LET TERS Edited by Jennifer Sills
America’s crisis of faith in science
PHOTO: CARRI LEROY
FIFTY-THREE PERCENT OF Americans are
not convinced that human activity is causing global warming (1). Why? The issue is faith, not facts. Shockingly few people can actually know—in any intelligent, meaningful way—that global warming is real. The rest of us do not have access to the huge quantity of data, and we wouldn’t understand it if we did. We simply aren’t competent to judge for ourselves what scientists are telling us. Often enough, scientists in one specialty aren’t even competent to assess data and conclusions in another specialty. We cannot see climate change with our own eyes, yet we have faith in the scientific method. That is what gives science the right to an authoritative voice in public policy. Others do not have this faith. Simply stating to them that they are ignoring “facts” is juvenile, naive, and ultimately ineffective. For those of us who are not global warming scientists ourselves, it is also arrogant to insist that others believe what we only know on faith ourselves. The real challenge for scientists and those who speak for them is to inspire the public’s faith in science. What does this mean in practice? (i) Be more open about the data used to support conclusions. Make more data easily available for others, such as journalists, to review. (ii) Be more open about the methods. This was a crucial element in the 2009 controversy over hacked e-mails from a UK climate research institute, which came to light just before an international conference on mitigating climate change (2, 3). Legitimate debate among scientists was misunderstood by some of the public as evidence that the whole premise was unfounded. (iii) Acknowledge the seriousness of scientific misconduct and do more to limit it. Such incidents may be rare, but they are highly consequential. They not only convince people that a particular scientific claim is false; they undermine the public’s faith that science as an institution can be trusted to tell us what we can’t see for ourselves. (iv) Show more respect and less disdain for those who do not acknowledge
OUTSIDE THE TOWER
Bringing science inside prison walls
N
o cell phone, no car keys, nothing in my pockets. I make my way through the metal detector and past the sentry posted in the armored box. I walk into the first of several sealed concrete rooms. Clangs and buzzes signal the closing of one door, the opening of another. I am in prison to talk about science. There is some evidence that embracing the power of nature and learning about science can facilitate the rehabilitation of inmates, pro-social behavior, and relief of corrections fatigue in prison staff (1–4). I have always enjoyed translating science for new audiences, but never for students in prison before. After traversing the maze of security, I stand before my first class, take a deep breath, and begin my talk about terrestrial-aquatic interactions. It is immediately clear that the discussion reaches the women on a personal level. Their eyes brighten when I ask them about their favorite river. They are engaged, attentive, and curious. After presenting in-prison science lectures several times, I realized how little I needed to alter my material for incarcerated students. Their hunger for information overwhelms their lack of exposure to science education, and their questions are just as keen as those of my brightest college students. My favorite lecture was one that merged science and art. We brought paper, pencils, and specimens (plants, shells, insects, pinned butterflies) into the prison and taught the basics of scientific illustration. We gave the students time to observe their specimens, to ask questions, and to explore the morphology of life through multiple senses. In a gray world of sensory deprivation, we gave them moments with nature and a chance to observe the world like scientists. Enhancing scientific literacy in society requires us to cross boundaries and serve new audiences. In my case, that meant literally crossing the most impermeable boundary in U.S. society. My biggest surprise was that physical boundaries are just those—talking about science transforms us from people on the inside versus the outside to just people talking about ideas. Carri J. LeRoy
Sustainability in Prisons Project, The Evergreen State College, Olympia, WA 98505, USA. E-mail: [email protected] REFERENCES
1. C. J. LeRoy, K. Bush, J. Trivett, B. Gallagher, The Sustainability in Prisons Project: An Overview 2004–2012 (Gorham Publishing, Olympia, WA, 2012). 2. P. C. Little, Environ. Educ. Res. 21, 365 (2015). 3. T. N. Kaye, K. B. Bush, C. Naugle, C. J. LeRoy, Nat. Areas J. 35, 90 (2015). 4. Sustainability in Prisons Project (http://sustainabilityinprisons.org/)
Outside the Tower is an occasional feature highlighting science advocacy projects led by scientists and citizen scientists. How do you advocate for science? Tell us at submit2science.org.
