As already announced, the 5th
Bray-and-von Storch survey has been completed and the response frequencies
become available. For further details of the set of five surveys refer to the
first entry here on the Klimazwiebel. The sampling and the demographics will be
made public with the full report, which is to be expected in a few months.
Here, and in following threads, we
will present a few results of the 5th Bray-and-von Storch survey,
which may be of interest for some; we certainly would like to hear the comments
by the readers.
Today we discuss the responses of
two questions from the block “Science and Society”, which are essentially
asking if science should be “FOR the people” or “BY the people”.
There seems a tendency to accept the
claim of science being “FOR the people”, while there is a reservation against
“BY the people”: – the ratio of agreement / disagreement (5-7/1-3) for the
“FOR”-question (brown) is 2.8, whereas for “BY”-question (green) is only 0.6.
Here are the numbers shown in the
diagram:
Science should be for the people, and governments should
direct scientific resources into areas that would prove to be of the greatest
benefit for society.
Likert-scale
response
|
number
|
Percentage
of sum 1-7 (=542)
|
|
1
|
strongly
disagree
|
21
|
3.87
|
2
|
44
|
8.12
|
|
3
|
50
|
9.23
|
|
4
|
101
|
18.63
|
|
5
|
133
|
24.54
|
|
6
|
107
|
19.74
|
|
7
|
strongly
agree
|
84
|
15.87
|
542 valid
responses
Rather than being designed within science, research
priorities should be put forward by individuals and groups who are in touch
with genuine social needs.
Likert-scale
response
|
number
|
Percentage
of sum 1-7 (=537)
|
|
1
|
strongly
disagree
|
60
|
11.17
|
2
|
96
|
17.88
|
|
3
|
115
|
21.42
|
|
4
|
106
|
19.74
|
|
5
|
100
|
18.62
|
|
6
|
38
|
7.08
|
|
7
|
strongly
agree
|
20
|
4.10
|
537 valid
responses
Posts
13 comments:
We conducted a t-test of the means between the two variables. The two means are statistically significantly different.
for the people - mean = 4.75
by the people - mean = 3.54
Ha: diff < 0 Ha: diff != 0 Ha: diff > 0
Pr(T < t) = 1.0000 Pr(|T| > |t|) = 0.0000 Pr(T > t) = 0.0000
Was ist der Hintergrund für diese Fragen? In welchen konkreten Situationen stehen diese Optionen - for the people, by the people - zur Disposition, und gelten sie gleichermaßen für Großforschung / Forschungszentren und Universitäten? Ein Beispiel aus der Klimaforschung zur Veranschaulichung wäre prima - irgendwie bin ich zu begriffsstutzig und komme nicht drauf, was der Kontext für diese Fragestellungen ist.
Ich finde Frage 1 schwierig. Was bedeutet science for the people?
Letzte Woche machte die Entdeckung der Gravitationswellen Schlagzeilen. Ist das science for the people oder science for science? Ich tendiere einerseits zu der Meinung, das ist eine großartige Kulturleistung der gesamten Menschheit und für die Menschheit. Ich gestehe aber ein, dass der Mann oder die Frau auf der Straße davon nicht unbedingt profitieren wird.
Da haben es die Klimaforscher wirklich leichter. Ihre Ergebnisse sind für alle Menschen relevant. Es würde mich wirklich interessieren, wie das Ergebnis bei einer Befragung von Astronomen ausgesehen hätte.
Andreas
War Fritz Habers Forschung " for the people"
Hr. von Storch
Ich neige mit Werner Krauss einig zu sein. Die Fragesituation ist zu dünn und zu wenig definiert. "Jeh nach dem.." kann man sagen und "Wieso eigentlich?
Ich meine beides zu kennen, Forschung die für die Gesellschaft und "Umwelt" entscheidend oder entsetzlich ist, und Forschungen die wirklich niemand angehen sollte und doch sehr wertvoll oder wichtig ist. Das ist bitte jeh nach dem,....
