Stephen Jellen / Opinion

'Anti-Science' Attitudes May Be

 Symptom of More Practical 

Realities, Lack of Opportunity

By Stephen Jellen 

Commentary 

___________

EDWARDSVILLE, Ill. - 12/22/2020 - Some Americans are obviously disdainful of science, or at least some science. That is hard for those who respect science to understand. To gain insight we might consider the practical effects that science has had on the lives of many Americans. Science has created machines that have taken unskilled workers' jobs. That process is just beginning. 

Views on science and society. Graph courtesy of Pew Research Center.

    Technology has facilitated globalization, allowing jobs to move overseas. Many workers have been recently thrown out of their jobs by the science of epidemiology, which makes them choose between health science and employment. Some have decided to reject the scientific basis of the epidemic in order to make their choice easier.

We should empathize with them. They are literally scrambling for their lives. Science has created new jobs but they are not suitable for many. It has destroyed many old jobs. This has produced a cultural fragmentation based on education and ability to do technical work. Science has thus made some folks vastly richer while many have been made poorer by it.

Scientific expertise can put young people over older folks, breaking a time-honored social protocol. Old skills are less useful now. Old work ethics are less relevant. It is no wonder that many reject science as they double-down on traditional belief systems. Science has made traditional religion seem more like a fairytale.

In having to accommodate a world vastly better explained by science, many Americans have turned fundamentalist in their views, sometimes rejecting science in total. The power of science seems more like a danger to them than a benefit. Thus many cling to their religious traditions defiantly against all evidence, sometimes with outright hatred for that, and for those, which they see as threatening their foundational beliefs. Some Americans rejected electricity and automobiles when those became available at the beginning of the 20th Century. They cling thus yet today, driving horse-drawn vehicles, lighting with kerosene and shunning communications. Their communities remain centered on religious traditions.

It is highly ironic that now the latest iteration of reactionary anti-science relies on the internet received on cell phones to facilitate social reinforcement of selective anti-science ideology. And it is unusual in that it is politicized the way it is. Past reactionaries sought to isolate themselves, to get away from "the world." Today's reactionaries want to dominate the world, to force a specific acceptance of science.

Thus what looks like anti-science may be more about disaffection with social and political developments. These would be economic inequality and the lack of opportunity for many Americans. Thus it might be better to see what looks like anti-science to be a rejection of supply side, trickle-down governance. It might be a reaction to the failure of government to provide effective public education, and to provide labor policy that allows workers to share in the wealth created science that claims to benefit all of mankind. For so long as science gives some vast wealth and deprives others, it shall not be the universal friend of mankind. And it shall not find universal acceptance.

Stephen Jellen is a long-time resident of Edwardsville and a frequent contributor to area publications on matters of politics and social policy.

State of Science

 

Trust in Science Soars Amid 

Global Pandemic

 

ST. PAUL, Minn.- (BUSINESS WIRE) - 10/10/2020 - If the world’s biggest challenges are to be solved, science will lead the way.

That’s the takeaway from the annual 3M State of Science Index (SOSI). This year’s survey shows that the image of science is on the rise, sustainable solutions remain critical, barriers to STEM and gender/race inequality must be removed, and public/private partnerships are expected to solve issues that people care most about.

A screenshot from the 3M SOSI site.

“As people face the most challenging health crisis in our lifetime, science is more relevant, more trusted, and more important to people all over the world,” said Mike Roman, chairman of the board and chief executive officer, 3M. “Advocating for science is important to 3M, but it’s bigger than just us. We’re leaning in with a focus on the things people care most about: pandemic preparedness, sustainability, social justice, and STEM equity. The State of Science Index shows that people want and expect science to make lives better and these are important issues that are at the heart of 3M’s vision to improve every life.”

Against the backdrop of COVID-19, trust in science and scientists is the highest it has been in three years since SOSI first began. Today, 89%* of those surveyed trust science; 86%* trust scientists; 77% are more likely as a result of the pandemic to agree that science needs more funding; and more than half (54%*) agree science is very important to their everyday lives – a double-digit increase from the pre-pandemic data (44%*). Rounding out the picture, 92% of global respondents believe actions should follow science to contain the global pandemic, revealing another measure of trust in science.

The evolving image of science is a key theme to emerge from findings of SOSI -- a third party, independently researched study commissioned by 3M to track attitudes towards science. The latest SOSI survey was fielded in eleven countries throughout July and August of 2020, about six months into the global pandemic.

