IMHO, this opinion gap exists because

• Scientists do not reach out to the public 
• There are deficits in science education. 

Nature has published a nice article on the subject. In the article, Daniel Sarewitz, a geoscientist and co-director of the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes at Arizona State University says that these putative differences in opinion might be driven by factors not examined by the survey — for instance, greater religious, economic and sociocultural homogeneity among scientists than among the general public. 

http://www.nature.com/news/survey-finds-us-public-still-supports-science-1.16818

IMHO, this opinion gap exists because

• Scientists do not reach out to the public 
• There are deficits in science education. 

Nature has published a nice article on the subject. In the article, Daniel Sarewitz, a geoscientist and co-director of the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes at Arizona State University says that these putative differences in opinion might be driven by factors not examined by the survey — for instance, greater religious, economic and sociocultural homogeneity among scientists than among the general public. 

http://www.nature.com/news/survey-finds-us-public-still-supports-science-1.16818

This is a very good question, but how to close the gap, who is responsible for it and what can be done in the media. Who has to bring the results of science to the public. For the moment I don't see it.  

Dear Jose,

intesserting... Hm... Gaps. Between the opinions and the attitudes of scientists and general public, men and women, religious and not, republicans or not....Isn't this the normal state of the human society?

Why do some of these differences of views exist? Becouse we are different. I found something interresting: "Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults":

http://2012election.procon.org/sourcefiles/Kanai_Political_Orientations.pdf

Who knows.... Perhaps that is how the society develops, so... fortunately we are different.

Nice Question Pr Jorge...

People live their lives in many different ways to many different ends.

I fear asking these questions of science and the general public in this way is as valid as alternatively asking how many scientists understand the rules and current state of affairs in internationally competitive synchronised swimming...with some fancy fractions quoted to help illustrate and dandy any apparently significant differences.

This type of question is only of aesthetic value. Its a nice idea that the politics of science and the doing of science should be important to the lives of everyone, but the politics of epistemological capacities can be more constructively examined in other ways.

For example, why would a system of the political order of human interaction, such as a government, ignore (at an institutional level) the work of scientists and other knowledgeable experts?

Especially when these experts are ultimately concerned with continuation of the species on which that government and associated polity consist?

Why? Because we are only human perhaps?

Or maybe because politicians, just as scientists, are experts in their field and more needs to be done to build and maintain trust between these social groups, politicians and scientists in particular, which ultimately possess the same end to their endeavours.

Does not this trust start with acknowledging that we are all only human, where in the apparent basis of the problem is also part of the ongoing solution?

Happy New Year! Here's to one more lap around the sun...and to many more with us around to love and wonder and ponder the mysteries of our collective synchronised swimming at the scale of our solar system.

People learned that in the space of public discourse, everybody lies in accordance with their interests. Why should then common people believe what the media and politicians say? And scientists who speak much in the media are (considered) "politicians".

Citizens’ and scientists’ views diverge sharply across a range of science, engineering and technology topics. Opinion differences occur on all 13 issues where a direct comparison is available. A difference of less than 10 percentage points occurs on only two of the 13.

The largest differences between the public and the AAAS scientists are found in beliefs about the safety of eating genetically modified (GM) foods. Nearly nine-in-ten (88%) scientists say it is generally safe to eat GM foods compared with 37% of the general public, a difference of 51 percentage points. One possible reason for the gap: when it comes to GM crops, two-thirds of the public (67%) say scientists do not have a clear understanding about the health effects.

http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/

The general public has always been driven by opinions, not necessarily concepts and grounded ideas. There is nothing bad about it, just that the life-world happens this way. On the other hand, scientists and scholars have historically been a minority, no matter the place.

We may be entering into the information society or the knowledge society but that does not radically change the situation of the public (included clerks, officials, entrepreneurs, militaries, etc.).

Scientific journalism and the socialisation of science play a most crucial role in closing the gap. The task is immense, and yet it will never be entirely fulfilled. Scientists do have a responsibility of their own in bringing the general public closer to spearhead research. After all, what is stake is the very sense of democracy. 

The differences are  reflective of the reasons up on which these decisions are made:  religious and economic reasons than believing in science. The  constant barrage of media brainwashing of falsifying scientific results by  republican party members and leaders is astonishing. Some republicans even debated about what rape is and when a victim can protect herself from pregnancy after being raped (imagine what the level and understanding of science and education theses people have) and these are in most part who climb to political offices and screw up every reason of truth to keep society and science at loggerheads. 

