essential learning experiences for students. “A big part of students’ education has to come from ‘stage time’ — those moments when a live audience is experiencing their work,” the associate professor says.

“These two productions offer a chance to engage with classic stories radically reinvented —Concord Floral reinterprets The Decameron, while La vida es sueño rethinks a Spanish Golden Age play. I hope it gives students the opportunity to see how historical narratives can connect with today’s issues, and grasp a deeper, more personal understanding of how history loops and cycles.”

Drew also points out the importance of technology in both productions.

“Lighting, sound and video are used all the time in many forms of art and entertainment media. What’s special about their use in theatre is that audiences get to see them in a real three-dimensional space interacting with our species’ original ‘technology’ — the human body. This liveness and immediacy can create almost-hallucinatory images that make audiences rub their eyes and wonder if the haunting moments in Concord Floral or the manipulations of truth in La vida es sueño are illusions or are really happening.”

Reflecting on the broader significance of theatre, Drew believes that storytelling plays a vital role in addressing the challenges of today’s rapidly changing world.

“We live in a time of war, climate crises, political polarization, flawed AI, and many forms of injustice,” he says. “Theatre can help us step outside of our routines, wake up, and yearn for more. It’s a way to make sense of a complicated world and spark inspiration.”

La vida es sueño (Life is a Dream) runs from November 14 to 16 [2024] in room 240 of the Molson (MB) Building, 1450 Guy Street.

Concord Floral runs November 27 to 30 [2024] at the Concordia Theatre in the Henry F. Hall (H) Building, 1455 Boulevard De Maisonneuve West.

Should you be in Montréal and able to attend the performances, you can find more details via Concordia University’s PUBLIC PERFORMANCES 2024-25 webpage.

Submit abstracts by Jan. 31 for 2025 Governance of Emerging Technologies & Science (GETS) Conference at Arizona State U

This call for abstracts from Arizona State University (ASU) for the Twelfth Annual Governance of Emerging Technologies and Science (GETS) Conference was received via email,

GETS 2025: Call for abstracts

Save the date for the Twelfth Annual Governance of Emerging Technologies and Science Conference, taking place May 19 and 20, 2025 at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University in Phoenix, AZ. The conference will consist of plenary and session presentations and discussions on regulatory, governance, legal, policy, social and ethical aspects of emerging technologies, including:

National security
Nanotechnology
Quantum computing
Autonomous vehicles
3D printing
Robotics
Synthetic biology
Gene editing
Artificial intelligence
Biotechnology

Genomics
Internet of things (IoT)
Autonomous weapon systems
Personalized medicine
Neuroscience
Digital health
Human enhancement
Telemedicine
Virtual reality
Blockchain

Call for abstracts: The co-sponsors invite submission of abstracts for proposed presentations. Submitters of abstracts need not provide a written paper, although provision will be made for posting and possible post-conference publication of papers for those who are interested.

  • Abstracts are invited for any aspect or topic relating to the governance of emerging technologies, including any of the technologies listed above
  • Abstracts should not exceed 500 words and must contain your name and email address
  • Abstracts must be submitted by Friday, January 31, 2025, to be considered

Submit your abstract

For more information contact Eric Hitchcock.

Good luck!

Modem Futura: a podcast about where technology, society and humanity converge

An October 9, 2024 notice from Dr. Andrew Maynard, Professor, School for the Future of Innovation in Society At Arizona State University (ASU) about one of his latest projects, a podcast, popped into my emailbox,


 My apologies if this is a duplicate email, but I wanted to let you know
that we’ve just launched a new podcast through the ASU [Arizona State University] Future of Being Human initiative that you may be interested in:

 Modem Futura:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/modem-futura/id1771688480 [1]

 The podcast’s available on Apple Podcasts and pretty much everywhere
else you listen to your favorite podcasts. Hosted by myself and my
colleague Sean Leahy, it’s a conversational podcast that explores the
intersection between emerging technologies, society and the future in
what we hope is an authentic, nuanced and entertaining way.

 Please do check it out if you have a moment (or are an avid podcast
listener), and if you enjoy it, please do spread the word, subscribe,
and even leave us a review.

 We believe there’s a real hunger for nuanced and balanced discussions
in this area, and are expecting the podcast to have considerable reach
— but every bit helps us in achieving this.

I listened to the episode, “The Pilot – Exploring the Future of Being Human” and it was an engaging 22 mins. The two hosts, Andrew Maynard and his colleague, Dr. Sean Leahy, obviously like and get along well with each other. Here are some episode notes, from https://modem-futura.simplecast.com/episodes (click on the Pilot episode for the notes),

In this pilot episode of Modem Futura, hosts Sean Leahy and Andrew Maynard explore the intersection of technology, society, and the human experience. They discuss the origins of the podcast, the significance of the Future of Being Human Initiative, and the importance of inclusive conversations about the future. The episode highlights personal journeys into futurism, the need for diverse voices in discussions about emerging technologies, and the wonder of scientific exploration. The hosts also tease future topics and themes for upcoming episodes, emphasizing the podcast’s goal of inspiring curiosity and dialogue.

Key takeaways

The podcast aims to explore the intersection of technology and humanity.

Modems symbolize the translation of complex signals into understandable insights.

The Future of Being Human Initiative seeks to create inclusive conversations about the future.

Personal experiences shape our understanding of futurism and technology.

Everyone has valuable insights to contribute to discussions about the future.

Creating spaces for difficult conversations is essential in a polarized world.

Science and wonder can coexist in discussions about the future.

The podcast will cover a wide range of intriguing topics.

Engaging with diverse voices enriches the conversation about the future.

Sean and Andrew are excited to explore the unknown and challenge conventional thinking.

Chapters

00:00 Introduction to Modem Futura

01:53 The Concept of Modems and Futures

04:51 The Future of Being Human Initiative

08:41 Personal Journeys into Futurism

12:21 The Importance of Inclusive Conversations

16:24 Exploring the Intersection of Science and Wonder

19:05 Looking Ahead: Topics and Themes for Future Episodes

Modem Futura is a production of the Future of Being Human initiative at Arizona State University.

The Future of Being Human Initiative is describe this way on its homepage,

We are a unique community of bold, audacious and visionary thinkers who are inspired by what it might mean to be human in a technologically transformed future and who are passionate about exploring how this influences our thinking and actions in the present.

We create and curate ways of bringing people together to explore compelling questions and transformative ideas around the future of being human.

Some of these are intimate informal hangouts, others are cutting edge online discussions. And some are high profile public events and even retreats.

We are even developing educational opportunities unlike anything you’ll find anywhere else!

All of these are driven by a passion to bring together audacious, original and passionate thinkers to push the boundaries of how we imagine the future of being human in a technologically complex world, and how this can inform our ideas, aspirations, and actions, in the present.

As a community we are captivated andinspired by compelling questions around the how emerging technologies may challenge and transform what it means to be human.

Questions like:

  • Will we live our future lives in a computer simulation?
  • Will aging one day become a thing of the past?
  • Will artificial intelligence upend our notions of personhood and autonomy?
  • Could cryopreservation transform how we think about the future?
  • What will life in a post-scarcity future look like?
  • Will we be able to design and create synthetic consciousness in the future?
  • How will quantum computing change our understanding of ourselves and what is possible?
  • How could atomically precise manufacturing transform our lives?
  • Will we be able to upload our memories and personalities to the cloud in the future?
  • How will advanced technologies transform the future of travel?
  • Could advanced gene editing allow us to radically rethink our biological selves?
  • How do we successfully navigate Advanced Technology Transitions?
  • Is longtermism a viable approach to designing the future?
  • Will future technologies radically catalyze our creative potential?

Enjoy!

Biobots (also known as biohybrid robots) occupy a third state between life and death?

I got a bit of a jolt from this September 12, 2024 essay by Peter A Noble, affiliate professor of microbiology at the University of Washington, and Alex Pozhitkov, senior technical lead of bioinformatics, Irell & Manella Graduate School of Biological Sciences at City of Hope, for The Conversation (h/t Sept. 12, 2024 item on phys.org), Note: Links have been removed,

Life and death are traditionally viewed as opposites. But the emergence of new multicellular life-forms from the cells of a dead organism introduces a “third state” that lies beyond the traditional boundaries of life and death.

Usually, scientists consider death to be the irreversible halt of functioning of an organism as a whole. However, practices such as organ donation highlight how organs, tissues and cells can continue to function even after an organism’s demise. This resilience raises the question: What mechanisms allow certain cells to keep working after an organism has died?

We are researchers who investigate what happens within organisms after they die. In our recently published review, we describe how certain cells – when provided with nutrients, oxygen, bioelectricity or biochemical cues – have the capacity to transform into multicellular organisms with new functions after death.

Life, death and emergence of something new

The third state challenges how scientists typically understand cell behavior. While caterpillars metamorphosing into butterflies, or tadpoles evolving into frogs, may be familiar developmental transformations, there are few instances where organisms change in ways that are not predetermined. Tumors, organoids and cell lines that can indefinitely divide in a petri dish, like HeLa cells [cervical cancer cells taken from Henrietta Lacks without her knowledge], are not considered part of the third state because they do not develop new functions.

However, researchers found that skin cells extracted from deceased frog embryos were able to adapt to the new conditions of a petri dish in a lab, spontaneously reorganizing into multicellular organisms called xenobots [emphasis mine]. These organisms exhibited behaviors that extend far beyond their original biological roles. Specifically, these xenobots use their cilia – small, hair-like structures – to navigate and move through their surroundings, whereas in a living frog embryo, cilia are typically used to move mucus.

Xenobots are also able to perform kinematic self-replication, meaning they can physically replicate their structure and function without growing. This differs from more common replication processes that involve growth within or on the organism’s body.

Researchers have also found that solitary human lung cells can self-assemble into miniature multicellular organisms that can move around. These anthrobots [emphasis mine] behave and are structured in new ways. They are not only able to navigate their surroundings but also repair both themselves and injured neuron cells placed nearby.

Taken together, these findings demonstrate the inherent plasticity of cellular systems and challenge the idea that cells and organisms can evolve only in predetermined ways. The third state suggests that organismal death may play a significant role in how life transforms over time.

I had not realized that xenobots are derived from dead frog embryos something I missed when mentioning or featuring them in previous stories, the latest in a September 13, 2024 posting, which also mentions anthrobots. Previous stories were published in a June 21, 2021 posting about xenobots 2.0 and their ability to move and a June 8, 2022 posting about their ability to reproduce. Thank you to the authors for relieving me of some of my ignorance.

For some reason I was expecting mention, brief or otherwise, of ethical or social implications but the authors offered this instead, from their September 12, 2024 essay, Note: Links have been removed,

Implications for biology and medicine

The third state not only offers new insights into the adaptability of cells. It also offers prospects for new treatments.

For example, anthrobots could be sourced from an individual’s living tissue to deliver drugs without triggering an unwanted immune response. Engineered anthrobots injected into the body could potentially dissolve arterial plaque in atherosclerosis patients and remove excess mucus in cystic fibrosis patients.

Importantly, these multicellular organisms have a finite life span, naturally degrading after four to six weeks. This “kill switch” prevents the growth of potentially invasive cells.

A better understanding of how some cells continue to function and metamorphose into multicellular entities some time after an organism’s demise holds promise for advancing personalized and preventive medicine.

I look forward to hearing about the third state and about any ethical or social issues that may arise from it.

Credibility slips according to US survey on public perceptions of scientists

Figure 1. Perceptions of scientists’ credibility. [downloaded from https://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/annenberg-survey-finds-public-perceptions-of-scientists-credibility-slips/]

A June 26, 2024 news item on ScienceDaily describes the research, which resulted in the graphic you see in the above,

New analyses from the Annenberg Public Policy Center find that public perceptions of scientists’ credibility — measured as their competence, trustworthiness, and the extent to which they are perceived to share an individual’s values — remain high, but their perceived competence and trustworthiness eroded somewhat between 2023 and 2024. The research also found that public perceptions of scientists working in artificial intelligence (AI) differ from those of scientists as a whole.

A June 26, 2024 Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania news release (also on EurekAlert and also received by email), which originated the news item, describes a series of surveys, how the information was gathered, and offers more detail about he results, Note 1: All links removed; Note 2: You can find links and citations for papers mentioned in the news release at the end of this posting.

From 2018-2022, the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) of the University of Pennsylvania relied on national cross-sectional surveys to monitor perceptions of science and scientists. In 2023-24, APPC moved to a nationally representative empaneled sample to make it possible to observe changes in individual perceptions.

The February 2024 findings, released today to coincide with the address by National Academy of  Sciences President Marcia McNutt on “The State of the Science,” come from an analysis of responses from an empaneled national probability sample of U.S. adults surveyed in February 2023 (n=1,638 respondents), November 2023 (n=1,538), and February 2024 (n=1,555).

Drawing on the 2022 cross-sectional data, in an article titled “Factors Assessing Science’s Self-Presentation model and their effect on conservatives’ and liberals’ support for funding science,” published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (September 2023), Annenberg-affiliated researchers Yotam Ophir (State University of New York at Buffalo and an APPC distinguished research fellow), Dror Walter (Georgia State University and an APPC distinguished research fellow), and Patrick E. Jamieson and Kathleen Hall Jamieson of the Annenberg Public Policy Center isolated factors that underlie perceptions of scientists (Factors Assessing Science’s Self-Presentation, or FASS). These factors predict public support for increased funding of science and support for federal funding of basic research.

