Leaving the Ivory Tower

LEAVING THE IVORY TOWER

Meaning:A state of mind that is discussed as if it were a place

Classified under:Nouns denoting cognitive processes and contents

The term ivory tower originates in the Biblical Song of Solomon (7:4)[1] and was later used as an epithet for Mary.

From the 19th century it has been used to designate a world or atmosphere where intellectuals engage in pursuits that are disconnected from the practical concerns of everyday life.

• Today's scientists are no longer constrained simply by the laws of

nature, as was generally the case in the past, but also by the laws (and

attitudes) of the land.Norman Ralph Augustine (born July 27, 1935) is a U.S.

aerospace businessman who served as Under Secretary of the Army from 1975 to 1977. Augustine currently serves as chairman of the Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans Committee.

Science and society: Just like a marriage

• Once upon a time there was an era in which, when science spoke, citizens took off their hats and listened to the Word, in silence.

• In those days people believed what the doctor, physicist or agronomist said.


• That period, a long honeymoon with science, is over. At the end of the Sixties, the term “scientific” began to take on negative connotations, evoking more doubts than certainties.

• In the collective imagination the promise to continue to improve life for all began to lose ground to negative icons called “DDT”, “Chernobyl” or “Talidomide”.


• As with every important group, from the government to the Catholic Church, science and technology too had to abandon the safe port of a sacred social role, to face the open sea of distrust, controversy and public assessment or, to use a more fashionable word, accountability.

• It became necessary to account for their choices, not only to the general public, but also to the same institutions which had previously supported them unconditionally (probably because of the long-lasting upshot of their victorious role in the Second World War first, and later the Cold War).


• The best way to understand the relationship between science and society is perhaps to compare it to a marriage. Just like a married couple, science and society look for and need each other, and are joined by an unwritten, but no less binding contract. Society needs science as its driver for social, economic and political success, while science lives off the resources, talents and freedom that the society makes available.

• In the good old days (even if they were not as good as memory would have them) the partnership between science and society resembled old fashioned marriages. We were all poorer, but at least the husband (alias science) was “the head of the house”, or at least he could exercise a certain amount of authority. Then, when his authority was questioned, the marriage itself underwent a crisis. The most important The couple’s complaints represent its most important symptom.


• If we listen to science, it tells us that society does not understand it, that it is not interested in scientific results and does not understand how science works. It does not pay attention to those questions science knows the most about and exaggerates its (few) errors, while taking for granted its (immense) benefits.

• Society does not take it into consideration often enough and cuts off its life supplies; in short, society shows little or no gratitude. If, on the other hand we listen to society, it tells us that science causes problems that it does not know how to solve. It caters to governments, the military or multinationals, not to the interests of the common person whose taxes pay for research. It does not want to explain what it does to anyone, even if it seems clear that it is pursuing the most futile curiosities. It is a world int he shadows, out of control. It does not explain itself (perhaps even intentionally).


As in a true marriage, the first step to solve a crisis is to understand the other’s reasons, whether they are right or wrong, because dialogue begins with these.

Understanding the other’s point of view and explaining your own means knowing how to communicate. Until today, however, a different approach has been used.

of the Public Understanding of Science

The rise and fallof the Public Understanding of Science

–Our most urgent and direct message must be to the scientists themselves:

learn to communicate with the public, be willing to do so and consider it your duty to do so.

The Royal Society Report on The Public Understanding of Science, 1985


The scientific community’s reaction to this crisis gave birth to the idea that it was society that had to understand science and that everything would be fine if only citizens had greater scientific knowledge.

The idea behind the vast majority of communication activities was the so called Public Understanding of Science. This expression became a label for every type of initiative (books, articles, exhibitions, museums, events) launched by the scientific community for the general public, and an explicit objective for programmes, committees, foundations, agencies, scientific associations and institutions in every developed country.


• According to its basic premise, known in the specialist literature as the “deficit model”, the root of public controversies on science or technology is the fact that citizens lack an understanding of scientific knowledge, theories and methods.

– Thus, if these were translated from specialist terminology into more popular language, the controversies would automatically resolve themselves.

a deficiency or failing, especially in a neurological or psychological function.


– In this model, science and society are considered

“two social bodies separated by a sort of semi-permeable membrane which allows the flow of information (dissemination) and actions (technological innovation) from science into society, but it does not permit flows in the opposite direction”.

an excess of expenditure or liabilities over income or assets in a given period


As far as communication is concerned, the public is considered a basically homogeneous and passive audience for the “pure” knowledge produced by scientists, who are the source of the flow of information, and to some degree the censor as well.

The choice of what knowledge ought to be given is therefore based on the presumed cultural and cognitive gaps in the public, rather than on their questions, interests and skills.


Choices and opinions, no matter how right, cannot be imposed in a democratic society: no one would accept them and the attempt to do it would almost surely backfire.

A consensus must be created about the choices to be made, just as in a marriage.


Choices and opinions, no matter how right, cannot be imposed in a democratic society: no one would accept them and the attempt to do it would almost surely backfire.

A consensus must be created about the choices to be made, just as in a marriage.


