Talked about this at zow calla scare. Forhis is the awardwinning reporting on the worlds oceans award. Pulitzer and contributes to the long and times and Senior Editor and writer. Thank you it is great to see a robust crowd and energetic crowd. I have been a fan of zow calla and it is my anniversary and i did it on Climate Change and great to be back. I would like to introduce erik conway, historian of science and technology and coauthor of a book merchants of doubt. Nd next is kerry funk from washington, d. C. , director of science and Society Research at the Pugh Research center and reports on the public trust in science. Views from energy and climate nd vaccines and we have ucla a sociologyist Whose Research how the life works. Why people care about what they care about and how moral concerns relates to science and religion. Im going to jump right in. We are gathered this week during the anniversary of humankinds scientific achievements, you cant escape, the apollo moon landing to discuss this issue of whether and why americans are turning against science. I would like to start with the panelist by asking is this new or something long been with us . Has americas relationship with science been changing over time . I would like to ask erik to start . I asked for this start. People seem to think this idea that americans are turning against science is kind of new. But social Science Surveys that have been done for decades and one study from the 2012 dug into this idea of whether this is a new idea. Using the general sciences, social Science Survey data from 1974 to 2012. And in the works, it was founded that back in 1974, people were skeptical of science and people who defined themselves as political moderates. Which opened my eyes, im like, i would have never thought. People, were selfdefined conservatives and liberals thought about the same. And what has happened, the rules maintained the same level of trust and science. Moderates had the same distrust but just plummeted. O its far well below now what the moderate distrust is. Why does it happen and thinking about it has been the root of my work. During the actual apollo years of the 1960s, the general public opposed it. And didnt reach the majority approval and sixmonth window of that within that mission. We have rebranded it a Great Success but it was not appreciated by most of the public. It was an enormous amount of money. We dont think hard about this. But what apollo costs in todays dollars, 200 billion and another 250 billion on the missile program. People thought that was an enormous amount of money. There were race riots in the United States throughout the 1960s right around apollo and people said shouldnt we solve these problems on earth. Your organization has studied science and peoples relationships through numerous polls through issues. Can you talk about any trends you have seen or things you have noticed . The Pugh Research center, we do Public Opinion surveys. I want to step back in terms of the bigpicture things we see. Number one, most americans say when you ask them do they see positive benefits coming from science on the whole. Number two, you see this idea of continued optimism for technological investments, the Space Investments might be one of those. People anticipate continued change. But when it comes to trust, often we see more of a mixed pattern. On the whole, people have at least a fair amount of confidence in scientists to act in the best interests of the public. But it is a minority, certainly less than half that might have what you have strong trust and great deal of confidence. A large every glupe has a fair amount of confidence. You might think of that as a soft positive. And we have only one independent kind of survey that looked at trust over time from the 1970s to today. And what is surprising there is what they find is that confidence in scientists and leaders of the Scientific Community has been stable over time. And thats striking because we are living in an area of lower trust in institutions and lower trust in government today. That is striking. Gives some people a relief in the Scientific Community but stable doesnt necessarily mean high. There is still room to grow. When you look at different issues, vaccines, modified food, Climate Change, are those lumped together . Im against science, im against all those things . It is important to remember that science is a vast enterprise and we study the pieces of science that is connecting with ethical, policy issues. It is not surprising that they collect with our political divides and religious divides. But one of the Key Takeaways is how people think about these sciencerelated issues, whether climate issues or vaccines, there is no single group in society that kind of takes what you might think of as a position that against the Scientific Consensus or skeptical of the position. It various. Climate issues are highly politically polarized. So thats what is interesting. We are living in a time where we do have a lot of uncertainty in the future. Looking at global Climate Change. And have the powerful tools. People are editing the gee noem and human embryos and some of them have politicalreligious overtones. Is it politics and religion that is polarizing people further against science. You studied with muslims and their beliefs. Do you see the simple, you know legend versus access science in your work . That is a great question. Thank you for coming out tonight. m used to teaching ucla undergraduates. He fact this is a full crowd means im doing something differently. [laughter] this is a great question and dovetails what kerry was talking about. We find that there is not really a desire from any american that we interviewed