Last year one republican congressman took an ice to the chamber of congress and was presenting as a reason that there is no global worming but instead global cooling. I am not sure what he will take this year, when there is no ice and the snow disappears even for Christmas and new year making America look like a tropical country. As long as science remains  appreciated and trusted only by very tiny section of society, its influence will not that be that big and effective. Thus the permeability of science in to society is imperative in order natural phenomena such as global warming and other scientific truths are believed and accepted so that governments craft policies accordingly for the well being of the future. 

There are two reasons for gaps between scientists' and general public's views on science-related issues. One is the lack of scientists' endeavor to explain their findings to general public in understandable words. The other is the lack of general public's interests in scientific news. To reduce the extent of the lack of these two kinds and narrow the gaps in the question, the role of education might be most important.

Yes i do agree , there is ahuge gap between the views of general public and scientists. The basic reason as a scientist , i can tell, that lack of that patience  needed in research to feel the outcome of  reaerch  visible in public domain . It takes inordinately so long time from researcg accruing from labs to experimental filed or commercial field of a common growers. This is really a appalling state of affairs , but again there are certain well defined steps to take a develped technology to common growers field.

It is clear that the opinion of scientists comes after extensive studies of a subject and then put the rest of the members of the community. In general public does not depend mainly on experience, but to take the information through the media may be incorrect or correct. Here, the confusion is due to the general lack of public confidence in the information provided by the government or for other reasons.

This is the difference scientific research and commercial requirements.

Scientists create a prototype, but viability for implementation would require various customization, understand end user needs, cost considerations, reaching the customer or user etc.,

There are many development still in lab and forgotten to reach the needy. Scientific research string should always be multi disciplinary till it reaches the user.

Agree with other researchers thanks for this discussion

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

"Study reveals wide gaps in opinion between scientists and general public

Scientists and the public agree on very little when it comes to climate change, childhood vaccine requirements and more, but both groups feel more pessimistic about the direction of science, according to a new study released today from the Pew Research Center.

In fact, when Pew staff looked for overarching patterns that helped to explain why scientists and the public share some opinions but not others, they couldn’t find any, said Lee Rainie, director of Internet, science and technology at Pew Research Center.

“What was really striking about this is that you really had to go issue by issue. There were no really broad patterns,” Rainie said. “There is just such interesting variance in these answers, and there was no single explanation.”

Conducted in collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the study used surveys conducted in 2014 with about 2,000 adults and more than 3,700 U.S.-based scientists who are AAAS members. They were asked both about specific issue and policy areas related to scientific research and technology as well as science’s contributions to society, revealing a wide gulf in opinions between the two groups."...

please, see the rest of the article for complete picture...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/study-reveals-wide-opinion-differences-scientists-general-public/

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

Here are some very nice and interesting articles related to the thread, hope that you find it very useful.....

http://www.pewinternet.org/interactives/public-scientists-opinion-gap/

https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2015/01/survey-reveals-large-gaps-between-scientists-and-general-public-climate-chang

https://newrepublic.com/article/120885/study-gaps-public-scientists-opinion

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/despite-esteem-for-science-public-at-odds-with-scientists-on-major-issues/?responsive=false

http://aci.info/2015/07/17/pewreport/

George says: "... people need to be correctly informed, and it's our duty -as scientists- to make it so."

Correct, but it is not easy to do so. First, the information industry produces misinfotainmet (misinformation, manipulation + entertainment), and it does not tolerate a factual & analytic discourse.

Second, the audience loves (and got used to) misinfotainment, and does not love factual & analytic ("boring", "inconvenient") discourse.

By the way, I wrote a book about these things ("Communication and control") and put it on the Amazon/Kindle. In three months, I sold zero copies. This did nor surprise me: in the Information age, everybody speaks, but rare are those who are ready to listen to.

Dear José,

I do not know the details and how this report is conducted but I feel it is very confusing. “The polls were administered in 2014 to random samples of 2.000 citizens and 3.750 scientists”. This is already not random. I imagine that the survey likely used as “Scientist” an AAAS member and as no scientist a US person with no university degree.  This method is not scientific. It could be done by a blind test in the same environment – like that used in an exit poll after elections, and then ask about scientific degree etc.  I imagine if you ask an AAAS member from the email what he believes for X subject and then ask him the same question in a public center then you likely get distinct answers. 

This is visible with the type of answers, a) 45% of citizens and 65% of scientists favor building more nuclear power plants (20-point gap), b) Merely 37% of citizens say eating genetically modified foods is safe, compared with 88% of scientists (51 point gap). Also 28% of adults and 68% of scientists say eating foods grown with pesticides is safe (40-point gap). 