The five factors in FASS are whether science and scientists are perceived to be credible and prudent, and whether they are perceived to overcome bias, correct error (self-correcting), and whether their work benefits people like the respondent and the country as a whole (beneficial). In a 2024 publication titled “The Politicization of Climate Science: Media Consumption, Perceptions of Science and Scientists, and Support for Policy” (May 26, 2024) in the Journal of Health Communication, the same team showed that these five factors mediate the relationship between exposure to media sources such as Fox News and outcomes such as belief in anthropogenic climate change, perception of the threat it poses, and support for climate-friendly policies such as a carbon tax.

Speaking about the FASS model, Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center and director of the survey, said that “because our 13 core questions reliably reduce to five factors with significant predictive power, the ASK survey’s core questions make it possible to isolate both stability and changes in public perception of science and scientists across time.” (See the appendix for the list of questions.)

The new research finds that while scientists are held in high regard, two of the three dimensions that make up credibility – perceptions of competence and trustworthiness – showed a small but statistically significant drop from 2023 to 2024, as did both measures of beneficial. The 2024 survey data also indicate that the public considers AI scientists less credible than scientists in general, with notably fewer people saying that AI scientists are competent and trustworthy and “share my values” than scientists generally.

“Although confidence in science remains high overall, the survey reveals concerns about AI science,” Jamieson said. “The finding is unsurprising. Generative AI is an emerging area of science filled with both great promise and great potential peril.”

The data are based on Annenberg Science Knowledge (ASK) waves of the Annenberg Science and Public Health (ASAPH) surveys conducted in 2023 and 2024. The findings labeled 2023 are based on a February 2023 survey, and the findings labeled 2024 are based on combined ASAPH survey half-samples surveyed in November 2023 and February 2024.

For further details, download the toplines and a series of figures that accompany this summary.

Perceptions of scientists overall

In the FASS model, perceptions of scientists’ credibility are assessed through perceptions of whether scientists are competent, trustworthy, and “share my values.” The first two of those values slipped in the most recent survey. In 2024, 70% of those surveyed strongly or somewhat agree that scientists are competent (down from 77% in 2023) and 59% strongly or somewhat agree that scientists are trustworthy (down from 67% in 2023). (See figure 1 [see the first item in this post], and figs. 2-4 for other findings.)

The survey also found that in 2024, fewer people felt that scientists’ findings benefit “the country as a whole” and “benefit people like me.” In 2024, 66% strongly or somewhat agreed that findings benefit the country as a whole (down from 75% in 2023). Belief that scientists’ findings “benefit people like me,” also declined, to 60% from 68%. Taken together those two questions make up the beneficial factor of FASS. (See fig. 5.)

The findings follow sustained attacks on climate and Covid-19-related science and, more recently, public concerns about the rapid development and deployment of artificial intelligence.

Comparing perceptions of scientists in general with climate and AI scientists

Credibility: When asked about three factors underlying scientists’ credibility, AI scientists have lower credibility in all three values. (See fig. 6.)

  • Competent: 70% strongly/somewhat agree that scientists are competent, but only 62% for climate scientists and 49% for AI scientists.
  • Trustworthy: 59% agree scientists are trustworthy, 54% agree for climate scientists, 28% for AI scientists.
  • Share my values: A higher number (38%) agree that climate scientists share my values than for scientists in general (36%) and AI scientists (15%). More people disagree with this for AI scientists (35%) than for the others.

Prudence: Asked whether they agree or disagree that science by various groups of scientists “creates unintended consequences and replaces older problems with new ones,” over half of those surveyed (59%) agree that AI scientists create unintended consequences and just 9% disagree. (See fig. 7.)

Overcoming bias: Just 42% of those surveyed agree that scientists “are able to overcome human and political biases,” but only 21% feel that way about AI scientists. In fact, 41% disagree that AI scientists are able to overcome human political biases. In another area, just 23% agree that AI scientists provide unbiased conclusions in their area of inquiry and 38% disagree. (See fig. 8.)

Self-correction: Self-correction, or “organized skepticism expressed in expectations sustaining a culture of critique,” as the FASS paper puts it, is considered by some as a “hallmark of science.” AI scientists are seen as less likely than scientists or climate scientists to take action to prevent fraud; take responsibility for mistakes; or to have mistakes that are caught by peer review. (See fig. 9.)

