Public Understanding of Science
One of the ways in which the masses used to get information was through traditional journalism (newspapers, magazines, radio and television). There was an expectation from the public that professional journalists would produce high quality information for general consumption. However, there was always the issue of undue influence from powerful externalities (the government or the rich) which could sway public opinion. Also, even if the information is not biased, once the information is out there, journalism is a one-way stream with no public input or dialogue. Scientists are also often frustrated with the over-simplification of their findings or dramatizing the results (Jamieson et al., 2017).
Fusion and confusion
In physics there are two F-words: fission and fusion. Nuclear fission is when the nucleus of an atom splits into smaller nuclei. This process releases a large amount of energy which can be used destructively (as a nuclear bomb) or productively (as a source of nuclear energy). However, fission also produces dangerous byproducts such as toxic radiation and nuclear waste. Nuclear fusion, on the other hand, fuses to nuclei to form a larger atomic nucleus. This binding also results in the release of energy. However, this requires a lot of energy input and physicists have been trying for decades to come up with a fusion reaction that can produce more energy than it absorbs. This is incredibly difficult as all known fusion experiments require more energy to create nuclear fusion than the energy that is released.
In 1989, two electrochemists at the University of Utah held a press conference that shook the world. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons reported that they had devised an apparatus that can create nuclear fusion reaction using heavy water and palladium. The keywords in this news conference were “simple” and “excess heat.” The term “Cold Fusion” was used in news media outlets as this experiment was unlike the “hot” nuclear fusion reactors that physicists were using.
However, scientists were baffled as to why a new conference was called in the first place. The two electrochemists had submitted a paper for peer-review which had been accepted. But to release the news prematurely seemed odd. Fleischmann and Pons became celebrities and toured the conference circuit discussing their experiment. Initially, other universities around the world from India to the USSR were reporting that they had replicated the results. This excitement was brief-lived as other scientists with more precise equipment were unable to replicate the results. They found that the reported excess heat was a mistaken reading that used incorrect formulas. If the paper had gone through proper peer-review, the authors might have had this pointed out to them. However, the fact that they jumped the gun and released the news to the public led to widespread criticism and the eventual downfall of both scientists. The public outcry was palpable as many people felt they had been cheated out of what was initially publicised as “cheap, unlimited energy.”
This is an example of pathological science (Change, 2004) where people are tricked into false results through wishful thinking or biases. Fleischmann and Pons were not frauds. They were genuinely convinced of their results and were well-respected in their fields before this incident. However, their initial zeal to be the first to publicise their results resulted in them having to backtrack some of their initial claims and eventually be seen as unreliable scientists.
As we can see in Figure 12.3, public opinions about scientific facts such as climate change are not really informed by facts and scientific understanding (Ballew et al., 2022). Instead, political affiliation appears to be the main driving factor. If people are more prone to watch misleading opinion outlets such as Fox News, they are more likely to think of climate change as a hoax. If there are powerful corporate interests that have an incentive to keep public opinion mixed about such issues, then democratic societies will have a hard time making informed, long-term decisions.
All is not lost to traditional journalism and the undue influence of corporate interests. Websites, blogs, wikis and podcasts have taken the sceptre of public influence from traditional media in recent years. This allows for a more diverse market place of ideas and there are many scientists and science communicators who are challenging the status quo. As always, there are positive and negative consequences everything. On a positive note, the one-way communication of traditional media has changed in social media to be more open-ended. However, this also means that the social media landscape is overwhelmed with chatbots and other noise that can drown out actual science. It is an on-going challenge on how to balance free speech principles with misinformation campaigns and the influence of corporate giants who own most social media platforms.
Media Attributions
- Figure 12.3 Ballew et al., 2022 Experience with global warming is changing people’s minds about it
