Politicians lie.
This statement should not come as a shock to anyone who hears it, since the
beginnings of civilization, it’s just been the nature of the game. However, as
the relentless march of scientific and technological advances continue, our
society must adapt and assume greater responsibility for the use of such
technology, and the consequences of our actions. While politics may be largely
philosophical and sociological discussions, scientific issues such as climate
change, stem-cell research, and evolution are becoming increasingly common, and
the same strategies cannot be applied to these discussions. Science is not
meant to be political; it is in principle the human effort to unearth the truth
about the world we live in, without consideration to agendas, nations,
religion, etc. Unfortunately, the lack of scientific literacy among the general
public of the United States, as well as the culture of lying so deeply
ingrained into politics, has created a political atmosphere where lying about
and distorting scientific reports, or even worse, dismissing them altogether to
pursue a political agenda has become commonplace.
At the root of
this issue is the lack of information, and abundance of misinformation, presented
to, and believed by the American public. In the sciences, arguably more than
any other field, the knowledge gap between the general population, and
scientists is evident. A survey conducted by the Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS) illustrates this perfectly. They surmise that
while “science holds an esteemed place among citizens and professionals”, on
many issues “a sizable opinion gap exists between the general public and
scientists” (Funk 8). The study included a myriad of topics and measured the
differences in opinion between citizens and scientists. Both parties agreed
that STEM education in the U.S is lacking in K-12, with large percentages
ranking the U.S as “below average” in this regard (Funk 5-6). STEM is an
acronym used to refer the subjects of Science, Technology, Engineering and
Mathematics. This is no coincidence. In a survey I conducted for the purposes
of this paper, 52.63% of respondents described their background in scientific
subjects as “high school level”, therefore the publics opinion on scientific
studies is heavily based on what they learned from grades K-12. The discrepancy
between scientists and the public on many issues is no surprise then. Indeed,
within the same study, scientists responded that: “the public’s knowledge about
science — or lack thereof — is widely considered to be a major (problem)”, and
that “too little K-12 STEM education is a major factor” (Funk 10). These
discrepancies, while inconvenient, are harmless on their own, but as a general
trend within the study, the population tends to believe that there is limited
or no scientific consensus on many topics, while the surveyed scientists
demonstrated overwhelming consensus. This is suggestive of a failure to
communicate findings, and current ideas to the public by the scientific
community. This failure is key to political distortion of science.
Taking advantage
of this knowledge gap, political candidates often use incorrect or half-correct
information, presented in a manner that supports and gives credit to their
platform. In a 2010 survey conducted after the year’s election by the
University of Maryland, over 90% of voters reported “encountering information
that seemed misleading or false” (Ramsay 3). Politicians of both major parties
are guilty of spreading misinformation, as the reported rates were extremely
similar when broken down by party affiliation. The idea that misinformation is
a tool to support particular political positions is supported through the
findings of this survey. When the responses were sorted by party affiliation,
trends emerged with voters of one party holding more incorrect information
regarding certain topics, and vice versa on other topics. For example, the
study found that Republican voters were much more likely to believe that “most
scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring”, while Democratic
voters were more likely to believe that “the US Chamber of Commerce was
spending large amounts of foreign money to support Republican candidates”
(Ramsay 17). Topics that are likely targets for incorrect information are often
ominous in their implications. The emotional appeal of the possible positions
on these topics allow for fear to become a tool of persuasion.
A
key component to these “misinformation campaigns” is the use of fear as a tool
to persuade the general public to support the politician in question. An
article in The American Journal of
Political Science applies economic theories to try and understand how fear
may be applied into politics. The authors found that in order for an appeal to
fear to work for a politician, a few conditions must be met. The first is that
the politician must be a strategic, and not a benevolent actor, although the
authors made the assumption that all politicians are strategic in some regard.