Why they did not ask a citizen and a scientist if they eat junk food and they asked genetically modified food? Does a scientist that answered yes at the score of 88% knows what is genetically modified food and the effects of pesticides in human health or all scientists that participated in this survey work for Monsanto?

Best, Vassilis

The big gaps, between the views of scientists and the general public on some major scientific-related issues, are due to the wrong doings of the politics of the media which are geared up to serve interests of certain businesses. A VIP imports, e.g. a brand of coffee and few days later, coffee & caffeine are praised in a certain newspaper. After, say two months, an ordinary person brings a new brand of coffee (which will compete with the previous almost sold brand) & the very newspaper will talk about the risks to human health upon the intake of coffee & caffeine ! We need an overhaul to the media of deceit to bridge the gaps.    

Speaking about "views" and "opinions" we should face reality, if we can. In sum, we are *all" less informed and less rational than we think we are. Let me mention two details.

Craig Venter, a leading geneticists, delivered a public lecture about the state of science and the world. The lecture was broadcast by the BBC World. In this lecture, Venter mentioned many remarkable things. For example, he said that 25 percent of the American citizens do not know that Earth revolves around the Sun. This means one out of four citizens. Furthermore, 58 per cent of the citizens cannot calculate a 10 percent tip of the restaurant bill. The situation is similar in many countries. I was very surprised when I read that more than 36 percent of adult Italians did not have the *primary school*. Italy is a country of great art, and of the inventor of science, Galileo. I consider Galileo the inventor of science because he advocated the use of *formal language* (mathematics) and *empirical method* in scientific discourse: this is what makes a discourse scientific.

Second, scientists are often "dogmatic & scholastic" souls, too. I read several times that some fifty percent of professional scientists are religious. For me, religion is a matter of personal choice. However, religious narratives are not compatible with scientific discourse & methods (see the note about Galileo above). In sum, if scientists can live with incoherent narratives, other people can do so, too. And they do not need to apologize for this. Because we are all less informed, more manipulated (by power-holders), and less sincere than we are ready to admit. Excuse me for this "hard" answer; I will take a break now.

Dear José,

Dear All,

What you inquired is a natural phenomenon. General public is not properly trained and is influenced by media/politics.  Another trouble may be that we do not know correctly the conditions of polls.

However, I think the major problem is that some – too much - RG participants do not try to create their own opinion but copy and repeat already mentioned ideas. Regrettably, many participants support these often authoritarian/mainstream approaches. Compared with these secondary and repeated/copied information, the really original views are not favoured (understood). This means that not the thinking, originality – the really scientific attributes/qualities - matter but autocratic like already published concepts. By the way, José - as I have interpreted him -  asked for explanations, opinions and not for an internet survey…       

Dear Mario,

Who lives in the world of perfectly coherent narratives? What are narratives in your interpretation?

What does it mean that “more than 36 percent of adult Italians did not have the *primary school*”? By the way, Galileo Galilei and his contributions are worth of another thread.  

Sharing and dissemination of scientific knowledge does not correspond to proper one. We, the researchers, teachers must give our contribution to bridge the gap that dear @Jose is speaking about. Scientific communication toward society must be advanced. Social media have their role in this area definitely. The role of "science communicators" is very important in digital age. Let's go public!

Dear Ljubomir,

What you have proposed is fine. However, only suggestions of socially supported and appreciated people matter for the common public. Do you know, how people in the street assess you the scientist and your performance?  

It seems that there will always be a somewhat huge gap between expert knowledge and layman understanding. 

Let me bring this fine thread to your attention with so many good responses. Over 140 answers!

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_do_we_feel_the_urge_to_communicate_our_scientific_knowledge

This fine article is for my dear friend @Andras!

"We should reconsider this practice and broaden our reach. Perhaps we publish our opinions similar to our research because this is the forum we know best and feel is most appropriate for our intended audience. Unfortunately, despite the high impact it may have among the scientific community, the message might be inaccessible and unknown to the public...

Is it the public's fault for not listening to scientific reason? Maybe we are also to blame for failing to emerge from our 'private' discussions into a larger public conversation..."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shannon-haymond/a-call-to-action-for-scientists-take-it-public_b_8517410.html

“Science is a huge, sprawling cluster of subjects. We knew from the 2009 Pew Research Center study that there could be differences between the public and scientists on at least some issues. But we were surprised by the size of those differences and how often they occur,” ------ said Cary Funk, lead author of the report and associate director of science research at Pew Research Center.

