This is Democracy – Episode 134: Scientific Literacy and Democracy

[0:00:00 Speaker 0] This Is Democracy, a podcast that explores the interracial inter generational and inter sectional unheard voices living in the world’s most influential democracy.

[0:00:21 Speaker 1] Yeah, yeah, welcome to our new episode of This Is Democracy. Today we’re going to address a question that is at the core of all of our debates and discussions of democracy today, the role of science. How should science be incorporated in our discourse? Is our debates and our policy making more deeply? How should citizens be informed of science? And what role should scientific education, literacy play in the development of our democracy and the protection of our democracy? As we go forward? We are joined today by, I think, the best person in the world to talk about this topic. My friend and colleague Dr Brent Iverson. Dr. Iverson is a distinguished professor of chemistry and the dean of the School of Undergraduate Studies at the University of Texas at Austin. So he’s the rare individual who is a world class researcher and also a leader in educational policy and in day to day teaching, really pioneering new ways of teaching science at a leading university. He’s an award winning chemistry teacher. He’s one pretty much every award I could find that there is for someone to win in this field. And he has one of the most productive and vibrant labs that I’ve seen as well. He’s on 23 different US patents. That makes me feel very jealous. We write books and articles as historians, but we don’t get pats. Brenda actually make stuff. Among his many breakthroughs and patents is really one that’s particularly interesting to me. It grows out of work he did with two colleagues, George Georgiou and Jennifer Maynard. Um, and this is work. They did it in the U. T. Department of Biomedical Engineering, where they developed what is now an FDA approved late stage cure for exposure to anthrax. And this is particularly important for American military officers, who are often in areas of the world where they might be exposed, intentionally or unintentionally, to this very dangerous, dangerous disease. Brandt. It’s really wonderful to have you on our podcast today.

[0:02:35 Speaker 0] Thank you, Jeremy. I’m very excited to be here

[0:02:38 Speaker 1] before we turn to our discussion with Brent. Of course, we have Zachary series poem for US poem to really set the stage for our discussion What’s the title of your poem today? Zachary. What? No one ever told you. Alright, well, let’s hear it. We like to draw the line between the true and the human as if we can really look down from some great height, maybe a balcony, and say Here is science And here is humanity. As if we would not, in truth, be breathing in a universe of atoms. As if we would not, in truth instinctually, know how a sunrise feels. We want to carve a lie and right down the middle, as if I can really stand in a creek bed and watch a cardinal perched on a branch and not demand answers as if he does not stare back at me and wonder how great it must feel to be human. We want to juggle both the feeling and the fact bouncing up and down through the air as if we can prevent them from ever colliding, as if they aren’t doomed to end up the same hugging the ground. No one ever told me that the image of a rainforest could make you cry, or that the elements can seem to align themselves mystically before your eyes or that a goldfinch drinking from a creek could make you sigh. And no, they never told me how much it stings to see a species sayonara through a television screen or to watch your reaction fizzled down dejectedly into precipitate. It hurts to watch it all die. It hurts to watch the mysteries become so clear to see the human faces also suddenly turned back to meaninglessness before you can blink. Maybe that’s why we can never quite place the difference between science and feeling. Perhaps it is because a miracle hurts just as much as it does to watch one die. I love the range and the imagery of that Zachary and the integration of emotion and science. What is your poem about? My poem is really about just that. It’s about how we we try and separate science and human feeling and and human experience when they’re so deeply interconnected. And we really can’t have one without the other and on our science is is very much dependent on our humanity. But our humanity is very much dependent on our science. I love that Zachary. It captures a topic. Actually, Brent and I have talked much about which is the integration of the humanities and the sciences. Brent. That seems a perfect spot for us to to open the discussion. What what role should citizens take in understanding science? And why is science so important to citizenship? As you see it?

[0:05:28 Speaker 0] Well, we’ve got a lot of important questions as a society moving forward, that science needs to inform our decision making the environment, the climate, our own personal health. There are so many issues that we face that we need to make really good choices, and the information is there. But it’s often very difficult for people to find it. And that is what is so frustrating from a scientific point of view, because when there are some good pieces of evidence, people have really understood what a great way forward is. How do we get that message to everybody so that they understand it and believe it?

