Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Science communication hard in land of plenty

By Max Thomas - posted Tuesday, 24 March 2015


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.

Advertisement

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.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

9 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Max Thomas, Dip. Agric. (retired) worked in the public sector and in private consulting on a range of land, water and waste management projects. He prepared guidelines for irrigation with recycled water for EPA Victoria and developed a number of Environmental Management Systems in the water industry.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Max Thomas

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 9 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy