Two Harvard professors and a broadcast journalist explored the impact of uncertainty in science research on public opinion and policy decisions in a panel discussion at the Geological Museum last night.
Moderated by Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Dean Allan M. Brandt, the panel—comprised of Harvard Kennedy School professor Sheila Jasanoff, biological oceanographer James J. McCarthy, and National Public Radio producer Bruce Gellerman—presented varying perspectives on the amount of scientific evidence necessary as backing for laws and regulations. These issues, they noted, arise in fields ranging from HIV and the public blood supply to observations of ongoing climate change.
“The questions before us tonight are among the most important in global science and policy,” Brandt said.
Jasanoff explained to a packed lecture hall of Harvard students, high school students, and community members that science is moving away from pure observation and describing “how it is” and turning toward the more difficult and uncertain challenges that come with predicting “how it will be.”
As an example, McCarthy described public opinion on climate change as “skeptical,” despite the numerous and renowned scientific organizations that have spoken out about the issue.
Gellerman acknowledged that what he views as a fast-paced, financially motivated news cycle has contributed to the public’s misinformed viewpoints on scientific issues. Describing the media as “guilty as charged” for conveying inaccurate or distorted messages, he criticized the “one and a half line stories that encapsulate a life’s work” as insufficient to adequately inform public opinion.
One attendee, who said he was a chemist, Business School graduate, and climate activist, expressed his own concerns about conflicting opinions between scientists and the public.
“What’s wrong with this situation?” he said, referring to dissenting views on the severity of climate change. “Because when you listen to the scientists, we’re headed for big trouble, and when you talk to the people on the street, it’s just another day.”
The discussion continued after the panel at a reception on the third floor of the Geological Museum, where attendees had the chance to speak with the panelists in a more intimate setting.
Read more in News
Dunster Library Unlocks Books for StudentsRecommended Articles
-
Earthquake Hits New EnglandRebecca C. Maddalo ’13 was sitting in the basement of Sever Hall in Harvard Yard at 7:12 on Tuesday evening when she felt her chair begin to shake. Wondering what might have caused the mysterious rumbling, she looked online for clues.
-
In Wake of Email Scandal, Professors Mourn Loss of TrustFour days after news broke that Harvard administrators secretly searched the email accounts of 16 resident deans last September, professors called on administrators to address what one called a corroding of a “culture of trust” between the faculty and its leaders.
-
Faculty Meeting Plans to Address Honor Code, Email Searches Not On AgendaEven though a long-awaited discussion on a school-wide honor code will take precedence on the agenda of this month’s Faculty meeting of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, professors said they still expect to find time to discuss secret email searches uncovered in early March.
-
Final Faculty Meeting To Focus on Relationship Between Administrators and FacultyAt the end of a year marked by several high-profile top-down administrative decisions, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences will dedicate a large portion of its final monthly meeting Tuesday to a broad discussion of its relationship with administrators.
-
Study: Public, Policy Experts Disagree on MedicareWhile the public-at-large is predominantly opposed to any cuts in the Medicare program, experts maintain that reducing spending is crucial to balancing the federal budget, the Harvard Opinion Research Program study says.
-
Knowing When You Don’t KnowArguably, as much as it pains me to admit as an avid feminist interested in science, even outrage over Larry Summers’ comment about women in STEM was unjustified. As psychology professor Steven Pinker aptly pointed out, Summers’ statement actually does have potential logical justification— there is evidence suggesting differences, be they the result of genetics or socialization, between men and women’s natural preferences for certain fields. Anyone who disagrees with this argument (myself admittedly included) should argue against it instead of simply ending discourse on the topic and calling for Summers’ resignation.
