How did science get so political, and what does science itself tell us about how research is accepted (or not) in a politicized landscape? Questions like those were the basis of the much-heralded March edition of The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, co-edited by Elizabeth Suhay and James N. Druckman.
Piggybacking off the success of that issue, Social Science Spaces and the AAPSS are hosting a webinar on May 14 at 9 a.m. Eastern that features Suhay, assistant professor of Government at the School of Public Affairs at American University and two of the authors in that special edition -- Dan M. Kahan, Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Law and a professor of psychology at Yale Law School, and Francis X. Shen, McKnight Land-Grant Professor and associate professor of law at the University of Minnesota -- discussing the nexus of science, politics and law. The webinar is free and will include ample time for questions from the audience.
We are taught that science is an objective arbiter, separating fact from fiction. With this in mind, we might expect that when a majority of scientists state their belief in an empirical phenomenon—say, that human activities are contributing to climate change, or that humans evolved from lower life forms—that well-educated nonscientists would follow suit. Yet, given current politicized debates over climate change and evolution (and vaccines, and GMOs, and other scientific subjects), we know this is not the truth.
Again thinking of science as an objective arbiter, we might expect that science employed in the service of legal proceedings and lawmaking would be an uncontroversial affair, with experts converging in their interpretation of academic studies and those studies’ implications to the case or policy before them. Yet, here too reality is far from our idealized expectation, as legal professionals, policymakers, and ordinary citizens (in their roles as jurors and voters) frequently disagree over how laboratory findings translate into law and legislation.
Make no mistake: Science is our best bet for understanding the world around us and for crafting many legal decisions and much legislation. Yet, nonscientists don’t always consume science responsibly, sometimes refusing to accept scientific consensus, sometimes stretching the implications of novel areas of scientific study past their breaking point, sometimes “spinning” the outcomes of scientific studies in support of a desired political or legal outcome. In this webinar, we try to make sense of these biases in public understanding of science as well as in the application of science to law and public policy and recommend ways to overcome them.
1. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
Make sure your
volume is set
appropriately
Make sure you have
followed the instructions
on your keypad properly
Make sure everything is
plugged in properly to assure
your devices are working
correctly
If you have audio
or visual
difficulties, please
let us know via
the Question box
and we will be
happy to assist
you.
Please Check Your Settings
#SocialScienceLive
2. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
When Science
and Politics
Collide
#SocialScienceLive
3. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
Elizabeth Suhay
Co-editor of the Politics of Science issue of
ANNALS and Assistant Professor of
Government at the School of Public Affairs,
American University
#SocialScienceLive
4. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
While we do our best to answer as many questions as we can, time constraints
may not allow us to answer every question. Thank you for understanding.
Send us your questions!
Send in your questions
via the Question Box
on your screen. →
Using Twitter? Use
the hashtag
#SocialScienceLive.
#SocialScienceLive
5. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
Dan M. Kahan
Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of
Law and Professor of Psychology,
Yale Law School
Francis X. Shen
McKnight Land-Grant Professor
and Associate Professor of Law,
University of Minnesota
#SocialScienceLive
6. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston#SocialScienceLive
7. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
Science is inevitably political
• Science helps us to understand the world around us,
including …
• What problems we face
• Who is responsible for those problems
• Efficient ways to solve those problems
• For these reasons, science informs public policy and law
#SocialScienceLive
8. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
Science is inevitably political
• Because of science’s ability to direct human activity
through policy and law, people fight over it
• Coalitions seek to …
• Discredit science that undermines their values / interests
• Promote science that bolsters their values / interests
• Interpret, frame, spin science (where implications
ambiguous)
• Sometimes conscious, often not
• Let’s make the ubiquity of science bias better known!
#SocialScienceLive
9. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
Outline of today’s webinar
• Introduction
• Dan Kahan presentation
• Francis Shen presentation
• Panelist discussion
• Audience Q&A
#SocialScienceLive
10. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
Dan M. Kahan
Yale University
& many x 103 others
www.culturalcognition.net
Belief in Climate Change: What We Know
vs. Who We Are
Research Supported by:
National Science Foundation, SES-0922714
Annenberg Center for Public Policy
Skoll Global Threats Fund
11. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
What am I talking about?
12. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
What am I talking about?
