Last Friday I was sitting in the doctor’s office getting my knee examined by your average trained medical professional. I hurt my knee practicing a jumping activity that my lab is going to try out on some elementary school kids (as well as some frogs). I wanted a professional opinion on whether or not I had popped something that was going to torture me through the weekend or if I was just reaching the end of my standing jump days on hard surfaces. According to the doctor, my knee and I were mechanically fine. It was the “slightly old and feeble” diagnosis, which I accepted from this guy who has a medical degree, who has been recommended by other patients, and who seemed to know what he was doing as he felt around my swollen, sore knee. I didn’t consider not believing him, but hey, he’s a doctor not a climate scientist.
My visit had me thinking about the (often) blind faith people put in doctors. And it makes me wonder why scientists do not get even the faith of the mustard seed from some sectors of the public. In order to obtain a position of a research scientist or faculty member, a person has completed an undergraduate degree (4 years), a graduate degree (+5 years), a post doctoral position (+2 or 3 years), and competed on a tight market for a job. That’s easily more than a decade of training (and my estimates were on the average to low side). A person earns her/his medical degree and complete his/her residency in about the same amount of time as a scientist; still, scientists do not seem to have the street cred that a doctor has. Is it because there aren’t enough television shows about ecologists or climate scientists? Or maybe people do not understand what a scientist does in any kind of detail that allows them to have a sense of trust in a scientist’s professional opinion. Maybe. We all go to the doctor, but hardly any of us go to the scientist. No doubt, we scientists could work on reaching out to make some human contact with our fellow earthlings.
There are several reasons why we can have some faith in scientific consensus, however. First, scientists rely on evidence and are often forced to change their hunches or expectations in light of data that contradict them—most scientists even love this. Understanding any phenomenon requires a number of studies by a range of researchers. One experiment is not going to prove anything—even a thousand won’t. But, if you have a thousand experiments, you will likely have enough data to support a conclusion (and to generate all sorts of other questions). It’s sort of like putting an idea on trial. The scientific community individually and together serves as the jury and judge weighing all of the evidence and based on the evidence presented at the trial, they come to a decision. Of course, new evidence can surface that changes the outcome of the trial, which is more likely to happen if there wasn’t a lot of conclusive evidence at the trial to begin with. The more data you have at a trial, the more likely the jury is going to be able to come to a fair and just conclusion.
Scientists are a skeptical bunch, and in this respect we should have a lot in common with a skeptical public. If by some chance an individual scientist fails to be skeptical about his or her own work, then other scientists they meet in their departments, at meetings, and in the peer-review processes as they publish research will be there…being skeptical, holding the scientists feet to the fire. However, skepticism without perspective is a hindrance rather than a benefit to our understanding and decision-making process. I wish we could put some of the scientific ideas bouncing around in public on trial—like climate change and evolution, topics that have turned into a “he said/she said” argument (in the words of Ira Glass) rather than a discussion that logically weighs scientific evidence to make scientific conclusions. Maybe that would be a reality show worth watching. But still, I vote for a good (non-medical) scientist television drama. It could go a long way to helping the public understand science and how decisions are made, as well as make us look a little more glamorous (the one thing that may be missing from the average scientist's top-five characteristics).
No comments:
Post a Comment