-the idea of transforming citizens into little molecular biologists or little statisticians is much more difficult than can be imagined. For at least three reasons.

First, they would need to know too much. To get a real idea ofThe possible risks of electromagnetic fields, for example, it would be necessary to be familiar with the nature of electromagnetic radiation, its interactions with living cells, and the epidemiological research on them. Yet how many areas of expertise should our poor citizens have to master?

Second, the so called paradoxof specialization: as the quantity ofknowledge produced increases, or isat the least revised (two things whichare happening at a terrifying speed),the possibility for a single individual tomaster it is reduced.

In society the basis of shared knowledgecan only diminish: if, on thewhole knowledge is growing, thencontemporarily the individual experienceof ignorance can also grow.


The third reason is the lack of sufficient motivation. How many people are willing to invest the time and effort necessary to get a good scientific education? What incentives would they need? To get an idea, just think what it would be like to ask a scientist “to become literate” in another subject of great social relevance, such as law.

Would (s)he be really willing to delve into the technicalities of criminal procedure or administrative justice that are essential for a really informed opinion? Outside of our professional niche, we are all “public”.


It is difficult to make forecasts. Attitudes and opinions are in fact the product of complex processes that depend on individual mental models, which in addition to factual elements include emotions, ethical considerations, prior knowledge and value judgements.

These are all things which cannot be modified with a simple addition of a little more information. To begin with then, an effective communication requires a Scientific Understanding of the Public. Communicating Science is, then, something a bit more sophisticated, in which psychological, and especially emotional concerns play an important part.

Could this be where the problem lies? Has the flame of love gone out in this marriage, at least in the heart of society?• 20 -

Do people care about science and scientists?

\

• http://amisstome.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/science-communication-breakdown/

Should journalists as science translators for the public really be reporting on individual papers that are published? Obviously journalists try to only report papers that have some sort of significance to the public that people connect with, but should we redefine what “news story” means so that it depicts more general studies or projects rather than highly specific experiments or results?

People care about stories that matter to them. As much as I hate to admit it, just because I am deeply fascinated by the expression of meiotic genes during echinoderm embryogenesis doesn’t mean everyone else is. This makes sense. People are busy, and they only want to hear about stuff that will affect them and the things they care about.

Unfortunately, the way science works is simply not conducive to intriguing people other than… well, scientists. Not every paper published warrants the words “important discovery” in its corresponding news story headline, and not every finding made in a laboratory can be applied to the real world. That’s just the way it is.

• http://amisstome.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/science-communication-breakdown/

Science is an iterative process. Here’s an analogy: each finding is a brick we stick in a wall in its proper place, and as you go along over time building up new findings, the wall’s gaps begin to close and details are filled in. Scientists have to work from specific to general because that’s the only way they are able to perform carefully controlled experiments and obtain objective results.

Think of it as trying to measure the right amount of water into a cup. You pour too much, then take too much out, then add a little, etc. until you finally get it just right. Scientists may dance back and forth across the “just right” line because that’s what the science is telling them, but they are always getting closer to the right answer. My question is: should science reporters refrain from telling the public each time a finding occurs and instead focus on relaying the more general conclusions scientists make at the end of a series of experiments? Basically, the final final point?.

It can be frustrating to see science as it is portrayed in social media. Many times the meaning can be lost – or worse, twisted until it is inaccurate – by the time it has gone through multiple translations and summarizations to get to the average American reader’s eyes.

It is frustrating to the public to see news stories depicting scientists as “changing their minds” over and over again, but really what is happening is all those small findings are being layered on top of each other and giving the scientists a clearer, more informed picture of what is actually happening.

Sometimes, individual studies can have a high impact, and sometimes it’s just nice to know what the science world is up to. Other times, perhaps this is not the case. It’s especially difficult for scientists to know what the public would be interested in, because typically they’re interested in science in general. But here’s some advice in the meantime:

Be a critical reader. If you see the word “groundbreaking,” it usually means the journalist is exaggerating. Take everything with a grain of salt, and do not become discouraged by the capriciousness that seems to come with scientific findings. Keep in mind that science is a process and that a “discovery” is, 99 times out of 100, a small piece of a very large puzzle.

http://amisstome.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/science-communication-breakdown

Dialogue with societyBefore talking, you must listen.To make yourself understood,you must first understand.

Annamaria Testa

Even if implicit, the new contract between science and society increasingly more often determines what can or cannot be done in the laboratory. In almost every field, scientists must now explain the meaning and aims of the research they intend to carry out.

And if they are unable to do so, or they encounter other types of issues, for example bioethical, they may see the necessary financing or the very permission to continue certain types of research denied.

In this new context, your own spaces need to be negotiated, and to negotiate you must communicate, which means knowing each other and exchanging ideas.

In order to create a climate of faith and trust there must be channels of communication which are always open and scientists must be willing to communicate.

Instead of asking only “what do people need to know”, we should ask “what do people think they need to know”, “what will be the effect on people of what I want to say ”, “What do they know, or think they already know”. Indeed, if communication is to be successful we need to deal with reality, but also with the perception of this reality held by the people you want to communicate with.

Documents

Leaving the Ivory Tower