The general public relies on information that the media presents to them. Because of this, the sensationalized stories and extreme cases seem to get the most attention. However, some of the general public is truly educated in the subject and just seems to be pushed the wrong way; such as a peer pressure type situation. In the article it states, "Among the public, perceptions of the scientific enterprise and its contribution to society, while still largely positive, are a little less rosy than five years ago. Fewer citizens see U.S. scientific contributions as top tier compared with other nations. And, while most adults see positive contributions of science on life overall and on the quality of health care, food and the environment, there is a slight rise in negative views in each area" (PEW Study). The general public does not have much faith in their scientists or their government and because of this may disagree more than usual on certain subjects. Along with this, studies can be very biased. Based upon the questions that PEW asked, the general public could have been confused by what the question was really asking. Overall, I believe the main issue is that people are very unsure about what to believe, even if they are well educated. They are pulled in multiple directions by the media, politics, and scientists.
The scientists have more informed opinions than the general public. The media publishes either flashy topics such as disastrous findings, apocalyptic news, and disease control or partial studies that do not reflect the actual findings. The public is therefore more suspicious of science and less inclined to trust the scientists themselves, especially if it is information they do not like. While the public does hold science in a very high regard, it is that pedestal that stops a lot of studies to fall short of our expectations. The article says, "Compared with the general public, scientists are even more positive about the place of U.S. scientific achievements." And while people do enjoy hearing about science when it is a major breakthrough, there just is not enough public demand for the media companies to make money when they talk about those issues. It is therefore unfair to fully blame the media when they are really just reflecting back to the public everything we want to hear.
The disparity in viewpoints between scientists and the general public are due to the scientists having more expertise in the subject matter than the general public. Also, the information that scientists obtain is more accurate than the information the general public gets out of the media. Scientists are also dedicated to scientific issues whereas the general public does not have the same kind of motivation to follow news on scientific issues. Furthermore, scientists show more confidence in their knowledge of certain issues, whereas the general public does not know what to believe when there two different points displayed. However, both scientists and the general public are at a consensus that "Compared with five years ago, both citizens and scientists are less upbeat about the scientific enterprise."This shows that scientists and the general public can come to an understanding on basic information. It is important that there is better communication between scientists and the general public so everyone has a better understanding of scientific issues. ( Alex Loewy)
The divide between scientists and the general public on certain scientific topics is a force that exists, but often for varying reasons. For example, the opposition to the existence of evolution. It isn’t so much a portion of the general public’s fundamental misunderstanding of science as it is an example of a group prioritizing culture over science. Among scientists, the theory of evolution is nearly universally accepted, as shown in the survey by Pew Research Center. The issue lies with people who put more stock in their religion than in science. It happens that in the case of many religions, the theory of evolution conflicts with the very basis of the religion’s existence. How could God have created humans if we evolved from monkeys? Thus, when religion is a stronger aspect of a group’s life than science, religion will win. However, there are other cases of conflict between science and popular belief when there isn’t so much a conflict with religion as there is a misunderstanding of facts. Often, scientific discoveries and their supporting evidence are too opaque for the average person to be able to buy into. Using GMOs as an example, the very concept of eating a genetically modified organism sounds unnatural and unsafe. However, when referring back to the survey by Pew, you see an enormous gap between the average citizens’ and the scientists’ stances on how safe GMOs are to eat. I would argue that this is largely because scientists have more information on this subject available to them and they are more capable of interpreting it. In this case, it seems that the negative perception of GMOs is not caused by religious conflict so much as it is by a lack of e accessible information. These two examples lead to me to conclude that there is not really a single cause for division on these topics. Instead it is largely dependent on the other variables, independent from science, which the given issue conflicts with.
Funk, C., & Rainie, L. (2015, January 29). Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society. Retrieved September 11, 2016, from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/
Scientists and the general public have different ways of accessing and understanding information. A majority of the general public receives access to scientific findings based on the media. The average citizen is only exposed to major and controversial findings and they are never given all of the facts and details. Scientists however read scholarly journals that relate to their respective fields because it is their job to be up to date on the latest discoveries. They also have a better understanding of the way science works and the experimental process. Scientists spend their whole lives looking at controversial subjects such as climate change and GMOs whereas the average American citizen does not fully understand what a GMO is and how they are developed but goes off of what their neighbor or a politician says instead of taking the time to research the effects of GMOs on the human body. Also, people have preconceived notions that are difficult to change and scientists have a skill set that allows them to expand their beliefs based on scientific findings which is hard for the average citizen.
Although there is generally consensus on the benefits of science between the public and scientists, on different issues there is often a large gap between what the public believes compared to scientists. This can be attributed to many different things, such as that the public generally gets their scientific information from the media while scientists rely more on scientific articles. The media focuses more on headlines than facts and data, and because of this the public has skewed views on scientific issues. A particular issue where there is a 51% gap between scientists and the public is on GM foods. The public (37%) generally does not like that their food to be genetically modified, but scientists (88%) generally do. This is because scientists rely on data and research that shows positives of GMOs. An individual however, normally will hear one bad thing about GMOs and will immediately have a negative view.
The disparity between the Scientists and the general public is that they both have different views on understanding the the scientific findings. Scientists try their best to incorporate all of their findings into readings, journals, and scholarly articles. The problem is is that the general public does not take advantage of the scientific resources that are given to them. According to the PEW, the author says, " And, while most adults see positive contributions of science of life overall and on the quality of health care, food and the environment, there is a slight rise in negative views in each area." A lot of the discrepancy also comes from the people not necessarily agreeing with the government's spending on scientific research. This demonstrates that if the people does not agree or does not support the government's finances, then they will not educate themselves on what the future of our world in the science perspective.