[0:06:10 Speaker 1] Mm. And what are some of the biggest barriers right now? Right.

[0:06:16 Speaker 0] You know, I think that it’s hard to find a trusted source of information for most people that in fact, we have a lot of different ways that we learn about what’s happening in the world some are more or less informed, and it’s very difficult for people to understand what is opinion, what is scientifically valid. And, um, what is just not quite right information. And I think this ambiguity has really been difficult for, especially now, as we’re worried about the best way to proceed in this pandemic, Um, we have to make science based decisions. But where do we get that information so that we’re all comfortable that we know that what’s the right thing for all of us to do it? It’s a It’s a really tricky question. It involves education. It involves students in classrooms but involves all citizens so that they know where their information is trustworthy and what they can believe. That’s not hidden by somebody’s agenda. It’s what the best science is telling us.

[0:07:23 Speaker 1] What does it mean for for ordinary citizens to to think like scientists? What does a What does a citizen scientists really look like?

[0:07:33 Speaker 0] Well, the thing to remember about science and scientists is that we have a frame for the natural world, and that frame is based on experiments that usually had a hypothesis and and evidence was provided that he’s either consisted or refutes that hypothesis. And the more evidence that we can amass with controlled experiments, the more we’re going to be confident in that hypothesis. But the hypothesis, or what we consider to be a law of nature, something that we as scientists believe is true. Um, it’s only as good as the evidence that goes into the experiments that help us believe that that’s what’s happening and so to think like a scientist is always to be open to understanding how a better experiment might shape and change what we think. And that’s okay. That’s how are thinking evolves. And so it’s not a fixed target. It’s something that’s always improving. And the more evidence we get, the more we feed that into our overall model, and we understand a particular area of science a little bit better. So it’s not as though there are absolute um, but that to think like a scientist, you’re always taking new information. You’re looking at the significance of that information, the rigor with which it was put together and deciding whether that changes your perception of the natural world or not.

[0:09:05 Speaker 1] That’s a wonderful explanation, Brent, But it raises a dilemma because One of the things we say as scientists is that there are things we know. We know that Covid is contagious, right? We know that the Earth’s temperature is changing. But of course the model of science that you describe so well, uh, involves doubt and involves uncertainty. So how do we help people to understand the facts of the natural world while also recognizing the limits of our knowledge and the doubt and the ever evolving nature of our knowledge?

[0:09:41 Speaker 0] You know, I think that’s that’s an incredible dilemma. I don’t have a good answer for you. Um, I know that scientists in general have not done a good job of explaining where we are with, for example, covid, um, and that there’s always going to be uncertainty because we’re always learning more and more. But that uncertainty, which is just a part of the scientific process, is taken as a lack of understanding. And I know that for a lot of people, what I’m saying sounds really ambiguous. But for scientists, I think they’re probably, you know, nodding their heads, saying, Okay, I get this. I know what you’re trying to say. I don’t have a great answer other than it’s important to listen to the preponderance of basic scientists, the ones who are doing the work. Listen carefully to what they have to say, and it may not be that polished. It may not be as certain as you’d like, but what they’re telling you is the best information at the time and how to think about when we make public policies what evidence we should be using to base those policies on.

[0:10:52 Speaker 1] So a lot of it, it seems, is based on credibility and accumulated experimentation, something that those of us who are scholars would call a peer review process. Uh, and of course, many publications, including prominent publications like Science, use a peer review process, and those articles should be accessible to most citizens. But But how should citizens know when they see someone on television who claims to be a scientist? Someone’s playing a scientist whether that person really is a scientist or not, I mean, I think of the controversy surrounding Tony Fauci, for example, who is clearly a recognized scientist, has been working on infectious disease for decades in the U. S. Government, but some questions credibility because they don’t like his politics. Some mistake him for some other political appointees who might be on television talking about covid but don’t have that scientific background. So how should How should citizens recognize the difference between someone who’s really a scientist and someone who’s playing one on TV?

