Want to save the world? Try science

Science, as all sensible fellows appreciate, is the kind of caper best reserved for nerds.

This has been known for a long time. Indeed more than 80 years ago writer P.G. Wodehouse satirised scientists with his character Gussie Fink-Nottle, who had an obsession with newts. He was of the horn-rimmed glasses and timid persuasion who eschew the metropolis and are utterly hopeless with the opposite, or indeed any sex or gender.

Science is fundamentally unsound. This appears to be the message that our political leaders wish to convey, when science conveys inconvenient truths. Preferring to wheel out a rum assortment of naysaying “experts” such as second-hand car dealers, turf accountants, miners and other eminence grise, the government doesn’t appear to have much faith in science.

The scientific consensus is overwhelming that climate change is not only happening, but the human species is playing a key role in the process. It is equally as unified that processed sugar is contributing significantly to a bevy of health problems costing billions of dollars including diabetes and obesity.

How do our elected representatives respond to this? With bluster, with their heads so deeply stuck among the bushfire-charred trees they refuse to see the wood. They respond on the one hand by dealing out meagre and insufficient grants to Australian researchers, while the other hand is on the government coffers being lined with current or promised future largesse from industries contributing the most to damaging the environment.

Science, alas, is all about evidence and fair, transparent, replicable processes. Make no bones, it will be science that gets us out of the coronavirus problem. It is science that helps us understand this planet we are living on, how best to sustain both it and us. Science has never been more central and fundamental to our wellbeing and futures.

Doling out Australia Day awards to scientists is no consolation for allowing the denigration, the deliberate misinterpretation and naysaying about science and scientists when it suits a political purpose. The ill-informed, self-interested commentary causes damage to whichever scientist is unfortunate enough to be in the cross-hairs on the day, but also more generally to the reputation of science itself. Pursue science as a career and prepare to have your rigorous peer-reviewed work derided, denied and generally kicked around as a political football. What an appealing career choice.

It would be easy to lay all of the blame at the feet of the various governments, however this same behaviour can be seen among the “wellness” band of brothers and sisters who are also guilty of cherry-picking science to promote the health benefits of a twig, or breathing through your armpits or some such. Yet at the same time they will turn a blind eye to the contrary evidence or the total lack of it when it suits their purpose. If you believed some of the claims, we’d all be walking around with tin foil covering our heads.

Science is not always right, that is the point. Evidence changes as it is accumulated. But the alternative to evidence-based decision-making rapidly descends to superstitious beliefs and pandering to stakeholders. Such behaviour corrupts us all and threatens to bankrupt the planet.

It is about time that Wodehouse’s Gussie Fink-Nottle and all who followed in his scientific path are treated with the respect and understanding they not only deserve, but all of the rest of us on this planet so desperately need. We need to be encouraging science as a career, and properly respecting and supporting scientists and their incredible work.

Jim Bright, FAPS, is professor of career education and development at the Australian Catholic University and owns Bright and Associates, a career management consultancy. Email to opinion@jimbright.com Follow him on Twitter @DrJimBright.