equal tatetively or quantitatively who dont like science. Science won the game. Science is extremely popular in erica and thats part of the problem. Historianscientists will tell you we dont know what science is. If you talk to a historian of science and there is a thing called science, their head will explode because science is so chaotic and wont say there isnt a thing called biology. Et i found in my work in two high schools, people are comfortable talking about a thing called science and they were convinced that science proved evolution wrong. I dont think thats true. But its interesting, right. It is the need to use science to make their case. A universe, this is what the bible says and thats it. But they dont. So its interesting when people hear that word, the thing that they hear is what you need to hear is science. They think science is necessary and superinteresting to me as a sollingsist. To answer your question, you know, we really think those of us who study this stuff has to do with identity. Basically, there is a lot of complicated jargon. If something is important for your identity, you dont want to change your mindf something is not important, you will get new data, sure, i guess ill go there. If it is relevant to your identity, you are unwilling to change and will think lots of complicated ways around to keep thinking what you wanted to think to maintain that piece of your identity. When people dislike science, its not they are more or less committed to science but those elements of science conflict with their identity. It is about identity stuff and not about rational thinking or capacity to understand ordeal with science. Tons of studies and in my own work, these kids did very well on the ap science test. They knew the right answers but just thought they were wrong. [laughter] what would you do with that, right . Its a complicated problem. An interesting point you raised, what do people mean by science and there is a bigmon legitimateic structure trusted or not trusted. You i recommend, a nation ruled by science is a terrible idea. Can you talk about your these cyst in there and what do we mean by science . If you want to have a nice day on twitter do not pick a fight. That is a poor life choice. [laughter] i just started my job and i got a letter from the chancellor myself ad and not call real scientist. It is a whole separate conversation. There is a huge debate that goes all the way back and goes further back than him, one of the most famous is what ume, what is and ought to be. Can you derive what we should do based on what we can see. There are a lot of different thoughts but im pretty much in the school, which is a substantial school that you cant. And so, if we have 1,000 as a city council, hopefully we get some more money. What are we going to do . Are we going to build a library, park or tax cut. Science cant tell us what what to do there. Kids will have a better life outcome. Science can help us know there will be more jobs. Thats all great. But whether or not the beauty of a park is better than the joy of a library is not a scientific question and thats ok, right . Callhat is something of us nonscience, but the idea that science will solve all of our problems and its frankly antiintellectual. It refuses to recognize the importance of philosophy and recognize poetry and art and all the literature and the ways to think about life that science can give us access to. Science has a specific role to play and its not all the roles. It refuses to see that science can be manipulated for a lot of reasons. And i want to look at our Climate Change and that aspect. It seems to be a clear issue where paid critics are upending the debate on what is happening to our planet and how quickly is it happening. Erik, your wonderful book discusses this and can you talk a little bit about what you and with your coauthor the Climate Science and the fobe science that are book came about because, my day job as a nasa historian let me to look into a director. And i was looking to see what his recommendations had been to nasa in the early 1980s as to what the science programs should be in the future. I had some free time and i noticed im sorry, i have something stuck in my throat. I hope that works. Mars and i sat there are gasping before i could get going again. Lets hope that doesnt happen. And i just happened to notice that he had filed correspondence der the george d. Marshall institute and it is engaged in science. Rt to cast the guy, one of the major climate researchers, has to do with these clowns. He is one of the founders. That are actually was a toxic moment for me because i could watch and see his records historians, you see 20 years of a persons life go by in an afternoon. The science of climate went one way and he went the other. And i met him a few months later in a meeting in germany. And she was working on kind of the flip side. Another physicist was very involved, early adopter of Climate Change science and he went to his grave rejecting technocs. What causes some scientists tom accept the conclusion of their pierce and what causes others to reject . It depends very much owe individuals upbringing and motivation and so forth. But then we got talking about this issue for climate and one of us we cant agree anymore and which of us agreed on this tobacco connection. We agreed to disagree and we started. And then we had something new because it is the same guy and our argument is what drew them ogether was we call market fundamentalism. The idea that only unregulated markets can protect freedom. Who tracked the the evolution thinking on Climate Change or have they been muddied still by political thinking on the topic . Yes, there is Public Opinion