[0:11:55 Speaker 0] You know, I don’t know that there’s any litmus test that you can use, but I will say that the closer somebody is to being at the at the so called bench in the laboratory doing work. The closer a person is, too, that the more you can think of them as simply explaining what it is they know. And that’s, um, uh, you know, was brought forth to me because I was listening to NPR. Oh, I think it was a week ago Friday, and they were talking about covid and immunity, and they called several immunologists of prominent institutions and just asked them questions about immunity and the vaccine. And they just gave very straightforward answers. And there was absolutely no agenda, no politics whatsoever. And I think that the closer you get to the people who are actually running the experiments, the more you can trust what they have to say.

[0:12:53 Speaker 1] That makes a lot of sense, and I’ve always thought Brent, that part of it as well is trying to identify individuals who not only have a title that tells you they’re close to the research but seem to be able to talk about the topic in a way that reveals that element of discovery. That element of engagement with with these complex issues that you described before some of that, I guess, is educating ourselves about what it is that scientists do. Developing excitement and science, developing curiosity where we’re not just looking for someone to give us an answer. But we’re trying to understand how they came to that answer, which was certainly implied in your thoughts a few minutes ago. How do we encourage that? How do we get people to understand what science is better? Um, and also get them to see and enjoy and appreciate that discovery, that curiosity which gives the scientist credibility.

[0:13:46 Speaker 0] You know, it’s a great question because there’s a lot of us who walk around every day and look at things and say, Wow, why did that happen? What’s going on there? And I would love for more people to be thinking that way I would. I wait, for example, I would love for people to be really excited when the Nobel Prizes are announced in the various fields. I mean, I’m not going to embarrass anybody and ask Who won the Nobel Prize in chemistry last year? Um, but I’ll tell you, Jennifer Donna, who won the Nobel Prize in chemistry last year, has done something that will profoundly, perhaps profoundly, change the way we think about life and genetics. And that was, um, I would love to to be in a society that really cared about things like that and I’m open. Any idea of how that happens? I think there’s no one answer. I think it’s all answers. I would love to see a real infusion in enthusiasm and attention paid to science education for all students. So I know that fairly early on, Um, there are in most schools I’m aware of. There are those kids who love science and their thought of a little differently than students who perhaps don’t and I don’t think that’s right. I think science should be something that absolutely everybody gets, and it’s not just for the science kids, it’s for everybody and that’s definitely true in college, where you have the students who are in stem are thought of a little differently than the students who are not in stem. And we need to be thinking, and what I mean by that is a lot of times students will come into college thinking. Boy, I hope I don’t have to take any hard science classes because I’m just not a science person and that that way of thinking drives me crazy. We’re all science people in the sense that this is important to all of our futures. And so we need to all be educated as much as possible through our education system. And science is not just for sci students. It’s for everybody. Just as humanity’s is not just for humanity students, it’s for everybody. How many times do I think that boy, I wish that person who just made this great discovery was far more elegant, Eloquent could write in a much more compelling way and reach far more people instead of just write a paper in an esoteric journal that only a few people in the world can truly understand. And we’ve We’ve got to really broaden our education so that everybody learns science and all scientists learn how to be much better communicators. So I think if I had one idea that I hope can be spread throughout higher education, it’s that we need to be thinking far more in terms of our general education for all students so that all students have a stronger scientific background so that they understand the scientific arguments behind why a vaccine is a really good strategy and what’s new about the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. That’s really cool and really exciting as well as what’s going on with the climate. What’s going on with our environment, what’s going on with our food supply so we can have a very serious conversation and by the same token, the scientists, the engineers who are working on that cutting edge, they need to be better communicators. We all need to understand a historical reasons for why we’re where we are as a society, so we can feed into that and use science as part of that conversation moving forward. So if I had one magic wand and I could just wave it, what I would love to see is that when we think about education. We think much more broadly that all students have to learn so much about not only science and technology, but also the humanities, communication, those general ideas that allow people to communicate better with each other, understand each other and not be segmented in our education process so that the stem students go off in one direction. The humanity students go off in another direction and it should be no surprise that they have trouble communicating after they finished.

[0:18:08 Speaker 1] Yeah, yeah, I think that that I’ve personally found that science can sometimes be a little rigid or even abstract. How can we use Covid 19 and and the very scientific crisis facing our society to to make science seem more real and and engaging for young people?

