Science communication hard in land of plenty

A similar and perhaps related phenomenon has occurred in health. Opinions on health are as tightly held as those on the environment. This is not surprising given that a healthy environment, eg clean air and water, are essential to life itself. Expenditure on scientifically unproved 'natural' and 'alternative' remedies and therapies runs into billions and is growing rapidly with government rebates now costing more than $30M annually. A review is presently identifying therapies which lack a scientific basis sufficient to qualify for the rebate. ‘To spend much and gain little is the sure road to ruin.’ Dr Jones will surely know the origin of this good advice.

A ‘prosperous future’ probably means different things to different people. The myth of infinite economic growth is gradually giving way to the notion of a ‘progress indicator’ measuring a range of environmental, social and economic parameters. In this model, citizens are not mere economic units; their wellbeing is the primary function of economic activity.

However, people are unlikely and may indeed be unable to defend something they do not understand. The challenge for science is to speak the language of its intended audience. Instead of ‘adding’ fluoride to the water and iodine to salt, science could have explained that many Australian soils, and therefore water supplies, are deficient in these minerals and the health impacts of this.

If people know that tea leaves contain more fluoride than the water used to make their morning brew, opposition dissolves. Whatever name is given to the incredibly improbable event that sparked the first life on Earth, it can surely co-exist with evolution. The challenge for science is to influence popular opinion in ways that appeal to commonsense and dare I say it, self-interest.

Get the science of communication and the communication of science right and prosperity will take care of itself.