Credit: iStockphoto

Related articles

• Climate reporting "too balanced" say scientists
• Science under fire from 'merchants of doubt'
• Australian scientists take a stand on climate
• Ozone hole linked to climate change, rain increase
• Messenger of doom

"People hate scientists. There is no use beating about the bush here." It's a rather shocking statement, and even more so when you realise it came from Jacob Bronowski, the renowned mathematician and historian of science. He made the comment in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in January 1956.

The fact that it seems so shocking today gives us something to celebrate, however. It also gives us an insight into a burden that scientists can now throw off.

After World War II, science's reputation was at a low. Though it had scored some noticeably positive results - penicillin and radar, for example - Werner von Braun's V2 rockets had rained destruction on London.

The terror of the atomic bomb was the creation of scientists. Science had sanctioned atrocities in the form of experiments in the concentration camps and on prisoners of war. It had produced nerve and mustard gas. No wonder people hated scientists.

At the same time, though, governments were investing heavily in science. University science departments, keen to allay public fears, began to impress upon the scientists the need for a sober, trustworthy, altruistic public face.

And so began the era of Brand Science: a level-headed, responsible, objective, dispassionate endeavour, focussed on delivering a better future.

This attitude of distanced objectivity has created a monster: the scientist who casts off their responsibility as a citizen.

For decades now, scientists have been taught that good scientists quietly publish their results, and perhaps advise governments if - and only if - their advice is sought. This ethos can be seen in the pronouncements of Susan Solomon, a senior scientist at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

In 2008, she told the New York Times that "if we as scientists go beyond what we know, into our personal opinions and values, we begin to engage in the same sort of personal speculation masquerading as authoritative that we dislike when it is done by the sceptics."

The truth is, what a scientist knows to be true should inform their personal opinions and values - and actions. If the situation with climate change is as desperate as scientists working in that field say it is, their personal convictions, broadcast far and wide, should be part of the effort to mobilise public opinion into forcing political action.

The problem is, those who have broken the Brand Science code have been cast out. Carl Sagan is a good example: his research into the likely effects of a nuclear winter provoked him to challenge the wisdom of stockpiling nuclear weapons. He was passed over for tenure at Harvard University, and for a long time denied entry to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Though that was decades ago, the fear remains: scientists worry that activism might have adverse effects on their professional standing.

Some climate scientists are fighting back regardless. Australian scientists have spoken out in support of a carbon tax, and a group of angry climate scientists helped create an explicit rap video that ridiculed sceptics. Last month, James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, called on U.S. citizens to show up and get themselves arrested in protests over government inaction on climate change.

The good news is that this behaviour will no longer affect the standing of scientists. Opinion polls show that, while politicians and faceless organisations are deemed untrustworthy, people now like and trust science and scientists once more.

What's more, a 2009 Pew Research Centre Survey revealed that more than three quarters of the public thought it appropriate for scientists to become "actively involved in political debates on controversial issues such as stem cell research and nuclear power". Scientists were more highly regarded than medical doctors and the clergy. In addition, the overwhelming majority of scientists - 97% - said they would be happy for colleagues to be involved in activism.

It's time we saw more scientists on the barricades. As Sherwood Rowland, who discovered the risk that chlorofluorocarbons and other man-made gases posed to the ozone layer, said: "What's the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we're willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?"

Readers' comments