Hana El-Samad, PhD
On July 20, 1969, Apollo 11 landed on the moon, a defining moment in American history. An estimated 650 million people globally watched the lunar landing live, including those in the 94% of U.S. households with television sets. Neil Armstrong’s famous quote—That’s one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind—became an iconic phrase, representing the spirit of exploration and achievement that science offered to society. Generations of scientists and engineers were and continue to be inspired by this moment.
Martin Borch Jensen
From the romantic narratives surrounding this event, you might be inclined to think that it was the culmination of a harmonious American society, united and at peace with itself. In reality, the country was reeling from the Vietnam War and intense social unrest. America was deeply divided along social, racial, and political lines. But Americans in 1969 allowed themselves to be inspired and many seemed to believe without hesitation that science concerned and benefited them. Science and Americans were on the same team.
A lot of opinions and analyses have been written about the actions of the current U.S. presidential administration with respect to science, scientific funding, and higher education. We leave it to others to document that and speculate on its repercussions. Instead, we would like to ask a question of our own personal heartache:
Why isn’t the public rising en masse on behalf of science?
The lazy answer is that the public doesn’t “understand” science and needs to be “educated” on its value. In our opinion, this answer is part of the problem because it treats the public as the “other.” The public is made up of intelligent non-scientists, of humans who experience the devastating effects of disease and largely seek the fruits of science and technology for their daily challenges. Some people might need to be educated that cures for cancer don’t fall from the sky. But the majority do understand.
Another lazy answer is that the American public is largely dismayed with diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in science and that they are willing to see the whole system of research destroyed as a solution. There is no doubt that some in the U.S., as with anywhere else, might embrace this extreme. But, here again, we refuse to believe that the bulk of the American public of intelligent non-scientists would seriously sustain this conviction.
So, let’s ask again: why isn’t the public rising en masse on behalf of science?
In our opinion, there needs to be a commission of scientists, universities, public and private organizations and, prominently, members of the general public, to examine this question truthfully, painfully, and yes, patriotically. Science and the public are one. We need to understand this family quarrel and solve it. This effort should not be a didactic and theoretical exercise of the ivory tower debating within itself, but rather a deep listening and soul searching, and then a pragmatic solution-seeking exercise.
We are neither experts, nor do we pretend to speak on behalf of the public or the scientific establishment, but we will venture a few guesses, not mutually exclusive, as a starting point for a healthy and respectful debate.
- Science and the universities and government institutions where research is conducted have merged in the eyes of the public. Both a rise in credentialism and elitism perpetuated by some universities and actions of groups of students, such as political protests, are thus now intricately confused as one with science.
- The range of topics where science is called upon to provide answers has expanded greatly. From predicting trajectories to land–rather than crash–on the moon and explaining how DNA works, to providing extensive data on rising global temperatures, and to opining on the best ways to raise children, the scope of science has increased. As science is summoned to support politics and policy, it becomes politicized.
- As science enters the sphere of politics and societal choices, it is subject to arguments of a different type than scientists use with each other. And the answers needed in this arena are often ones where the scientific method is furthest from giving us clarity as, for example, the impact of cell phones on learning or corporate taxes on innovation are much harder to measure than whether CRISPR edits DNA or batteries produce electricity. In this situation, it is tempting for scientists to claim authority (“because Science”) rather than to answer with definitive experiments. This “parental authority” stance is a withdrawal from the account of credibility built up over more than a hundred years.
- Increasing the account of credibility comes from solving problems. This does not mean that science can or should always solve problems on demand. Fundamental knowledge, motivated by curiosity, is the foundation for what later turns out to be incredibly useful. Some of these are newsworthy breakthroughs, most build value over decades or longer. But scientists should expect to have the support of society to the extent that their work is felt to improve lives.
- Science and the pursuit of freedom. Amartya Sen defines the development of a country by the freedoms of its citizens. Science, as a process of finding out how things work and making things possible, is perhaps the most powerful source of freedoms–freedom from famine, freedom to see our children triumph over childhood diseases, freedom to live after developing cancer. Are those the pursuits seen by the public?
The metrics used to determine impact within the sciences, citations and h-indices and titles, do little to communicate science’s contributions to society. Some might look at these metrics and conclude that the north star of science has shifted from serving the public to ranking and rewarding certain members of the profession.
- The COVID years triggered complex dynamics between the public and science. These dynamics need to be examined honestly in terms of how pandemic science was done, used, and communicated. Science provided freedom from infections, saving millions of lives from preventable infectious deaths. But this freedom is not widely felt, whereas mandates presented in the name of science restricted freedom in ways that were acutely felt.
Moreover, resistance and frustration were often met with ”science as truth” (including by us authors). Whatever the motivation for this, science is not always truth but rather the evolution of the best possible explanations. If you were told that “science of X is truth” and then scientific knowledge about X is updated or even reversed, would you not be upset? And while scientists rightly emphasize the long-term pace of progress, the public was asked to accept that a safe and effective vaccine was developed for SARS-CoV2 in months, with little effort to explain why and how that came to be.
Reflecting on how a technical scientific triumph of such proportion turned into an abysmal cultural failure for science is an opportunity to revisit our expectations about the relationship between science and society.
- Trust in science now varies widely by party identification, race, ethnicity, and education. Those who don’t trust science are less likely to benefit from the fruits of science–they won’t seek them; they might even reject them or simply can’t access them. They fall further behind, feel rightly betrayed, and trust less. We must address this challenge and find ways to make the societal benefits of science both real and visible across all society, rather than a cloistered set of beliefs held by elites.
Vannevar Bush, the early architect of America’s scientific ecosystem, famously said: “Science can give mankind a better standard of living, better health, and a better mental life, if mankind in turn gives science the sympathy and support so essential to its progress.” He also said: “A nation which depends upon others for its new basic scientific knowledge will be slow in its industrial progress and weak in its competitive position in world trade, regardless of its mechanical skill”. These fundamental principles endure.
In closing, let us return to the question: why isn’t the public rising en masse on behalf of science? Because science is the “Endless Frontier,” it is now time to listen and course-correct as needed. This issue has flared up most dramatically in the U.S., but its dynamics are global, and scientists everywhere should use this opportunity to learn. Our country, our great American public, and the world deserve it.
Hana El-Samad, PhD, is the senior vp of Altos Labs and Editor-in-Chief of GEN Biotechnology; Martin Borch Jensen is president of the non-profit Norn Group and founder and CSO of Gordian Biotechnology.
“How Did Scientists Become the Enemy?” originally ran in April issue of GEN Biotechnology. GEN Biotechnology is the premier peer-reviewed journal from Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. and Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News (GEN) delivering exceptional research breakthroughs, news, and analysis directly impacting biotech.
The post How Did Scientists Become the Enemy? appeared first on GEN - Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News.