Despite similar views about the overall place of science in America, the general public and scientists often see science-related issues through a different lens, according to a new pair of surveys by the Pew Research Center in collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

The report finds significant differences in views on 13 science-related issues asked about in the surveys. For instance, there is a:

---51-percentage point gap between scientists and the public about the safety of eating genetically modified foods – 88% of AAAS scientists think eating GM food is safe, while 37% of the public believes that.

---42-percentage point gap over the issue of using animals in research – 89% of scientists favor it, while 47% of the public backs the idea.

---40-percentage point gap on the question of whether it is safe to eat foods grown with pesticides – 68% of scientists say that it is, compared with 28% of citizens.

---37-percentage point gap over whether climate change is mostly caused by human activity – 87% of AAAS scientists say it is, while 50% of the public does.

---33-percentage point gap on the question about whether humans have evolved over time – 98% of scientists say we have, compared with 65% of the public.

http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-express-strikingly-different-views-about-science-related-issues/

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/study-reveals-wide-opinion-differences-scientists-general-public/

http://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2015/01/30/opinion-gap-between-science-and-public-experts-respond/

Dear José Eduardo Jorge,

Thank you for sharing this question. This is a very fundamental question/ problem. There is indeed a gap between research activity and society acknowledgement which may be cured through a number of mutually beneficial activities by engaging in knowledge transfer beyond the university. Unfortunately, lots of research findings have been rendered useless and at most has been ended in a few publications without further benefit to the society. Why this is so? It is because performance indicators imposed by governments decide the main driving force for research behavior. We must give more importance toward  "application oriented" research and quality of research rather than the number of publications. That is to say, our research should be more of applied nature and application oriented research, with publications as a by-product of our research, not vice versa. Therefore, I think a shift towards application-oriented science is needed. 

Any scientific research project must be useful for end users in the community catering the needs of the environment and earth.

Dear all:

I agree with many of you that there are complex situations involved in some of the gaps that these surveys reveal. Of course, as a general rule, we expect to find systematic differences between the views of scientists and the general public, but this report shows things that seem to deviate suggestively from the likely patterns. At least some cases involve probable problems in the process of public deliberation –through which people’s views and preferences are shaped--, including questions about how much the public trust scientists on certain issues and what scientists and their institutions are doing on the matter.

Take, for example, GM foods. 67% of the people think scientists don’t understand well the health effects of this kind of products. This does not seem to be a result of mere ignorance of the public, but a problem related to the credibility of scientists. Why does this happen? In addition, there are powerful discourses in the public sphere that defend the virtues of organic foods. Are they wrong? We should also note that one third of scientists don’t agree that crops grown with pesticides are safe. The consensus here is not complete and perhaps this has an influence on the views of the people.

Since issues like GM foods and the use of pesticides have consequences for the economy, companies and public policy, public discussion on the subject tend to be contentious, so the people receive contradictory messages. Climate change, an issue in which scientific work has been sometimes under attack, is likely the best example.

I see public discussion –on these and other issues—as a process of “collective deliberation”, in which the people watch or read debates, discuss and learn on those subjects. The debates take place mainly on the media and involve experts, think tanks, analysts, journalists, foundations, politicians, ONGs, etc.  Public preferences molded in this way are usually one of the most important references that decision makers take into account. There are lots of discourses that can potentially contradict –for a variety of reasons-- scientific views. I think scientists and scientific institutions should not disregard their role in this process.  

Let me try to answer Andras' questions.

"What does it mean that “more than 36 percent of adult Italians did not have the *primary school*”?" 

I read this several years ago. It means that these people did not have the *complete* primary school. They did not finish all classes. I suppose that the situation will improve with the arrival of new generations.

"Who lives in the world of perfectly coherent narratives?"

There is a difference between a "perfect coherence" and an obvious incoherence. I am not seeking a perfection.

" What are narratives in your interpretation?"

What if I ask you "what is interpretation in your interpretation?"  Anyway, let me try to answer in this way (from one my book):

A narrative is a "collection of stories" (explanations, theories) which sets and promotes certain values, principles, and attitudes. Such stories create in people a sense of meaning and purpose of human endeavours as well as of existence itself ... A narrative has its *ontological*, *epistemic*, and *axiological* dimension: it tells people what is (exists), what is true (known), and what is good (right). A narrative interprets the past, explains and shapes the present, and shows people the way towards the future ...