surveys about Climate Change, energy and environmental issues. No surprise that there is a very wide political divide on these issues. So what you see are that republicans and democrats in particular just take totally different positions, including things like the likelihood of effects on wildlife, on other kinds of things. So pretty much any question that you ask related to climate, energy, environmental issues, you tend to see this kind of divide and seen a divide like this for a long time. This is not the only political divide in society. Remember that we are living in an air aa of political poll raiseation and what we saw around 2004 i think you started to see it where you really saw the divisions in society across a whole range of social and political issues just wideend up. And that is what they call the political polarization. E typical democrats grew opposition to the typical republican and we are more polarized and not just ideological positions but there is a sense of animosity as well. And then do you see that are liberals are less likery to vaccinate . We dont. Beliefs about childhood vaccines those are not associated with politics. So thats one of the thats one of the examples. If we are going to go into caveats, you can find political divides particularly if you raise more policyoriented issues, because at the end of the day there is a different policy orientation, role about the role of government that drives these. If you are framing something in terms of should vaccines be required or not, that kind of raises the notion of government involvement and more likely to see a political divide over that. Are vaccines safe, what are the risks and benefits, you dont see any political divide. We have seen these huge Measles Outbreak in california and it seems to me people are putting others at risk. Its very, the refusal to vaccinate is a strong opinion among some. Are there religious reasons but has it come up in your research . Certainly, there are communities that have been more oppose todd vaccination. I would say that this is not i mean we were talking about 1970s, but this is a very old story. This is a bit of a nerd joke. But im going to do one of the st biblical things that an academic and cite tokeville. This goes back to him. And theres this real success michiganon of authority in the United States. And one of the things that led to the secondgrade awakening in american religious history which is the most historical moment hat led to the i study in this book, the second grade awakening came out of suspicions of ministers. Who are necessary elite east coasters. I can read it fine on my own and dont need anyone else tell me how to do it. Historians said it wasnt about ministers but lawyers and government officials and medical doctors. There was a general suspicion of elites and this real sense that you think you are better than me . This is what he described when he talked about democracy in america. Democracy in america has this underbelly to it where there is obsession with equality and has this lovely effect and dangerous effect in that it assists on intellectual equality such that expertise is suspicious. I know whats good for my baby. That is not just a religious thing. Its a very old sense biment. And in some ways present dates the era but was very important. The issue of authority is very important. I know i have seen polls where trusted officials and scientists are not below them. On one hand they are trusted is a good authority. I think about a study i heard where third grade teachers were asked to draw a scientists and they were men in white coats and stick figures with einstein and not women. There is a view like charles darwin. He had his ideas when he was 23. Ut its this idea of sort of whitegraybearded author tatetive. It seems like a conflict because we are a society doesnt want to be told what to do. We love being told to do but tell so, in my fieldwork, no one dislikes science, but they have strong opinions about scientists. They are so secular, they want to push their secular philosophy on us. It is true about gmos, all sorts of things. Tendsientific consensus to be pretty strong, but people will sort of look and say, you know what, but this works. St here, science i would rather have an appendectomy from a medical doctor from a barber. As a rule, that seems like a safe bet to me. I think that people generally of, they like electricity, bridges that carry a certain amount of where it amount of weight. But, there are things that trigger identity that make people think i am not able to live the way i want to live, and that makes them mad. Science has taken a lot of criticism for hiding under ivory towers and keeping their head down and not speaking in jargon and engaging with the public, and on the other hand, you have these provocateurs, richard orken, richard dokken, taking on the creationists who are taking on the creationists. I guess they are just causing more problems than it is worth, but that is a separate conversation. They are a pain they are not productive. Useless for aly few reasons. One, they are creating needless enemies with all religious people. Conflating them with creationism. I think they misunderstand creationism, they are not reading studies of creationism, s generally, how they frame it. Primarily, it is polemical in a way. Especially for someone like dokkens, like dokkens, there is an incapacity to recognize the specific space that science contributes to a society, which is a very important and clear space. Needse needs defenders, articulate defenders, but defenders or not who are not weirdly hating on philosophy. There is this strange antiintellectualism. Idea this dopey and, this we can create a rational