Funk, C., & Rainie, L. (2015, January 29). Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society. Retrieved September 11, 2016, from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/
Generally, Americans have positive views on scientists, however, only receive the messages from the media via the new, news papers and magazines, not the scientific articles coming directly from the scientist. As a human race, we are more drawn to the most extreme cases because they catch our attention. This can be problematic because it skew our view point to believe that the extreme cases are in fact the norm. With all the quick access to news through social media, the extreme cases that do not necessarily back up what scientist of the time are claiming is causing a slight amount of doubt among people today. "Fewer citizens see U.S. scientific contributions as top tier compared with other nations. And, while most adults see positive contributions of science on life overall and on the quality of health care, food and the environment, there is a slight rise in negative views in each area. Similarly, most citizens say government investment in research pays off in the long run, but slightly more are skeptical about the benefits of government spending today than in 2009,"(Funk, Rainie). This skepticism makes it harder for scientist to reach the public on important issues such as climate change, vaccine advantages and many more.
The scientific views between AAAS Scientists and the general population diverged greatly on numerous science issues, specifically in the issue of safety of consuming genetically modified (GM) foods. " Nearly nine-in-ten (88%) scientists say it is generally safe to eat GM foods compared with 37% of the general public, a difference of 51 percentage points." This difference can be caused by peoples intuitions and fears. The idea itself of using chemicals to modify the food we eat, putting possible harmful substances into our bodies, definitely attributes to the negative view of Genetically modifying our food. Also, The general public will never surely know the veracity of scientific research, so they will tend to side with what makes them feel most comfortable.
Funk, C., & Rainie, L. (2015, January 29). Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society. Retrieved September 11, 2016, from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/
The disparity in polling between scientists and the ordinary citizen can be directly attributed to misinformation , media dependency and the origin of their claims (emotional vs. realistic). The average person would not have a solid understanding of scientific terms or concept , whereas scientists dedicate their lives to unwraveling and grappling with these concepts. Automatically, that puts anyone in the world of science at an advantage because often times areas of science overlap. Also, scientists are generally conditioned to have at least the slightest understanding of other areas outside of their own field. Though I know this to be true, there are scientists that do not have the slightest bit of insight on other forms of science, which doesn't exclude them from the pool of misinformed individuals. The gap also becomes wider between scientists and average individuals due to their varying levels of media dependency. The average citizen is exposed to the sensationalized aspects of science , therefore only being scientifically conscious when something drastic happens. For this reason, there is a negative connotation to things such as GMOs and childhood vaccination. Scientists are conditioned to look towards scholarly work and informed news sources in order to come to a conclusion whereas, the average person won't be able to differentiate between what is a dependable source and what isn't. Along with being misinformed and misled by media, the average citizen bases a lot of his answers on emotion over fact. Whenever something concerning their health, food or living condition is brought to light , there is detachment. We, as human beings, don't want the comfort and consistency of our everyday routine to be interrupted or tampered with. We don't want GMOs because they are being consumed by us. We don't necessarily want vaccinations because we it concerns our health. We don't want to accept the possibility of evolution because it'll distance us from manmade concepts of faith such as religion. It is as if we fear the unknown enough to automatically decline it if it concerns the order of the world as we know it .
Funk, C., & Rainie, L. (2015, January 29). Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society. Retrieved September 11, 2016, from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/
There is a disparity between scientists and the public due to the fact that the general public are sometimes making decisions and choices that aren't based on actual scientific facts. Scientists have actual science to back their opinions and decisions. It's human nature to want everyone to believe that same thing that you believe. Scientists have to overcome the notion that they aren't always right because they know that fellow scientists want to prove them wrong as much as they want to prove the other scientists wrong. The general public only want to prove others wrong, oblivious to the fact that they themselves could be wrong. Even though the public refuse to admit they're wrong, "Americans recognize the accomplishments of scientists in key fields and, despite considerable dispute about the role of government in other realms, there is broad public support for government investment in scientific research." (Funk). The public don't necessarily think that scientists are wrong, they just think that the scientists are less right than they are. The biggest point gap was the opinion on genetically modified foods. 88% of scientists feel that it's safe to eat them, while only 37% of the public feel it's safe to eat them. The 51% gap between the two sides is due to both the scientific knowledge that each side has and the ability to analyze the information that they have.
While the public acknowledges the importance and benefits of science and the scientific community there is still a large disparity in certain topics, especially when it comes to the harms of GMO foods. While 88% of AAAS scientists believe it is safe to consume GMO food products only 37% of the public agrees. This drastic difference stems from the difference between you can safely eat GMO products and you should consume GMOs. AAAS scientist have reviewed data that suggests that it is safe but this research is new for GMOs are relatively new. The knowledge of the long term effects of GMOs is still not fully known. The public's take on GMOs is that it is better to consume natural products not those that have been genetically modified. Many differences in opinion between scientists and the public is the public's lack of knowledge on the subject, but that is not always the case and isn't means to dismiss the publics opinion on a subject matter. It is important to take into consideration that so many are opposed to GMOs and should draw attention to the harm GMOs can cause long term health-wise as well as the environmental effects.
The disparity between scientists and the general public is caused by differences in education. Scientists are trained professionals; therefore, they have spent years in undergraduate and graduate programs to become experts in their desired fields. In comparison, the general public has not devoted the same time and energy to understanding scientific issues, and cannot understand certain topics to the same degree. Additionally, scientists have more access to accurate information, through the institutions the work for as well as their colleagues. Whereas the general public gathers most of their information from the media, which in many cases produce untrustworthy studies. Furthermore, with the information scientists receive they are also more capable of deciding which of it is legitimate, and which is unreliable. Although in some cases both groups agree with each other, for example both the majority of scientists and the general public believe space stations are a good investment for the United States, the differences in educational background can lead to many discrepancies between the two populations.
