Tag Archives: Framing Science

Public opinion doesn’t shake easily; Wilson talk on Artificial Intelligence

Over on the Framing Science blog, Matthew C. Nisbet has posted about the impact that ClimateGate has not had on public opinion about climate change. From the post,

The full report [by Jon Krosnick, professor at Stanford University, on most recent public opinion poll about cljmate change and ClimateGate] should be read, but below I feature several key conclusions. Despite alarm over the presumed impact of ClimateGate, Krosnick’s  analysis reveals very little influence for this event. More research is likely to come on this issue and this is just the first systematic analysis to be released.

Yet there is an even more interesting question emerging here than the impact of ClimateGate on public opinion: If communication researchers have difficulty discerning a meaningful impact for ClimateGate, why do so many scientists and advocates continue to misread public opinion on climate change and to misunderstand the influence of the news media? As I argue below, an additional object of study in this case should be the factors shaping the perceptions of scientists and advocates.

—>Krosnick’s analysis estimates that the percentage of Americans who believe in global warming has only dropped 5% since 2008 and that ClimateGate has had no meaningful impact on trust in climate scientists which stands at 70% (essentially the same as the 68% level in 2008).

A 5% drop isn’t to be sneezed at but taken into perspective it is predictable and, assuming these are ‘good’ figures, then in the short term, there has not been an appreciable impact. Makes sense, doesn’t it? After all, most people don’t change their opinions that easily. Oh they might have a crisis of confidence or a momentary hysterical response (I confess) but most of our opinions about important issues tend to persist over time and in the face of contradictory evidence.

Nisbet’s post makes reference to some other work, this time on scientists’ ideologies (liberal or conservative [not the Canadian political parties]) done by the Pew Research Center and released in July 2009. (Nisbet’s comments on ideology and scientists here and the Pew Research Center study here) Intriguingly, there’s a larger percentage of scientists (50%) self-identified as liberal than members of the general public (20%).

According to work published shortly after and mentioned on this blog here in a comment about the public’s focus on the benefits of nanotechnology while scientists focus on risks and economic value, by Elizabeth Corley (Arizona State University), this difference in focus may have something to do with ideology,  from the news release,

Decision-makers often rely on the input of scientists when setting policies on nanotechnology because of the high degree of scientific uncertainty – and the lack of data – about its risks, Corley says.

“This difference in the way nanoscientists and the public think about regulations is important for policymakers (to take into consideration) if they are planning to include both groups in the policymaking process for nanotechnology,” says Corley.

The study also reveals an interesting divide within the group of nanoscientists. Economically conservative scientists were less likely to support regulations, while economically liberal scientists were more likely to do so.

This suggests that a more nuanced approach to measuring public perception may be emerging despite  the rather disappointing meta analysis by Dr. Terre Satterfield of public perceptions about nanotechnology benefits and risks (mentioned on this blog here).

On a completely other note, I recently attended a lecture/presentation by Elizabeth Wilson, professor of Women’s Studies at Emory University (Atlanta, Georgia, US) given at the Green College at the University of British Columbia about artificial intelligence circa the early 1960s, titled, “Extravagance of affect:; How to build an artificial mind. I’m not sure who this lecture was aimed at. While I was deeply thankful for her detailed explanations of basic concepts, presumably people in the field of Women’s Studies wouldn’t have needed so much explanation.  Conversely, her presentation had some gaps where she jumped over things which you can only do if your audience is well versed on the topic.

I haven’t seen much about emotions and artificial intelligence prior to this talk so maybe Wilson is forging into new territory and over time will get better at presenting her material to audiences who are not familiar with her specialty. In the meantime, I’m not sure what to make of her work.

Later this week, I’m hoping to be publishing an interview with Peter Julian the NDP member of Parliament (Canada) who recently tabled a member’s bill on nanotechnology.

Can you trust science and scientists?; nanoparticle sludge is a good thing

The recent kerfuffle about scientists, climate change, and hacked emails  (see this story in the UK Guardian for more details) is oddly coincidental with a couple of articles I’ve read recently about trust, science, pr, and scientific claims.

Andrew Maynard (2020 Science) wrote Do scientists dncourage misleading coverage? to explore some of the issues around how scientists get media coverage for their work as he examines a specific incident.

The easiest, simplest way to get coverage for anything is to make a dramatic statement. e.g. First xxxx in history; Huge losses xxxx; xxx possibly fatal; etc. This can lead to overblown claims and/or a snarky, combative communications style. Maynard’s example features overblown claims about possible future applications of a very exciting development. The serious work was published in Nature Physics but someone at the university has written up a news release and produced a video that features the overblown claims as part of their science outreach. Some of this more dramatic material has been picked up and reproduced elsewhere for general consumption.

The reality is that any scientific endeavour occurs over a long period of time and there are many twists and turns before there is any relative certainty about the discovery and/or the implications for any applications that may arise from it.

In the case of climate change, there is strong evidence but as in any other scientific endeavour there are uncertainties. These uncertainties are integral to how science is practiced because our understanding is constantly being refined (theoretically anyway).

The campaign in the popular media to raise concern about climate change is often quite dramatic and has stripped away much of the uncertainty inherent to scientific data. The campaign has been quite successful but an opportunity was created when the evidence for climate change was presented as irrefutable. Opponents were able to capitalize on anomalies and the uncertainty that is inherent in the practice of science. Interestingly, the opponents are just as dramatic and insist their material is just as irrefutable. So, who do you trust? It’s a pretty basic issue and one that keeps recurring.

The point Maynard and Matthew Nisbett (Framing Science blog)  in his posting, Two articles on prediction and hype in science, is that in trying engage the public scientists need to be mindful. Giving in to the impulse to exaggerate or overstate a conclusion for a headline (I do sympathize with that impulse) will do more damage than good to the public’s trust.

Now for something completely different. As more products with nanoparticles enter the marketplace, there’s increasing concern about what happens to them as they are washed off from athletic gear, cleaning products, your body (after using beauty and cosmetic products) and more. According to a newly published paper, scientists may have found a way to remove nanoparticles  from wastewater.  From the news item on Nanowerk,

The new study, details of which are published in Environmental Science & Technology (“Fate of Silica Nanoparticles in Simulated Primary Wastewater Treatment”), simulated primary sewage treatment to show that coating silica nanoparticles with a detergent-like material (called a surfactant) made the nanoparticles interact with components of the sewage to form a solid sludge. This sludge can be separated from the wastewater and disposed of. In contrast, uncoated nanoparticles stayed dispersed in the wastewater and were therefore likely to continue through the effluent stream and potentially on into the environment.

Assuming that nanoparticles entering the environment in substantive quantities is not a good thing, I hope they find some way to deal with them and this research certainly seems promising.