order that would entirely be based on science. Canystopian, this idea we create a rational order that would entirely be based on science. It is creepy. I am not a fan. Want to talk a little bit about the issue of gmos and food science. And maybe use this as a way to talk about the role that media plays in altering peoples views toward science. Peoples views toward science. I am a practitioner of journalism, and i get so tired with a study of the day, coffee is best for you, vitamin d cancer. R it is so episodic and out of context. Front in been a lot of the news, but also some really good people working in science. Gmos, there is so much irrational thinking and things on both sides that seem crazy to me. Do you see this in your polling . Is this an emotional issue . Because fortis something we put in our bodies, forces political . Because food is something we put in our bodies, is it political . We hear a lot of concern, particularly about food science studies. If we ask people, they are aware they are hearing conflicting studies. One day, coffee is safe, the other day begin a safe, then all of a sudden we reverse course. There is a lot of concern in the Scientific Community whether or not that might undermine peoples confidence peoples confidence in science and certainly for science. Thatit seems like is on the whole, it does not seem to shake peoples confidence, but there is a difference in that some people who do not know knows who do not know as much about science seem to be confused. Do you think you generally understand what is healthy to eat and what is not . We see those people stand out more. There is a possibility it can be a little more confusing. But in general, i want to circle back, in these examples i have seen, they are both good examples to remind us that there are complicated ways in which we format beliefs. There is often an assumption that if we could just inform you more, you would all of a sudden hold a particular belief. It just does not work that way. If you examine your unbelief, it is not just based on information, there is a motion your belief, it is not just based on information, there is a ion. On emot scientists want to tell you what to think at the end of the day telling you, why do you just think like me . And that will just not work. It is hard to imagine information that will make me stop jerking coffee drinking coffee. Hear hear. Coffee is my identity, man. Of crispers in in news a lot crisprs the news a lot, and genomes. Lets not give anyone military again, lets edit this baby so it is smarter. There is this big range. Malaria again, lets edit this baby so it is smarter. There is a big range. They are trying to grow human kidneys and pigs. On one hand, you think, that is so crazy, and if youre undergoing dialysis, on the other hand, there like maria. Hurry up. E like, eradicating sickle cell would be amazing and and a lot of suffering. End a lot of suffering. Are we accepting more and more things as science progresses . Or do we did views, no, you will not use fetal tissue for anything. Youre right. These of the big issues right now in terms of emerging science these are the big issues right now in terms of emerging science, and both humans, animals, to some degree, crops. What we find again and again is that the context matters. Maybe we dont know a lot about exactly how you splice aging, but we know we have opinions a gene, but we know we have opinions about what to do with it. Peoples opinions tend to vary quite a lot. Therapy tends to see strong support, but other ideas are for things, as you mentioned, more what used to be called designer babies, the idea you would do somehat some people think are trivial, you see a lot more resistance. In terms of animal genetic engineering, the purpose matters a lot. One thing that is commercially available is the idea of blowfish. Glowfish. That this opposition, was taking technology too far, they just did not say the human value, the animal value. People saw that as the context that they did not get behind for that reason. If you ask something more like developing animal cells for into organs for transplant humans, they understood that value and use a much more support. If i may quote the greatest scientist of our time, jeff goldin Jeff Goldblums character and jurassic park. In jurassic park. I cant remember exactly, it was a long time ago. The point is, this is again scientism. Isther or not they should not a scientific question, it is a philosophical and ethical question. Forgion is one place to go those ethics, but it is not the only source. There are lots of amazing secular sources. In bioethics, but also in Climate Change ethics. Is fascinating philosophical yuestions about how man lives today matter versus years from now. That is a hard ethical question. Science cant really give us answers to that. It cant tell us which lives are more by liberal in this world war i are more valuable in this world or 1000 years from now. We need to push scientists and push the state to regulate science or not regulate science on a casebycase basis. Aboutare hard questions these ethical issues before they show up, because they are going to keep coming. To often, we think of ethics and science about bioethics, genetic engineering, genetic engineering of humans, but of animals and plants, too. That is important. There is a lot of science with potential for great ethical harm. And great ethical benefit. It is important for us to think about that. In terms of climate, this idea of valuing life is not even close to new. What wets, this is refer to it as economies him economism. Using calculations of the future value of human life and setting that number is crucial to evaluating the economic costs of Climate Change, because Climate Change will go on for centuries, and we need to know, what is the value of our greatgrandchildren if we want to assess the damage we are doing to them . This is part of that hot, furious sealed of field. There are certain people who think the discount rate should be zero, every life is the same as is worth the same as every other life. An economist would tell you that is not the way we act. The way we actually act is we assign less value to our children than to ourselves, and so on. That is an economist would say , and they have data to back it up. As a historian, that is interesting an interesting position to take. We value our family more than our fellow citizens, we value our fellow citizens more than refugee or camps refugees in camps. We clearly dont value of humans equally, and that is a complicated, philosophical problem that has vexed religions and nonreligious for millennia. Maybe we will solve it tonight, but probably not. Again, science gives us great data with which we can better understand how to frame those questions and what we need to ask those questions about. It does not give us the answers to those questions. We are facing so many crises from migration to climate. Erik, what does your work show . Toscience and other areas, make progress, to make the right decisions. In a way, we are in the midst of fighting about Climate Change, Great Strides were made in tobacco. Is that knowledge, information . Im actually the worst person to ask that question. As a historian, my job is to make people understand the world they are in. A struggle with the question of how do i fix this . And so, the first art of my answer the first part of my answer is, information goes so far. Lots of people were astonished at what naomi and i found. Changed to many minds, because we will be read by people who were already sympathetic to book learning anyway, to hundred something pages long 200something pages long and kind of dense. Then, there are other. And religious questions other philosophical questions and religious questions that are really not my science. Sometimes, i am encouraged by people i meet. I wish i knew the answer to this question. Editors to satisfy your. In this sense, it is using the best scientific information as reflected in scientist reports. It was a struggle for us, because we ourselves know if historians no as historians they are not always right either. Misleadingiberately the public for a couple of decades with no studies with those studies. It is hard for us to make that conclusion, but we have to live in a world where analysts get a right in this world or sometimes less than that. You need some reliable source of information. That is the best answer we can give, but it is not a complete, full answer. On whatant to weigh in Society Needs . Let me tell you what Society Needs. Ocalan, folks. Buckle in, folks. [laughter] a new president . [laughter] how should we, relate to science . Ideally, we relate to science like we should learn, in a good science class. Amazement,for curiosity, and suspicion. Amazed curious, we stay and excited, but also secondguessing, thinking, why is that right . Ideally, sciences democratic science is democratic. John dewey is one of my intellectual euros. He rose. Heroes. We are always trying to change our habits so we can rethink how we are living. We are never doing that individually, we are doing that as a group. Really thinking of science not of this not as this thing in lives, for done by professors, in labs, for done by professors, but something we can all do, thinking hard about the world. Outn hack tries to work what the definition of sciences, which in a philosopher of to doe, few even attempt anymore, because it is so complicated. She said at the most basic level, it is rational thinking. Thinking it is capable of being corrected. I think being open to correcting others and to ourselves being corrected is a place to start. Think that is what keeps me up at night, how polarized we are and how many ago chambers there are. Echo chambers there are in the media and the internet. Polling is what is happening now, but do you have any thoughts on where we are headed . Are we headed to more division and less agreement on topics . Or will crises force us to maybe come together . We are really at a polarized time. Oni was going to pick up just maybe a basic point on how much the information environment has changed, because that makes it both easier and more difficult. Lets just talk about how we are integrating the world of social media as our main channel of information. Is thatt means for us on the one hand, we have access to a much wider array of sources, because people like kneeled aggressive tyson Degrasse Tyson has millions of followers on a piece like facebook on a page like facebook. He has an avenue to reach really large audiences. When you look at those public pages and trying to see who is out there, some we try to call traditional legacy media outlets, and many are not. What that means, some of them are people you might think of as alternative sources or even pseudoscience sources. The range of information out there is much wider. On the other hand, we are not as beholden as we were many decades schedule,ebody elses somebody else feeding whatever they want. We have more control, more ability to curate the information we want to Pay Attention to than we did before. What that means is, that can actually both kind of reinforce information and possibly reinforce misinformation about signs that the things im. Science at the same time. It is a much more complex world. Terrific. I think we have come to time to open this up to our audience. Where hoping to hear lots of great questions. Before