Hier auf mein Schreibtisch habe ich zum Beispiel ein Forschungsresultat.
Wir sind nähmlich Küstenforscher, und dann auf einmal sah ich auf langer Abstand etwas das ich zu erkennen meinte, und bin nie auf jene Insel vorher gewesen weil es immer Mil. Sperrgebiet war. Und sind dahingekommen und habe naher untersucht. Tatsächlich. Weisse Korallenstrände. Und habe Proben mitgenommen.
Wozu eigentlich? Naja, ein bizchen mineralogische und chemische Forschung kann nicht schaden,.....
Ich habe erst festgestellt dass es unglaublich hart ist. Man kommt gar nicht mit Stahl und nicht mal mit Diamantbohrer durch. Und trotzdem ist es CaCO3, was man einfach mit Spitzflamme und HCl feststellen kann. Auch noch erstaunlich proteinfrei, es bräunt nicht wenn man es brennt aber es bröckelt dann stark.
Und das ist kein Calcit sondern eher Aragonit, wirklich wichtig für alle zu wissen. "Bio- kalk" heisst es auch manchmal.
Weiter habe ich es in Schweden verkauft, mich in Schweden wichtig gemacht indem ich die Schweden empfohlen habe Lophelia pertusa L. sweden zu suchen. Dann kommt man nach Koster, und da liegt Schwedens erste und gröste marine Naturreservat. Das mit Ytre Hvaler Naturreservat zusammenhängt.
Es ist Kaltwasser Tiefwasser Korallenriffe, die weltweit festgestellt sind aber hier in Norwegen besonders viel, wohl weil man das Tiefwasser wegen Öl und Gasindustrie besonders sorgfältig unersucht hat.
Im Oslofjord liegt es dann auch wegen der besonders starke Landhebung auf Land, und man kann hier stellenweisse solche Korallen auf Land graben. Die Haselbüsche und Erlen und Wildkirschen wachsen üppig darauf.
Kalk und Aragonit ist wichtig. Man sollte es unbedingt für die Klimadebatte als Teilpenzum studieren und pökern, dazu noch muscheln und schnecken und koralle suchen und sammeln um besser nachdenken zu können (= LAPIS PHILOSOPHORVM). Dafür ist es nützlich.
Weiter gebe ich es für meinen schönsten und treusten Damen aus, auch wichtig und nützlich.
Aber dies sagt eigenlich dass man erst nachher ordentlich weiss wofür die Forschung nützlich ist. Und dass man es eher wissen muss die Forschung nützlich zu machen, oder sie besser zu verwerten. Und das man gar nicht so sehr Forschung bestellen, planieren oder programmieren oder "lenken" kann.
Jenes ist auch meine hauptsächlichen, spontane Einwände bei diese Umfrage- untersuchung. Wissen die Leute eigentlich so gut worum es sich eigentlich handeln kann?
Denn das ist auch meine solide Erfahrung im Leben. Man weiss vorher nicht so genau was man finden oder herausfinden wird, sondern man muss es eher wissen das zu folgen und sichern und nützlich zu machen, das was man eigentlich findet und nicht so sehr was man geplant hat.
Oder wenn man im Wald geht um beeren zu suchen, nimmt dann immer einige Plastiktüten mehr mit denn, man weiss nie was man eigentlich findet und vielleicht findet man nicht so viele Beeren sondern eher was anderes. man muss immer gut vorbereitet sein um das zu nehmen und zu verwenden was man eigentlich findet. Auf jeden fall, so habe ich öffter was gefunden.
Die "Nebenprodukte" der eventuelle Forschung kan oft wichtiger sein. Und wie gesagt, wissen nützlich zu machen oder besser zu verwenden.