The second condition, is that the politician “has private information about the
presence (or absence) of a threat.” (Lupia 91). Based on these two, and a few
more conditions, the authors’ model determines if the use of fear would benefit
the politician. The important detail here is the model’s dependency on the lack
of information available to the citizen. The conclusions drawn from this model,
as well as the previously established knowledge gap among the public in
scientific fields, suggest that fear would be an applicable tool for
politicians on these issues. The use of fear in this case is itself dependent
on the use of misinformation, because the model assumes the politician knows
the true nature of the issue he is misrepresenting. Fear loses its power of
persuasion after the citizen receives feedback on the true nature of the issue.
In this particular case, the implications are especially important, because
scientific education for the most part ends after high school, and natural
feedback on scientific issues, particularly the one’s intertwined with
politics, can take decades or centuries to manifest itself.
Thus
the three studies create a framework describing the current state of the
American population as well as considering the motives behind the distortion of
scientific research by its politicians. However, some would argue that
governments have many things to consider, and serve a higher purpose than what
can merely be described scientifically. A nation’s government is regularly
forced to make moral and ethical decisions on behalf of its citizens. While
science is very good at unearthing the hidden truths of the world around us, it
makes no assertions about the truths we make for ourselves. To further decrease
political regard for science, the public does not seem to prioritize the
importance of scientific accuracy. In a survey conducted for this study, 57.89%
of respondents did not prioritize or prioritized other issues over even a basic
understanding of scientific concepts from their political candidates. This
apathetic attitude towards accuracy removes a burden of honesty from
politicians. Over 89% of respondents claimed to prefer an honest candidate, so
the discrepancy between the public’s preferences, and priorities is an
interesting one to explore. The data seems to suggest that the public does not
perceive scientific inaccuracy as dishonesty. This is partly explained by the
faltering science education, but an even greater contributor to this phenomenon
is that Americans see science not as a community dedicated to unearthing the
truth of the universe, but a group of “elites” pushing just another philosophy
to choose from.
In his article exploring the role of science
as a moral authority in the U.S Christopher P. Toumey found that at the turn of
the 20th century: “'Science' was generally reported to be the
pronouncements of authorities, and it
was widely accepted” (Toumey 689). People saw science as the driving force
behind most if not all technological and social change. Unfortunately, the growth
in popularity of the benefits of science did not include the rigor of the
scientific method. As Toumey put it “The American people respected science much
more than they understood it” (Toumey 689). This in turn had unfortunate consequences
for the role of science in government. Due to the perception of science as a
monolithic “movement” or political philosophy, many atrocities committed in the
20th century were blamed on “the pursuit of science”, resulting in a
growing “counter-movement”. Taking advantage of the general population’s
shallow understanding of scientific principles, many groups used scientific
symbols “so as to confer some of the moral authority of science on ideologies
which are not necessarily scientific” (Toumey 692). This is the basis of many candidates’
perversions of scientific research. Appealing to some universally
accepted/revered body is a basic tactic of persuasion most learn in
introductory speech or rhetoric classes. Whether that body be religion, ethics,
or in our case science, the technique is universal.
In a paper on the
morality of science, a professor of sociology at the University of Chicago
noted that: “It is argued that science is just another "ideology," a manifestation
of Western culture” (Ben-David 24). In the 1970’s, when the paper was written,
science in America was facing a similar crisis as today, with a general
distrust of science prevalent among the public, as well as movements within
political circles to push forward anti/pseudo-scientific philosophies as just
as valid as “real” science. As Robert Socolow mentions on a discussion panel
focused on scientific response to distortion: “our opponents present science as
dogma and construct a symmetric conflict: their dogma vs. our dogma” (Socolow
4). However, this is a false dichotomy, as it requires one to regard scientific
consensus as “dogma”. This is one of the ways politicians distort science,
apart from presenting incorrect data, or deriving unfounded conclusions from
otherwise benign scientific studies, they abuse the public perception of
science, to simultaneously support their own positions, as well as discredit
science. Socolow goes on to dispel this notion stating that “There is no such
symmetry. Science is not just another point of view. Science is a process of
searching, always incomplete” (Socolow 4). While Socolow and his panel, and
many others in the scientific community work constantly to counter scientific
distortion and apathy in the public, they are woefully unequipped to tackle the
issue. The nature of the scientific community results in very individualistic
members, with small groups formed. The largest organizations are only the
loosely cohesive laboratories or the large and slow committees. Randy Olson, on
the same panel notes: “The overall effect is slow, limited leadership, leaving
the science community vulnerable to attack” (Olson 7). The panel notes that
science educators are working hard to communicate the advancements science has
made but that it would be worth the effort to start educating people about the
aspects of science that lend it credibity, such as the rigor of the peer review
process so engrained into the scientific community.