The main reasons for the polling disparity between scientists and citizens are misinformation, the media and societies lack of education. American citizens still believe science is very important, to be exact, 79% of adults believe science has done great things for society. Both Scientists and citizens place scientific at a very high regard. Despite an overwhelming amount of support from the general public science is still not understood fully by society. Almost everyone receives their news through some kind of media. The media presents scientific studies to viewers, but they only focus on the flashiest study or most interesting one. The Media never explains the full discovery, they just sum it all up in one to two sentences. This often leads to confusion and people getting misinformation. Some citizens take it upon themselves to research scientific issues on their own. Some people have the education necessary to read through the dense text, but most of America does not have the skills required. Overall the general public doesn’t receive the same information that the scientists do, and until science is more available to the general public we will see major differences on important issues.
The general disparity between scientists and humans in the polls is interesting, because depending on the societal trendiness, or general public interest of the topic at hand, the polling disparity can be seen to be greater or less. The general American citizen has to make an tradeoff choice every time they choose to consume information, or news. That choice often pairs a savory, sensationalized news story of the latest trending topics, versus a scientific article or research paper. Due to the fact that the news story is more interesting, or personally relatable to the consumer than the scientific research, that is the information that is more commonly consumed. This trend can seen within the data provided by Pew Center. For example, 57% of the general public believes that genetically modified foods are unsafe to eat. This can possibly be attributed to the trendiness of the movement to go back to local, and organic ingredients. This topic has been particularly trendy in the media and in marketing campaigns, therefore the public tends to consume this data before doing legitimate scientific research. However, the portion of the population who has done the scientific research, the scientists, poll at 88% saying that genetically modified foods are generally safe for human consumption.The general public does not have time to read the actual research on these subjects, therefore, they never actually become correctly informed and we are lead to our polling disparity.
Funk, C., & Rainie, L. (2015, January 29). Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society. Retrieved September 11, 2016, from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/
One major disparity between scientists and the general public is about eating genetically modified foods. 88% of scientists say these foods are safe while only 37% of adults say it is safe. One possible explanation for this deals with education. 29% of adults say that K-12 STEM education is "below average." Lack of education means that people can not make properly informed decisions. Along with this, this is often issues with how the media reports scientific research. The media has the ability to misconstrue information. These two reasons can be the cause of the disparity between scientists and the general public. Education and communication are crucial factors in creating an informed public opinion. - Joe Granahan
Funk, C., & Rainie, L. (2015, January 29). Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society. Retrieved September 11, 2016, from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/
Some subjects are more likely to have greater disparity between scientist and the general public because of personal beliefs and preconceived notions of the general public. Firstly, religion plays a significant role for the average American because it might oppose certain scientific theories such as evolution and the big bang. Secondly, what I mean by preconceived notion is the general public’s limited knowledge which is acquire from the media. The average American will not dive deeper into a subject then what they have been told. Therefore, they have limited knowledge when it comes to certain subjects. In contrast, scientists are driven by the unknown. They consult multiple sources and evaluate their credibility about the given subject before making a claim. It is because of these reasons that there is a varying amount of disparity between scientists and the general public.
In today’s society, there is a disparity amongst scientists and the general public when it comes to whether or not something is scientifically accurate. Various reasons are responsible for this vast disagreement between the two groups, the most clear being the accessibility to reliable information regarding debated topics. For the most part, the public as a whole does not have nearly enough access to the proper tools and sources to make sufficient conclusions on such things, unlike scientists who spend their lives investigating these problems. The general public watches, then proceeds to listen to media coverage, while scientists disregard media and rely strictly on science itself. It is the medias job to cover the most eye-catching, debatable stories, which is why most civilians give their attention to it. One of the biggest debates between society and science is that pertaining to GM foods, their authenticity and their health. Studies show that 37% of the general public is in favor of their foods being genetically modified, while a much greater 88% of scientists approve. The scientists know. They use data, experiment and facts to come to their conclusion on topics such as these, contrary to a vast majority of the public who makes decisions off of little knowledge of factual information. The bigger picture needs to be seen and factual evidence needs to be analyzed by not only those in the field of science, but those in the general public as well.
The studies from the PEW research center regarding the shocking disparity in polling between the general public and scientists simply proves the point that the public has fallen victim to misinformation. The only taste of the scientific world the average person gets is from the media. The media is looking for the attention grabbing headline, while letting many fascinating scientific discoveries go by the wayside. In addition, the media doesn’t have the time in a normal segment to really get into the details of important scientific findings, and people are not apt to pursue more knowledge on these topics. This point is hammered home by the massive disparity in GMO opinions. 88 percent of scientists believe that it is safe to eat genetically modified food while only 37 percent of the public holds that opinion. This is an example of a topic that is all over the media, and more often than not people trust the media over the science. A second example is with climate change. There is a 37-point difference between scientists and the public. 50 percent of the public agrees that climate change is mostly caused by humans, while scientists hold an 87 percent majority. The false information that people see every day is the chief cause of this disparity.