COVID-19 has made people more appreciative of what science can do

A world that has been increasingly skeptical of science seems to be waking up to its relevance and importance. In 2020, rising skepticism reversed for the first time in three years. People who stated, “I am skeptical of science,” dropped by 7 points to 28%* during the pandemic this summer, from its high of 35%* last year. Relatedly, respondents who only believe science that aligns with their personal beliefs is down six percentage points from when the question was first asked in 2018.

A renewed trust in science appears to translate into taking action too: more than half of those surveyed (54%) agree COVID-19 has made them more likely to advocate for science, whereas pre-pandemic data showed only 20% would stand up for science when debating its merits with others.

There is good reason to push for science advocacy because the needle hasn’t moved on everything. Nearly two-thirds (63%) rarely think about the impact science has on their everyday lives—and nearly one-third (32%) still believe their lives “wouldn’t be that different” if science didn’t exist.

Solutions remain critical: science, sustainability and social justice

There are negative consequences to a world that does not value science, according to 82% of those surveyed. When those who agree were asked about the top negative consequences of concern — topping the list of concerns is “a higher risk of health issues” (68%) – which is not surprising in a year dominated by COVID-19. But sustainability remains an important priority too, with “negative environmental impact” (67%) cited as the second most concerning consequence.

Similarly, when asked about issues people most want to solve for, finding a cure for emerging viruses (such as COVID-19) ranks at the top (80%), followed by finding a cure for other major diseases (62%). Outside of healthcare, social justice and the environment are among the greatest priorities. Social justice/STEM equity (advocating for racial equality in society and/or ensuring underrepresented minorities have access to STEM education) is the top non-health related issue (55%) - and addressing the effects of climate change is the second (51%).

But, who will the world count on to resolve these problems people care about in the future? The next generation of scientists, which must be more diverse and better engaged to truly address global challenges.

Race and generational barriers to STEM education threaten future advances

As a result of the pandemic, pro-STEM sentiment is even stronger: today, 74% are more likely to believe that the world needs more people pursuing STEM-related careers to benefit society, while 73% are more likely to believe a strong STEM education is crucial for students.

Unfortunately, too many people have been discouraged from pursuing science, especially younger generations; Gen Z respondents are three times more likely than their boomer counterparts to report being discouraged as K-12 students from pursuing science (28% adult Gen Zers, 24% millennials, 15% Gen X and 9% baby boomers).

The reasons for being discouraged reveal barriers that run deep: More than one-third of discouraged respondents (36%) say it was due to a lack of access to science classes in school, 34% were told they weren’t smart enough, and 27% point to inequalities in gender, race and/or ethnicity as the problem; in the U.S., this issue is especially high, at 50%.

“We’ve learned from this year’s study and from previous years that people want and need science to solve global challenges,” said Dr. Jayshree Seth, corporate scientist and chief science advocate at 3M. “It has never been more important to enable bright, motivated students from all walks of life to reach their full potential and achieve their dreams through careers in STEM,” Dr. Seth continued. “Attracting the next generation of scientists starts with access to education and motivating students to pursue STEM. The science community – and therefore the world – will only benefit from a greater diversity of talent across gender, racial and ethnic lines.”

Businesses and governments have to work together 

The pandemic has uncovered perceived gaps in science leadership around the world, but it has also revealed opportunities to make a difference. A vast majority of survey respondents around the world believe governments need to lead the way -- 86% say governments should be more involved in containing the spread of COVID-19. In the same way, they also look to governments to address challenges such as affordable healthcare (86%), food safety (86%), improving air quality (85%), and ocean plastics pollution (84%).

While governments are deemed the single most responsible organization, a combination of non-government entities emerge as viable partners (corporations, non-profits, and individual citizens) to help address challenges like climate change (48% non-government** vs. 52% government). For racial inequality, respondents are split 52% non-government** vs. 48% government; and for equal access to STEM education for underrepresented minority groups, the split is 38% for non-government** vs. 62% for government.

Importantly, 53% of respondents believe that, amid major challenges in 2020, corporations should prioritize collaborating with governments for solutions to global challenges — second only to preparing for future pandemics (61%).

3M will host a live media briefing and panel discussion on Tuesday October 6th at 2.20pm ET, to talk about the State of Science in 2020, insights behind the findings, and their implications to society with scientists from 3M; the American Association for the Advancement of Science; the UNCF; and the University of Texas at Austin. To register and join the live panel event, please click here.

For more information about the 2020 SOSI Pre-Pandemic and Pandemic Pulse survey results, please visit www.3M.com/scienceindex.