The case for political distortion seems almost
redundant to make, resting on premises that most would take for granted.
However, seeing as that a key component of the problem is public perception, as
well as the abundance of misinformation circulating, it is prudent to
definitively make a case against it. Taking into consideration the education
gap, and the political incentive to be dishonest, it comes as no surprise to
see studies quantizing the sheer amount of misinformation utilized during
election campaigns. The problem with this same paradigm of dishonesty being
applied to science, is that it harms our society. As we have mentioned before,
even with the publics limited understanding of science, it holds a revered
position in society, being associated with many social, technological, and
medical advances through the years. This is unfortunately being taken for
granted, by both the scientists, and the public. We cannot rely on this always
being the case, and if science were ever to fall out of prominence in our
society, many things would change; innovation would stagnate, technology would
peak, etc. With this in mind it is important to acknowledge the problem areas,
so that they may be addressed. STEM education amongst the general public is
unfortunately low, leading to misinformation and fear being used to manipulate
voters. This issue is further complicated, by the failure to respond by a lack
of scientific leadership and a misunderstanding of scientific philosophy,
fostering distrust of the “mainstream”, and promoting the rise of
pseudo-scientific philosophies that give the public “the moral meanings they
require, and it sets them upon a stage of scientific sanctification decorated
with test tubes…white lab coats, monographs, geological expeditions, …and
secular credentials” (Scientific American 1). To let the reputation of science
degrade would be a tragic loss to society. The distortion of science by
politicians is therefore not only dishonest, but morally reprehensible.
Works
Cited
Ben-David,
Joseph. “On the Traditional Morality of Science”. Newsletter of the Program
on Public Conceptions of Science
13 (1975): 24–36. Web...
Funk, Cary, and
Lee Rainie. "Public and Scientists' Views on Science and Society."
Pew Research Center Internet Science Tech
RSS. N.p., 29 Jan. 2015. Web. 06 Nov. 2015.
Lupia, Arthur,
and Jesse O. Menning. “When Can Politicians Scare Citizens into Supporting Bad Policies?” American Journal of Political
Science 53.1 (2009): 90–106. Web.
Ramsay, Clay,
Steven Kull, Evan Lewis, and Stefan Subias. "Misinformation and the 2010
Election." WorldPublicOpinion.org.
N.p., 10 Dec. 2010. Web. 29 Oct. 2015.
"Science versus Antiscience?" Scientific
American. Scientific American, 1 Jan. 1997. Web. 25 Nov. 2015.
Smith, Leonard
A., and Nicholas Stern. “Uncertainty in Science and Its Role in Climate
Policy”. Philosophical
Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 369.1956
(2011): 4818– 4841. Web.
Socolow,
Robert, Roger A. Pielke, Jr., and Randy Olson. "When Politicians Distort
Science." Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientists. N.p., 20 Oct. 2011. Web. 29 Oct. 2015.
Toumey,
Christopher P. "Modern Creationism and Scientific Authority." Social
Studies of Science21.4 (1991): 681-99.
JSTOR. Web. 06 Nov. 2015. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/285344?ref=search- gateway:3883c65cfbe9fd571bbc4e3ad601bad2>.
No comments:
Post a Comment