Good news is that opportunities abound for finding common ground on issues spanning science and society. Americans with a wide array of views, including scientists, clearly are united by the shared goal to improve human welfare by leveraging scientific advances. The large gap, however between scientists and the public is on issues like climate change, the conflict between science and religious beliefs, and the general decline of American favor of science.

http://lenagroeger.com/blog/the-public-understanding-of-science/

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

It’s disconcerting how much of a disconnect there is between the public perception of scientific ideas and what scientists actually say about them. Who deserves the blame for that? It’s hard to ignore the contributions of church leaders, science-denying politicians, and educators who don’t take these issues seriously. Science should be a universally-admired field, but it’s somehow become the subject of political football. All signs point to those gaps growing even wider.

"‘Opinion gap’ between science and public – experts respond

The report found significant differences in views on science-related issues.

• 88% of scientists think eating genetically modified food is safe, while only 37% of the public agree.
• 89% of scientists support the use of animals in research, compared to 47% of the public.
• 87% of scientists polled agreed that climate change is mostly caused by human activity, compared to 50% of the public.
• 52% of the US public favour increased offshore oil drilling, while only 32% of scientists do.

“Such disparity is alarming because it ultimately affects both science policy and scientific progress,” writes Alan Leshner, Chief Executive Officer of AAAS, in a related editorial published in Science. “Speaking up for the importance of science to society is our only hope, and scientists must not shy away from engaging with the public, even on the most polarising science-based topics.”

Please, see the following useful links related to the thread.....

http://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2015/01/30/opinion-gap-between-science-and-public-experts-respond/

http://phys.org/news/2015-01-poll-giant-gap-scientists.html

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/01/30/new-survey-shows-huge-gaps-between-general-public-and-scientists-over-evolution-climate-change-gmos-and-more/

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind02/c7/c7s2.htm

One of the main reasons is "the linguistic turn"! Everything is expresses using some cold symbols, leaving the conceptual expressions almost empty. What is needed is a kind of "synthetic" language which allows scientists to do research and at the same time communicate the results to other scientists and even to public. Another important issue is the writing of books about science accessible to the public, especially for critical issues, such as GM foods, DNA interventions etc.     

The formation of public opinion depends on agenda setting by major media outlets throughout the world. .On the other hand, scientists use scientific method to get facts.

Therefore, it is natural to see gaps between view of scientists and general public.

Dear Jose  interesting answer

In general, there should be publications directed to the general public, explaining the issues of science. There should be also a critical opinion of the public, which can be founded on a proper education.

Dear Ljubnomir,

Thanks for the article.

My aim was to suggest you that you are estimated by the public like I am, according to your salary, car, house, fortune = mainstream prestige. The big public does not interest for your scientific results or ideas. It is your supposed purse what – unfortunately – matters.

@all,good response 

I think that scientists are in general a biased group, so results are reasonable.

Sorry for writting this, but I found common people's reactions better fitted to reality...

Dear Mario,

Thanks for your answers.

Thus, 36% of Italians did not finish their primary school. I think, this has no connection with the general “standard” of Italian culture. I live in a part of Gödöllő where my neighbours may have approximately 2-3 books or fewer per head. Regarding my family, each of us has over thousand books not to speak on our common library. I cannot resist citing Erich Kästner: “What should I buy for my son as a Christmas present? A book. It is impossible, he has had already one.”

Comparing, education level of various countries, this must be different. I read some weeks ago on the education level of migrants arrived to Germany this summer: percentage of illiteracy: Syrians 4%, Iraqi 13%, Afghans 59%. What about the influence of science on these people?

Here you can see some literacy data of the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate

I am not sure that each data was completely honest…

What about the narratives of these people? Or the narrative of those people in Pakistan who did not want to drink water from the same cup with a Christian?

Apropos, narrative. I suggest you a much simpler definition for this notion: “culturally (de)formed personnel principle”. My question, what outputs of a life may determine whether the personnel narrative coherent is or not? Is coherent the narrative of a “successful” terrorist who killed hundreds of people? Or is incoherent a repentant killer who tries to repair his fault?

I am afraid that formal logic cannot help in similar issues.

It depends on the application and truthiness of the scientific output.

Scientists normal rely their judgements on technical documents such as papers in flag journals, whereas the general public form their opinions and judgements based on mass-media and conversations. This makes a big qualitative difference.

There may be twos sides to this

1 - probability of an ill-informed or not so well informed public 

2 - The sampling technique used in both surveys - for the opinion of scientists as well as the public are flawed 

Scientists follow principles, logic and depend on facts; while people in general are followers of feelings and are flexible, hence it is natural that a gap will always exist.

Dear @Jose, your introductory contribution is fine. I have went through PEW research, and here is fine article commenting it.

Major gaps between public and scientists: a problem that kills!

"Data from the Pew Research Center show that there are major gaps between the views of the American public and the country's scientific community. This is aproblem that kills: people make bad decisions for their health, the health of their children, and the health of others' children. (The data go beyond health, including environmental issues, investment in space exploration and GM foods, but I came across them as the news of the first confirmed US measles death in a decade broke last week). 

The Pew data are fascinating and worth digging around in. For me, the demographics of the data about whether children should be vaccinated are especially worrying...

This is where science and health journalism, education and communication have a very important role to play. Good science and health journalism enhances public and civic understanding of the science of healthcare, which in turns means better, more effective decision-making by policy makers, physicians, healthcare leaders and the general public. In theory, this leads to healthier people, lower healthcare costs and better outcomes: fewer preventable deaths..."

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/major-gaps-between-public-scientists-problem-kills-conor-mckechnie?trkInfo=VSRPsearchId%3A577811291457685396831%2CVSRPtargetId%3A6022652790902448128%2CVSRPcmpt%3Aprimary&trk=vsrp_influencer_content_res_name

Science is perhaps not the inherited domain of any one , sometimes , even a politician  can be as effective , more than any one else.  A statesman  politician   may be as  effective as a hard core scientist. It is matter of logical thinking . It could be any one friends.

Prof. Ricardo De la Peña, Independent Researcher (Mexico), sent me his answer:

"The differences result from different backgrounds informative: the population is defined as scientific because it is part of a community that is recognized by their credentials and contributions as such. Overall, this is a high level of education, with which the general public does not count, and an interest in the knowledge that is not present in the common person. Different attitudes and aptitudes cause different substrates for the understanding of phenomena and generates access to different sources of information and different processes for the selection of sources that are given credibility. The average person can guide their opinions by basic information, sometimes biased, extracted from the knowledge of others and by the commercial media. Who is a member of the scientific community seeks to support their views in their professional field and exchange ideas with specialists. It is interesting to note that when natural scientists are asked about social issues often their views are not so diverted from the common person and when social scientists are questioned on matters of nature, often their views are also closer to those of the common person. Then the expertis in a specific field gives a more accurate, updated and informed knowledge, but does not ensure expertis in other fields."

Scientific communication is an issue. Let me bring another good thread dear @Jose, which is related to your question.

Do great scientists communicate with the real world successfully?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_great_scientists_communicate_with_the_real_world_successfully

Good question sir... 

Yes there is a big gap in thinking pattern of scientists and general public because from the very past scientists and general people didn't make much efforts for bringing the scientific views in public ...n it is there in the mindset of people that scince n scientific thinking is against n contradictory to their religion n religiosity.. 

When the decision is filled with uncertainty(or relates to a public good), due to asymmetric info, the phrasing of questions in a negative light tend to elicit more affirmative response from the less-informed general public. This loss-aversion, "closer to home", " encroaching on my turf/welfare" effect is part of the irrationality issues highlighted by prospect theory. In particular, because most have been immunized or unaffected by some vaccine-preventable disease, convincing them to vaccinate is getting tougher. Ironically due to, improved healthcare and reports of failed vaccinations that scare people. We feel the pinch if we are better informed, and more so if it affects us directly. Need to inform...yes; better still personalized the implications that follow if the views are not heeded.

Jose,

I think that part of the problem is in that people do not deal with the facts of that is happening on a daily bases.

The other thing is that the general public does not look at the statistical information with any true understanding and how we present it to people has no true meaning.

It you tell someone that the sea level well rise by 2 inches in this decade they do not see the significants of that.  Sure a scientist looks at that and says... If 75% of the earth is covered in water and the surface area of the water is this many million square miles then 2 inches means that this many million cubic miles of ice had to melt to make that happen.  To the common Joe on the street 2 inches means "No Change".

To the scientist 2 inches in sea level also means that the continents that were caring that weight are now lighter on the earth by that mass and may be that could change the tectonics of the plates or create more earth quacks in other regions that now have more pressure on them.

We as scientists have to put things in terms that people understand.  When I talk about energy transfer or plate tectonics No one know how that affects them.  But if I say that the energy transfer is the same amount of energy that is in 10,000,000,000  atomic bombs or that the weight is the same as all the weight of all the water in the Great Lakes of North America 10,000 times over spread out over the earth.  Then they get some idea of the magnitude of the problem. 

Science does not relate to people on the scale that they have experience with.  A ripple in the background radiation of .0001 % means nothing to Jim in the bank but may signify that a theory of some kind is correct or wrong to the scientist.  

We have to make things that people understand not just people with IQ's above the 150 range.

The other problem is that most of the people in the earth are still worried every day about where their next meal is going to come from and people that are worried about survival are not worried about anything that a scientist has to say.

So from a point of view of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, scientists sit at the top of the self actualization end of the spectrum and the rest of the people fall below that area.  I am not saying everyone but many are still not to the point where this type of stuff is important to them.  It becomes important to them when you start talking about the number of acres of land there use to be per person to live and raise a family on per person is going to get cut in half in the next 50 years if we do not at least try to stop the slide into the sea that is happening. 

There will be a point in the future at which we can no longer stop the problems and the population will have to be reduced or we will all suffer.  So things have to be real to them and important to them.  My ability to retire is in question but what if my ability to retire meant that I had to live in a 10 by 10 room because that was as much space as I could spare for non productive people in the earth as it sinks into the sea.  "This is a metaphor" for the problems so please do not comment on the accuracy of the science.....  This, if you do, is exactly the point....

I do not mean to scare people but the next thing that needs to be done is propose solutions that solve other problems as well.  We as scientists seem to be doomsdayers in our approach to things without a lot of answers.  We see the data and freak out because we know the ramifications of the data.

We need to have solutions to the problems.  Jobs are needed so put more people to work at helping us fight the climate change or what ever the major issue.  If coal is the problem, and it is only part of that, then start companies that use Neutrino's to convert to usable energy, or promote renewable energy hiring.  get a corporate sponsor to build a research facility that studies profitable ways to change the situation and then spend the money in promoting the solutions that come from that by hiring people and training people to run the groups.  We do not have to turn the world upside down, we have to make the system work that we each have in front of use. 

It is not just scientist that are needed.  It is people in construction as we can no longer afford to build buildings that are not going to last hundreds if not thousands of years.  It is in energy, plants and animals, production of new materials, and much more...     

Jose, the problem is numbers that are meaningless to most.

Dear George:

I agree with you that part of the problem are undoubtedly the highly technical aspects involved in many scientific issues that, on the other hand, affect or can affect people's lives. 

But, as you also point out, there is a communication problem between scientists and the public. I think this is the main point of the survey that I cited The gaps are striking and they seem to go beyond what it can be reasonably expected. 

If the process of collective deliberation that shapes public opinion seems to be distorted in such a way on some issues, then what are going to do scientists and their institutions about it?

Prof. Jerry Krase, City University of New York - Brooklyn College, Brooklyn US), sent me his answer:

"Some time ago i did a review of a study in italy on distrust of science by the general public. this implies that to some degree the media presentation of 'science' to the general public can lead to a rejection of science as a reliable source. Vivere l'incertezza Sociologia, politica e cultura del rischio ambientale nelle insecurezze da inquinamento elettromagnetico, by Mariella Nocenzi, REV ESSAY, International Review of Sociology. Vol. 13, No. 3, November 2003: 630-33."

Dear Dr. José Eduardo Jorge, 

I think in most cases, scientists try their best to explain some major scientific-related issues more systematically, historically, statistically, prospectively than non-scientists (the general public).

Best egards,

Geng

There are no simple issues in science. And therein lies the problem.

All the issues mentioned in your question are of such complexity to give someone, anyone with almost any degree of expertise in these fields of endeavor pause. Most scientists have enough experience with cause and effect to understand that correlation does not do more than imply causation. So that even a biochemist cannot say with complete certainty that a vaccine did or did not in fact cause a particular side effect. To strengthen any answer said biochemist could offer, he might necessarily offer a qualification (w/references to research, his reasoning, framing his answer (as best he can—while pointing again to the previous..) in  probability, etc... ) That being said, 

For people who are not scientists, such qualification confuses the answer. And with regards to lay people, such an answer is almost mystifying. Even if the answer is asserted with a high probability, the listener almost always "hears" doubt (the one black swan) so that the listener concludes either the scientist is attempting to obfuscate to serve an agenda, to avoid answering the question—keeping in mind that “most” people assume these issues are definitively known (at least, answerable) especially by "scientists" and our other "experts" (else what kind of world do we live in if even our experts don't know?)

