The point about people not not trusting science is interesting. But I also think it should be interpreted in the context of other trends. For example, when we think about whether and how people act on health information, they may trust scientific information, but they also have strong values for information that comes from their friends. The proliferation of social media and AI and the parasocial relationships that people have with them means that the information that comes from those sources now has higher value than in the past. It's not so much that they don't trust science, but a piece of information coming from an influencer carries more weight than a science-based article from the CDC.
The other thing that I am curious about is that if people's trust in universities has declined, and most science is produced by universities, wouldn't it follow that their trust in science would decline as well?
Thanks Holden for the link -- to be clear, I oppose institutionalized partisanship by universities and organizations like the National Academies, AAAS, Science, Nature etc., those that claim to speak for science or the scientific community.
I would guess that we'd agree that such organizations should not, for instance, endorse political candidates or affiliate with a political party. That would go fo the units within a university as well.
That said, academic freedom is important and individual professors or scientists have complete freedom to engage in political advocacy like anyone else. The same goes for advocacy orgs like UCS or SUFS. More power to them . . .
We get into trouble when we confuse these different roles and responsibilities. Many today want institutions of science to become partisan. I think that would be a big mistake.
I agree with this in theory (institutional neutrality). But then I also wonder if that changes if you have one party that is actively platforming on greatly reducing scientific funding, for example, or changing the infrastructure so that scientific grants are made by political appointees. It seems like there might be some kind of line where it would be questionable for these institutions *not* to advocate for a particular candidate, because not to do so could lead to their own demise or the demise of the labs of their constituent members. I’m curious if there is any situation in which you think it would be acceptable/appropriate for these orgs to become partisan, at least temporarily?
The point about people not not trusting science is interesting. But I also think it should be interpreted in the context of other trends. For example, when we think about whether and how people act on health information, they may trust scientific information, but they also have strong values for information that comes from their friends. The proliferation of social media and AI and the parasocial relationships that people have with them means that the information that comes from those sources now has higher value than in the past. It's not so much that they don't trust science, but a piece of information coming from an influencer carries more weight than a science-based article from the CDC.
The other thing that I am curious about is that if people's trust in universities has declined, and most science is produced by universities, wouldn't it follow that their trust in science would decline as well?
Thanks Holden for the link -- to be clear, I oppose institutionalized partisanship by universities and organizations like the National Academies, AAAS, Science, Nature etc., those that claim to speak for science or the scientific community.
I would guess that we'd agree that such organizations should not, for instance, endorse political candidates or affiliate with a political party. That would go fo the units within a university as well.
That said, academic freedom is important and individual professors or scientists have complete freedom to engage in political advocacy like anyone else. The same goes for advocacy orgs like UCS or SUFS. More power to them . . .
We get into trouble when we confuse these different roles and responsibilities. Many today want institutions of science to become partisan. I think that would be a big mistake.
I agree with this in theory (institutional neutrality). But then I also wonder if that changes if you have one party that is actively platforming on greatly reducing scientific funding, for example, or changing the infrastructure so that scientific grants are made by political appointees. It seems like there might be some kind of line where it would be questionable for these institutions *not* to advocate for a particular candidate, because not to do so could lead to their own demise or the demise of the labs of their constituent members. I’m curious if there is any situation in which you think it would be acceptable/appropriate for these orgs to become partisan, at least temporarily?