The Pew Center has a new batch of polling out about scientists, taken by both scientists and the public at large. There are some very interesting findings in here. I’ll take them one at a time:
I’m not sure how to make sense of this one. On the one hand, we are viewed very positively, even better than doctors. But how do you explain the view of U.S. scientific achievements? There really isn’t any question that the majority of the worlds best science work is done on U.S. soil (note: usually, but not necessarily, by Americans).
Here’s another rich one:
29% say that private investment ensures enough scientific progress without government investment. Nope. Without the NIH and NSF, academic science would cease to exist, plain and simple. I’ve traditionally been an anti-big government type, but it’s important for people to realize that science is funded principally by the government.
Here is a great one:
Only 52% of the public, compared with 93% of scientists, favor the use of animals in research. I wonder if “animals” to them means “puppies.” Last time I checked, worms, frogs, flies, and mice were all animals. And without the use of them, biological research (including advancements in everything you can imagine, from cancer to development to neuroscience and beyond) would come to an abrupt halt. Each of those organisms serves as a vital “model system” that has propelled biological research for decades.
This one was a bit of a shocker:
It might depend slightly on the wording, but this seems lower (32%) than what I have seen in public polling for evolution for a while. For that matter, even the scientists’ number is lower than I would have predicted.
But finally, let’s wrap it up with probably my favorite one:
This confirms what I would have guessed based on my experiences. Scientists just don’t identify as Republicans. It’s obviously true in my famously liberal university, but even back as a student in Indiana, it felt pretty much the same within the science department. And Bush certainly didn’t help to improve the relationship by denying global warming, banning embryonic stem cell research, and editing out reports that contained results they did not want to see. I wonder what the percentages were before Bush was president. I’m sure they were still bad, but not this bad. It’s one of the many ruined legacies Bush left behind.
A lot of those numbers are disappointing, but they don’t surprise me very much. It worries me that the public doesn’t perceive government funding as essential, but I understand why they would see it that way since the inner workings of the NIH and NSF are not publicized. What we hear of more often are the billions poured into R+D by pharmaceutical companies. The costs and benefits of public funding for research are rarely felt directly by the public, but the prescription drug market is something everyone has to deal with so they may think industry is more significant.
The numbers that actually bother me are the ones for public perception of evolution and global warming. Global warming I can blame on politicians, but that kind of misunderstanding of evolution is… America’s fault? It’s not like it isn’t in our textbooks, and it gets plenty of exposure in our culture wars. It’s a little sad to think of how little progress there’s been advancing public knowledge of science.
I think the “by natural process” clause threw a lot of the respondents off on evolution.
This is anecdotal, but I’ve met many people who agree that humans evolved from other life forms, but they believe it was part of a plan by a higher being. Thus it would not really be by natural process or chance.
This poll also showed only 4% of the public being atheist, and I’d often seen numbers quoted closer to 8-10%, so even with the survey group of 2,000 people, they may have been a bit off.
OF COURSE, the Scientist support the use of animals in research. Afterall, these terrorists in White Coats, legalized animal abusers, get their bread and butter from government grants. A human being who purposely inflicts pain, injects diseases, maims and breaks bones, blinds and injures brain tissue of helpless, innocent animals is an animal abuser. Only difference is he/she is protected by our current laws, and exhalted for her/his cruelty to defenseless, restrained animals. Disgusting and shameful actions – some of us know what these high placed Nazi scientists truly ARE. Depraved, evil human beings strutting on their ill perceived perch of power.
You might want to rethink what stands for reasoned discourse on this topic if you want to engage in a productive conversation (as opposed to just name calling). I am a scientist employed by the federal government, and I am also not a terrorist. Moreover, I don’t do any of the things you describe. And even if I wanted to (I don’t), there are layers of bureaucracy set up at every university like mine to ensure that the animals that are used in research are treated within ethical guidelines, so as to eliminate suffering.
And I have a couple questions for you. Do you oppose the use of animals like worms and flies (neither of which has bones to break like you describe)? And finally, are you a Christian Scientist? I ask because your tone suggests to me that you probably don’t use many medicines. Because almost all of them are in place solely because of research that was done on animals first, and it wouldn’t really seem fair for you to benefit from those medicines while also calling me and most of my friends Nazis.
Linus,
(Reasoned discourse, productive conversation) Clearly, any input opposing the use of animals in research will be viewed as unreasonable and unproductive, as your post reflects. Congratulations to you if your particular field of science doesn’t require the torture of animals. Yes, the term torture is applicable for intentionally, methodically bringing pain, terror and death to another living being who is restrained and imprisoned, or bred exclusively for a life of misery in institutional exploitation of animals. Just what do you think is done to the animals in research?.. if you say none of your friends participate in torture? Perhaps they are not in the field of using animals as things – research tools.
I totally agree that there are layers of bureaucracy involved, but the (questionable) ethical guidelines set up to eliminate suffering would be laughable if not so deadly for the victims. These so-called (Pitiful) ethical and animal care regulations are accessible on National Health Institute’s website as well as on any University’s sites, along with detailed facts of the routine practice of torture of animals. Would a reasonable person call these regulations, “Kind Cruelty” ? Is there such a term? No, I don’t think so, except perhaps in the underworld of legalized torture. Are there ethics in coldly inflicting suffering? The common animal abuser is considered a criminal, while the scientist is protected and supported by our government and the selfish consuming masses who cannot think for themselves, or plainly don’t possess an ounce of compassion for the creatures of our planet. Fortunately, many among the masses are waking up to the crimes committed against helpless animals in the name of science, and though the forces against ethics, morals and compassion for these most vulnerable among us are powerful, we will speak for those who cannot speak or choose, and we DO hear their cries for mercy. And no, I am not a C.Scientist and won’t give your ridiculous and over used question thrown at animal advocates about worms and flies my time of day. In fact, this question is a tactic popular in religious communities, to soothe their souls over their self ordained right to torture animals for the benefit of humans, – humans such as the terrorist glorified as scientists.