There is a disparity in polling between scientists and the general public on issues because there is a gap between the two sides on knowledge. As scientists portray one thing, the media tends to over- exaggerate and twist the notion or topic which diverges the general public from the primary scientific understanding that the scientists have researched. Therefore, the public and scientists view science-related issues through different perspectives. This shows how there is a lack of direct communication between the citizens and the scientists, “...the public’s knowledge about science -- or lack thereof-- is widely considered to be a major (84%) or minor (14%) problem for the field” (PEW Study) which produces a gap between the public’s understanding and awareness of the issues than from the scientists’ perspectives. Not only does media interfere with the disparity among scientists and the citizens but politics also interrupts the knowledge due to the emerging partisan divide. As one party believes in one aspect of science and the other party believes in another...this challenges and influences the public to various views on the issue. For example, “...Democrats are more likely than Republicans to prioritize ‘supporting scientific research’” (PEW Study). This greatly affects the awareness on issues, creating ignorance where information is presented ambiguously in which scientists, media, and politics demonstrate information three different ways where in the end, citizens are flummoxed.
There is a disparity between the general public and scientists due to miscommunication and how the information is spread. In terms of polling between the two groups, they differed greatly in terms of animal testing. This is one of many examples of a lack of knowledge in comparison to the scientists. The general public is easily persuaded by the media as they present them with cases of animal testing that were both positive and negative. This flow of unsteady facts creates an even distribution of opposition while polling whether they should be in favor of animal testing or not. Second-hand information spread to the general public by media grasps the attention of all types of people with a variety of beliefs except scientists. Scientists are solely focused on their research rather than how the media perceives their habits in order to obtain answers within their specified field. In terms of scientists versus the general public, the scientists believe in evolution. Withstanding their belief in evolution, it allows the scientists to feel sane while completing animal testing, because they are avoiding theological temptations that could persuade them to cease testing overall. This large disparity between scientists and the general public expresses a gap in knowledge and is analyzed in the PEW study with data. For example, the general public has 47% in favor of animal testing, whereas scientists have 89% in favor. This analysis deepens the conflict presented between two groups in society who have access to different sources of information.
Funk, C., & Rainie, L. (2015, January 29). Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society. Retrieved September 11, 2016, from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/
In most of the PEW researches there were distinct differences in how scientists think in comparison to the general public. Many things factor into the different ways in which we think versus how scientists think such as our moral beliefs, environmental goals, and our education in general. One of the more interesting surveys in the Pew article was regarded to off shore drilling where as only 32 percent of scientists favored this while 52 percent of the public was in favor. I think this speaks to how different goals allows the people and public to arrive at different points. The reasons for off shore drilling are increased economic growth and self sufficiency while the cons are more geared toward harming the environment like air pollution, and oil spills. This shows that the financial/economic viewpoint that society holds will force a diverse opinion than scientists who have a viewpoint more geared towards safety. Scientists job is to provide safe and informative information for the public while the public(which contains business) is supposed to worry about making money to support this research and other activity. I think the different goals and viewpoints is what causes the disparity among the public vs. scientists.
There are many issues in which the public and the community of scientist differ and on certain topics the gap is much larger than others. A majority of the time, the scientist are understanding topics first hand or gaining knowledge from their colleagues, however the general public only gains information through different media sources and if they are interested enough, they will search for further information on typically unreliable sources on the internet. Due to the fact that the general public often times receives a skewed version of the truth leads to the disparity in opinions concerning crucial debates of our time. While the public respects science and the researchers behind the information, the issues is the source of the information that the citizens read. Another issue that arises when discussing the disparity between the public and scientist is the difference in education. The general public knows what they are taught in middle and high school and college if they are lucky and that knowledge is very basic, especially compared to what the scientist know since they have gone through years and years of school and are able to figure out what information is reliable and what is not. Where people are getting their information from and the persons educational background is a big factor as to why there is such a disparity between the general public and the scientist on such important issues.
In general, despite the overall support for the sciences, there is a great divide between scientist and the American public on many issues. This can be attributed to many factors, such as limited information and understanding of complex scientific issues, distorted media portrayals, and the lack of certainty in the sciences. However, one of the biggest issues is that many scientific issues are not seen in peoples’ daily lives. For instance, in the case of climate change, people are reluctant to believe that it is happening, despite all the scientists claiming otherwise, due to the fact that they cannot always see it for themselves. The average person cannot observe the rising ocean levels or the average annual temperature increases. They often cannot see the effects that global warming is having on diverse ecosystems such as coral reefs. For many, the weather hasn’t changes enough in their life for them to notice a difference, so they use this anecdotal evidence to dismiss the claims of 87% of scientists.
The communication between scientists and the public is significantly lacking, which has led to the disparity in responses between these two groups. The general public, for the most part, only gets its scientific knowledge from the media, which always has some sort of bias that is keeping the information from being completely accurate. Scientists typically keep to themselves, and only share their findings between other people that are as equally as educated as they are. If they were to find ways, through their own methods or the talents of others, to inform the general public in an engaging way, the average person would be much more likely to be well-informed on these topics and more likely to agree with the scientists. This could be accomplished through the collaboration of different types of artists and scientists. Until this communication issue is fixed, the public and scientific community will likely not be in agreement.
The communication between scientists and the public is significantly lacking, which has led to the disparity in responses between these two groups. The general public, for the most part, only gets its scientific knowledge from the media, which always has some sort of bias that is keeping the information from being completely accurate. Scientists typically keep to themselves, and only share their findings between other people that are as equally as educated as they are. If they were to find ways, through their own methods or the talents of others, to inform the general public in an engaging way, the average person would be much more likely to be well-informed on these topics and more likely to agree with the scientists. This could be accomplished through the collaboration of different types of artists and scientists. Until this communication issue is fixed, the public and scientific community will likely not be in agreement.
