Frustrated scientist makes non-PC objection to public dialogue
Researcher John Warren writes about his (politically-incorrect) frustration with being asked to engage in two-way dialogue with the public. The headline writer summarized it as “Scientists are too busy discovering hard facts to engage the public in constant dialogue, says John Warren”, but that’s not right. Warren says: “The trouble is, for a meaningful two-way discussion to occur there must be at least some understanding on the part of the non-specialist…the value that the public ascribed to biodiversity was simply a reflection of how important we told them it was the minute before. Democracy is about informed choice, but science is now so vast and complex, that no single individual could ever be well enough informed to make this level of dialogue feasible.” I’ve been waiting for someone to point this out on nanotech, about which we hear so many calls for public dialogue.
June 9th, 2005 at 12:54 PM
Mr. Warren’s lament rings hollow with me. The specialist may in fact not be able to communicate with the public – but that is NOT the publics fault. If specicalists choose to lose themselves in the arcane detail of their own worlds, they cannot then complain loudly that nobody understands them. It is their responsibility to make their contributions intelligible to the rest of us – not the other way around. In the end, Warren is complaining that no one understands how important his work is and it’s so hard to get funding from an uninformed public.
Sorry, doesn’t wash with me. If you want the bucks do the work of communication. It’s that simple – and that hard.
Andy Wehrle
BAE Systems
Stafford, VA
June 9th, 2005 at 2:48 PM
Dr. Warren makes a good point, and I understand his frustration. It sounds like the Government is asking the impossible. By way of analogy, it is like asking a group of voters to make a decision by telling them about only one candidate, one we have incomplete information about. This does not mean dialogue is bad. This is simply an example where general principles i.e. “What is good and Bad and for Whom?” need to be defined first. I am sure the typical researcher is not interested in making these definitions, it is the “General Public” that will have to.
The frustration expressed is one of the many negative effects of forcing scientists into the political realm, and asking them to “work an angle”.
Foresight exists because any person can perceive a benefit or conversly a threat to their life; specialized knowledge is not necessary.
June 12th, 2005 at 10:58 AM
I’m afraid I have to agree with Mr. Wehrle. Too often the scientist involved in the research end is too involved in his research to take time away from his projects to actually inform people about it in a meaningful way. As a result, misunderstandings result as to the nature, and need, for his research.
This can be further compounded by other scientists who deliberately misconstrue others work in order to make their own appear more neccesary than anothers, and therefore, more in need of funding. This kind of infighting further muddies the waters, and makes it even harder for the average person to sort out the fact from fiction.
As a member of the General Public, I want to be sure that my tax dollars/charity donations/whatever are being spent in ways that benefit everybody, because that is their purpose. I want to know what’s being researched, and I want to know why as well. I want to understand, so I ask questions, and read what I can in an attempt to learn. Maybe this makes me part of an minority, but people like me are out here. For a scientist to throw up his hands and tell me I just can’t understand the importance of his research, so there’s no point in talking to me, is offensive.
But it happens. I once wrote to Marvin Minsky to ask him about the implications of his research into digitalizing human intelligence in a world where Utility Fog existed, and possesed the computing power to run a digitalized intelligence. The only reply I got was that I needed to improve my grammer.
When senior scientists, the men who’s influence can aid or hinder technological development in their feilds, cannot be bothered to answer a question into their work, because they have decided I wouldn’t understand before even an attempt is made to communicate, then there is something wrong. Regardless of what they are working on, it is the responsibility of every scientist to seek out and SHARE knowledge. They work for the advancement of humanity, and humanity deserves the courtesy of a straight answer.
LSMcGill
Curiousity is not a nuisance, it’s the sign of an open mind.
June 14th, 2005 at 10:44 AM
Asking world-class researchers to give individualized tutorials to beginners, by email, for free, just isn’t practical. Their own students, who pay high tuition, don’t get such service. If we want to learn the basics, we should take basic courses. That’s what I did, and it worked well. As for Minsky, he might have been trying to give good advice: you’ll get better responses to inquiries if you take the time to run them through spelling-checkers and grammar-checkers, if those areas are not your strengths. You’re asking the person you’re writing to for some of his/her valuable time; it helps to look serious about the question and make your writing easy for them to parse. –CP
June 17th, 2005 at 7:47 AM
John Warren does a lot of complaining, but doesn’t offer a solution. He says, “Democracy is about informed choice, but science is now so vast and complex, that no single individual could ever be well enough informed to make this level of dialogue feasible.” So what’s the solution? Just throw our hands up in the air or run around like Chicken Little? Somebody needs to inform the people making the decisions (which in America is theoretically the public). The only people I know that can explain science are scientists. Stop complaining about your job, and come back when you have a solution, Dr. Warren. You can’t bury your head in the sand and expect to “unravel the mysteries of the universe.”
July 2nd, 2005 at 4:09 PM
Why thank you Miss Peterson. It was kind of you to reply. As for the message to Mr. Minsky, it was parsed in Word before being sent, and seemed to be quite clear. Nor was I asking for a personalized tutor. If you search for my name here on nanodot, I think you’ll find I’m not as ignorant as it may seem, though I make no claims to be a genius either. I sent a polite request for Mr. Minsky’s thoughts, just as I sent one to Mr. Hall. Both replied. One with information, one with insults.
In short, I felt one granted me the respect of a seeker of knowledge, and the other couldn’t be bothered.
Which is why I thank you for replying, since you have also extended me that respect.
LSMcGill
July 12th, 2005 at 5:32 AM
These arguments are interesting but, really, we are just massaging our egos.
Example 1: I used to think GM technology was a ‘good thing’ but then I heard the man from Monsanto talking on the radio. He unwittingly revealed that the whole GM thing is about Control. Them controlling me. Sure we will empower humans but that power will be exercised by proxy through big business and humans are empowered enough anyway.
Example 2: Bordeaux wine. It’s the same price and better than New World wine but people mostly buy the latter because they are told that’s what they want.
So we can talk to the non-cognoscenti or be rude to them. We are all the same slaves.
Paul Fenton