SCIENCE sciencemag.org
1 MAY 2015 • VOL 348 ISSUE 6234
Published by AAAS
511
section 7; www.people-press.org/2014/06/26/ the-political-typology-beyond-red-vs-blue/. 2. J. Tierney,“E-mail fracas shows peril of trying to spin science,” The New York Times (2009); www.nytimes. com/2009/12/01/science/01tier.html. 3. J. Tollefson,“Different method, same result: Global warming is real,” Nature (2011); www.nature.com/ news/2011/111020/full/news.2011.607.html. 4. www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-didearth’s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade.
Beware study design measurement errors
Challenge accepted ®
SuperScript IV RT has arrived ®
All-new SuperScript IV RT rises to every cDNA occasion, offering rapid, supercharged synthesis and cDNA yield reproducibility.
Supercharge your RT at lifetechnologies.com/ ssiv
A leap of faith toward science.
established scientific theories. We are not justified in attributing traits of “stupid” and “hypocritical” to people just because they cannot see evolution or climate change with their own eyes and do not feel obliged to take someone else’s word for it. (v) Put more effort into public education in science. Perhaps the best way for more people to have faith in science is for more people to have firsthand experience with the scientific method, even on small scales, and more firsthand experience with scientists. In this way, more of society will understand how scientific facts come to be accepted and how they are checked and, if necessary, corrected. (vi) Be more humble. During the 2013 State of the Union address, President Obama stated that global warming is a “fact” and that the science “was settled.” What science is ever settled? And when did he observe it? If he went with his own direct experiences, he would have to admit that global temperatures have not risen significantly in the past decade (4). What he should have cited was the scientific consensus. Scientists do not typically think it is their business to inspire faith. Their job is to provide facts. But to solve the pressing problems that require public acceptance of well-established science—from global warming to vaccinations to the increasing overuse of antibiotics—scientists must indeed inspire more public faith in their methods and their mutually enforced trustworthiness.
the question?” Perspectives, 20 March, p. 1314) that careful alignment of statistical methodology to research questions will reduce the most common errors in data analysis. The data analysis flowchart they present is an elegant decision tree that should guide not only research scientists but also peer reviewers and journal editors. However, minimizing errors in data analysis is a necessary criterion but not sufficient. Research results can be reproducible yet incorrect. As scientists, peer reviewers, and journal editors, we all need to be fully cognizant of the basic tenets of “measurement theory”: precision, accuracy, reliability, and validity of data. This means that we also need to be cognizant of bias, which can be minimized most effectively during the study design phase. Measurement errors can constitute both random (variance) and nonrandom (bias) components. Increasing sample size in a study will reduce variance but will have no effect on bias, which can be much more insidious in research undertakings. Warren S. Sarle of the SAS Institute made an important distinction: “Mathematical statistics is concerned with the connection between inference and data. Measurement theory is concerned with the connection between data and reality. Both statistical theory and measurement theory are necessary to make inferences about reality” (1). An excellent framework for anticipating and addressing bias in experimental and observational studies is presented by David F. Ransohoff (2). I fully concur with Leek and Peng that “data analytic education” should be a key component of research training, but would like to additionally emphasize that fundamentals of study designs and measurement theory should also be covered in such research training. Deepak B. Khatry
Todd L. Pittinsky Stony Brook University, Port Jeferson, NY 11777, USA. E-mail: [email protected] REFERENCES
1. Pew Research Center, “Beyond red vs. blue: The political typology” (2014),
Arlington, VA 22205, USA. E-mail: [email protected] REFERENCES
1. W. S. Sarle, Measurement theory: Frequently asked questions (ftp://ftp.sas.com/pub/neural/measurement.html). 2. D. F. Ransohoff, Nat. Rev. Cancer 5, 142 (2005).
