When Science and Politics Collide

Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Boston

Make sure your volume is set appropriately

Make sure you have followed the instructions on your keypad properly

Make sure everything is plugged in properly to assure your devices are working correctly

If you have audio or visual

difficulties, please let us know via

the Question box and we will be happy to assist

you.

Please Check Your Settings

#SocialScienceLive


When Science

and Politics

Collide

#SocialScienceLive


Elizabeth Suhay

Co-editor of the Politics of Science issue of

ANNALS and Assistant Professor of

Government at the School of Public Affairs,

American University

#SocialScienceLive


While we do our best to answer as many questions as we can, time constraints

may not allow us to answer every question. Thank you for understanding.

Send us your questions!

Send in your questions

via the Question Box on your screen. →

Using Twitter? Use

the hashtag

#SocialScienceLive.

#SocialScienceLive


Dan M. Kahan

Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of

Law and Professor of Psychology,

Yale Law School

Francis X. Shen

McKnight Land-Grant Professor and Associate Professor of Law,

University of Minnesota

#SocialScienceLive


Science is inevitably political

• Science helps us to understand the world around us,

including …

• What problems we face

• Who is responsible for those problems

• Efficient ways to solve those problems

• For these reasons, science informs public policy and law

#SocialScienceLive


Science is inevitably political

• Because of science’s ability to direct human activity

through policy and law, people fight over it

• Coalitions seek to …

• Discredit science that undermines their values / interests

• Promote science that bolsters their values / interests

• Interpret, frame, spin science (where implications

ambiguous)

• Sometimes conscious, often not

• Let’s make the ubiquity of science bias better known!

#SocialScienceLive


Outline of today’s webinar

• Introduction

• Dan Kahan presentation

• Francis Shen presentation

• Panelist discussion

• Audience Q&A

#SocialScienceLive


Dan M. Kahan

Yale University

& many x 103 others

www.culturalcognition.net

Belief in Climate Change: What We Know

vs. Who We Are

Research Supported by:

National Science Foundation, SES-0922714

Annenberg Center for Public Policy

Skoll Global Threats Fund


What am I talking about?



Everything I know about climate science communication:




#SocialScienceLive




What ordinary members of the public “believe” about climate

change





change doesn’t reflect what they know;





change doesn’t reflect what they know; ; it expresses who they

are.


“Belief” in evolution

#SocialScienceLive


Ordinary science intelligence: item response functions

Nationally representative sample. Colored bars reflect 0.95 level of confidence




#SocialScienceLive


Teaching evolution to “nonbelievers”


“Belief” in global warming

Annenberg Center for Public Policy & Cultural Cognition Project. N’ = 1957.

Nationally representative sample, April/May 2014 (YouGov). CIs reflect 0.95

level of confidence intervals. Source: Kahan, D. The Science Communication

Measurement Problem, Adv. in Pol. Psych. (in press).



01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

< avg. Left_right

> avg. Left_right

Science ComprehensionVery low

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

< avg. Left_right

> avg. Left_right

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

Very low Very highScience comprehension

None at all

Extremely highrisk

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

> avg. Left_right

< avg. Left_right

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

Science ComprehensionVery low Very high

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21Ordinary Science Intelligence

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

> avg. Left_right

< avg. Left_right

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21


01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 210

12

34

56

7

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

glo

ba

l w

arm

ing r

isk





Kahan, D.M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L.L., Braman, D. & Mandel,

G. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate

change risks. Nature Climate Change 2, 732-735 (2012).


r = - 0.65, p < 0.01



01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

< avg. Left_right

> avg. Left_right


01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

< avg. Left_right

> avg. Left_right

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21


None at all

Extremely highrisk

glo

ba

l w

arm

ing r

isk







glo

bal w

arm

ing r

isk

0.1

.2.3

.4.5

.6.7

.8.9

1

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

< avg. Left_right

> avg. Left_right


01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

< avg. Left_right

> avg. Left_right

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21


None at all

Extremely highrisk

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

> avg. Left_right

< avg. Left_right

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21


01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

glo

ba

l w

arm

ing r

isk

Kahan, D.M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L.L., Braman, D. & Mandel,

G. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate

change risks. Nature Climate Change 2, 732-735 (2012).







