Follow the Science

In 1600, the Italian scientist Giordano Bruno discovered that there were distant suns with their own planets and potentially, there was life on these planets. In summary, we were not the center of the universe. On January 17, 1600, he was burned for heresy. His opponents put needles in his mouth in the form of a cross to stop him from speaking. 400 years later, we don’t put needles in the mouths of scientists anymore, but the results are often the same: Politics still ignore or better yet misunderstand scientific evidence. What scientists had predicted for the pandemic and what they predict for the environmental crisis should be at the core of informed political decision making. Alas, it is not. Far too often, ‘follow the science’ is just a way to co-opt science for a political message.

I am not sure if I am a scientist or an engineer. I kind of live in the murky world in-between science and engineering, between operations and data, between industry and academia. I have never been able to explain to my family just exactly what I do. So maybe I can offer some opinions on the challenges of understanding just what science is trying to tell us about issues today.

We are getting a lot of pressure these days to “follow the science” especially in the medical and environmental communities. Politicians are often found using this phrase to formulate public policy. But what does it really mean to “follow the science”? According to our friends at Wikipedia the scientific method involves the following: (I have added the emphasis)

“The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century (with notable practitioners in previous centuries). It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method applicable to all scientific enterprises.

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, the underlying process is frequently the same from one field to another. The process in the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypothetical explanations), deriving predictions from the hypotheses as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions. A hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while seeking answers to the question. The hypothesis might be very specific, or it might be broad. Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments or studies. A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment or observation that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.

The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations agree with or conflict with the expectations deduced from a hypothesis. Experiments can take place anywhere from a garage to CERN's Large Hadron Collider or the Hubble Space telescope. There are difficulties in a formulaic statement of method, however. Though the scientific method is often presented as a fixed sequence of steps, it represents rather a set of general principles. Not all steps take place in every scientific inquiry (nor to the same degree), and they are not always in the same order.”

With that long definition behind us, it still is a little creepy when we are the experiment (Covid pandemic or climate change). I believe that the science in all of these fields is done very well. The problem comes when scientists have to communicate their findings to policy makers and through the media to the public at large.

But how many people in the US really understand STEM (Science, Technology Engineering and Math) research? Here is an estimate for the US.

Of the 1.8 million bachelor’s degrees awarded in 2015–16, about 331,000 (18 percent) were in STEM fields. The percentage of bachelor’s degrees awarded that were in STEM fields varied by race/ethnicity. For example, the percentage of bachelor’s degrees awarded to Asian students that were STEM degrees (33 percent) was almost double the overall percentage of bachelor’s degrees awarded in STEM fields. In contrast, the percentages of bachelor’s STEM degrees awarded to Hispanic (15 percent), Pacific Islander (15 percent), American Indian/Alaska Native (14 percent), and Black students (12 percent) were lower than the overall percentage of bachelor’s degrees awarded in STEM fields. The percentage of bachelor’s degrees awarded to white students that were STEM degrees (18 percent) was about the same as the overall percentage of bachelor’s degrees awarded in STEM fields.?????https://nces.ed.gov/programs/raceindicators/indicator_reg.asp

So how many people in the US have a bachelor’s degree (or higher)? Nearly 94 million Americans ages 25 and over, which is about 42% of the total U.S. population in that age demographic, had an associate, bachelor's, graduate, or professional degree, according to U.S. Census Bureau's most recent data.

In 1940, when the census first asked questions about education attainment, less than 5% of adults 25 and over reported they'd earned a bachelor's degree or higher. In 2011, adults with college degrees of all types accounted for 36% of the population. This group has increased by more than five percentage points over the last decade. Though the surge in degree-holding Americans over the last 70 years continues for now, a recent slump in enrollment at postsecondary institutions could slow this growth in years to come.

https://www.bestcolleges.com/news/analysis/2021/07/01/how-many-americans-have-college-degrees/#:~:text=How%20Many%20Americans%20Have%20a%20College%20Degree%3F%201,Columbia%20has%20the%20highest%20percentage%20of%20college-degree%20holders.?

The total population of the United States was 330,150,668 at the December 2019 Census. These include citizens, non-citizen permanent residents and non-citizen long-term visitors. So that gives us about 17 million tops that have some background in how a scientist thinks. That is only about 5%. So, when scientists change their recommendations (which they frequently do as more data and more experiments come in), 95% of us wonder why they just can’t get the answer and stick to the story. It is good for the journalists and politicians who can work both sides of the aisle, but what about the rest of us just trying to understand and believe public rules and regulations? Following the science means dealing with uncertainty and probabilities, making hypothesis, making modifications in current models and adjusting conclusions as the data gets better.

A key question to ask the scientists is whether they are trying to inform or to persuade. Both can be important goals. Within the scientific community the task of informing (presenting results of your research or teaching students) is usually a successful endeavor. But persuading usually means getting outside the community and talking to the general public. If you want to read a good book on what climate science tell us, what is doesn’t and why it matters, I recommend Unsettled by Dr. Steven E Koonin.?

Are most of our brains really wired to follow the science? A lot of us are not very comfortable with this approach but this is the scientific method. Following the science means following a wondering path slowly converging on an answer that might take years, or decades to reach a consensus. Poor Mr. Bruno learned this lesson the hard way. Meanwhile you can always find scientists who disagree, and journalists can always find the outliers for their next headline.

Follow the science seems like an obvious direction but unless we learn how scientists work, this recommendation may not work as well as we would like it to.