3 ms·
"Science" is no longer on a pedestal. The PR campaigns against conclusions for leaded gas, smoking, acid rain, global warming, and vaccine safety, and the scien
by dalke 10y ago
"Science" is no longer on a pedestal. The PR campaigns against conclusions for leaded gas, smoking, acid rain, global warming, and vaccine safety, and the scientific development of leaded gas, ozone-depleting CFCs, Agent Orange/dioxin, etc., plus concerns like GMOs and Monsanto, mobile phone safety, plasticizers/hormone disruptors, and more make for a decidedly mixed view of science by the general public.
As you can see from http://www.pewforum.org/2013/07/11/public-esteem-for-military-still-high/ http://www.pewforum.org/2013/07/11/public-esteem-for-militar... , the military, teachers, and medical doctors are on higher pedestals than scientists.
That said, I'm all for the mixed development model.
- jerf 10y agoI think it's on a pedestal where it matters, where the funding decisions are being made. The public's opinion only matters in the long term. Though, admittedly, the long term is probably coming up pretty quickly. There's a lot of things that have had their opinion trending negative for so long that people have become blase about the negative trends suddenly coming due this year.
- dalke 10y agoOn reconsideration, I'm wavering on my belief. NIH and NSF get a lot more support than, say, the NEA. HST, fine as it is, was extremely expensive. I still maintain that the military is still on a higher pedestal than science, in terms of funding and prestige. You hear stories of people buying military people in uniform their meal, to honor their service. That's much less common for scientists.