Belittling Science Undermines Us All
Belittling Science Undermines Us All
A 3M/Ipsos poll of more than 1,000 Australians published recently found 92% say that science can help us solve the problems of tomorrow and 88% see the connection between science and its role in improving their lives.
The Australian Academy of Science thanks the Australian public for their confidence and trust in science.
Perhaps the 88% of Australians surveyed who see positive benefits to their lives can imagine what life would be like without science and its application-a life without vaccines, no sanitation, no refrigeration, no smart phones, no comfortable dentistry, and no weather forecasting.
In a world in which everybody can be a sceptic but not everybody can be an expert, it is more important than ever that science is explained openly, in language that is accessible, and that the public can readily find sources of information that can be trusted-dispassionate, rational, expert.
This means fostering better public understanding of how science works and how it allows us to build knowledge over time.
Science is a system of knowledge: knowledge about the physical and natural world, knowledge gained through observation and experimentation, and knowledge organised systematically.
The public is aware: 93% of Australians surveyed believe positive outcomes can be achieved if people stand up for and defend science; 92% want business to take action to defend science.
It would be good if scientists stopped publishing in closed access journals, with online publishing being the norm it's difficult to see were a traditional publisher fits in
It would be good if scientists stopped publishing in closed access journals
The thing is, publishing your article as open access generally requires you as the author to pay upwards of $2k USD. I think I've seen some that are around 4k.
I agree that publishers are the proverbial landlords of the academic environment. It's always been absurd to me that scientists pay to publish in journals, and readers pay to access them.. 😵💫
However, (maybe independently of the above) I think there needs be an interpretation layer between some scientific article and the broader public (not popular science articles). Too many times I've seen direct quotes from scientific papers, which are understood within their niche/expert communities, get taken completely out of context or just simply misunderstood. This is completely normal; not even scientists understand the language of other fields in science.
There's been a recent increase in some scientists creating Youtube videos to accompany published works, where they simply talk through their results in everyday language. This is probably in the right direction and helps bring real science to the public in a digestable but unbiased way (then the journal article serves as verification of their claims in the video).
Some journals now also encourage a "plain language abstract" as well, along side the normal abstract.
There's been a recent increase in some scientists creating Youtube videos to accompany published works
Didn't know about that, that's pretty cool
Unfortunately we often don't have a choice because there's pressure to publish in high impact journals which are usually not open access. I would love to be able to publish all of my papers in open access journals!
However, you can often email researchers asking for a copy of their papers and usually they'll be happy to share it.