From Abraham Lincoln's founding of the National Academy of Sciences in 1863, to the US currently leading the world in the Nobel Prize count (a third of which we owe to immigrants), America was built on science. What happens when we doubt and defund it?
In 2017, science is a political tennis ball being served hard and fast. It's a buffet from which people on the left and right cherry pick their information. It's something to be believed in or doubted. Is Neil deGrasse Tyson worried? "Everyone should be concerned by this, not just a scientist," he says. The reality is, even if science research organizations have their budgets cut, and even if science loses its credibility, scientists will continue to do exactly what they're doing—it just won't be in the US. From jobs and innovation, to immigrants and global clout, Tyson expresses how an America without science will fade away. Science is not a partisan issue; it informs politics, not the other way around. So how can the US hold onto its long tradition as a scientific and economic leader? Tyson's solution is better education, and he pitches one class all schools should teach, but don't yet have. Tyson's new book is Astrophysics for People in a Hurry.
Whether it's palm reading, climate denial, or straight-up illuminati finger pointing, people all around us – and including us – have world views that are inconsistent with evidence.
Denial comes in all flavors. Some think the moon landing was staged, some think Tupac is alive, and others reject vaccines. If the United States learnt anything in the 2016 election, it's that social bubbles need to be broken down — so how do you reason with someone who ignores evidence or bends it to fit their worldview? This has been on Bill Nye's mind more and more since climate change denial has become a political issue rather than a scientific one. People can't change their minds instantly when their beliefs are ingrained, so it's not a matter of convincing them on the spot. Nye suggests working together towards scientific understanding by tactfully pointing out that perhaps this person is rejecting evidence because the alternative makes them uncomfortable. Understanding is a process, not a flip switch. Bill Nye's most recent book is Unstoppable: Harnessing Science to Change the World.
Since the March for Science was planned, it's been mired in controversy from both supporters and those who think it's politicized.
Is it good science in practice or just a smokescreen?
97% of climate scientists agree that the radical changes in the Earth’s climate, over the past century, are caused by human industry. So what about the remaining three percent? One of them recently approached a Congressional committee with a proposal. He wants to create “red teams,” which Congress would fund, to investigate what natural phenomenon could be warming the planet, rivaling the claim that human activity is the main driver. The goal would be to produce evidence to counter the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), among other prominent institutions. The IPCC is considered one of the world’s most respected authorities on global warming.
A "forbidden research" conference at MIT tackles areas of science constrained by ethical, cultural and institutional restrictions.