Richard T. Gardner 410.726.3045 (cell)

Recently, I was asked why so many in this country are skeptical or even distrustful of science. There are many answers to this question, but a part of the blame can be placed on scientists who aren’t always willing to engage in dialog with the public in a way that the information they share is accessible and without the audience be made to feel disenfranchised or stupid. Yes, scientific studies can be complex and based on difficult concepts, but those that are passionate about what they study should have the capability to explain the intricacies in ways that are understandable to people other than their scientific peers. Years ago, I read a book entitled “Mad Cows and Mother’s Milk: The Perils of Poor Risk Communication”. It outlines case studies of public policy and perception gone terribly wrong because of the communication void between the “experts” and the public. The book should be required reading for all scientists.

It may take time and a lot of work to regain public trust of scientists in a society fearful that vaccines cause autism (thanks to an unscrupulous medical research) and in the realm of climate denial propaganda funded by companies with vested interests. But active participation in the pillars of activism outlined in this post is a good start.

Ecology, in particular, provides many opportunities for connecting scientists to the public and their community through nature walks, citizen science projects, working with local watershed organizations, etc. These type of activities along with writing for the public through blogs and books (take Sandra Steingraber, for instance) don’t represent a dumbing down of the science. And activism isn’t a dirty word.

It may be like us when we are exposed to low level poisons. One good human example is beer. One beer can intoxicate us when we have not had one in a while. However, if we continue drinking beer, soon it will take several to give us the same degree of intoxification.

Certainly, the large pool of data collected may tend to offset any one particular piece of “garbage”, but how does one determine if there is only one piece of “garbage” in the pool? “Is citizen science actually junk science?” should be the first question to be asked.

Getting citizens out in the field and fostering their interest in flora and fauna is important and vital if our civilization is not to devolve into a totally artificial plasticized culture. But let us not fool ourselves into believing that “citizen science” is anything except junk science. Let the citizens enjoy the birds, butterflies, flowers or anything else they find interesting in the natural world. But let us not deceive them and delude ourselves by saying they are doing science.