Maybe we should explain, why we have published these pieces of the results of the survey. It is simply made to generate some interest and offer new points of departure for thinking; the full results with all questions will be published at a later time. The block "Science and Society", to which the two questions in this thread belong, runs with about 20 questions. Discussions of the blocks,and the results, will be subject to future scholarly publications. Respondants had the oportunity to add written comments, these will be published also in some future.
Offering some samples of questions may be worthwhile for some; but it is certainly not mandatory to read this nor to understand a framework behind the questions.
I wonder if we should continue offering (a few) more samples.
If one is interested in the relationship between climate science and society, similar issues were alluded to in the 2008 survey of climate scientists. Questions 30-35, pages 54-57 and question 70 page 81.
The Bray and von Storch-survey of the perceptions of climate scientists 2008: report, codebook and XLS data
The background to the questions relates to possible ways in which climate science represents a shift in the way some science is conducted (in a grand sense) and the purpose of some science (in a grand sense). There are no specific ‘options’ but there are calls for greater public inclusion, and in some ways this is evident in the involvement of climate change/environmental issue NGOs involvement in policy advice and against the grain of the old truth-to-power perception of science. To answer Werner’s question, the focus is on transitions in science, not institutes per se. As an example, for an extended discussion of a German case see ‘Climate-change lore and its implications for climate science: Post-science deliberations?’
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328714001979
Science for the people suggests that science is for the benefit of humanity, science by the people that the person on the street is involved in the design and production of science. The gravitational waves are science for the sake of knowledge. Perhaps in the long run it will also have benefits beyond knowledge, i.e. have an application or insights beneficial to humanity on the street. But the discovery as far as I know did not include public participation. Public participation seems to coincide with the ‘morality’ involved in the issue, as with ‘lives at stake’ in the case of climate change.
Fritz Haber – it depends on which application of his research you consider – the explosives or the fertilizer. Perhaps Fritz Haber was concerned with the process not the application. Typically the application is for the people and the process is science for knowledge. This argument is much debated in the literature and resulted in a shift in the internal philosophy of science after WWII. But that is not the question here. The main issue is should the person on the street be included in the process and conduct of science, defining what science should consider as a worthy endeavour, etc. And do scientists endorse this shift?
Dennis,
thanks for your answers, I really appreciate this! This also helps me to pose my concerns more clearly.
In the first question, you address two different things: first part is about science for the people, the second part is about the role of governments. Addressing two different actors / topics in one question makes it in my opinion impossible to give an answer on one scale between agree - disagree. (You can approve science for the people, while you do not approve what a government considers the benefit for the people. Just think of Lysenkoism, as a negative example).
In the second question, you reduce a complex process like setting of research priorities to two actors only, science and individual/groups. In my experience, there are many different actors involved in this process. Why not asking: should civic pressure groups have more influence? Thus, it would not be an either (science) - or (individuals / groups) question, which it is not in reality. And where are the governments that were addressed in the previous questions? Are they not involved in the priority setting - just consider Future Earth, Horizon 2020)?
I read your article, and I think climate change lore is an interesting phenomenon that should become part of the research process (a case for interdisciplinary research, of course). But to ask if climate change lore should replace scientific research priorities sounds polemical and simplifies a complex process.
Finally, these concerns make me wonder if you really can compare the results of the two questions in one chart. What is compared exactly, when so many partial aspects and so many different actors are addressed?
@Dennis Bray
Thanks for your clarification.
You wrote:
„Fritz Haber – it depends on which application of his research you consider – the explosives or the fertilizer. Perhaps Fritz Haber was concerned with the process not the application. Typically the application is for the people and the process is science for knowledge“
Fritz Haber developed a process to fabricate chlorine and he actually applied it. He was scientific advisor to the German government during world war I.
I think he considered his research „for the people“, although for the German people and his nation.
Your definition “Science for the people suggests that science is for the benefit of humanity, science by the people that the person on the street is involved in the design and production of science.“ Raises the bar “for humanity”. Ok that seems to exclude Fritz Haber, but who decides. The individual scientist or all of humanity.
