Follow the science

[prudencepuffin]

Radio 4 asked on the Today programme as the question for today: "What role should science play in everyday life?"
This feels rather relevant in the area of sex and gender and( also anti-vaxxers), but being as this is the sex and gender board, lets concentrate on the first.

As I'm a scientist, I don't know where to begin with this!

As far as most people's everyday life goes, perhaps one of the most important things would be for the media to up its game. Employ more properly scientifically literate people. Make a clearer distinction between what's mainstream validated science and what isn't.

I heard that article, @prudencepuffin!! I was shouting at the radio, Then what about this unscientific gender nonsense??... I'm surprised that you (and the rest of Britain) couldn't hear me.

When will someone join the dots. Please.

Science is, essentially, finding out what information we can hold to be true. And considering "how do you know?" something is vital, in my eyes.

It's probably at least a daily occurrence, not just "testing" things for oneself but evaluating how we would satisfactorily know something was likely to be true. Unfortunately I think as a society we are quite poor at this - I thought we were ok but then I read MN threads on things that are easy to look up and verify (eg "is X legal") and they're full of people basically guessing and passing it off as fact!

Nah, who needs science?! Let's close hospitals and pharmacies and all their evidence based medicine. Let's treat cancer through yoga. No need to worry about building standards; fire retardant cladding? That is so last year! The problem with Grenfield was the cladding wasn't an LBQT++++ flag. And I am sure Radio 4 would work just as well if presenters sat in a field and sent out thoughts instead.

@Lovelyricepudding

Nah, who needs science?! Let's close hospitals and pharmacies and all their evidence based medicine. Let's treat cancer through yoga. No need to worry about building standards; fire retardant cladding? That is so last year! The problem with Grenfield was the cladding wasn't an LBQT++++ flag. And I am sure Radio 4 would work just as well if presenters sat in a field and sent out thoughts instead.

And never mind the evidence that black and white pedestrian crossings are most visible, it’s far more important to be inclusive so let’s paint them rainbow colours instead.

#bekind

It should play a central role!
The scientific method of debating and proving or disproving and factually reviewing a consensus opinion should also be part of everyday life.

But "Follow the Science(TM)" is to some extent just an excuse to avoid proper policy debate.

"You can't debate this, it's Science!".

It's an attempt to avoid doing your job by claiming that it's all been settled by other people non-democratically.

Very much the pattern you see in the trans stuff - lots of unsubstantiated claims of certainty that don't stand up.

@NecessaryScene

But "Follow the Science(TM)" is to some extent just an excuse to avoid proper policy debate.

"You can't debate this, it's Science!".

It's an attempt to avoid doing your job by claiming that it's all been settled by other people non-democratically.

Very much the pattern you see in the trans stuff - lots of unsubstantiated claims of certainty that don't stand up.

But you know (obviously) that's not what science actually is. And that's why we need to improve science literacy!

One problem is that there are far too actual scientists in politics. I seem to recall that you could count people with "STEM" (bleugh) qualifications in parliament on a couple of hands.

far too few actual scientists, obviously

askforevidence.org/about

Agreed - you can join the campaign to ask for evidence...

Yes it’s a major problem that we don’t have many scientific or medical MPs now. Hopefully that might change in future elections. Good few in the Lords thank goodness.

Sadly, we has Dr Sarah Wollastone until 2019, who proposed that babies were 'assigned' male or female at birth.

@ErrolTheDragon

As I'm a scientist, I don't know where to begin with this!

As far as most people's everyday life goes, perhaps one of the most important things would be for the media to up its game. Employ more properly scientifically literate people. Make a clearer distinction between what's mainstream validated science and what isn't.

I agree. Part of the problem in my view is that with the advent of internet and social media, and the subsequent downturn of print media, the science journalists have all but disappeared. So has the science editor in many places.

So now, the PR department of the company or university where the authors of a new study work, puts out a press release hyping whatever the PR department thinks will garner the most publicity. Far too often that misrepresents the actual results of a study.

But there's no one to correct the problem. And given the well documented issues with peer review and replicability in various fields, it really does need someone trained in looking at methodology and statistics and science - someone who is scientifically literatate as you say - and who can then then write about that so a lay audience can understand it to report properly about science.

I'm not sure we'll get back there again. (And although it wasn't perfect by any means, it was a damn sight better than what we have now.)

^literate FFS. What a way to demonstrate literacy...

Here's another aspect of this, just in from WPATH - saying that gender dysphoria treatment should not be debated outside of proper Scientific circles.

USPATH and WPATH support scientific discussions on the use of pubertal delay and hormone therapy for transgender and diverse youth. We believe that such discussions should occur among experts and stakeholders in this area, based on scientific evidence, and in fora such as peer-reviewed journals or scientific conferences, and among colleagues and experts in the assessment and care of transgender and gender diverse youth. USPATH and WPATH oppose the use of the lay press, either impartial or of any political slant of viewpoint, as a forum for the scientific debate of these issues, or the politicization of these issues in any way.

twitter.com/jessesingal/status/1448142256930758661

Don't look at the Science, lay people!

You know, many religious authorities back in the day didn't like the idea of the Bible being translated into English so that normal people could read it themselves...

Well, parents are stakeholders, that's a given. So are lesbians concerned about young lesbians seeing transition as a way to escape lesbophobia. And women's rights campaigners concerned about the wellbeing of girls and young women.

Of course, those are groups they're not willing to engage with either.

Plus, and I find this ironic, WPATH is notorious for not using an evidence-based approach to formulating their policies and they most definitely include lay people unwilling to listen to the experts.

Good points, Charlie.