[0:18:30 Speaker 0] Well, I think it comes down to something that we talked about before, which is how do we identify people that everybody believes so that we can start with the same facts. And I think everybody right now that I’ve met is very interested in immunology. We need to take this moment. Why is there not a fantastic one hour documentary on the immune system that I think most people would tune into, and it’s crossing the line between education and entertainment. But it strikes me that this would be a perfect opportunity to get everybody understanding where things are. Who would make such a documentary? Who would verify that it’s It’s scientifically as valid as it can be. Those are questions that we should have answered long ago so that people would know where to turn to see what’s really out there in terms of our knowledge. So I’ve been fascinated as this is unfolded to have my neighbors, my family members who are not scientists, discover piece by piece how the immune system works. What is an antibody? What’s happening with the immune system in a vaccination versus people who are sick with covid? And how do those things come together? And it seems as though every month a little bit more is revealed, and what I find interesting is quite often it will be in the context of a news report about a scientific paper, and that paper will be presented as new and shocking when really all it is is a paper on covid that was analyzing something that everybody knew was going to happen anyway. But It’s just the scientific data verifying that. For example, what kind of antibodies are being produced in covid patients versus the vaccine, or what kind of mutations are rising in viruses? Viruses always mutate. They always mutate to become more contagious. This is not something that was unanticipated, but we could have, for example, at this moment a wonderful one hour, maybe one hour a week documentary on the human immune system, what we know. And I think it would be a real step forward and getting people to understand where things are, Um, and what are our best decisions moving forward to deal with this pandemic?

[0:21:03 Speaker 1] Listening to your description, Brent, uh, it reminds me of of something that I have long thought about the ways we teach science and encourage science that that might take us in the wrong direction. You know, it’s often taught as if, you know, science is something totemic. You have your textbook. This is a problem we have in many disciplines, right? You have your textbook, and your text book tells you that things work a certain way, and much of our controversy, it seems around issues like covid and climate change is that people are committed to other ways of looking at the world. What you just described is a process of actually embracing uncertainty, not trying to find false certainty, right, recognizing that there are really interesting, complex phenomena all around us and that as an engaged citizen we can’t know everything. No one can know everything we can begin when we’re focused on a problem such such as immunology, to look at what the accumulated knowledge is and where new questions are being asked and try to understand that framework, that environment. So it’s more understanding the uncertainties and the places where we’ve learned and where we’re still learning. Rather than trying to find a simple certainty that tells us whether one drug works or one drug doesn’t work. It seems to me that’s as much of the basis for scientific thinking as anything else for for ordinary citizens. Does that does that work for you? Is that sensible to you?

[0:22:30 Speaker 0] Yeah, it is, You know, here’s the way I’ve always thought about it. So one of the things you think about when you’re a scientist is that what you’re seeking is a truth that’s out there. So there is a law of nature that you’re trying to understand. Um, in my world, I work with molecules and I’m always trying to figure out how the molecules are interacting. Um, what’s really happening? And I know it’s I know it’s there. There is a truth there, but I may not be on it yet. I may not know it yet. Um, I think when I talked to people who don’t have a scientific way of thinking, if I’m going to say it in that way, there is blurring between truth and perception. That perception is truth. Perception is reality. And it’s not as though there is something out there that we can learn that is real. It’s tangible gravity, Um, magnetism. How does light propagate in different media? Those are things that are really hard to discern and hard to measure at times and hard to understand. But there, there and there is a truth there, and it’s not a moving target. We just have to get a better and more refined understanding of these things. And I think that if we could come to an understanding as a society that some very important questions are going to come down to everybody agreeing on what the facts are. What is that truth? We’re trying to understand what’s the best way to feed everybody on the planet? What’s the best way to control our climate so that we don’t end up with catastrophic problems in various parts of the world? What is the best way to deal with the pandemic that’s affecting every single person on the planet? And how do we get away from just an idea of who’s right and who’s wrong? It’s What’s that truth out there? How do we get as close as we can to it? And I’ll start moving in in a similar direction? Those are really big questions that are very abstract, and I think that we need to be using this pandemic because we have the world’s attention when it comes to how medicine, how basic science which led to the vaccine development in such a rapid fashion advances in basic science over the last 15 years have led to this moment where we’re actually using a vaccine that was developed in record time. Um, none of this was a surprise to scientists because we know that it was actually an incremental process that got us here, but we were ready, and we need to have conversations that are based on trying to find that truth as opposed to finding out who’s right and who’s wrong. I think that’s really what it comes down to. And I think that’s what frustrates a lot of people who are in the scientific world, Um, watching what’s occurring because we would like to believe that there is a way to convince people in a society to do the right thing based on providing evidence, and I’m not convinced I know what the best mechanisms for that are. But I think we need to be trying right now more than we are