we start that, could we get a round of applause for this great panel . [applause] there are two of us going around with microphones on either ill on the side either aisle on the side. Please state your first and last thing before each question. Also, keep your questions relatively brief so we can get to as many questions during this part of the program. I name is george. I have a question. I am really surprised one of you mentioned ai. When you mentioned the human discount there, i know there are ai models out there that have the human discount theory builtin. For return on investment and shareholder value. Ideas on ai . Should we do it, can we do it . Since i brought up the social discount rate, i dont know much about it. It is not possible for me to know everything. That is the first problem. I am a historian, not a scientist. My wife is a scientist. The second thing i would say is, i am often astounded at how dumb ai is. There is a level of fear buildup in the public. Think my major fear it is is it is too dumb. I dont know about the models that have the social discount rate built into those. I hope they didnt use bill moorhouses version, because that basically makes our grandkids worthless. It is what it is. I could babylon, but i am not going to. I just dont know babel on my but i am not going to. Create an valley can berliner that because i have a a billionaire that because i have a lot of money, i can be good at everything. Orn i talk to my friends, neurologists, they say we have no idea how neurons work together. Their of these folks that think we are going to download johnny depps bring in about three years. There always models about how intellectual life works. If we keep working at a certain rate, maybe 400 years from now, we will be able to download brain,rs whoevers who knows what the future will be . But if you actually look at people who study intelligence as we understand it, in extremely simple animals, they are extremely suspicious of the sort of high hopes of ai in silicon valley. Next question on your rate. I am a strategist. My question is about the importance of the science. Why does science why couldnt science get enough importance in american Popular Culture, in hollywood, you know . Why think the question is, doesnt science get more support in american Popular Culture. I guess i have to push back on that, because i think there is actually an enormous amount of science in Popular Culture now, more than the newspapers, unfortunately. The three big networks and those havey shows, the sitcoms, basically been destroyed by internet streaming and so forth. There is a lot more content than there ever used to be before. Really, it is reporting on science that has gone downhill, but there is actually more Public Interest that does not translate into journalism. I guess the question is why assign so terrible in social media . Ncis effect is that juries will be like, why couldnt you do the [indiscernible] with the body . And they will say, that is not possible. The media is overly inflated come over simplistic, but they love science, it is just not accurate or real science. Techs question on your left over here. Next question on your left over here. My name is opal. It was discussed, the divide between republicans and democrats regarding Climate Change. Was wondering if any of you could speak to why it seems more dontvatives beli support the idea of Climate Change. That is all you. The answer to that is tied fundamentally and deeply and the idea that the state should not regulate business. It comes out of 19th century neoclassical economics, that markets should be free and unregulated. Businessmen have sold this to the public through a wide variety of foundations since the 1970s. My book right now pushes the border back to the 1930s. Solving the climate problem means intervention in Energy Markets at least, and probably most markets, energy, agriculture, transportation, so forth. They oppose businesspeople businesspeople oppose environments of regulation, because that is business regulation, and therefore they dont want Climate Change to be addressed. They dont like the solutions, so they misrepresent the science so that we never even have the debate about the solutions. People about to solving the problem, not about the conflict over the science, it is a fake inflict invented by industry. Conflict invented by industry. Not just what can we do about it, but this brings us back to jeffs point that this is actually a set of philosophical and social problems. It should be addressed on those terms. That is how it all came about. Next question is on your right. My name is christina. I am someone that went to a private christian school. We skipped the chapters on evolution. I decided to major in biology, that was the first time i discovered evolution. I accepted it. Not only did it make sense to me, i wanted to chair share it with my father, who is a minister. Recently, a young person came to me with advice, because she discovered all the evidence for human evolution, she wants to share it with her father, who is a really just creationist a religious creationist. I would be interested to hearing from any of you, what is your take on that . When youre faced with this evidence you never have been taught before and you want to share it, but it is our responsibility is it our responsibility to open other peoples minds . It is an interesting conundrum. What is your name again . Christina. Thank you so much for sharing your story. The trouble with your father. Me toow, it is hard for answer that question, because when i am invited to these communities, my obligation is not to harm and honor the trust given to me by welcoming me into the communities. And