sciencemag.org SCIENCE Published by AAAS
PHOTO: © PESKYMONKEY/ISTOCKPHOTO.COM
I CONCUR WITH Leek and Peng (“What is
America’s crisis of faith in science
PHOTO: CARRI LEROY
FIFTY-THREE PERCENT OF Americans are
not convinced that human activity is causing global warming (1). Why? The issue is faith, not facts. Shockingly few people can actually know—in any intelligent, meaningful way—that global warming is real. The rest of us do not have access to the huge quantity of data, and we wouldn’t understand it if we did. We simply aren’t competent to judge for ourselves what scientists are telling us. Often enough, scientists in one specialty aren’t even competent to assess data and conclusions in another specialty. We cannot see climate change with our own eyes, yet we have faith in the scientific method. That is what gives science the right to an authoritative voice in public policy. Others do not have this faith. Simply stating to them that they are ignoring “facts” is juvenile, naive, and ultimately ineffective. For those of us who are not global warming scientists ourselves, it is also arrogant to insist that others believe what we only know on faith ourselves. The real challenge for scientists and those who speak for them is to inspire the public’s faith in science. What does this mean in practice? (i) Be more open about the data used to support conclusions. Make more data easily available for others, such as journalists, to review. (ii) Be more open about the methods. This was a crucial element in the 2009 controversy over hacked e-mails from a UK climate research institute, which came to light just before an international conference on mitigating climate change (2, 3). Legitimate debate among scientists was misunderstood by some of the public as evidence that the whole premise was unfounded. (iii) Acknowledge the seriousness of scientific misconduct and do more to limit it. Such incidents may be rare, but they are highly consequential. They not only convince people that a particular scientific claim is false; they undermine the public’s faith that science as an institution can be trusted to tell us what we can’t see for ourselves. (iv) Show more respect and less disdain for those who do not acknowledge
OUTSIDE THE TOWER
Bringing science inside prison walls
N
o cell phone, no car keys, nothing in my pockets. I make my way through the metal detector and past the sentry posted in the armored box. I walk into the first of several sealed concrete rooms. Clangs and buzzes signal the closing of one door, the opening of another. I am in prison to talk about science. There is some evidence that embracing the power of nature and learning about science can facilitate the rehabilitation of inmates, pro-social behavior, and relief of corrections fatigue in prison staff (1–4). I have always enjoyed translating science for new audiences, but never for students in prison before. After traversing the maze of security, I stand before my first class, take a deep breath, and begin my talk about terrestrial-aquatic interactions. It is immediately clear that the discussion reaches the women on a personal level. Their eyes brighten when I ask them about their favorite river. They are engaged, attentive, and curious. After presenting in-prison science lectures several times, I realized how little I needed to alter my material for incarcerated students. Their hunger for information overwhelms their lack of exposure to science education, and their questions are just as keen as those of my brightest college students. My favorite lecture was one that merged science and art. We brought paper, pencils, and specimens (plants, shells, insects, pinned butterflies) into the prison and taught the basics of scientific illustration. We gave the students time to observe their specimens, to ask questions, and to explore the morphology of life through multiple senses. In a gray world of sensory deprivation, we gave them moments with nature and a chance to observe the world like scientists. Enhancing scientific literacy in society requires us to cross boundaries and serve new audiences. In my case, that meant literally crossing the most impermeable boundary in U.S. society. My biggest surprise was that physical boundaries are just those—talking about science transforms us from people on the inside versus the outside to just people talking about ideas. Carri J. LeRoy
Sustainability in Prisons Project, The Evergreen State College, Olympia, WA 98505, USA. E-mail: [email protected] REFERENCES
1. C. J. LeRoy, K. Bush, J. Trivett, B. Gallagher, The Sustainability in Prisons Project: An Overview 2004–2012 (Gorham Publishing, Olympia, WA, 2012). 2. P. C. Little, Environ. Educ. Res. 21, 365 (2015). 3. T. N. Kaye, K. B. Bush, C. Naugle, C. J. LeRoy, Nat. Areas J. 35, 90 (2015). 4. Sustainability in Prisons Project (http://sustainabilityinprisons.org/)
Outside the Tower is an occasional feature highlighting science advocacy projects led by scientists and citizen scientists. How do you advocate for science? Tell us at submit2science.org.
