Skip to content

Group Discussion - Science Activism & Science Policy

Photo of Brian B.
Hosted By
Brian B.
Group Discussion - Science Activism & Science Policy

Details

We're currently hosting our discussions at Café Walnut, not too far from our summer meeting spot in Washington Square Park. The cafe is near the corner of 7th & Walnut in Olde City. The cafe's entrance is below street level down some stairs, which can be confusing if it's your first time. Our group meets in the large room upstairs.

Since we're using the cafe's space, they ask that each person attending the meetup at least purchase a drink or snack. Please don't bring any food or drinks from outside. If you're hungry enough to eat a meal, they have more substantial fare such as salads, soups & sandwiches which are pretty good and their prices are reasonable.

The café is fairly easy to get to if you're using public transit. With SEPTA, take the Market-Frankford Line & get off at the 5th Street Station (corner of 5th & Market), and walk 2 blocks south on 5th and then turn right on Walnut Street and walk 1 block west. With PATCO, just get off at the 9th-10th & Locust stop and walk 3 blocks east. For those who are driving, parking in the neighborhood can be tough to find. If you can't find a spot on the street, I'd suggest parking in the Washington Square parking deck at 249 S 6th Street which is just a half block away.

----------------------------------------------------------

SCIENCE ACTIVISM & SCIENCE POLICY

INTRODUCTION - MOVING PAST "SCIENCE FANDOM"

This meetup will address the interrelation between science and American politics, including the debates over science activism, science policy, research funding, innovation & science education. But in order to approach these issues analytically using a rational, evidence-based approach, we first have to move past the highly emotional, highly partisan approach to science activism that might be called "science fandom". (Political scientists refer to this difference as "expressive activism" which is an emotionally satisfying social activity versus "instrumental activism" which tries to affect real political change.)

While science fandom is unfortunately quite common among some members of the skeptic & atheist communities, the rationalist blogosphere (e.g. Less Wrong forum, Ribbonfarm, SlateStarCodex) has critiqued it extensively. Two well-known examples are Eliezer Yudkosky's essay "Science as Attire" and Venkatesh Rao's essay "The Varieties of Scientific Experience":

http://lesswrong.com/lw/ir/science_as_attire/

https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2012/08/30/the-varieties-of-scientific-experience/

The tension between highly emotional "science fandom" and more sober forms of "science activism" came to a head last year at the "March for Science" in April of 2017. While several major figures in the skeptic community like Bill Nye & Derek Muller attended and Neil deGrasse Tyson expressed his support, others like Michael Shermer, Steven Pinker & Jerry Coyne declined to attend because they were concerned with how it politicized science & mixed it with identity politics. Jeremy Samuel Faust, a physician who teaches at Harvard Medical School, described in an article at Slate why he thought both the march and a lot of the "pro-science" internet activism he sees is counter-productive:

"My contention [is] that most 'pro-science' demonstrators have no idea what they were demonstrating about. Being 'pro-science' has become a bizarre cultural phenomenon in which liberals (and other members of the cultural elite) engage in public displays of self-reckoned intelligence as a kind of performance art, while demonstrating zero evidence to justify it. On any given day, many of my most 'woke' friends are quick to post and retweet viral content about the latest on what Science (and I'm capitalizing this on purpose) 'says,' or what some studies 'prove.' But on closer look, much of what gets shared and bandied about is sheer bullshit and is diagnostic of one thing only: The state of science (and science literacy) in this country, and most of the planet for that matter, is woefully bad. For example, the blog IFLScience (IFL stands for 'I F---ing Love') seems singularly committed to undermining legitimately good science half the time, while promoting it the other half—which, scientifically speaking, is a problem.

That’s not to say plans to cut back funding for research are wise.... Nor should we tolerate it when our policies are poised to undercut genuine scientific expertise for politically expedient purposes... But there is very little indication that what happened on Saturday will counter these misconceptions. Instead, the march revealed the glaring dissonance of opposing that trough of ignorance by instead accepting a cringe-worthy hive-mind mentality that celebrates Science as a vague but wonderful entity, what Richard Feynman called 'cargo cult science.' There was an uncomfortable drone-like fealty to the concept—an oxymoronic faith that information presented and packaged to us as Science need not be further scrutinized before being smugly celebrated en masse. That is not intellectually rigorous thought—instead, it’s another kind of religion, and it is perhaps as terrifying as the thing it is trying to fight."

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/04/the_march_for_science_was_eerily_religious.html

So if we should move away from "science fandom", what is this more instrumental, evidence-based form of "science activism" that we should promote? Evidence-based science activism is based on an empirical understanding of science policy. It requires a basic familiarity with the psychological studies of science communication, political science studies of science lobbying, and economics studies of research funding & STEM education funding.