so, it is not my job to do this, it is my job to understand what they think and then to write about it. But, in terms of my relationship know, myamily, you family is catholic, and my moms brother converted moms brother converted to evangelical christianity. They believe that god guided evolution. My uncle is now a christian, he does not believe in evolution. As a typical sort of young twentysomething, i thought i was smarter than anyone. I remember at one point, i stopped and said, i just try to understand his world through his perspective, and i said, just floode understand, if the happened so recently, how did all the animals get to where they are in the world . How did that even work . He pauses and says, you know, i thought a lot about that. He sort of told me this huge story. I dont think it is an accurate story, but he clearly is a smart guy who thought a lot about this. That is kind of when i decided i wanted to be an ethnographer. I wanted to know how people think instead of just judging them before hand. My friends and i think a lot about this, because it is true with public policy. We ultimately need to make our decisions about who is right and was wrong. Hats are not the same hats we wear when we are doing politics. Sometimes, it is an uneasy fit. Often, it is an uneasy fit. Feel very that, i uncomfortable telling your with your to deal family, but with experience with my family, it is trying to navigate between moments in which the Better Things to understand and moments in which the better thing is to make judgments and say what i think you are doing is wrong. For me, evolution, believing in evolution, i just dont think it is morally wrong. That is a fight that has real stakes in the world. Uncle, i amust my not worried about it. I am not saying that is a universal rule. Next question on your left. I in him museum educator. Am a museum educator. When you talk to someone with perhaps it is kind of dipping at a into coming museum, things we do every day. It is important for me in those conversations never to spit facts at him. Some of thee are most worthwhile things, but when i talked to people, when it , how to Climate Change much is fear the overarching emotion that drives this denial and signs in your opinion . Much is fear driving yeah, like an emotion terms oft know in qualifying that, but it is a good point that emotions are part of the process, part of how we form attitudes from our underlying beliefs, so i have not heard a lot of people talk about fear, per se. You mean about the threat of Climate Change . Also when you were talking about autism, vaccines i got you. I got you. Again, it is a great example in terms of thinking about vaccines , there are multiple ways people come at it. In terms of our research, one of the groups we found that had the most concern are people with young children, who are there on the front lines facing those. Ecisions about vaccinations it, that could be part of that they are concerned about weighing those risks and benefits for their individual child as well. , im going tote give a different answer. I told you a story about how an elite professional scientist helped to cast doubt on science, but there is another angle to , as, that is fear of change well as emotional rejection of the idea that we all cause to this problem just by going about thedaily lives, and i guess person who pointed this out best to me was a right wing republican, one of the few who came to accept Climate Change. Version, heentary talks about this basic prom that nobody wants to look in the mirror and go, god, i am the one doing this . The answer is we all are. We dont want to accept that. We have want to except to change fundamental elements of our lives if we want to solve that problem, and that is an emotional issue. [applause] last question on the right. Bobby goldman. I am a geoscientist involved with outreach, both policymakers and the general public. I was curious from a sociological and historic perspective, the amount of science advocacy that has come out that recent political events. What role do you see that playing, and the impact that could have on future perceptions of science and sciencebased policy, compared with your expertise and how things like this have played out in the past . Are you talking about yeah. It is a hard question. It remains hard to figure out. There is some concern that it will further politicize science and drive conservatives away. I think that cake is already baked. I am not worried about that, but we will have to see what the data says. It is an empirical question. The idea that science is one person wrote about this in 1942. This is not a new thing. That this convenient myth scientists are neutral arbiters, but it is a useful myth in some ways. I dont know. We are just about running out of time. We have some anymore questions out there. We will continue just outside in the lobby. All our guests will be there, so join us and continue the conversation. Thank you to the National History museum of los angeles round, cspan, and a big of applause for our panelists. Thank you for coming tonight. [applause] event. The president and c. E. O. Moderates the hour long discussion. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Is and im the vice egent for Mount Vernon Ladies Association and on behalf of the Mount Vernon Ladies Association oard its my privilege to welcome you today on this Beautiful Day for the 2019 debate. G todays discussion is made generous gift in honor of the late jim reiss, president and c. E. O. Of mount vernon. Tohold the debates each fall mark the opening of the fred w. Smith National Library for the washington. Rge now, six years
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.