Let’s take DDT, highly debated. It certainly saved a lot of lifes used in agriculture and as an insectizide.
If you ask some NGOs and a lot of people you might not get the answer that it was “for humanity”.
However, the original intent maybe was for humanity.
Unfortunately, intent doesn’t change the effect in nature.
I think the label “science is for the people” is a judgement by society that is neither inherent in the scientific result nor in the application of science.
However, science should be made by the people. Science is not about a formal education or a title or a position or belonging to a peer group, science is about applying a method and that can be done by everybody.
If everybody gets good results is a different matter.
Science can be for-the-people but for profit, not directed by government, as is the case of medicine and pharmacology, or at least most of it. Science could be not-for-the-people but directed by government as is the case in arms and defense sciences. Science can be for-the-people and directed by the government as is the case of climate science and as evident in IPCC reports. For the purpose of the survey that revolves around climate science, both criteria, for-the-people and by-the-government, are necessary in the same question. It also distinguishes the criteria from for-the-people-by-the-people, which is implicit in the by-the-people variable. In the survey question of concern we explicitly ask for both criteria: we ask about X AND Y, not X OR Y.
Thanks again for your patience, Dennis! Your clarification of the underlying assumptions helps a lot to understand the questions and to situate the survey.
Questions I want the answer to:
What do you think is the best estimate for ECS? 5% on low side? 95% on high side?
What do you think is the best estimate for TCR? 5% on low side? 95% on high side?
What do you think is the best estimate for sea level rise till 2100? 5% on low side? 95% on high side?
Along with these I'd like to see meta-data about how much that particular scientist is expert in these particular questions. Not sure how to ask it.
Questions I want the answer to:
What do you think is the best estimate for ECS? 5% on low side? 95% on high side?
What do you think is the best estimate for TCR? 5% on low side? 95% on high side?
What do you think is the best estimate for sea level rise till 2100? 5% on low side? 95% on high side?
Along with these I'd like to see meta-data about how much that particular scientist is expert in these particular questions. Not sure how to ask it.
I am really not sure what is being asked here. If you are asking if we have this data, the answer is we do not have it. If you are asking how to pose the question to ask scientists, the following suggestions might help.
I am not sure if the response categories that you provide match the questions you want to ask i.e % of what (confidence levels? ????). It is not clear what you are asking or what you want to know.
1. What do you think is the best low estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity [[[[no acronyms]]]? Please circle the value that best meets you assessment. %=????
0% 5% 10% 13% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%
[[[ What would 5% mean?]]] [[[What would 95% mean]]]
2. What do you think is the best high estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity [[[no acronyms]]]? Please circle the value that best meets you assessment.
0% 5% 10% 13% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%
3. What do you think is the best low estimate of transient climate response [[[no acronyms]]]? Please circle the value that best meets you assessment.
0% 5% 10% 13% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%
4. What do you think is the best high estimate of transient climate response [[[no acronyms]]]? Please circle the value that best meets you assessment.
0% 5% 10% 13% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%
5. What do you think is the best low estimate of sea level rise until the year 2100? [[[in cm, m – what?]]]
Please circle the value that best meets you assessment.
0% 5% 10% 13% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%
6. What do you think is the best high estimate of sea level rise until the year 2100? [[[in cm, m – what?]]]
Please circle the value that best meets you assessment.
0% 5% 10% 13% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%
[[[Are you asking for metric measurements or for estimates or confidence levels in current scenarios. or …?]]]
Many respondents would not know exactly what you are asking. You need to be more explicit.
“Along with these I'd like to see meta-data about how much that particular scientist is expert in these particular questions. Not sure how to ask it.”
I think you mean demographic data. This would depend on the sample you survey but could include: years in science, disciplinary training, type of institute is which respondent is employed, IPCC involvement, authorship, specific scientific focus, would you say your knowledge of this issue is none-very much, … .
Hope that helps
Post a Comment (pop-up window,non-moderated)