I have neither asked nor condoned any torture of animals for any medical or otherwise benefit – my tax dollars are used for this without my permission. All medical benefits would have progressed without the use of animals.
Why won’t you give the question about flies or worms any time of day? In a typical biology department like mine, there are dozens of labs that use only flies and worms. And those very model systems are the reason we understand development, genetics, and genomics. I myself am uncomfortable with the use of mice in research (the only vertebrate animal used in any lab at my department), and could never personally use them. But you oppose the use of “animals” in research. I have drawn a line for myself, but you apparently have not. So the question is legit. Flies and worms are animals, and our understanding of biology would be crippled without them. Is it fair to use them or not? Moreover, the only organisms I use are yeast cells and E.coli cells. These are not animals, but they are living things, and I certainly kill millions of them at a time. Is this ok? And please understand that I am not being glib or rhetorical when I ask this. Everyone agrees that lines must be drawn when using living things in research; what we disagree about is where to draw it, and so far I don’t know where you would draw yours.
And your statement that all medical benefits would have progressed without the use of animals is probably one of the most patently false statements I have read. You probably think scientists are lying to themselves when they say they follow guidelines to ensure that animals used for research don’t suffer. Fair enough, I suppose. But I wonder if you will consider for a moment that you are lying to yourself as well the next time you use almost any medicine.
I stated that the so-called guidelines to ensure that animals used for research are ineffective, pitiful and are a moot point since suffering, terror, pain and death is the end result to the animals in animal research. As I said, “Kind Cruelty” at best. Evidenced by documented video, photographs, witness testimony and scientific reporting itself, the animals clearly appear to suffer, whether drugged or brain dead from poking around in their skulls. I would never lie to myself, and I would never torture an animal under any circumstances.
I am indeed guilty of partaking of the few medications I consume because of the animals who suffered for it. Doesn’t mean the suffering was necessary or has to continue. Call it a lie if it makes you comfortable.
Good for you, with your yeast, flies and worms or whatever, though I doubt you could draw the line on what victim you would torture if you were in another field of science, – if you wanted to keep your job. BUT you do support animals being used as research tools by your silence, and condoning your fellow scientists’ torture.
I care nothing for your or your comrades’ awards, achievements and status in the scientific world. I only know that I see the fear, pain and unspeakable betrayal to the creatures of our planet in their eyes, and I cannot forget or be silent. I ask for them Justice and Mercy.–To live in freedom from terror, pain and exploitation by human hands – from my heart. Not very scientific, eh? Its enough for me, and thankfully, a growing number of people who recognize a wrong, and don’t need a scientist to define it.
I think your empathy for animals used in research is admirable, whether you believe me or not. But your empathy for your fellow human is a failure. Did it ever occur to you that I could have entered any biological field I wanted, and that not having to use animals was indeed partly why I chose the one I did? I was willing to meet you halfway. I was willing to find common ground. I was trying to identify beliefs that we shared in common. But you, apparently, are not. And your labeling of flies and worms as “whatever” is ignorance, plain and simple. They are animals. Can we use them? Until you empathize with scientists, try to see the shades of gray, and acknowledge the reality that worms and flies are animals, this conversation has no future. Fine. You win. We are all terrorists and Nazis. Feel better now?
Sorry, no emphathy for torturers of animals, scientist, medical professional, individuals – Yes, you kno you can use them. Perfectly legal you kno.
No, I will not “feel” better until the use of animals in research is stopped. However, I am glad you accept the name Nazi and terrorist so graciously, but I think your conscience is being pricked just a bit, and perhaps you will question the current laws/regulations that fall far from protecting animals, and examine brutal practices to which animals are subjected in all research venues, private corporations and institutional. Thank you and wish you a good life, without harming animals.
Artists, as much as I sometimes love them, do seem to hate science for no particular reason.
I’m a fan of it, of course. When in history have this many people had this standard of living, this level of productivity, and this long of a life? Never.
Thanks, science!
That reminds me of something. I was once walking and talking with Stendhal back at college, and said to him something like, “A liberal arts education includes exposure to the sciences,” upon which a girl within hearing distance in front of us whirled around and nearly shouted “That is not true!” There’s a weird animosity that some liberal arts/humanities students/artists/etc. have towards the sciences.
As a side note to this discussion, one of the problems here is Nita’s categorization of worms, yeast, etc. as “whatever.” We live in a world with a variety of living creatures, and it’s easy to build a preservation campaign for a large-ish furry, lovable or otherwise non-gross animal (polar bears, giant pandas, bald eagles, etc.). Trying to convince everyone that it’s worth saving some tiny Hawaiian fly, which does nothing but pollinate one specific flower with which it evolved symbiotically — well, that’s a tough sell.
I’m reminded of a series of Bloom County comics (by noted vegetarian Berkeley Breathed, for what it’s worth) in which the animals and humans of Bloom County are convinced to stop eating meat, or wearing fur, or leather, or in the end, breathing too hard to kill too many germs.
That’s why, although PETA is stupid in many (read: almost all) ways, they were at least morally consistent when they told Obama to quit swatting flies.
[...] scientists, taken by both scientists and the general public. Most readers probably missed it, but buried at the bottom of the page is an exchange of several comments between me and someone who might charitably be labeled an animal [...]
[...] August 1, 2009 by Linus Andrew Sullivan hits the nail on the head when it comes to interpreting this result from the Pew survey on science (which I profiled in more depth previously): [...]