[0:26:10 Speaker 1] well, and it does seem to me that there is some degree of a scientific repertoire that most people accept, and and it seems to change across across time, periods and places. But it does seem that half the battle is done for us because even the gloomiest people believe some degree of scientific truth that maybe it’s that the world is round or or that or or basic evolution. But it seems that there is some degree of scientific confidence, even if we don’t recognize that for what it is.

[0:26:46 Speaker 0] Yeah, What I would love to understand is what is the best way to convey information? That’s always changing because, believe me, what’s going on in laboratories at the University of Texas at Austin is absolutely mind blowing. To me. It’s so fantastic. It’s so incredible. And it is so removed from the basic understanding that most people have of science that is very difficult to communicate. And I think that Horizon keeps getting farther and farther away, And it’s that communication gap and the credibility gap that I think we need to really focus on and try to close. So what can be done in laboratories today is unbelievable. Even to me, it’s phenomenal. It’s amazing. It’s only limited by our imaginations. We have technology that can allow absolutely amazing things in every field of science, and it’s happening every day on every major university campus, around the country and around the world. How do we communicate that in a way that people believe is a real open question? And I don’t put that blame on other people? I think as scientists, we have not done a good enough job of learning how to communicate to people what we’ve, what we’ve you know. What is that new breakthrough really mean? And how does it happen? We are translated by journalists were translated by a number of other outlets in social media, but we’re not really good at communicating directly so that that translation doesn’t sometimes miss some important nuance. And I think the other thing that I would love to see change is that there was an appreciation for the incremental nature of where we’ve gotten to, because if all you do is look at the fact that we have these vaccines that use messenger RNA, a brand new delivery technology for vaccines, which is incredible and has all kinds of advantages which we’re going to see play out as this pandemic goes on, the real advantages of those approaches of the fighter and maternal vaccines, as well as some of the others that are being developed. Those weren’t just thought up because there was a pandemic. There has been this incremental improvement in our understanding, and that has gone on completely hidden from most of society. So for for a good reason, they’re skeptical when they say, Oh, what’s this new thing because they haven’t seen the progression of that development that’s come along in a very methodical way. They just see something right in front of them. And so if we could somehow be much better about having all of society understand that science has been progressing incredibly quickly, technology has been moving incredibly quickly, and yet it has been methodical. It has been incremental. One idea at a time has built upon what came before it. Um, we need to somehow make it so that everybody is aware of these things as they’re going on. Uh, and so again, it’s not that science is for the scientists. It’s sciences for everybody. It’s the It’s the future of our society. We need to understand how to take the best scientific thinking and make sure we’re making the best decisions, and that benefits everybody

[0:30:18 Speaker 1] well. And I think Brent, your your insightful comments have really elucidated two kinds of credibility. It seems that in our public discussions of of science, when we talk about it, it’s about the credibility of outcomes. Does this thing work and does it not work? And it’s always easy for people with a case of vaccinations to find that small number of cases where vaccine doesn’t work, where someone has a reaction to the vaccine and that can always be exaggerated. Uh, that’s a credibility about outcomes. But what you’re describing, particularly in your response to Zachary’s excellent question. What you’re describing is the credibility of process. How do we understand what someone or what some group of individuals are doing and why? How does that process give credibility to what they’re doing? And I think a lot of this scholarship on the social science of science says that the credibility of process is much more powerful. I trust I trust Brent, when you say things in your areas of expertise, not because I always think you’re going to get it right. I I understand that that even the most careful scholar gets things wrong. But I trust the work you’ve done to get to that answer you’re giving to me today, even though I know your answer might change tomorrow when the work you do in your laboratory tomorrow changes your perspective. I trust the vaccines not because I think they’re perfect, but I trust the vaccines because I’ve read a bit about the process in which they discovered them. The process in which they produce them, the process in which the FDA and other organizations assessed the production. And so it’s it’s the credibility of process, which I think brings us back to people understanding what that is. I guess the opportunity here is does covid offer us a chance to take people into the laboratory and to do a better job of showing them not just what the vaccines do but how they do it?

