3 ms·

>Let science do its thing - which is inform and educate. Let policies be made by those with more full understanding of the system into which changes need to be

>Let science do its thing - which is inform and educate. Let policies be made by those with more full understanding of the system into which changes need to be effected. But what about when scientists collaborate with the policy-makers to shape public perception about how to inform and educate people? One prime example is last years long and detailed study on how there was no "gay gene". In effect, homosexual activity and inclinations could not be shown to be the result of any specific gene expression after many trials and searches for such. The scientists, worried about how this result would look to the public, worked with LGBTQ advocacy groups to shape how the paper would be released to the media and explained to the public[1]. Now, a sizable portion in HN's demographic will feel this is all well and good, but how far should this go? The uncomfortable truth here is that people are not "born gay" as we have been told so often. And that has been a very important talking point in the past two decades when debating about gay rights. Many people were convinced to support gay rights for this reason alone (however we might feel about that, it's true). They very well may feel duped by scientists and no longer "trust the science". How far should scientists go to shield the public from uncomfortable truths? And how much will the public continue to trust them when such veiling of the truth is made known to them? [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02585-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02585-6

sriku 6y ago
> But what about when scientists collaborate with the policy-makers to shape public perception about how to inform and educate people? That isn't a problem with science. It is politics .. as @AnthonyMouse noted.
- Ambolia 6y ago
  It's generally cheaper to buy a scientist than to buy a politician.
epgui 6y ago
While you appear to suggest that reference [1] is a bad thing, or even a slippery slope, there's not really any indication that these consultations had an adverse impact on the quality of the results. Communication is an incredibly tricky thing. Even when the science is sound, shortsighted approaches at communication can have serious repercussions, even potentially causing deaths (think public health guidance being misinterpreted, misunderstood, or decontextualized, for example). Being conscious of this doesn't dilute the truth of the message, and being respectful/mindful of others doesn't mean we need to compromise on the science either. For clarity: this is not a response to any part of your comment other than the reference to the nature article.
- notsureaboutpg 6y ago
  My point was never about the quality of the results. In this discussion about science as a religion, I made it clear that working with activists to communicate science means people need to believe the non-scientific claims of those activists as much as they believe the results of the experiment described in a paper. And in many situations even HN readers will believe it's necessary to massage truths to the public in order to avoid science being read one way or another. This is what turns science into a religion. One must believe the publicly sanctioned, regionally accepted version of science communication if they are to be said to "trust the science". Had this same study been done in, say, Iran, the science communication would be vastly different, the results the same, and one's reaction to the vastly different communication would still be gauged as a commitment to "science" and how much one believes in it.
myrion 6y ago
The problem I have with your comment is likely the reason the scientists were worried about how best to communicate their results: "sexual orientation is not the expression of any one gene" is not the same as "people are not born gay". It may be a complex genetic interaction or it may be some other effect at play, but whatever it is, it doesn't contradict that people don't choose their sexual orientation. Since people have justified all sorts of atrocities based on the misconception that being queer is a choice for people that they could just not make, I can understand scientists who want to make sure their research doesn't fuel that again.
- notsureaboutpg 6y ago
  I don't wish to argue about the actual results of the paper since that was not the point. The point was that if you work with activist groups to inform the public of your findings you are going to make it hard for people to "trust the science" since they need to also trust the activists you've teamed up with. But the paper, on the surface, does contradict the idea that people's sexual orientation is innate because it rules out many of the most likely complex gene expressions that could have explained this behavior. I understand the sociopolitical dilemma involved with this unfortunate truth but that's exactly why "trust the science" is complicated and it's exactly why science ends up needing to be like a religion, either you believe it or you don't. Scientists cannot afford (and have chosen not to afford) for people to take the results and interpret the sociopolitical consequences of those results themselves.

sriku 6y ago

> But what about when scientists collaborate with the policy-makers to shape public perception about how to inform and educate people? That isn't a problem with science. It is politics .. as @AnthonyMouse noted.

Ambolia 6y ago
It's generally cheaper to buy a scientist than to buy a politician.

epgui 6y ago

While you appear to suggest that reference [1] is a bad thing, or even a slippery slope, there's not really any indication that these consultations had an adverse impact on the quality of the results. Communication is an incredibly tricky thing. Even when the science is sound, shortsighted approaches at communication can have serious repercussions, even potentially causing deaths (think public health guidance being misinterpreted, misunderstood, or decontextualized, for example). Being conscious of this doesn't dilute the truth of the message, and being respectful/mindful of others doesn't mean we need to compromise on the science either. For clarity: this is not a response to any part of your comment other than the reference to the nature article.

notsureaboutpg 6y ago
My point was never about the quality of the results. In this discussion about science as a religion, I made it clear that working with activists to communicate science means people need to believe the non-scientific claims of those activists as much as they believe the results of the experiment described in a paper. And in many situations even HN readers will believe it's necessary to massage truths to the public in order to avoid science being read one way or another. This is what turns science into a religion. One must believe the publicly sanctioned, regionally accepted version of science communication if they are to be said to "trust the science". Had this same study been done in, say, Iran, the science communication would be vastly different, the results the same, and one's reaction to the vastly different communication would still be gauged as a commitment to "science" and how much one believes in it.

myrion 6y ago

The problem I have with your comment is likely the reason the scientists were worried about how best to communicate their results: "sexual orientation is not the expression of any one gene" is not the same as "people are not born gay". It may be a complex genetic interaction or it may be some other effect at play, but whatever it is, it doesn't contradict that people don't choose their sexual orientation. Since people have justified all sorts of atrocities based on the misconception that being queer is a choice for people that they could just not make, I can understand scientists who want to make sure their research doesn't fuel that again.

notsureaboutpg 6y ago
I don't wish to argue about the actual results of the paper since that was not the point. The point was that if you work with activist groups to inform the public of your findings you are going to make it hard for people to "trust the science" since they need to also trust the activists you've teamed up with. But the paper, on the surface, does contradict the idea that people's sexual orientation is innate because it rules out many of the most likely complex gene expressions that could have explained this behavior. I understand the sociopolitical dilemma involved with this unfortunate truth but that's exactly why "trust the science" is complicated and it's exactly why science ends up needing to be like a religion, either you believe it or you don't. Scientists cannot afford (and have chosen not to afford) for people to take the results and interpret the sociopolitical consequences of those results themselves.