0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

1

-2.5 -1 0 1 2.599th percentile1st percentile 84th percentile16th percentile 50th percentile

Pro

bab

ility

of

corr

ect

resp

on

se

There is “solid evidence” of recent global warming due “mostly” to “human activity such as burning fossil fuels.”

Ordinary Science Intelligence

LiberalDemocrat

ConservativeRepublican

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

> avg. Left_right

< avg. Left_right

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21


01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 210

12

34

56

7

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

> avg. Left_right

< avg. Left_right

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21


01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 210

12

34

56

7

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

> avg. Left_right

< avg. Left_right

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21


01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

> avg. Left_right

< avg. Left_right

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21


01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 210

12

34

56

7

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21







0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

1

-2.5 -1 0 1 2.599th percentile1st percentile 84th percentile16th percentile 50th percentile

Pro

bab

ility

of

corr

ect

resp

on

se

There is “solid evidence” of recent global warming due “mostly” to “human activity such as burning fossil fuels.”

Ordinary Science Intelligence

LiberalDemocrat







Teaching evolution to “nonbelievers”


This measures who we are . . .



This measures who we are . . . so measure what we know

instead


Disentanglement principle:

“Don’t make reasoning, free people choose between

knowing what’s known & being who they are!”


The climate science communication measurement problem:

What we know Who we arevs.


What we know Who we are

How to disentangle

from

The climate science communication measurement problem:


Disentangling knowledge & identity: a lab experiment


Cultural Cognition Project SE Fla. evidence-based science

communication initiative

Disentangling knowledge & identity: field studies


“How much risk do you believe global warming poses to human health,

safety, or prosperity?”

United States as a whole (summer 2013)

Southeast Florida (Fall 2013)

no risk at all

Egalitarian communitarian

Hierarch individualist

A polluted science communication environment . . .

An unpolluted one . . .

no risk at all

01

23

45

67

-1.6 -1 0 1 1.6

None at all

Extremely high

risk

Very low

Low

Between low

and moderate

Moderate

Between moderate

and high

High

Very liberal

Strong Democrat

Very Conservative

Strong Republican

Liberal

Democrat

Conservative

Republican

Moderate

Independent

r = - 0.65, p < 0.01

Left_right

“How much risk do you believe fluoridated water poses to human

health, safety, or prosperity?”

01

23

45

67

-1.6 -1 0 1 1.6

01

23

45

67

-1.6 -1 0 1 1.6

r = 0.07, p < 0.010

12

34

56

7

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

“How much risk do you believe medical x-rays poses to human

health, safety, or prosperity?”

None at all

Extremely high

risk

Very low

Low

Between low

and moderate

Moderate

Between moderate

and high

High

Science Comprehension

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

> avg. Left_right

< avg. Left_right

Extremelyhigh risk

no risk at all

Extremelyhigh riskno risk

at all

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

None at all

Extremely high

risk

Very low

Low

Between low

and moderate

Moderate

Between moderate

and high

High

Science Comprehension

> avg. Left_right

< avg. Left_right

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 210

12

34

56

7

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

01

23

45

67

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Extremelyhigh risk

“How much risk do you believe global warming poses to human health, safety,

or prosperity?”

N = 2,306. Monroe, Miami-Dade, Broward & Palm Beach Counties. Sept. 2013. Subjects “color coded” based on response to risk-perception outcome variable. X-axis reflects subject score on NSF “Science indicators” science literacy scale.