SCIENCE sciencemag.org
1 MAY 2015 • VOL 348 ISSUE 6234
Published by AAAS
511
section 7; www.people-press.org/2014/06/26/ the-political-typology-beyond-red-vs-blue/. 2. J. Tierney,“E-mail fracas shows peril of trying to spin science,” The New York Times (2009); www.nytimes. com/2009/12/01/science/01tier.html. 3. J. Tollefson,“Different method, same result: Global warming is real,” Nature (2011); www.nature.com/ news/2011/111020/full/news.2011.607.html. 4. www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-didearth’s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade.
Beware study design measurement errors
Challenge accepted ®
SuperScript IV RT has arrived ®
All-new SuperScript IV RT rises to every cDNA occasion, offering rapid, supercharged synthesis and cDNA yield reproducibility.
Supercharge your RT at lifetechnologies.com/ ssiv
A leap of faith toward science.
established scientific theories. We are not justified in attributing traits of “stupid” and “hypocritical” to people just because they cannot see evolution or climate change with their own eyes and do not feel obliged to take someone else’s word for it. (v) Put more effort into public education in science. Perhaps the best way for more people to have faith in science is for more people to have firsthand experience with the scientific method, even on small scales, and more firsthand experience with scientists. In this way, more of society will understand how scientific facts come to be accepted and how they are checked and, if necessary, corrected. (vi) Be more humble. During the 2013 State of the Union address, President Obama stated that global warming is a “fact” and that the science “was settled.” What science is ever settled? And when did he observe it? If he went with his own direct experiences, he would have to admit that global temperatures have not risen significantly in the past decade (4). What he should have cited was the scientific consensus. Scientists do not typically think it is their business to inspire faith. Their job is to provide facts. But to solve the pressing problems that require public acceptance of well-established science—from global warming to vaccinations to the increasing overuse of antibiotics—scientists must indeed inspire more public faith in their methods and their mutually enforced trustworthiness.
the question?” Perspectives, 20 March, p. 1314) that careful alignment of statistical methodology to research questions will reduce the most common errors in data analysis. The data analysis flowchart they present is an elegant decision tree that should guide not only research scientists but also peer reviewers and journal editors. However, minimizing errors in data analysis is a necessary criterion but not sufficient. Research results can be reproducible yet incorrect. As scientists, peer reviewers, and journal editors, we all need to be fully cognizant of the basic tenets of “measurement theory”: precision, accuracy, reliability, and validity of data. This means that we also need to be cognizant of bias, which can be minimized most effectively during the study design phase. Measurement errors can constitute both random (variance) and nonrandom (bias) components. Increasing sample size in a study will reduce variance but will have no effect on bias, which can be much more insidious in research undertakings. Warren S. Sarle of the SAS Institute made an important distinction: “Mathematical statistics is concerned with the connection between inference and data. Measurement theory is concerned with the connection between data and reality. Both statistical theory and measurement theory are necessary to make inferences about reality” (1). An excellent framework for anticipating and addressing bias in experimental and observational studies is presented by David F. Ransohoff (2). I fully concur with Leek and Peng that “data analytic education” should be a key component of research training, but would like to additionally emphasize that fundamentals of study designs and measurement theory should also be covered in such research training. Deepak B. Khatry
Todd L. Pittinsky Stony Brook University, Port Jeferson, NY 11777, USA. E-mail: [email protected] REFERENCES
1. Pew Research Center, “Beyond red vs. blue: The political typology” (2014),
Arlington, VA 22205, USA. E-mail: [email protected] REFERENCES
1. W. S. Sarle, Measurement theory: Frequently asked questions (ftp://ftp.sas.com/pub/neural/measurement.html). 2. D. F. Ransohoff, Nat. Rev. Cancer 5, 142 (2005).
sciencemag.org SCIENCE Published by AAAS
PHOTO: © PESKYMONKEY/ISTOCKPHOTO.COM
I CONCUR WITH Leek and Peng (“What is
