Perception of Science

Science impact each and every aspect of our modern life. Whether its to do with the food we
consume, to our environment and all other socio-economic affairs. Theres only one domain
where science has not attempted to impact and it is theology. This is based on our religious
believes and scientists are intentionally keeping themselves at bay.
Therefore, it is important to assess what general public view of scientific development.
Technological advancements carries ethical and moral tags. Media plays an important role in
shaping how people perceive scientific investigations with the emergence of electronic tools
such as internet, TV, radios etc media presents an impartial view which helps public
understand what is a sophisticated scientific study.
Media has its views on topics ranging from climate change through to influence of
technology in our day to day life.
Sample questions about science perception:

What do you think science is?

Do you think that science is important for everyday life?

Do you think science is a big part of our society?

What do you think about the new science development in todays technology?

Do scientific findings provide something useful to the society?

Do you think all the new scientific findings should be shared with the public?

What do you think about the information you hear about science in the news? Do you
think its true or false?

Do you think we should build more nuclear power stations?

Do you think that science makes variable contribution to the society?

Do you think the media influences your view about science?

Scientific questions about relevant science:

What is climate change?

What is the scientific evidence that proves the climate is changing?

Is climate change influenced more by human activities and excess greenhouse gases
or change in the suns energy?

Is the hole in the ozone layer related to the climate change we are seeing today?

Is it too late to do anything about climate change?

How does climate change impacts you directly?

What can the public do to reverse the impact of global warming?

Task 2:
We looked into New Scientist Journal for a recent article on climate change by Michael
Lezak published on 31/03/2014. The topic explains how science and scientific tools measure
the changes in climatic conditions. It talk about continental changes that are predicted to
shape how we live by 2050. It also discussed shift of warmer weather from Mediterranean
regions to Northern Europe. Similarly, water shortages in Asian countries, extreme calamities
in Australia and storms impacting Northern America.
In my opinion this article is well written but it wouldve been more useful if graphs, charts
and statistical evidence was supporting the claims. Therefore, it fell short of being considered
a Scientific Article. Instead I would claim it A Journalistic view.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25328-how-climate-change-will-affect-where-youlive.html#.U2trIDpOXmJ

Next we looked at BBCs website for a news article titled A Brief History of Climate
Change. It was published on 20/09/2013 by Richard Black. It provides a chronology of
events starting from 1712 through to 2013 IPCCs amendment report published by UN. In my
opinion, it is a very thorough investigation and provides a detailed overview of factors
contributing to climate change e.g. worlds population reached 7 billion in 2011. Our appetite
for consumption is continuously evolving upward and this cannot be good for sustaining a
healthy life on this planet.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15874560

There was an interesting article published in the daily Guardian newspaper on 04/03/2014 by
Damian Carrington. It talks about using spare home PC computers to link up in a super
network to model and assess climate change. The combined power of all the spare capacities
of home connected PCs will be used to calculate clouds movements, rationalise weather
patterns and forecasting extreme weather events. I think it is a good idea, considering home
PCs are mostly used for personal entertainment.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/04/home-computers-scientists-climaterole-uk-wet-winter

Task 3:
Media reports could serve a good cause or if they are lobbying on behalf of commercial firms
such as energy firms, then their impartiality is questionable.
The pros and cons of media influence our perceptions about science in general public:
Constructive
Mass polarisation of thoughts
Easy access to general public
If media out lets were not there, people
wont be able to share experiences and
thoughts

Cost of campaign advertising are getting

lower. So WWF, UNICEF, who can now
appeal directly through media resources
Should present unbiased, technically
correct and factual reports
Theres a steady stream of very good
scientific program on popular TV
channels which provide awareness e.g.
discovery channel, Landscape channel,
earth channel etc.
Rapidly evolving. This essentially means
media is working hard to keep up with
the emerging new concepts, theories and
scientific developments
Scientists do tend to use media platforms
to debate matter of public interest.

Destructive
Could potentially be lobbying for the wrong
causes e.g. drilling in Arctic region for oil
Easy access could be a factor causing
confusion or propaganda war.
Too much influential e.g. CNN promoting
the failed ENRON company despite all the
unethical and illegal practices within the
company. Similarly, no weapons of mass
destructive in Iraq but media kept defending
invasion of a sovereign country in the name
of democracy.
There is a political element to most media
discussions e.g. blue whales culling quota
allocated to Japan.
Some media reports are only journalistic
views. Theres little scientific evidence
presented.
Media tend to give more coverage to
commercially rewarding matter e.g.
Fashion, Finance, Music, Cultures etc.
climate change gets surrogate attention.