4 SE Fla. Counties

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

01

23

45

67

-1.6 -1 0 1 1.6

None at all

Extremely highrisk

Very liberalStrong Democrat

Very ConservativeStrong Republican

ModerateIndependent

r = 0.07, p < 0.01

< avg. Left_right

> avg. Left_right


01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

< avg. Left_right

> avg. Left_right

01

23

45

67

-1.6 -1 0 1 1.6

r = - 0.65, p < 0.01

Very high

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

Global warming

01

23

45

67

-1.6 -1 0 1 1.6



LiberalDemocrat


ModerateIndependent

r = - 0.60, p < 0.01

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

01

23

45

67

-1.6 -1 0 1 1.6

None at all

Extremely highrisk



ModerateIndependent

r = 0.07, p < 0.01

< avg. Left_right

> avg. Left_right


01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

< avg. Left_right

> avg. Left_right

01

23

45

67

-1.6 -1 0 1 1.6

r = - 0.65, p < 0.01

Very high

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

01

23

45

67

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

Global warming


4 SE Fla. Counties


Disentanglement principle:

“Don’t make reasoning, free people choose between

knowing what’s known & being who they are!”


What is to be done? You tell me!


Communicate normality


Not “us vs. them”

just us, using what we know



Proselytizing the normality of climate science


Not “us vs. them”

just us, using what we know



Just us, using what we know!


New data: shame & critical reasoning!

www.culturalcognition.net

Science Narratives and the Law: The Link from Lab to Legislature

Francis X. Shen

University of Minnesota Law SchoolMacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law & Neuroscience

May 12, 2015

www.lawneuro.org

Politics and the Future of Neuroscience, Law, and Public Policy

Science Narrativesand the Link from Lab to Legislature

The Brain Takes Center Stage

Source: Michael S. Gazzaniga, Neuroscience In The Courtroom, 304 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN 54 (2011).

Neuroscientific Evidence In Court

:: Culpability and Mitigation

Motivation

:: We see similar issues arising in statehouse as in courthouse

Lab Neuroscience

Law,Legislation

LawyerNeuroscience

LayNeuroscience

LegislatorNeuroscience

LobbyistNeuroscience

Enabling (or hindering) research

Media Schools Outreach

Neuroscience Narratives

:: Constructing a narrative: from lab to legislation

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Number of Proposed Brain-Related Bills, by Year(All state legislatures, 1997-2009)

Neuroscience Narratives

:: Topics covered by brain bills

Alzheimer’s * Autism * Brain Death * Brain Injury * Civil Commitment * Crime Victims * Criminal

Defense * Early Childhood * Education * End of

Life * Foster Care * Health Care * Juvenile Justice * Mental Health * Military Veterans *

Neonatal * Parkinson’s * Parole * Post Traumatic Stress Disorder * Privacy * Sex Offenders * Shaken Baby

Syndrome * Special Education * Sports Concussions * Toxins * Veterans Courts

The Public

:: Self-reported knowledge in national sample, N = 814

How knowledgeable would you say you are about science?How knowledgeable would you say you are about neuroscience?

2%

6%

11%

34%

24%

14%

8%

19%

25%

23%

17%

10%

5%

0%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Not at all knowledgeable Somewhat knowledgeable Very knowledgeable

Science Knowledgge

Neuro Knowledge

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Strongly

Disapprove

Disapprove Neither

Approve Nor

Disapprove

Approve Strongly

Approve

Democrat Independent Republican

The Public

:: Approval of neuroscience-based legal reforms, N = 1,004 (National CARAVAN sample)

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Democrat Independent Republican

Appro

val

of

Neu

rola

w

(1 =

Str

ongly

Dis

appro

ve,

5 =

Str

ongly

Appro

ve)

Control Prosecution Defense

*** p = .001

*** p < .001

The Public

:: Effect of issue framing, by political party


Panelist Discussion

#SocialScienceLive


While we do our best to answer as many questions as we can, time constraints

may not allow us to answer every question. Thank you for understanding.

Send us your questions!

Send in your questions

via the Question Box on your screen. →

Using Twitter? Use

the hashtag

#SocialScienceLive.

#SocialScienceLive


Webinar recording, slides, and follow-up Q&A will be emailed to you and available on socialsciencespace.com.

Thank you!

Be sure to check our website for updates on our webinar series!

#SocialScienceLive

When Science and Politics Collide

Science

Transcript of When Science and Politics Collide