[0:32:08 Speaker 0] Yes, I think this is our best opportunity in my lifetime. Um, you know, I I have said this quite often that I’m a scientist because we landed on the moon. So the night we landed on the moon, we meaning to Apollo Mission. I watched it live like everybody my age in the country. After it was clear that the astronauts were safe on the moon and it became night time, I went out, I stared at the moon. That was a moment of understanding that everything is possible, that it was still mind blowing that a human being could have been standing on the moon at that moment. And I’m taking you way back, and I’m kind of defying my age are relaying my age. But I was nine years old at the time, and that just sparked something in me that, uh, fascination that is never, never going to end. I don’t think until now most people who were younger than myself ever were truly amazed, impressed and just had a sense of wonder about science and technology. It’s something we take for granted, and most people, when you think technology, they think their cell phones. But there’s technologies of all kinds in all different areas of science, and yet it hasn’t really solved a problem. It hasn’t captured imagination like a human being standing on the moon really captured at a moment when the world took a breath and said, Oh my gosh, that’s an incredible achievement And so I think this is the opportunity. If science can effectively, as I hope this plays out well, effectively eliminate this pandemic from the incredible problem that it is right now for the entire world. I think we have a moment to rekindle that in an entire new generation and hopefully generations of people saying okay, this is important. I hope that going down in middle school that will explain the incredibly sophisticated science behind these vaccines. This is incredible technology. I mean, it’s amazing stuff. And yet most people don’t have the vocabulary to understand what’s so incredible about these vaccines and how they work. And what’s this m r and a thing and why is that so interesting to us? And so I think this is an incredible moment that a lot like landing on the moon in 1969 where we have the collective attention of the world. The attention is paid on science. And to be honest, so far, I think science is delivering and we need We need to take advantage of that moving forward and hit the reboot key when it comes to scientific education and scientific literacy and really take this moment and use it in a positive way.

[0:35:12 Speaker 1] It’s such a powerful statement you’ve made Brendan such an appropriate place for us to close. Uh, Zachary Brent is describing a Moonshot moment, a moment of excitement, uh, and and hope and possibility. There is a precedent for this with vaccinations, of course, with the development of the polio vaccine in the 19 fifties and the work of Jonas Salk. Uh, he was on the cover of all major magazines. This was a moment of great excitement around vaccinations similar to what Brent is describing with the Moonshot. Zachary, do you see that happening today? Do you see young people, uh, excited and hopeful about the science surrounding, uh, covid vaccines and related matters? I think so. I think there’s a lot of interest in the kind of, uh, fascinating, groundbreaking science that’s being done today. But I also think we need to be careful how we talk about science in society, how we talk about scientists in particular, because I think there’s there’s almost it doesn’t seem pretty anymore to be a scientist because there’s so much, so much, Um, there are so many attacks on science and the very basic foundations of human knowledge that defines scientific work. I think we need to make sure that young people understand how important that science is, even if it’s under attack as we speak. Yeah, very well, said Zachary. And I think the work of Brent Iverson and others helps to remind us how exciting, how important and how noble the calling of sciences, even if one isn’t a scientist. I’ve always enjoyed reading scientific publications like science Science Times to keep up to to understand, because part of being a citizen, I think Brent is explaining to us is engaging and being connected to these discussions that are so important for humanity, as well as for understanding the science itself. Brent, thank you for joining us today and for sharing your your wisdom and insights with us. Zachary Thank you for joining us as well and giving us a thoughtful poem as always and thank you most of all to our listeners. Uh, for this episode of This Is

[0:37:26 Speaker 0] Democracy. This podcast is produced by the Liberal Arts Development Studio and the College of Liberal Arts at the University of Texas at Austin. The music in this episode was written and recorded by Harrison Lemke, and you can find his music at Harrison Lemke dot com. Subscribe and stay tuned for a new episode every Thursday featuring new perspectives on democracy. Mhm,