Everything I know about climate science communication:
13. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
What am I talking about?
Everything I know about climate science communication:
#SocialScienceLive
14. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
What am I talking about?
Everything I know about climate science communication:
What ordinary members of the public “believe” about climate
change
15. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
What am I talking about?
Everything I know about climate science communication:
What ordinary members of the public “believe” about climate
change doesn’t reflect what they know;
16. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
What am I talking about?
Everything I know about climate science communication:
What ordinary members of the public “believe” about climate
change doesn’t reflect what they know; ; it expresses who they
are.
17. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
“Belief” in evolution
#SocialScienceLive
18. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston#SocialScienceLive
“Ordinary Science Intelligence”
Assessment
OSI_1.0 OSI_2.0
19. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
Ordinary science intelligence: item response functions
Nationally representative sample. Colored bars reflect 0.95 level of confidence
20. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
Ordinary science intelligence: item response functions
Nationally representative sample. Colored bars reflect 0.95 level of confidence
21. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
Ordinary science intelligence: item response functions
Nationally representative sample. Colored bars reflect 0.95 level of confidence
#SocialScienceLive
22. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
Ordinary science intelligence: item response functions
Nationally representative sample. Colored bars reflect 0.95 level of confidence
23. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
Ordinary science intelligence: item response functions
Nationally representative sample. Colored bars reflect 0.95 level of confidence
24. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
Ordinary science intelligence: item response functions
Nationally representative sample. Colored bars reflect 0.95 level of confidence
25. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
Ordinary science intelligence: item response functions
Nationally representative sample. Colored bars reflect 0.95 level of confidence
26. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
Ordinary science intelligence: item response functions
Nationally representative sample. Colored bars reflect 0.95 level of confidence
27. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
Teaching evolution to “nonbelievers”
28. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
“Belief” in global warming
Annenberg Center for Public Policy & Cultural Cognition Project. N’ = 1957.
Nationally representative sample, April/May 2014 (YouGov). CIs reflect 0.95
level of confidence intervals. Source: Kahan, D. The Science Communication
Measurement Problem, Adv. in Pol. Psych. (in press).
29. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
“Belief” in global warming
Annenberg Center for Public Policy & Cultural Cognition Project. N’ = 1957.
Nationally representative sample, April/May 2014 (YouGov). CIs reflect 0.95
level of confidence intervals. Source: Kahan, D. The Science Communication
Measurement Problem, Adv. in Pol. Psych. (in press).
30. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
“Belief” in global warming
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
< avg. Left_right
> avg. Left_right
Science ComprehensionVery low
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
< avg. Left_right
> avg. Left_right
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
Very low Very highScience comprehension
None at all
Extremely high
risk
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
> avg. Left_right
< avg. Left_right
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
Science Comprehension
Very low Very high
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
Ordinary Science Intelligence
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
> avg. Left_right
< avg. Left_right
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
Science Comprehension
Very low Very high
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
globalwarmingrisk
Annenberg Center for Public Policy & Cultural Cognition Project. N’ = 1957.
Nationally representative sample, April/May 2014 (YouGov). CIs reflect 0.95
level of confidence intervals. Source: Kahan, D. The Science Communication
Measurement Problem, Adv. in Pol. Psych. (in press).
Kahan, D.M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L.L., Braman, D. & Mandel,
G. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate
change risks. Nature Climate Change 2, 732-735 (2012).
31. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
32. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
r = - 0.65, p < 0.01
33. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
“Belief” in global warming
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
< avg. Left_right
> avg. Left_right
Science ComprehensionVery low
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
< avg. Left_right
> avg. Left_right
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
Very low Very highScience comprehension
None at all
Extremely high
risk
globalwarmingrisk
Annenberg Center for Public Policy & Cultural Cognition Project. N’ = 1957.
Nationally representative sample, April/May 2014 (YouGov). CIs reflect 0.95
level of confidence intervals. Source: Kahan, D. The Science Communication
Measurement Problem, Adv. in Pol. Psych. (in press).
34. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
“Belief” in global warming
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
< avg. Left_right
> avg. Left_right
Science ComprehensionVery low
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
< avg. Left_right
> avg. Left_right
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
Very low Very highScience comprehension
None at all
Extremely high
risk
globalwarmingrisk
Annenberg Center for Public Policy & Cultural Cognition Project. N’ = 1957.