The general public relies on information that the media presents to them. Because of this, the sensationalized stories and extreme cases seem to get the most attention. However, some of the general public is truly educated in the subject and just seems to be pushed the wrong way; such as a peer pressure type situation. In the article it states, "Among the public, perceptions of the scientific enterprise and its contribution to society, while still largely positive, are a little less rosy than five years ago. Fewer citizens see U.S. scientific contributions as top tier compared with other nations. And, while most adults see positive contributions of science on life overall and on the quality of health care, food and the environment, there is a slight rise in negative views in each area" (PEW Study). The general public does not have much faith in their scientists or their government and because of this may disagree more than usual on certain subjects. Along with this, studies can be very biased. Based upon the questions that PEW asked, the general public could have been confused by what the question was really asking. Overall, I believe the main issue is that people are very unsure about what to believe, even if they are well educated. They are pulled in multiple directions by the media, politics, and scientists.
ReplyDeleteThe scientists have more informed opinions than the general public. The media publishes either flashy topics such as disastrous findings, apocalyptic news, and disease control or partial studies that do not reflect the actual findings. The public is therefore more suspicious of science and less inclined to trust the scientists themselves, especially if it is information they do not like. While the public does hold science in a very high regard, it is that pedestal that stops a lot of studies to fall short of our expectations. The article says, "Compared with the general public, scientists are even more positive about the place of U.S. scientific achievements." And while people do enjoy hearing about science when it is a major breakthrough, there just is not enough public demand for the media companies to make money when they talk about those issues. It is therefore unfair to fully blame the media when they are really just reflecting back to the public everything we want to hear.
ReplyDeleteThe disparity in viewpoints between scientists and the general public are due to the scientists having more expertise in the subject matter than the general public. Also, the information that scientists obtain is more accurate than the information the general public gets out of the media. Scientists are also dedicated to scientific issues whereas the general public does not have the same kind of motivation to follow news on scientific issues. Furthermore, scientists show more confidence in their knowledge of certain issues, whereas the general public does not know what to believe when there two different points displayed. However, both scientists and the general public are at a consensus that "Compared with five years ago, both citizens and scientists are less upbeat about the scientific enterprise."This shows that scientists and the general public can come to an understanding on basic information. It is important that there is better communication between scientists and the general public so everyone has a better understanding of scientific issues. ( Alex Loewy)
ReplyDeleteThe divide between scientists and the general public on certain scientific topics is a force that exists, but often for varying reasons. For example, the opposition to the existence of evolution. It isn’t so much a portion of the general public’s fundamental misunderstanding of science as it is an example of a group prioritizing culture over science. Among scientists, the theory of evolution is nearly universally accepted, as shown in the survey by Pew Research Center. The issue lies with people who put more stock in their religion than in science. It happens that in the case of many religions, the theory of evolution conflicts with the very basis of the religion’s existence. How could God have created humans if we evolved from monkeys? Thus, when religion is a stronger aspect of a group’s life than science, religion will win. However, there are other cases of conflict between science and popular belief when there isn’t so much a conflict with religion as there is a misunderstanding of facts. Often, scientific discoveries and their supporting evidence are too opaque for the average person to be able to buy into. Using GMOs as an example, the very concept of eating a genetically modified organism sounds unnatural and unsafe. However, when referring back to the survey by Pew, you see an enormous gap between the average citizens’ and the scientists’ stances on how safe GMOs are to eat. I would argue that this is largely because scientists have more information on this subject available to them and they are more capable of interpreting it. In this case, it seems that the negative perception of GMOs is not caused by religious conflict so much as it is by a lack of e accessible information. These two examples lead to me to conclude that there is not really a single cause for division on these topics. Instead it is largely dependent on the other variables, independent from science, which the given issue conflicts with.
ReplyDeleteFunk, C., & Rainie, L. (2015, January 29). Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society. Retrieved September 11, 2016, from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/
Scientists and the general public have different ways of accessing and understanding information. A majority of the general public receives access to scientific findings based on the media. The average citizen is only exposed to major and controversial findings and they are never given all of the facts and details. Scientists however read scholarly journals that relate to their respective fields because it is their job to be up to date on the latest discoveries. They also have a better understanding of the way science works and the experimental process. Scientists spend their whole lives looking at controversial subjects such as climate change and GMOs whereas the average American citizen does not fully understand what a GMO is and how they are developed but goes off of what their neighbor or a politician says instead of taking the time to research the effects of GMOs on the human body. Also, people have preconceived notions that are difficult to change and scientists have a skill set that allows them to expand their beliefs based on scientific findings which is hard for the average citizen.
ReplyDeleteAlthough there is generally consensus on the benefits of science between the public and scientists, on different issues there is often a large gap between what the public believes compared to scientists. This can be attributed to many different things, such as that the public generally gets their scientific information from the media while scientists rely more on scientific articles. The media focuses more on headlines than facts and data, and because of this the public has skewed views on scientific issues. A particular issue where there is a 51% gap between scientists and the public is on GM foods. The public (37%) generally does not like that their food to be genetically modified, but scientists (88%) generally do. This is because scientists rely on data and research that shows positives of GMOs. An individual however, normally will hear one bad thing about GMOs and will immediately have a negative view.
ReplyDeleteThe disparity between the Scientists and the general public is that they both have different views on understanding the the scientific findings. Scientists try their best to incorporate all of their findings into readings, journals, and scholarly articles. The problem is is that the general public does not take advantage of the scientific resources that are given to them. According to the PEW, the author says, " And, while most adults see positive contributions of science of life overall and on the quality of health care, food and the environment, there is a slight rise in negative views in each area." A lot of the discrepancy also comes from the people not necessarily agreeing with the government's spending on scientific research. This demonstrates that if the people does not agree or does not support the government's finances, then they will not educate themselves on what the future of our world in the science perspective.
