A phenomenon which I have mentioned before and which continues to worry me is the popularisation of science. I have been involved in this for years.
Some years ago, I made the largest South African TV series on local science achievements. It was aired on SABC and we had half an hour a week for one-and-a-half years. Management turmoil at the SABC stopped the series when it was at its height.
My role was in deciding the series content and having the scripts written. I also supervised everything but had an excellent team of folks doing the camera work, editing, presenting and more.
We need to popularise science. We need to explain scientific concepts to the public. Why do we need to do this? We need to do it so that people can understand the modern world.
When cellphones first came out, I was contracted to create a TV programme on how cellphones work. People could not believe that the cell system would find you if you were on the beach or in the bath.
People would ask: “How does the cell system know where to find you?” Today, nobody cares.
Most people have no idea how the cell system works and never stop to think about how it can find you if you are in your car somewhere. You may say: So what? True – so what if school children have no clue? Then, if, later, government wants to expand the cell system to include other areas, or wants to add other features, the law often requires it to test public acceptance.
How can members of the public express an opinion if they have no clue about the fundamental nature of the subject under discussion? Nuclear power is a case in point. Most people have no idea how nuclear power works, and have no idea what nuclear radiation is, but the law requires public participation in decision-making related to power production.
I started here by saying that the phenomenon of public understanding of science worries me. What worries me is that somehow the notion has developed that anybody can express scientific opinions, even if they have no scientific training whatsoever. This is wrong.
There is a big difference between the public expressing an opinion about the outcome or social impact of a technology change and the technology itself. For example, if there is a discussion about supplying computer tablets to all school children, parents can comment that it is a good idea or they may say that they worry that the children will watch movies on the tablet all day and not do work.
But the general public must not start passing opinions on how the tablets work or whether the correct radio frequency is being used, and so on.
Am I being silly? Just see how many members of the public tell me about nuclear radiation when they have no clue. For example, they tell me that they are against nuclear power because the child next door ‘may get radiation’ and they do not want him passing it on to their children.
Other notions are that nuclear radiation is completely uncontrollable and South African scientists have no idea what to do when some escapes and then starts travelling across the countryside.
There was one woman who told me that she was scared that radiation would flow across her pillow at night while she slept and then flow down her ear and work its way into her brain. She just ‘knew’ that radiation was bad news for brains. She was scared, but listened to my explanation.
Then, referring to shale gas, we get the lawyer who said: “We have not yet empirically proven that economic growth from shale gas will lead to poverty alleviation in the region.”
This comment is not directly science, but to say that bringing loads of money into an area has not been experimentally proven to benefit the poor? By the way, ‘empirically’ means experimentally shown.
We need science education and demystification for the public, but it must be done professionally by scientists who actually understand the issues.