On Thursday, a team of scientists at the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory detected gravitational waves. In measuring the sound of two black holes colliding, one of the last points of Einstein’s theory of relativity was proven correct. However, this triumph is not just a triumph for the sake of discovery; it was a triumph for the scientists who dedicated decades of their lives to proving this research. The time spent toward the study was worth it.
Then again, besides discovery for the sake of scientific curiosity, what’s the point? In the eyes of a large portion of Americans, because consumers can’t buy gravitational waves at their local convenience stores, these scientific geniuses were wasting their time and tax dollars.
People are pulled in different directions on what to think of science. It’s a common misconception that an economic value needs to be put on science, and it’s hard to argue this misconception when it is rooted in the highest branches of scientific research. Since 2010 — as pointed out in an article by Nature — Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, has explained research funding through economics, showing how each dollar spent in research pumps out additional economic revenue. The problem is, no price can match value when research can save lives, combat disease and change how people view the world around them.
The gap between scientists and average Americans can be bridged by attempts from both sides to understand each other. Americans need to be more inclined to have an opinion, and an informed one, about science in general. Scientists are the ones who can solve this problem. It may not be crucial whether people understand or care about topics such as gravitational waves, but scientists should worry when people accept subjective stances on objectively important issues.
Take climate change as an example. This isn’t some obscure scientific purpose to find out the perplexing nature of our galaxy; it’s an issue that could end life as we know it within the next few decades. Yet as politicians argue about whether scientific research should increase to combat climate change, there is still the argument about whether climate change is actually real. This is what happens when politicians give their opinions on complex issues they do not understand. Americans are forced to take advice from those who know little about science when there is a plethora of experts on the subject. However, most scientists do not relate to the average person. When scientists publish papers in peer-reviewed journals such as Nature, they might as well be in another language, as the articles are generally written solely for other scientists to read them. So if the average Joe doesn’t know what 4-tert-butylcyclohexanone is, tough luck. If scientists want people to understand and therefore appreciate all types of research, science needs to be explained better. Scientists have to reach people more effectively, because there are few scientists who can (although should be able to) explain complex scientific phenomena in a readily accessible fashion.
It is not essential for discoveries like gravitational waves to be understood by nonscientists. However, scientists sometimes need to put as much effort into understanding people as they do into understanding science itself. People may not understand organic synthesis or quantum mechanics, but they understand danger. They understand the value of life. That is why, while people are wishy-washy on topics like climate change, opinions are unanimous to support research on cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. When scientists put in the effort to put complex scientific topics into terminology people understand, the scope of what people consider to “matter” in science will expand drastically.
Joshua Udvardy is a UF chemical engineering freshman. His column appears on Wednesdays.
