There has been quite a bit of attention on science as of late. Granted, most of it has been negative; manifested in an ongoing backlash against recommendations made by scientists. No matter how much evidence is provided, there’s always that recurring refrain:

jerry(SHOW ME THE PROOF!)

I completely understand this sentiment. After all, science is not absolute and as such, has difficulties dealing with questions based on analysis. As researchers, we are trained to deal with these types of questions and find ways to respond to them accurately.

But the current situation is far worse. Instead of an argument of evidence vs evidence, questions are being asked based on fear, ideology, or what I consider to be the worst, political leanings. When this happens, a seed of doubt can quickly turn into an epidemic of distrust in the public. Most scientists are not ready for this type of dissent and many find themselves facing a…

mission-impossible-1(Mission Impossible…)

When you think about it, scientists are not alone. We are seeing similar actions against some of our most valued institutions such as the media, the justice system, and public health. In all of these cases, hard working people are doing their best to improve society and yet, at the end of the day, they always feel like they are…

money(Behind the 8-Ball)

In light of this, researchers have attempted to figure out how to dampen the fierce opposition, especially that which is not based on evidence and/or mechanisms. Unfortunately, in most cases, the results have suggested most strategies simply cannot get through the wall of politics. No matter how much scientists wish people would say it, in general, they are unwilling to state…

want-truth(I WANT THE TRUTH!) 

As to why people do not wish to learn more, you might say the answer is the same line you may have said to yourselves after seeing the above image…

handle(Which usually is the case…)

But researchers continue undeterred and finally it seems a group of researchers may have found one possible solution to this problem. The paper was published in the journal Political Psychology and as you might expect, goes after the concept of politics in the rejection of science.

You can read the whole article here: Science Curiosity and Political Information Processing but the answer is so simple, it could be considered laughable…

fashion(Unless you compare it to this…)

The team of researchers wanted to find out what could negate politically-motivated reasoning not based on evidence or mechanism. To do this, they first had to figure out what the difference was between normal reasoning and those based on political viewpoints. They provide a nice summary in this figure…

reasoning(Politics, um, trumps facts…)

This is troublesome to say the least because no matter how well scientists may communicate their views, they are destined to lose out because of those political predispositions. In order to succeed at gaining interest in science, something had to be done to negate the political viewpoints. But rather than use evidence, they decided to rely on something a little more…

risky(Risqué…work with me here…)

Instead of detailing evidence, such as those you might see in news stories, the team decided to go a different route. They wanted to offer something much more intrinsic to every human, regardless of political viewpoint. It’s been around for thousands of years and yet, from a scientific perspective, never seems to be a viable option when trying to convince people of the value of research. I’m talking about…

magnolia(Entertainment…)

The group asked volunteers to watch portions of scientific films with names such as, “Your Inner Fish,” “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea,” and “Mass Extinction: Life on the Brink.” The excerpts were chosen such that they wouldn’t overtly point to evidence or mechanisms. Rather, they would merely offer hints of the natural course of the world in the hopes of developing a sense of curiosity.

It was a gamble to say the least. After all, it could be disastrous to take a chance against the political grain…

lestat(Or the political fans for that matter…)

Yet, it worked. When people were asked about their curiosity on several politically-sensitive topics, climate change or fracking, individuals on both side of the spectrum seemed to have a similar patterns of interest.

But this wasn’t the real shocker. That came when the authors asked about the volunteers’ attitudes to these topics. Even the most die-hard conservatives changed their views in comparison to controls. Watching the films helped these individuals believe the concerns regarding these issues were real and without action, pose a threat to humanity.

For the authors, this was a complete surprise. By simply showing science in the form on entertainment, they had developed a change that was equivalent to…

knight-and-day(Okay, you can groan about this one…)

I admit, the results may seem incredible. Yet, from a purely human perspective, this should come as no surprise. No matter how deep political views may be entrenched, we all can be drawn from them through entertainment, particularly if it’s done well. Our belief system is hijacked by what we see and this can negate or at least lessen the impact of what is ingrained in us.

The results of this study reveal the importance of curiosity and entertainment in ensuring scientific success. However, there is one potential drawback to going the route of entertainment as opposed to evidence. No matter how slick and professional the output, there should always be a link back to the original research. If the public cannot identify the science within the style, then they may not realize why they are watching, listening, or reading. In essence, they might completely miss…

lessrossman
(Who the real actor may be…)

While this research may suggest going the entertainment route will lead to a more scientifically-based society, scientists also need to understand this approach can only go so far. Even though curiosity may help negate political bias, it may not be enough to get individuals to act in a manner that befits the concern. That will require a different type of convincing that so far, no one has figured out. But you can be sure, should that strategy every be found, those who come up with it will most definitely be considered at least in the scientific world…

topgun(I know you were waiting for it…)

Advertisements