Nationally representative sample, April/May 2014 (YouGov). CIs reflect 0.95
level of confidence intervals. Source: Kahan, D. The Science Communication
Measurement Problem, Adv. in Pol. Psych. (in press).
35. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
“Belief” in global warming
globalwarmingrisk
0
.1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9
1
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
< avg. Left_right
> avg. Left_right
Science ComprehensionVery low
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
< avg. Left_right
> avg. Left_right
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
Very low Very highScience comprehension
None at all
Extremely high
risk
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
> avg. Left_right
< avg. Left_right
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
Science Comprehension
Very low Very high
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
globalwarmingrisk
Kahan, D.M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L.L., Braman, D. & Mandel,
G. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate
change risks. Nature Climate Change 2, 732-735 (2012).
Annenberg Center for Public Policy & Cultural Cognition Project. N’ = 1957.
Nationally representative sample, April/May 2014 (YouGov). CIs reflect 0.95
level of confidence intervals. Source: Kahan, D. The Science Communication
Measurement Problem, Adv. in Pol. Psych. (in press).
37. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
“Belief” in global warming
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
-2.5 -1 0 1 2.599th percentile1st percentile 84th percentile16th percentile 50th percentile
Probabilityofcorrectresponse
There is “solid evidence” of recent global warming
due “mostly” to “human activity such as burning
fossil fuels.”
Ordinary Science Intelligence
Liberal
Democrat
Conservative
Republican
Annenberg Center for Public Policy & Cultural Cognition Project. N’ = 1957.
Nationally representative sample, April/May 2014 (YouGov). CIs reflect 0.95
level of confidence intervals. Source: Kahan, D. The Science Communication
Measurement Problem, Adv. in Pol. Psych. (in press).
38. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
Teaching evolution to “nonbelievers”
39. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
This measures who we are . . .
Nationally representative sample. Colored bars reflect 0.95 level of confidence
40. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
This measures who we are . . . so measure what we know
instead
41. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
Disentanglement principle:
“Don’t make reasoning, free people choose between
knowing what’s known & being who they are!”
42. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
Disentanglement principle:
“Don’t make reasoning, free people choose between
knowing what’s known & being who they are!”
43. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
Disentanglement principle:
“Don’t make reasoning, free people choose between
knowing what’s known & being who they are!”
44. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
Disentanglement principle:
“Don’t make reasoning, free people choose between
knowing what’s known & being who they are!”
45. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
The climate science communication measurement problem:
What we know Who we arevs.
46. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
What we know Who we are
How to disentangle
from
The climate science communication measurement problem:
47. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
Disentangling knowledge & identity: a lab experiment
48. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
Cultural Cognition Project SE Fla. evidence-based science
communication initiative
Disentangling knowledge & identity: field studies
49. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
“How much risk do you believe global warming poses to human health,
safety, or prosperity?”
United States as a whole (summer 2013)
Southeast Florida (Fall 2013)
no risk at all
Egalitarian communitarian
Hierarch individualist
A polluted science communication environment . . .
An unpolluted one . . .
no risk
at all
01234567
-1.6 -1 0 1 1.6
None at all
Extremely high
risk
Very low
Low
Between low
and moderate
Moderate
Between moderate
and high
High
Very liberal
Strong Democrat
Very Conservative
Strong Republican
Liberal
Democrat
Conservative
Republican
Moderate
Independent
r = - 0.65, p < 0.01
Left_right
“How much risk do you believe fluoridated water poses to human
health, safety, or prosperity?”
01234567
-1.6 -1 0 1 1.6
01234567
-1.6 -1 0 1 1.6
r = 0.07, p < 0.01
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
“How much risk do you believe medical x-rays poses to human
health, safety, or prosperity?”
None at all
Extremely high
risk
Very low
Low
Between low
and moderate
Moderate
Between moderate
and high
High
Science Comprehension
34567
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
> avg. Left_right
< avg. Left_right
Extremely
high risk
no risk
at all
Extremely
high riskno risk
at all
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
None at all
Extremely high
risk
Very low
Low
Between low
and moderate
Moderate
Between moderate
and high
High
Science Comprehension
> avg. Left_right
< avg. Left_right
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
01234567
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Extremely
high risk
“How much risk do you believe global warming poses to human health, safety,
or prosperity?”