Survey Methodology

3M’s State of Science Index presents two waves of original, independent and nationally representative (based on census demographics) research in 2020, both conducted by global research firm Ipsos through a combination of online and offline interviews.

Pre-Pandemic Wave: The 2020 Pre-Pandemic Survey was conducted in 14 countries among 1,000 general population adults (18+) in each of the following countries: Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, India, Japan, Mexico, Poland, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, UK and the US. At the 95% confidence level, the margin of error is +/- 0.83 percentage points at the global, 14-country level and +/- 3.1 percentage points for each individual country.

Pandemic Pulse Wave: The 2020 Pandemic Pulse was conducted among 1,000 general population adults (18+) in 11 of the 14 countries from the 2020 Pre-Pandemic Survey. Countries excluded from this pulse include India, Mexico, and South Africa. At the 95% confidence level, the margin of error is +/- 0.94 points at the 11-country level and +/- 3.1 percentage points for each individual country.

To compare across all years of SOSI, a 9-country tracking average was used which has a margin of error of +/- 1.04 percentage points. Countries within this average include Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, Japan, Poland, Singapore, UK and the US.

2020 Pre-Pandemic survey results were fielded in August - October 2019, and 2020 Pandemic Pulse results were fielded in July - August 2020.

Politics and Culture

Epistemology, U.S. Politics,

and the Social Construction of Reality

By Steve Rensberry
Opinion/Analysis

----------------------

  

BergerLuckmann / Wikimedia Commons

EDWARDSVILLE, Ill. - 7/28/2020 - In the late 1980s, I was a fired up, eager-to-learn sociology major at Greenville University, eager enough to never miss a class with either of my two main sociology instructors, professors Rick Stephens and James DeLong. I respected both as knowledgeable experts in their field, though each later went on to teach elsewhere while I decided to make a switch and transfer to Southern Illinois University Edwardsville to study journalism.
   Sociology is a field of study I admire for a lot of reasons, but one concept I found particularly intriguing was called “the social construction of reality.” If you've ever had even an entry-level sociology class, you may recall the phrase because it's a major sociological theory, introduced in 1966 through a book written by Thomas Luckmann and Peter L. Berger, entitled: The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. (Penguin Books, New York, 1966)
   Thinking about this theory the other day, it suddenly dawned on me just how much of a living example today's tumultuous situation is. Are we witnessing “the social construction of reality” in action, in all its messy, dirty and chaotic glory? Maybe so.
   It's not a simple concept, but in short, “the social construction of reality” refers to the idea that:

•    People are shaped by their life experiences, backgrounds and interactions with others, including their perceptions of reality.
•    An inter-personal and social process of repetition and “habitualization” leads to the creation and institutionalization of various social structures, reciprocal roles, and moral codes. See: Introduction to Sociology
  
•   What people understand as “reality” is really the product of a complicated interpersonal social-interaction and negotiation process that societies go through in determining what is socially acceptable. See: Identity and Reality
  

