Divided expectations
Why we need a new dialogue about science, technology, and inequality
A version of this article appeared in the Jan./Feb 2018 issue of Skeptical Inquirer magazine.
For decades, scientific advances and technological innovations have generated vast wealth for professionals at the top of the U.S. knowledge economy. Yet those innovations have also eliminated millions of jobs among those at the bottom, transforming entire industries and regions. Among the most disadvantaged are not only individuals who lack a four-year college degree but also many people of color.
When we think about distrust of scientific expertise in the United States, we too often focus on partisan or religious differences. However, research indicates that income, education, and racial disparities also play an influential role in how Americans view the relationship between science and society, with these reservations transcending traditional left-right ideological differences.
In public opinion surveys, if asked generally about the societal impact of science and technology, those members of the U.S. public who express strong optimism tend to be white, hold a college degree or higher, and rank among the top 25% in household income. These individuals can justifiably expect that their careers will benefit from scientific innovations and that they can afford new technologies and medical treatments.
In contrast, individuals with the strongest reservations about science and technology tend to hold a high school degree or less, earn less than $50,000 annually, and are likelier to be non-white. These individuals may be justifiably concerned about how they will compete in an innovation-based economy, how they will afford access to new technologies or medical advances, and how such advances may reinforce patterns of discrimination and other social disparities (Nisbet & Markowitz, 2014).
Artificial intelligence-related advances like driverless cars or self-service kiosks are hyped as benefiting economic growth, public safety, and consumer experience. Yet they are also predicted to eliminate the jobs of millions of truck drivers, taxi operators, retail workers, and professionals. Tech companies risk further public backlash as they seek to fast-track the adoption of AI applications by spending millions to avoid regulation (Lloyd, 2017).
In a recent Pew survey, when asked to consider a future in which robots and computers can do many human jobs, more than twice as many Americans (72 percent) expressed worry compared to enthusiasm (33 percent). A similar proportion expected that economic inequality would worsen due to such advances. Concerns about the negative impact of workplace innovations were strongest among those lacking a four-year college degree (Pew, 2017a).
Americans also express strong reservations about the impact of social inequality on biomedical innovations related to human enhancement. Substantial majorities say they are “very” or “somewhat” worried about gene editing, brain chips, and synthetic blood, and that these technologies would become available before they were fully understood (Pew, 2017b).
Much of their anxiety relates to anticipated disparities: more than 70 percent fear these innovations would exacerbate the divide between “haves” and “have-nots” because they would only be available to the wealthy.
Informing the best-educated
Therefore, the scientific community has both a strategic and an ethical imperative to facilitate public participation in decision-making about science and technology, and their adverse impacts on society.
Consider the example of gene editing. A 2017 report from the U.S. National Academies of Sciences recommended that scientists and policymakers facilitate ongoing input from the public regarding the benefits and risks of human genome editing. Research was also needed on effectively facilitating such a process (National Academies 2017).
These investments are essential since Americans believe scientists should consult the public before pursuing gene editing applications (Scheufele et al., 2017). However, to address growing concerns about gene editing and other technological innovations, novel approaches for engaging segments of the public from lower socio-economic backgrounds are needed.
Traditional science communication efforts that focus on informally educating the public through TV documentaries, popular science books, magazines, and science museums tend to engage the best-educated and highest-earning Americans. These publics are, on average, the heaviest consumers of these resources, and tend to be already enthusiastic, knowledgeable, and optimistic about technological innovations.
A recent Pew survey (2017c), for example, finds that only about 17 percent of Americans are active science news consumers, defined as those who seek out and consume science news at least a few times a week. On average, this group tends to be better educated, higher wage earners, and predominantly white.
In turn, attention to science news and socioeconomic status are the strongest predictors of whether an individual engages in other informal science education activities, such as attending a museum, taking up a science-related hobby, or participating in a citizen science project.
Disparities in news attention and informal learning activities present significant barriers to addressing public reservations and misconceptions.
Consider past communication and outreach efforts related to nanotechnology. Between 2004 and 2007, as hundreds of nanotechnology-related products and applications were introduced into the U.S. marketplace, knowledge of nanotechnology increased substantially among the best-educated but declined among the least educated.
Widening gaps in public knowledge occurred even as news coverage of nanotech increased and government agencies, science museums, and universities invested considerable resources in informal education and outreach activities.
Researchers across issues have tracked this “knowledge gap” effect for several decades. As an emerging scientific issue, such as nanotech, gene editing, or artificial intelligence, gains news attention and is the subject of outreach at museums and other venues, individuals with higher socio-economic status will likely acquire knowledge faster than their lower-status counterparts. Consequently, differences in knowledge between these segments will tend to increase rather than decrease.
Better-educated individuals can more efficiently understand and integrate new information about science and technology. To aid them in this process, they can turn to their equally well-educated friends and family members to discuss and follow up on concepts they do not understand.
Higher-wage earners also have the financial means and time to access high-quality news coverage and attend science museums and similar cultural institutions.
In 2012, 40 percent of Americans in the top quartile of wage earners said they had visited a natural history museum or a science center during the past year, compared to less than 20 percent among those in the bottom quartile.
The knowledge gap effect is also observed as an outcome of popular science TV viewing of PBS, Discovery, and National Geographic programs intended to engage broader audiences who otherwise may never consume science-related information (Corley and Scheufele 2010; Nisbet et al. 2015).
Despite its popularity as a tool among scientists and their allies, social media is no panacea, and initiatives that invest heavily in social media outreach at the expense of other strategies may only reinforce disparities and divisions.
According to Pew (2017c), a substantial proportion of social media users say that they incidentally encounter science news stories that they otherwise would not have sought out. However, about twice as many users also say they mostly distrust rather than trust the science posts they encounter. This distrust parallels rising concerns about misinformation, incivility, and political polarization.
It is time to focus on novel methods for promoting a more fruitful dialogue about science, technology, and society. These methods should bring scientists and people of diverse backgrounds together to talk, contribute to mutual appreciation and understanding, and forge new relationships and insights.
Original Article | Citation
Nisbet, M. (2018). Divided Expectations: Why We Need a New Dialogue about Science, Inequality, and Society. Skeptical Inquirer, 42(1), 18–20
References
Corley, E.A. & D.A. Scheufele. 2010. “Outreach gone wrong? When we talk nano to the public, we are leaving behind key audiences.” The Scientist 24(1): 22.
Lloyd, J. (2017, April 14). “A March Won’t Make the Public Respect Science. Here’s What Will.” Slate.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2017). Human Genome Editing: Science, Ethics, and Governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Nisbet, E.C., K.E. Cooper & M. Ellithorpe. (2015). “Ignorance or bias? Evaluating the ideological and informational drivers of communication gaps about climate change.” Public Understanding of Science 24(3): 285–301.
Nisbet, M. & Markowitz, E.M. (2014). “Understanding public opinion in debates over biomedical research: Looking beyond political partisanship to focus on beliefs about science and society.” PloS One 9(2): e88473.
Pew Research Center (2017a). “Automation in Everyday Life.” Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
Pew Research Center (2017b). “U.S. Public Wary of Biomedical Technologies to ‘Enhance’ Human Abilities.” Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
Pew Research Center (2017c). “Science News and Information Today.” Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
Scheufele, D.A., M.A, Xenos, E.L. Howell, et al. (2017). “US attitudes on human genome editing.” Science 357(6351): 553–554.