ReplyDeleteFunk, C., & Rainie, L. (2015, January 29). Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society. Retrieved September 11, 2016, from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/
Generally, Americans have positive views on scientists, however, only receive the messages from the media via the new, news papers and magazines, not the scientific articles coming directly from the scientist. As a human race, we are more drawn to the most extreme cases because they catch our attention. This can be problematic because it skew our view point to believe that the extreme cases are in fact the norm. With all the quick access to news through social media, the extreme cases that do not necessarily back up what scientist of the time are claiming is causing a slight amount of doubt among people today. "Fewer citizens see U.S. scientific contributions as top tier compared with other nations. And, while most adults see positive contributions of science on life overall and on the quality of health care, food and the environment, there is a slight rise in negative views in each area. Similarly, most citizens say government investment in research pays off in the long run, but slightly more are skeptical about the benefits of government spending today than in 2009,"(Funk, Rainie). This skepticism makes it harder for scientist to reach the public on important issues such as climate change, vaccine advantages and many more.
ReplyDeleteThe scientific views between AAAS Scientists and the general population diverged greatly on numerous science issues, specifically in the issue of safety of consuming genetically modified (GM) foods. " Nearly nine-in-ten (88%) scientists say it is generally safe to eat GM foods compared with 37% of the general public, a difference of 51 percentage points." This difference can be caused by peoples intuitions and fears. The idea itself of using chemicals to modify the food we eat, putting possible harmful substances into our bodies, definitely attributes to the negative view of Genetically modifying our food. Also, The general public will never surely know the veracity of scientific research, so they will tend to side with what makes them feel most comfortable.
ReplyDeleteFunk, C., & Rainie, L. (2015, January 29). Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society. Retrieved September 11, 2016, from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/
The disparity in polling between scientists and the ordinary citizen can be directly attributed to misinformation , media dependency and the origin of their claims (emotional vs. realistic). The average person would not have a solid understanding of scientific terms or concept , whereas scientists dedicate their lives to unwraveling and grappling with these concepts. Automatically, that puts anyone in the world of science at an advantage because often times areas of science overlap. Also, scientists are generally conditioned to have at least the slightest understanding of other areas outside of their own field. Though I know this to be true, there are scientists that do not have the slightest bit of insight on other forms of science, which doesn't exclude them from the pool of misinformed individuals. The gap also becomes wider between scientists and average individuals due to their varying levels of media dependency. The average citizen is exposed to the sensationalized aspects of science , therefore only being scientifically conscious when something drastic happens. For this reason, there is a negative connotation to things such as GMOs and childhood vaccination. Scientists are conditioned to look towards scholarly work and informed news sources in order to come to a conclusion whereas, the average person won't be able to differentiate between what is a dependable source and what isn't. Along with being misinformed and misled by media, the average citizen bases a lot of his answers on emotion over fact. Whenever something concerning their health, food or living condition is brought to light , there is detachment. We, as human beings, don't want the comfort and consistency of our everyday routine to be interrupted or tampered with. We don't want GMOs because they are being consumed by us. We don't necessarily want vaccinations because we it concerns our health. We don't want to accept the possibility of evolution because it'll distance us from manmade concepts of faith such as religion. It is as if we fear the unknown enough to automatically decline it if it concerns the order of the world as we know it .
ReplyDeleteFunk, C., & Rainie, L. (2015, January 29). Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society. Retrieved September 11, 2016, from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/
- Keyla Ynoa
There is a disparity between scientists and the public due to the fact that the general public are sometimes making decisions and choices that aren't based on actual scientific facts. Scientists have actual science to back their opinions and decisions. It's human nature to want everyone to believe that same thing that you believe. Scientists have to overcome the notion that they aren't always right because they know that fellow scientists want to prove them wrong as much as they want to prove the other scientists wrong. The general public only want to prove others wrong, oblivious to the fact that they themselves could be wrong.
ReplyDeleteEven though the public refuse to admit they're wrong, "Americans recognize the accomplishments of scientists in key fields and, despite considerable dispute about the role of government in other realms, there is broad public support for government investment in scientific research." (Funk). The public don't necessarily think that scientists are wrong, they just think that the scientists are less right than they are. The biggest point gap was the opinion on genetically modified foods. 88% of scientists feel that it's safe to eat them, while only 37% of the public feel it's safe to eat them. The 51% gap between the two sides is due to both the scientific knowledge that each side has and the ability to analyze the information that they have.
While the public acknowledges the importance and benefits of science and the scientific community there is still a large disparity in certain topics, especially when it comes to the harms of GMO foods. While 88% of AAAS scientists believe it is safe to consume GMO food products only 37% of the public agrees. This drastic difference stems from the difference between you can safely eat GMO products and you should consume GMOs. AAAS scientist have reviewed data that suggests that it is safe but this research is new for GMOs are relatively new. The knowledge of the long term effects of GMOs is still not fully known. The public's take on GMOs is that it is better to consume natural products not those that have been genetically modified. Many differences in opinion between scientists and the public is the public's lack of knowledge on the subject, but that is not always the case and isn't means to dismiss the publics opinion on a subject matter. It is important to take into consideration that so many are opposed to GMOs and should draw attention to the harm GMOs can cause long term health-wise as well as the environmental effects.