   According to the Thomas Theorem, “successive definitions of the situation” play a key part in establishing such norms of social acceptability. Other sociologists have described the process, on the individual level, as a type of self-fulfilling prophecy -- such as when a false idea or rumor, if actually believed to be real by the person who holds it, can end up having real-world consequences. In other words, the individual's reality, though false, was essentially “constructed by an idea."
   Well what I see happening is just that -- one big mammoth struggle to “define the situation,” to define who we are as a country, as a culture, and as human beings, to establish meaning and values and our shared “social reality,” and ultimately to see whose definition will stick.
   Add to that the influence of an epistemological divide that has existed in Western Civilization since its inception, and the current state of U.S. politics and the cultural divide becomes more understandable yet.
   What type of evidence is sufficient on which to pin a belief, especially one that would rise to the level of foundational?
   Does subjective, emotional evidence suffice? What about empirically-based evidence? Or evidence that you can only touch, see and verify with the senses? What about revelation-based or supernatural evidence? Does evidence only qualify as valid if based on group identity? These are straight up epistemological questions about the validity of knowledge and how to attain it -- and how you answer them is every bit related to our current state of affairs, I'd say.
   Do you believe that truth, values, and knowledge are easily discernible through intuitive means, emotive reasoning, common sense or are simply innate to human nature? Or do you believe they are only really trustworthy when they correspond with hard facts, experience, science, and logic? You can see where I'm going with this.
   I should also say that I'm not the first to point out the “epistemic crisis” we're experiencing.
   “The US is experiencing a deep epistemic breach, a split not just in what we value or want, but who we trust, how we come to know things, and what we believe we know -- what we believe exists, is true, has happened and is happening,” writes David Roberts in a Nov. 2, 2017 Vox piece entitled, America is facing an epistemic crisis.
   Roberts blames “the US conservative movement” for much of the crisis, through its attacks and rejection of the mainstream media and other institutions, such as science and academia, which “society has appointed as referees in matters of factual dispute.”
   I would agree that what we're seeing today has been exacerbated by partisan attacks on key social institutions -- institutions of the kind you might even expect to play a roll in the theorized “social construction of reality,” but Roberts should know that progressive interests have attacked the credibility of various institutions that conservatives respect as well, religious organizations being one of them, and from the view of conservatives have been doing it for a long time. I'm not taking sides, but I know how they feel.
   Roberts does make a good point though, by pointing out some fundamental differences.
   “The pretense for the conservative revolution was that mainstream institutions had failed in their role as neutral arbiters — that they had been taken over by the left, become agents of the left in referee’s clothing, as it were,” Roberts writes. “But the right did not want better neutral arbiters. The institutions it built scarcely made any pretense of transcending faction; they are of and for the right.”
   I don't disagree with him.
   My opinion: Today's glaring ideological polarization seems to me to be just more of the same old “way-of-thinking” drama that has been playing out on the world's stage for centuries, interspersed with relative periods of peace before the next crisis in truth, trust and knowledge flares up, as it has now, like a bad virus. Complete prevention may be impossible, but not letting it get out of control by selecting leaders with level heads and the ability to speak truthfully and with love for all of humanity, rather than put up walls, would seem to me a good idea. I believe that this goes for all leaders, whether in government, ecclesiastical institutions, academia, private organizations, or in the world of business.
   One more suggestion: pay attention to your teachers and professors, because you never know when some of the wisdom they impart -- while appearing irrelevant at the time -- just might be of value years down the road! I'm sure glad I did.

Further reference:

Social Constructions of Reality / Lumenlearning
Identity and Reality /  Sparknotes
Epistemology / Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Epistemology / Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
America is facing an epistemic crisis

NIH Study: Deaf Brain Process Touch Differently

Lacking input, the primary auditory cortex 'feels' touch
   (NIH) - 7/11/2012 - People who are born deaf process the sense of touch differently than people who are born with normal hearing, according to research funding by the National Institutes of Health. The finding reveals how the early loss of a sense — in this case hearing — affects brain development. It adds to a growing list of discoveries that confirm the impact of experiences and outside influences in molding the developing brain. The study is published in the July 11 online issue of The Journal of Neuroscience.
   The researchers, Christina M. Karns, Ph.D., a postdoctoral research associate in the Brain Development Lab at the University of Oregon, Eugene, and her colleagues, show that deaf people use the auditory cortex to process touch stimuli and visual stimuli to a much greater degree than occurs in hearing people. The finding suggests that since the developing auditory cortex of profoundly deaf people is not exposed to sound stimuli, it adapts and takes on additional sensory processing tasks.
   "This research shows how the brain is capable of rewiring in dramatic ways," said James F. Battey, Jr., M.D., Ph.D., director of the NIDCD. "This will be of great interest to other researchers who are studying multisensory processing in the brain."
   Previous research, including studies performed by the lab director, Helen Neville Ph.D., has shown that people who are born deaf are better at processing peripheral vision and motion. Deaf people may process vision using many different brain regions, especially auditory areas, including the primary auditory cortex. However, no one has tackled whether vision and touch together are processed differently in deaf people, primarily because in experimental settings, it is more difficult to produce the kind of precise tactile stimuli needed to answer this question.
    Karns and her colleagues developed a unique apparatus that could be worn like headphones while subjects were in a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner. Flexible tubing, connected to a compressor in another room, delivered soundless puffs of air above the right eyebrow and to the cheek below the right eye. Visual stimuli — brief pulses of light — were delivered through fiber optic cables mounted directly below the air-puff nozzle. Functional MRI was used to measure reactions to the stimuli in Heschl's gyrus, the site of the primary auditory cortex in the human brain’s temporal lobe as well as other brain areas.
   The researchers took advantage of an already known perceptual illusion in hearing people known as the auditory induced double flash, in which a single flash of light paired with two or more brief auditory events is perceived as multiple flashes of light. In their experiment, the researchers used a double puff of air as a tactile stimulus to replace the auditory stimulus, but kept the single flash of light. Subjects were also exposed to tactile stimuli and light stimuli separately and time-periods without stimuli to establish a baseline for brain activity.
   Hearing people exposed to two puffs of air and one flash of light claimed only to see a single flash. However, when exposed to the same mix of stimuli, the subjects who were deaf saw two flashes. Looking at the brain scans of those who saw the double flash, the scientists observed much greater activity in Heschl's gyrus, although not all deaf brains responded to the same degree. The deaf individuals with the highest levels of activity in the primary auditory cortex in response to touch also had the strongest response to the illusion.
   "We designed this study because we thought that touch and vision might have stronger interactions in the auditory cortices of deaf people," Karns said. "As it turns out, the primary auditory cortex in people who are profoundly deaf focuses on touch, even more than vision, in our experiment."
   There are several ways the finding may help deaf people. For example, if touch and vision interact more in the deaf, touch could be used to help deaf students learn math or reading. The finding also has the potential to help clinicians improve the quality of hearing after cochlear implants, especially among congenitally deaf children who are implanted after the ages of 3 or 4. These children, who have lacked auditory input since birth, may struggle with comprehension and speech because their auditory cortex has taken on the processing of other senses, such as touch and vision. These changes may make it more challenging for the auditory cortex to recover auditory processing function after cochlear implantation. Being able to measure how much the auditory cortex has been taken over by other sensory processing could offer doctors insights into the kinds of intervention programs that would help the brain retrain and devote more capacity to auditory processing.

