Lucas Nebert Says...

The rightful place of science should be an important pillar of our democracy. For that reason, it shouldn't as inaccesible and elitist as it is now - it should captivate the hearts and minds of our populace. Yes, I am saying that the politics must change, but so too must science education and the scientists themselves. We must be willing to show some humility and humanity as scientists. Too often science is mistrusted as cold and unethical - and this is largely due to education, but also our inabilities to open ourselves to all people and to their ideas too. There needs to be a dialogue - using the phrase "scientific consensus" only stifles democratic discourse, and further isolates scientists from the rest of the community.

Read more responses from The Rightful Place Project on Facebook

More like this

Many of the commenters on my earlier post about the so-called wisdom of crowds, "Science is not a democracy," have expressed distaste for the phrase "scientific consensus." I don't really share that distaste, and here's why. To me, it's like being disturbed by the phrase "electoral college." You…
Author Chris Mooney has a provocative piece up at the Washington Post today. He argues that scientists are misunderstanding the dynamics of science-policy debates. Because, he argues, ideology often trumps scientific fact in the minds of the public, we (scientists) need to work harder to engage…
Keith Burgess-Jackson questions in his TCS column whether we should listen to people like Noam Chomsky's opinions on politics -- a realm notably outside their stated occupational expertise. I must admit that I haven't read what Noam Chomsky's opinions are lately -- although it is my suspicion that…
As I mentioned last week, I spent yesterday on a panel/in a workshop at Harvard's Kennedy School, "Unruly Democracy: Science Blogs and the Public Sphere." It was an excellent day - I met many interesting people and had some great conversations. Plus, I got to meet Dr. Isis in the flesh! Woohoo!…