ReplyDeleteHannah Klingenstein
ReplyDeleteThe disparity between scientists and the general public is caused by differences in education. Scientists are trained professionals; therefore, they have spent years in undergraduate and graduate programs to become experts in their desired fields. In comparison, the general public has not devoted the same time and energy to understanding scientific issues, and cannot understand certain topics to the same degree. Additionally, scientists have more access to accurate information, through the institutions the work for as well as their colleagues. Whereas the general public gathers most of their information from the media, which in many cases produce untrustworthy studies. Furthermore, with the information scientists receive they are also more capable of deciding which of it is legitimate, and which is unreliable. Although in some cases both groups agree with each other, for example both the majority of scientists and the general public believe space stations are a good investment for the United States, the differences in educational background can lead to many discrepancies between the two populations.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe main reasons for the polling disparity between scientists and citizens are misinformation, the media and societies lack of education. American citizens still believe science is very important, to be exact, 79% of adults believe science has done great things for society. Both Scientists and citizens place scientific at a very high regard. Despite an overwhelming amount of support from the general public science is still not understood fully by society. Almost everyone receives their news through some kind of media. The media presents scientific studies to viewers, but they only focus on the flashiest study or most interesting one. The Media never explains the full discovery, they just sum it all up in one to two sentences. This often leads to confusion and people getting misinformation. Some citizens take it upon themselves to research scientific issues on their own. Some people have the education necessary to read through the dense text, but most of America does not have the skills required. Overall the general public doesn’t receive the same information that the scientists do, and until science is more available to the general public we will see major differences on important issues.
ReplyDeleteThe general disparity between scientists and humans in the polls is interesting, because depending on the societal trendiness, or general public interest of the topic at hand, the polling disparity can be seen to be greater or less. The general American citizen has to make an tradeoff choice every time they choose to consume information, or news. That choice often pairs a savory, sensationalized news story of the latest trending topics, versus a scientific article or research paper. Due to the fact that the news story is more interesting, or personally relatable to the consumer than the scientific research, that is the information that is more commonly consumed. This trend can seen within the data provided by Pew Center. For example, 57% of the general public believes that genetically modified foods are unsafe to eat. This can possibly be attributed to the trendiness of the movement to go back to local, and organic ingredients. This topic has been particularly trendy in the media and in marketing campaigns, therefore the public tends to consume this data before doing legitimate scientific research. However, the portion of the population who has done the scientific research, the scientists, poll at 88% saying that genetically modified foods are generally safe for human consumption.The general public does not have time to read the actual research on these subjects, therefore, they never actually become correctly informed and we are lead to our polling disparity.
ReplyDeleteFunk, C., & Rainie, L. (2015, January 29). Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society. Retrieved September 11, 2016, from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/
One major disparity between scientists and the general public is about eating genetically modified foods. 88% of scientists say these foods are safe while only 37% of adults say it is safe. One possible explanation for this deals with education. 29% of adults say that K-12 STEM education is "below average." Lack of education means that people can not make properly informed decisions. Along with this, this is often issues with how the media reports scientific research. The media has the ability to misconstrue information. These two reasons can be the cause of the disparity between scientists and the general public. Education and communication are crucial factors in creating an informed public opinion.
ReplyDelete- Joe Granahan
Funk, C., & Rainie, L. (2015, January 29). Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society. Retrieved September 11, 2016, from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/
Some subjects are more likely to have greater disparity between scientist and the general public because of personal beliefs and preconceived notions of the general public. Firstly, religion plays a significant role for the average American because it might oppose certain scientific theories such as evolution and the big bang. Secondly, what I mean by preconceived notion is the general public’s limited knowledge which is acquire from the media. The average American will not dive deeper into a subject then what they have been told. Therefore, they have limited knowledge when it comes to certain subjects. In contrast, scientists are driven by the unknown. They consult multiple sources and evaluate their credibility about the given subject before making a claim. It is because of these reasons that there is a varying amount of disparity between scientists and the general public.
ReplyDeleteIn today’s society, there is a disparity amongst scientists and the general public when it comes to whether or not something is scientifically accurate. Various reasons are responsible for this vast disagreement between the two groups, the most clear being the accessibility to reliable information regarding debated topics. For the most part, the public as a whole does not have nearly enough access to the proper tools and sources to make sufficient conclusions on such things, unlike scientists who spend their lives investigating these problems. The general public watches, then proceeds to listen to media coverage, while scientists disregard media and rely strictly on science itself. It is the medias job to cover the most eye-catching, debatable stories, which is why most civilians give their attention to it. One of the biggest debates between society and science is that pertaining to GM foods, their authenticity and their health. Studies show that 37% of the general public is in favor of their foods being genetically modified, while a much greater 88% of scientists approve. The scientists know. They use data, experiment and facts to come to their conclusion on topics such as these, contrary to a vast majority of the public who makes decisions off of little knowledge of factual information. The bigger picture needs to be seen and factual evidence needs to be analyzed by not only those in the field of science, but those in the general public as well.
ReplyDeleteThe studies from the PEW research center regarding the shocking disparity in polling between the general public and scientists simply proves the point that the public has fallen victim to misinformation. The only taste of the scientific world the average person gets is from the media. The media is looking for the attention grabbing headline, while letting many fascinating scientific discoveries go by the wayside. In addition, the media doesn’t have the time in a normal segment to really get into the details of important scientific findings, and people are not apt to pursue more knowledge on these topics. This point is hammered home by the massive disparity in GMO opinions. 88 percent of scientists believe that it is safe to eat genetically modified food while only 37 percent of the public holds that opinion. This is an example of a topic that is all over the media, and more often than not people trust the media over the science. A second example is with climate change. There is a 37-point difference between scientists and the public. 50 percent of the public agrees that climate change is mostly caused by humans, while scientists hold an 87 percent majority. The false information that people see every day is the chief cause of this disparity.
