Lately, I have been thinking a lot about the state of
scientific research, both nationally and globally. It is hard to miss the steadily
decreasing funding and support for science in Australia. In 2014, the Federal Government
cut $400 million from research institutions, placing our scientific climate in
its most frozen state in 30 years. In 2015, four Australian Nobel Prize laureates
lambasted the national support of science as being poor, with the joint
recipient of the 2009 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, Elizabeth
Blackburn, commenting that the lack of funding for science in the country is
‘just insanity’. Australia’s Chief Scientist, Ian Chubb, even highlighted the
fact that every Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) country except for Australia had an overarching science or
technology strategy, designed to co-ordinate national research priorities. We
are now in 2016 and although the Turnbull government has promised to invest
$1.1 billion into national STEM initiatives, it does not negate the irreparable
damage caused by years of cuts to scientific jobs and research funding, which
has resulted in overall instability and distress to core scientific institutes,
such as the CSIRO. It is hoped that this investment will also translate into
higher numbers of grants approved by the National Health and Medical Research
Council (NHMRC), as only 15% of grants were approved last year. Unfortunately,
as the projected 1% yearly increase in the NHMRC’s Medical Research Endowment
Account (MREA) falls short of the 1.3% inflation rate (functionally resulting
in a cut to funding), this is unlikely.
However, this is only the start of our problems. Not only
are scientists less able to provide the world with cold, hard evidence for some
of life’s mysteries, we still haven’t dealt with the increasing problem of self-appointed
sceptics injecting fear into the masses for things we already have evidence
against. Sceptics come in many shapes and sizes, although scepticism itself is
not bad. We have the sceptics who say that every preservative is toxic and
should be banned, without considering or knowing that some of the earlier forms
of preservation involved everyday products such as salt and vinegar. We now
have celebrity chef, Pete Evans, using his large social media following to tell
people that sunscreen is full of ‘poisonous chemicals’ with very little factual
evidence. Let’s not forget Jenny McCarthy, former Playboy Playmate and
figurehead of the ‘Anti-Vaccine Movement’, who claimed that her undiagnosed son
had become autistic from being vaccinated. McCarthy then leveraged her
celebrity and notoriety from the controversy into a position on the talk show,
‘The View’, gaining access to an audience of 2.7 million viewers. Although a
little scepticism is good, these people don’t apply it properly at all. These
are the same people who question the veracity of scientists who they regard as
‘shills’, but will then turn around and unquestioningly accept the truths
spouted by those they idolise.
From seeing all of these issues facing science, I had
to wonder – is there a common factor tying them together? Well, for one, in all
cases there is a total underappreciation of science. It seems a strange concept
that a field providing so many answers is given so little credit. You could
almost say that it is only common sense to see the value of science. However, what
we must remember is that common sense is
not so common. Now, that is not a dig at the sceptics– it is merely an
observation that we all tend to take our own skills for granted and assume that
they are ‘common’, when in fact, they are not.
Scientists are particularly guilty of assuming that
everyone has the same ‘common sense’ skill set that they do. I know this
because I am a member of this guilty party. I realised this after having
lengthy discussions with fellow scientists about the ‘stupidity of people’ who
believed that the Andrew Wakefield paper suggesting that vaccinations lead to
autism was accurate. I was angry that the public did not know that Wakefield’s
paper was complete hogwash – that it did not have proper controls, that it was functionally
a smear campaign against a pharmaceutical company or that the article was
retracted by the journal (for more information on the paper, please see this
link:
(http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(97)11096-0.pdf).
(http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(97)11096-0.pdf).
However, what I did not realise at the time was that I
knew all of those things because I had completed a degree which taught me how
to scrutinise research, how to differentiate between reliable and unreliable results,
and how to find the answers to my questions. What I thought was common sense,
was in fact a specific set of skills that I had acquired over ten years.
This brought me to realise that perhaps the reason
that government bodies do not see science as important enough to fund and sceptics
do not see scientists as reliable enough to believe is that we as scientists
are failing as communicators. We expect non-scientists to have skills that have
taken us years to refine and understand research that, in most cases, even we
do not completely comprehend. Perhaps the way for scientists to get more
funding and credibility in society is to become more accessible by finding ways
to explain complex research in simpler terms. Rather than telling a business
investor how we are going to perform an intricate set of experiments to study
the effect of a mutation at a certain point in the genome for an abstract
result, we tell the investor how our research may ultimately benefit society,
relating this to their goals and needs. Perhaps we needs to apply this on a
much broader scale in communicating our science to the masses. Essentially, we
need to meet the public on their terms, rather than cloistering away with other
scientists through gruelling grant applications.
This includes equipping non-scientists with the
information and tools necessary to make a well-informed decision on matters
relating to science. This means giving them more access to scientists and
websites with more accurate scientific information. Right now, the public has
more access to wildly inaccurate Jenny McCarthy propaganda and sites allowing
people to self-diagnose rare, exotic diseases that they are unlikely to have,
than sites that provide accurate scientific information for anyone to access.
If we want everyone to adopt a logical way of thinking, we need to stop locking
our information behind a plethora of paid subscriptions and passwords.
Let’s make science communication more common, make
science less scary and perhaps in the long run, increase funding for scientific
research. Dream big!