Study: autoantibodies found in millions of people

   (NIH) - 1/19/2012 - More than 32 million people in the United States have autoantibodies, which are proteins made by the immune system that target the body’s tissues and define a condition known as autoimmunity, a study shows. The first nationally representative sample looking at the prevalence of the most common type of autoantibody, known as antinuclear antibodies (ANA), found that the frequency of ANA is highest among women, older individuals, and African-Americans. The study was conducted by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), part of the National Institutes of Health. Researchers in Gainesville at the University of Florida also participated.
   Earlier studies have shown that ANA can actually develop many years before the clinical appearance of autoimmune diseases, such as type 1 diabetes, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis. ANA are frequently measured biomarkers for detecting autoimmune diseases, but the presence of autoantibodies does not necessarily mean a person will get an autoimmune disease. Other factors, including drugs, cancer, and infections, are also known to cause autoantibodies in some people.
   "Previous estimates of ANA prevalence have varied widely and were conducted in small studies not representative of the general population," said Frederick Miller, M.D., Ph.D., an author of the study and acting clinical director at NIEHS. "Having this large data set that is representative of the general U.S. population and includes nearly 5,000 individuals provides us with an accurate estimate of ANA and may allow new insights into the etiology of autoimmune diseases." The findings appear online in the Jan. 11 issue of the Journal Arthritis and Rheumatism.
   Miller, who studies the causes of autoimmune diseases, explains that the body’s immune system makes large numbers of proteins called antibodies to help the body fight off infections. In some cases, however, antibodies are produced that are directed against one's own tissues. These are referred to as autoantibodies.
   A multi-disciplinary team of researchers evaluated blood serum samples using a technique called immunofluorescence to detect ANA in 4,754 individuals from the 1994-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The overall prevalence of ANA in the population was 13.8 percent, and was found to be modestly higher in African-Americans compared to whites. ANA generally increased with age and was higher in women than in men, with the female to male ratio peaking at 40-49 years of age and then declining in older age groups.
   "The peak of autoimmunity in females compared to males during the 40-49 age bracket is suggestive of the effects that the hormones estrogen and progesterone might be playing on the immune system," said Linda Birnbaum, Ph.D., director of NIEHS and an author on the paper.
   The paper also found that the prevalence of ANA was lower in overweight and obese individuals than persons of normal weight. "This finding is interesting and somewhat unexpected," said Edward Chan, Ph.D., an author on the study and professor of the Department of Oral Biology at the University of Florida.
   "It raises the likelihood that fat tissues can secrete proteins that inhibit parts of the immune system and prevent the development of autoantibodies, but we will need to do more research to understand the role that obesity might play in the development of autoimmune diseases," said Minoru Satoh, M.D., Ph.D., another author on the study and associate professor of rheumatology and clinical immunology at the University of Florida.
   The researchers say the paper should serve as a useful baseline for future studies looking at changes in ANA prevalence over time and the factors associated with ANA development. The paper is the first in a series analyzing this data from the NHANES dataset, and exploring possible environmental associations with ANA. The NIEHS supports research to understand the effects of the environment on human health and is part of NIH.
   Source: National Institutes of Health release of 1/12/2012.