ReplyDeleteThere is a disparity in polling between scientists and the general public on issues because there is a gap between the two sides on knowledge. As scientists portray one thing, the media tends to over- exaggerate and twist the notion or topic which diverges the general public from the primary scientific understanding that the scientists have researched. Therefore, the public and scientists view science-related issues through different perspectives. This shows how there is a lack of direct communication between the citizens and the scientists, “...the public’s knowledge about science -- or lack thereof-- is widely considered to be a major (84%) or minor (14%) problem for the field” (PEW Study) which produces a gap between the public’s understanding and awareness of the issues than from the scientists’ perspectives. Not only does media interfere with the disparity among scientists and the citizens but politics also interrupts the knowledge due to the emerging partisan divide. As one party believes in one aspect of science and the other party believes in another...this challenges and influences the public to various views on the issue. For example, “...Democrats are more likely than Republicans to prioritize ‘supporting scientific research’” (PEW Study). This greatly affects the awareness on issues, creating ignorance where information is presented ambiguously in which scientists, media, and politics demonstrate information three different ways where in the end, citizens are flummoxed.
ReplyDeleteThere is a disparity between the general public and scientists due to miscommunication and how the information is spread. In terms of polling between the two groups, they differed greatly in terms of animal testing. This is one of many examples of a lack of knowledge in comparison to the scientists. The general public is easily persuaded by the media as they present them with cases of animal testing that were both positive and negative. This flow of unsteady facts creates an even distribution of opposition while polling whether they should be in favor of animal testing or not. Second-hand information spread to the general public by media grasps the attention of all types of people with a variety of beliefs except scientists. Scientists are solely focused on their research rather than how the media perceives their habits in order to obtain answers within their specified field. In terms of scientists versus the general public, the scientists believe in evolution. Withstanding their belief in evolution, it allows the scientists to feel sane while completing animal testing, because they are avoiding theological temptations that could persuade them to cease testing overall. This large disparity between scientists and the general public expresses a gap in knowledge and is analyzed in the PEW study with data. For example, the general public has 47% in favor of animal testing, whereas scientists have 89% in favor. This analysis deepens the conflict presented between two groups in society who have access to different sources of information.
ReplyDeleteFunk, C., & Rainie, L. (2015, January 29). Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society. Retrieved September 11, 2016, from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/
In most of the PEW researches there were distinct differences in how scientists think in comparison to the general public. Many things factor into the different ways in which we think versus how scientists think such as our moral beliefs, environmental goals, and our education in general. One of the more interesting surveys in the Pew article was regarded to off shore drilling where as only 32 percent of scientists favored this while 52 percent of the public was in favor. I think this speaks to how different goals allows the people and public to arrive at different points. The reasons for off shore drilling are increased economic growth and self sufficiency while the cons are more geared toward harming the environment like air pollution, and oil spills. This shows that the financial/economic viewpoint that society holds will force a diverse opinion than scientists who have a viewpoint more geared towards safety. Scientists job is to provide safe and informative information for the public while the public(which contains business) is supposed to worry about making money to support this research and other activity. I think the different goals and viewpoints is what causes the disparity among the public vs. scientists.
ReplyDeleteThere are many issues in which the public and the community of scientist differ and on certain topics the gap is much larger than others. A majority of the time, the scientist are understanding topics first hand or gaining knowledge from their colleagues, however the general public only gains information through different media sources and if they are interested enough, they will search for further information on typically unreliable sources on the internet. Due to the fact that the general public often times receives a skewed version of the truth leads to the disparity in opinions concerning crucial debates of our time. While the public respects science and the researchers behind the information, the issues is the source of the information that the citizens read. Another issue that arises when discussing the disparity between the public and scientist is the difference in education. The general public knows what they are taught in middle and high school and college if they are lucky and that knowledge is very basic, especially compared to what the scientist know since they have gone through years and years of school and are able to figure out what information is reliable and what is not. Where people are getting their information from and the persons educational background is a big factor as to why there is such a disparity between the general public and the scientist on such important issues.
ReplyDeleteIn general, despite the overall support for the sciences, there is a great divide between scientist and the American public on many issues. This can be attributed to many factors, such as limited information and understanding of complex scientific issues, distorted media portrayals, and the lack of certainty in the sciences. However, one of the biggest issues is that many scientific issues are not seen in peoples’ daily lives. For instance, in the case of climate change, people are reluctant to believe that it is happening, despite all the scientists claiming otherwise, due to the fact that they cannot always see it for themselves. The average person cannot observe the rising ocean levels or the average annual temperature increases. They often cannot see the effects that global warming is having on diverse ecosystems such as coral reefs. For many, the weather hasn’t changes enough in their life for them to notice a difference, so they use this anecdotal evidence to dismiss the claims of 87% of scientists.
ReplyDeleteThe communication between scientists and the public is significantly lacking, which has led to the disparity in responses between these two groups. The general public, for the most part, only gets its scientific knowledge from the media, which always has some sort of bias that is keeping the information from being completely accurate. Scientists typically keep to themselves, and only share their findings between other people that are as equally as educated as they are. If they were to find ways, through their own methods or the talents of others, to inform the general public in an engaging way, the average person would be much more likely to be well-informed on these topics and more likely to agree with the scientists. This could be accomplished through the collaboration of different types of artists and scientists. Until this communication issue is fixed, the public and scientific community will likely not be in agreement.
ReplyDeleteThe communication between scientists and the public is significantly lacking, which has led to the disparity in responses between these two groups. The general public, for the most part, only gets its scientific knowledge from the media, which always has some sort of bias that is keeping the information from being completely accurate. Scientists typically keep to themselves, and only share their findings between other people that are as equally as educated as they are. If they were to find ways, through their own methods or the talents of others, to inform the general public in an engaging way, the average person would be much more likely to be well-informed on these topics and more likely to agree with the scientists. This could be accomplished through the collaboration of different types of artists and scientists. Until this communication issue is fixed, the public and scientific community will likely not be in agreement.
ReplyDelete