So what is science policy? Wikipedia has a pretty good basic definition: "Science policy is concerned with the allocation of resources for the conduct of science towards the goal of best serving the public interest. Topics include the funding of science, the careers of scientists, and the translation of scientific discoveries into technological innovation to promote commercial product development, competitiveness, economic growth and economic development. Science policy focuses on knowledge production and role of knowledge networks, collaborations and the complex distributions of expertise, equipment and know-how. Understanding the processes and organizational context of generating novel and innovative science and engineering ideas is a core concern of science policy." The entry goes on to note 5 different types of science funding (basic research, applied research, translational research, technology development, facilities & equipment) and explains the difference between "utilitarian" & "monumental" approaches to science policy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_policy

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

DIRECTIONS ON HOW TO PREPARE FOR OUR DISCUSSION:

The videos you see linked below are intended to give you a basic overview of the ways that economists try to analyze & measure happiness. As usual, I certainly don't expect you to read all the articles & watch all the videos prior to attending our discussion. The easiest way to prepare for our discussion is to just read the numbered videos linked under each section - this should take about 47 minutes total to get through. The articles marked with asterisks are just there to supply additional details. You can browse and look at whichever ones you want, but don't worry - we'll cover the stuff you missed in our discussion.

In terms of the discussion format, my general idea is that we'll address the 4 topics in the order presented here. I figure we'll spend about 30 minutes on each section. I've listed questions under each section which we'll do our best to address.

DOES POLITICAL ADVOCACY BY SCIENTISTS HARM PUBLIC TRUST IN SCIENCE? IF SO, IS THERE A WAY SCIENTISTS CAN INFORM US ON PUBLIC POLICY WITHOUT INSPIRING A BACKLASH? WHY IS THERE A DIVERGENCE BETWEEN THE PUBLIC'S GENERAL "TRUST" IN SCIENCE & BELIEF IN SPECIFIC SCIENTIFIC RESULTS?

1a) Emily Vraga, "Does advocacy affects scientists' credibility?" (video - 2:40 min.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgAuqtEss5E

1b) Dan Kahan, "The Science of Science Communication" (video - 16:10 min, start at 8:56)

https://youtu.be/d5fBkivqa78?t=536

http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2015/1/13/science-of-science-communication-20-session-11-the-hpv-vacci.html

WHICH PARTY SPENDS MORE ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH - AND WHAT TYPE OF RESEARCH? IF THE STUDIES SHOWING THAT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM INDUSTRY LOBBYISTS ARE OVERBLOWN AS AN EXPLANATION FOR VOTING PATTERNS, WHAT OTHER FACTORS MIGHT DRIVE THE SCIENCE POLICIES OF THE TWO MAJOR PARTIES? IS THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION MALICIOUSLY "ANTI-SCIENCE", INCOMPETENT AT SCIENCE POLICY, OR MERELY CATERING TO ITS OWN INTEREST GROUPS?

2a) Neil deGrasse Tyson, "Who's More Pro-Science, Republicans or Democrats [in 2009]?" (video - 4:46 min.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7Q8UvJ1wvk

2b) Project Syndicate, "Explain This: Trump's War on Science" (video - 2:27 min.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pd0-Mcp2FM&t=13s

http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/3153/

  • Daniel Sarewitz, "Does Science Policy Matter? It would if we had a real science policy, but what we have now is science politics"

http://issues.org/23-4/sarewitz/

DOES THE U.S. SPEND ENOUGH ON BASIC SCIENCE RESEARCH? TO WHAT EXTENT DOES OVERALL GOV'T SPENDING ON SCIENCE CONTRIBUTE TO INNOVATION, I.E. TECHNOLOGICAL PROGRESS THAT LEADS TO ECONOMIC GROWTH? IS ECONOMIC GROWTH THE METRIC WE SHOULD USE?

3a) Trace Dominguez, "Who Pays For Science?" (video - 4:57 min.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7oklmbtxoY

3b) Bruno Lanvin, "The importance of policies in innovation: The Global Innovation Index 2015" (video - 8:13 min.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1L54CwOBJs

DOES THE U.S. SPEND ENOUGH ON STEM EDUCATION? WHY DO AMERICAN STUDENTS LAG BEHIND STUDENTS IN OTHER OECD COUNTRIES IN MATH & SCIENCE SCORES IF IT'S NOT DUE TO INADEQUATE EDUCATIONAL FUNDING?

4a) Dale Baker & Linda Rosen"STEM education funding" (video - 3:20 min.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLXi4NhJWtU

4b) OECD, "PISA - Measuring student success around the world" (video - 12:14 min.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1I9tuScLUA

Events in Philadelphia, PA
Photo of Skeptics In The Pub - Philly group
Skeptics In The Pub - Philly
See more events
Skeptics In The Pub - Philly
Photo of Skeptics In The Pub - Philly group
Cafe Walnut
703 Walnut Street · Philadelphia, PA
Photo of Skeptics In The Pub - Philly group
Skeptics In The Pub - Philly
public group