Thus have (I suspect) a great majority of scientists (and others of us deemed “expert”) been reduced to quick Yes/No assertions (why muddy the waters with doubt?) so that vaccines are not “likely safe”; but “definitely” so. And “Human activity poses a likely threat to climatic change” becomes “Global warming induced by human events”. And even if one can point to the unintended deaths surrounding every change in methods to extend foods storage life,  we assert that “GMO foods pose no risk to health” … And since these statements are “more or less” to ”probably” true, they will suffice to inform public policy, will wend themselves into textbooks, and become part of the public’s collective understanding …

If the lay public is confused about these issues, it is because the public has no way to engage critically anything they hear or see on television, in print, etc. No way. For them, scientists are simply “right” because they assert their opinion precisely and with confidence--not to mention because they are degreed, or simply because they are recognized as “expert” in their fields. But without any fundamental knowledge, just how is the public to differentiate between someone who is in fact expert in their field versus someone who just sounds expert or is someone who is simply regarded an expert (because he was educated at Harvard, MIT, or has an MD?)

The fact is, we live in a world where most college-degreed people cannot even explain the difference between astronomy and astrology. We should not be surprised when movie stars’ views on whether our children should be vaccinated are taken over the considered conclusion of an immunologist.

It might be worth posing the question what constitutes expertise? Who is an expert? I have read extensively on this topic (but am open to read more, of course) including recently Collins' "are we all scientific experts now" ... and find no satisfying resolution...

Common mass never bothers about the tits and bits of research papers or their impact factor. They understand only the application of Science and it is a real challenge for scientists to minimize this big gap.

There can be various ways of understanding and answering this question since it goes deep into the roots of knowledge claims,  objectivity and bias against science as a method as well as the opposite bias i.e that of scientists against non-scientists. Let me try to take some of the easier cases from Pakistan.

1. Some preachers spread the word that polio drops are part of a Western conspiracy in order to make Muslims sterile. The result is that a large number of polio vaccination teams were attacked and polio has appeared in parts of the country.

2. Quacks prescribe wonder drugs including amulets which people take with disastrous consequences.

3. Children are beaten in schools since it is believed that if you 'spare the rod' you will 'spoil the child'. Psychologists who say that children should be taught without such draconian physical punishments are ridiculed as Western propagandists.

4. Talk of global warming and greenhouse gases as well as womens' rights and human rights is considered irrelevant since these are the concerns of Western 'experts' and not those of Pakistanis.

In short, there are large sections of the public, and this includes educated people too, who tend to reject or resist modernity and its associated beliefs. Now whether it is because former colonies have a conflicted experience of modernity or not, the net result is that some of the pet hatreds of society are nurtured by such attitudes. In the end women and children suffer because of such biased rejections of science and modern values.

I find that anthropologists, with the best intentions no doubt, often end up defending local values and assumptions against what they call 'Western hegemonic narratives'. Thus, I am appalled that some of them come very near defending attitudes which result in killing women for 'honour' and not vaccinating children.

I think that the masses should be educated into accepting that science does change and that it is a strength not a weakness. Instead of defending either the present-day 'experts' or giving up on expertise altogether and letting quacks and conspiracy theorists fill up the space, we should promote an understanding of the methodology of science and build up faith in the methods of rational inquiry which have achieved so much for making life better.

http://www.pewinternet.org/interactives/public-scientists-opinion-gap/

Hamit,

The reason for this gap is apparent to anyone that looks at this from the outside of science.

I use to be on the outside and when I was looking inside I saw things that did not make sense to me. I had professors tell me that I was not smart enough to know the truth, and then disocered things that were outside what I was told were possible.

I realized that science did not know about everything they thought they knew, yet there were willing to go to the wall to defend the opinion they held as true. In this kind of environment the public starts to develop a skeptical opinion of the scientific community. This is Dangerous and has to do with scientists not letting go of things that are not true or can be proven to be wrong but are still believed by the scientific community.

We must correct the course of this trajectory or we are bound to fail in science. There are several aspects of science that are wrong but still thought of as true.

Until we get our head out of the sand science and the public (which are not idiots) will not see eye to eye.

Even the study that you are talking about with GMO's is in question. As a scientist that studies food chemistry, and amino acids has question about the GMS's

My understanding of the GMO market is that in general they are safe however there are some areas that have me worried.

There are from 21 to 23 amino acids that are essential for human life. There are hundreds or even thousands that are created in nature. There are tens of thousands of these amino acids that are possible to be made. The human body recognizes many of the natural amino acids and works to use or get rid of the excess. However of the ones created by GMO's manufactures there are several that are not recognized by the human body and this creates an immune response by the body. This is inflammation that is or can be the cause of many problems in the human body. As a scientist I want to know that what I am eating is not creating my body to reject part of the food.

Until we have the companies that fully disclose what is in and what is rejected by the human body that they are creating I feel that it is my duty to be skeptical about the safety.