Benefits: Asked about the benefits from scientists’ findings, 60% agree that scientists’ “findings benefit people like me,” though just 44% agree for climate scientists and 35% for AI scientists. Asked about whether findings benefit the country as a whole, 66% agree for scientists, 50% for climate scientists and 41% for AI scientists. (See fig. 10.)

Your best interest: The survey also asked respondents how much trust they have in scientists to act in the best interest of people like you. (This specific trust measure is not a part of the FASS battery.) Respondents have less trust in AI scientists than in others: 41% have a great deal/a lot of trust in medical scientists; 39% in climate scientists; 36% in scientists; and 12% in AI scientists. (See fig. 11.)

The data from ASK surveys have been used to date in four peer-reviewed papers:

  • Using 2019 ASK data: Jamieson, K. H., McNutt, M., Kiermer, V., & Sever, R. (2019). Signaling the trustworthiness of science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(39), 19231-19236.
  • Using 2022 ASK data: Ophir, Y., Walter, D., Jamieson, P. E., & Jamieson, K. H. (2023). Factors Assessing Science’s Self-Presentation model and their effect on conservatives’ and liberals’ support for funding science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(38), e2213838120.
  • Using  2024 ASK data: Lupia, A., Allison, D. B., Jamieson, K. H., Heimberg, J., Skipper, M., & Wolf, S. M. (2024). Trends in US public confidence in science and opportunities for progress. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(11), e2319488121. 
  • Using Nov 2023 and Feb 2024 ASK data: Ophir, Y., Walter, D., Jamieson, P. E., & Jamieson, K. H. (2024). The politicization of climate science: Media consumption, perceptions of science and scientists, and support for policy. Journal of Health Communication, 29(sup1): 18-27.
     

APPC’s ASAPH survey

The survey data come from the 17th and 18th waves of a nationally representative panel of U.S. adults, first empaneled in April 2021, conducted for the Annenberg Public Policy Center by SSRS, an independent market research company. These waves of the Annenberg Science and Public Health (ASAPH) knowledge survey were fielded February 22-28, 2023, November 14-20, 2023, and February 6-12, 2024, and have margins of sampling error (MOE) of ± 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. In November 2023, half of the sample was asked about “scientists” and the other half “climate scientists.” In February 2024, those initially asked about “scientists” were asked about “scientists studying AI” and the other half “scientists.” This provided two half samples addressing specific areas of study, while all panelists were asked about “scientists” generally. All figures are rounded to the nearest whole number and may not add to 100%. Combined subcategories may not add to totals in the topline and text due to rounding.

The policy center has been tracking the American public’s knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors regarding vaccination, Covid-19, flu, maternal health, climate change, and other consequential health issues through this survey panel for over three years. In addition to Jamieson, the APPC team includes Shawn Patterson Jr., who analyzed the data; Patrick E. Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Health and Risk Communication Institute, who developed the questions; and Ken Winneg, managing director of survey research, who supervised the fielding of the survey.

Here are links to and citations for the papers listed above in the June 26, 2024 news release,

Using 2019 ASK data: Signaling the trustworthiness of science by Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Marcia McNutt, Veronique Kiermer, and Richard Sever.. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 116 (39), 19231-19236 September 23, 2019 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1913039116

Using 2022 ASK data Factors Assessing Science’s Self-Presentation model and their effect on conservatives’ and liberals’ support for funding science by Yotam Ophir, Dror Walter, Patrick E. Jamieson, and Kathleen Hall Jamieson.. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 120 (38), e2213838120 September 11, 2023 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2213838120

Using  2024 ASK data: Trends in US public confidence in science and opportunities for progress by Arthur Lupia, David B. Allison, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Jennifer Heimberg, Magdalena Skipper, and Susan M. Wolf.. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 121 (11), e2319488121 March 4, 2024 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2319488121 

Using Nov 2023 and Feb 2024 ASK data: The politicization of climate science: Media consumption, perceptions of science and scientists, and support for policy by by Yotam Ophir, Dror Walter, Patrick E. Jamieson & Kathleen Hall Jamieson.. Journal of Health Communication, 29 (sup1): 18-27 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2024.2357571 Published online: 26 May 2024

The 2019 paper ‘Signaling …’ has been featured here before in a September 30, 2019 posting, “Do you believe in science?” In addition to some of my comments, I embedded Adam Lambert’s version of Cher’s song ‘Do You Believe in Love?’ where you’ll see Cher brush away a few tears as she listens to her dance hit made love ballad.

The 2024 paper ‘Trends ..’ has also been featured here, albeit briefly, in an April 8, 2024 posting, “Trust in science remains high but public questions scientists’ adherence to science’s norms.”