4 SE Fla. Counties
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
01234567
-1.6 -1 0 1 1.6
None at all
Extremely high
risk
Very liberal
Strong Democrat
Very Conservative
Strong Republican
Moderate
Independent
r = 0.07, p < 0.01
< avg. Left_right
> avg. Left_right
Science ComprehensionVery low
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
< avg. Left_right
> avg. Left_right
01234567
-1.6 -1 0 1 1.6
r = - 0.65, p < 0.01
Very high
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
Global warming
01234567
-1.6 -1 0 1 1.6
Very liberal
Strong Democrat
Very Conservative
Strong Republican
Liberal
Democrat
Conservative
Republican
Moderate
Independent
r = - 0.60, p < 0.01
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
01234567
-1.6 -1 0 1 1.6
None at all
Extremely high
risk
Very liberal
Strong Democrat
Very Conservative
Strong Republican
Moderate
Independent
r = 0.07, p < 0.01
< avg. Left_right
> avg. Left_right
Science ComprehensionVery low
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
< avg. Left_right
> avg. Left_right
01234567
-1.6 -1 0 1 1.6
r = - 0.65, p < 0.01
Very high
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
34567
Global warming
50. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
4 SE Fla. Counties
51. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
Disentanglement principle:
“Don’t make reasoning, free people choose between
knowing what’s known & being who they are!”
52. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
What is to be done? You tell me!
53. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
Communicate normality
54. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
Not “us vs. them”
just us, using what we know
Communicate normality
55. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
Proselytizing the normality of climate science
56. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
Not “us vs. them”
just us, using what we know
Communicate normality
57. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
Just us, using what we know!
58. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
Just us, using what we know!
59. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
Communicate normality
60. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
New data: shame & critical reasoning!
www.culturalcognition.net
61. Science Narratives and the
Law: The Link from Lab to
Legislature
Francis X. Shen
University of Minnesota Law School
MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law &
Neuroscience
May 12, 2015
65. Politics and the Future of
Neuroscience, Law, and
Public Policy
Science Narratives
and the Link from Lab to
Legislature
The Brain Takes Center Stage
66. Politics and the Future of
Neuroscience, Law, and
Public Policy
Science Narratives
and the Link from Lab to
Legislature
The Brain Takes Center Stage
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73. Source: Michael S. Gazzaniga, Neuroscience In The
Courtroom, 304 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN 54 (2011).
77. Politics and the Future of
Neuroscience, Law, and
Public Policy
Science Narratives
and the Link from Lab to
Legislature
The Brain Takes Center Stage
81. Neuroscience Narratives
:: Topics covered by brain bills
Alzheimer’s * Autism * Brain Death * Brain
Injury * Civil Commitment * Crime Victims * Criminal
Defense * Early Childhood * Education * End of
Life * Foster Care * Health Care * Juvenile
Justice * Mental Health * Military Veterans *
Neonatal * Parkinson’s * Parole * Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder * Privacy * Sex Offenders * Shaken Baby
Syndrome * Special Education * Sports
Concussions * Toxins * Veterans Courts
82. Politics and the Future of
Neuroscience, Law, and
Public Policy
Science Narratives
and the Link from Lab to
Legislature
The Brain Takes Center Stage
83. The Public
:: Self-reported knowledge in national sample, N = 814
How knowledgeable would you say you are about science?
How knowledgeable would you say you are about neuroscience?
2%
6%
11%
34%
24%
14%
8%
19%
25%
23%
17%
10%
5%
0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Not at all knowledgeable Somewhat knowledgeable Very knowledgeable
Science Knowledgge
Neuro Knowledge
87. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
Panelist Discussion
#SocialScienceLive
88. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
While we do our best to answer as many questions as we can, time constraints
may not allow us to answer every question. Thank you for understanding.
Send us your questions!
Send in your questions
via the Question Box
on your screen. →
Using Twitter? Use
the hashtag
#SocialScienceLive.
#SocialScienceLive
89. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston
Webinar recording, slides, and follow-up Q&A will be emailed to you and available on
socialsciencespace.com.
Thank you!
Be sure to check our website for updates on our webinar series!
#SocialScienceLive