6 Community-Driven Research in the Anthropocene Rajul E. Pandya* 6.1. INTRODUCTION teaching evolution in public schools [e.g., Berkman and Plutzer, 2011]. The low rates of minority participation in The Anthropocene, as outlined in the introduction to science [National Science Foundation (NSF), 2013] in the this volume, is defined by the unprecedented global impact United States suggest this science–society gap is biggest human society has made, and will continue to make, on the for communities that have been, and continue to be, Earth system. Never before have human actions directly underrepresented in science. and indirectly impacted the lives and livelihood of ecosys- In the Anthropocene, the gulf between scientific under- tems and people who were far away and yet to be born. standing and civic decision-making simultaneously Our ways of doing and applying science grew up before increases the likelihood of disaster, our vulnerability to the Anthropocene and are still adapting to this new natural hazards, and the inequity of their impact. reality. Science has already undergone two paradigm Hurricane Katrina provides a vivid illustration. Scientists shifts in the Anthropocene: a shift away from deter- long warned about the combination of fragile physical minism driven by the insights of quantum mechanics and environment and declining socioeconomic infrastructure chaos theory and a shift from reductionism toward sys- [Travis, 2005; Comfort, 2006] that exacerbated New tems thinking. Geoscience played a major role in both of Orleans’ risk. Nonetheless, decision-making designed to these shifts. It will also play a major role in a third shift, minimize the impact of frequent small events increased as we adapt scientific methods and ideas to the challenge the vulnerability to less frequent, stronger events—a of doing science in an increasingly interconnected world common and well-documented pattern [Kates et al., and recognize humans as part of the Earth system. 2006]. For example, landfill development of the wetlands The gap between science and society will motivate this reduced the occurrence of seasonal flooding and also next change. You can see evidence of this gap throughout eliminated a natural buffer from strong winds and storm the geosciences, in the growing socioeconomic impact of surges [Farber, 1987]. Similarly, the levees were only natural disasters, the politicized debates about human- designed to withstand a “standard project hurricane,” induced climate change, and the difficulty in recognizing (about a Category 3) but could be overtopped by stronger and planning for diminishing supplies of fossil fuels. It is hurricanes [Sills et al., 2008]. Meanwhile, anthropogenic also visible across the sciences, in low levels of public climate change increased both the likelihood of a stronger understanding of science [National Science Board (NSB), hurricane and the strength of the associated storm surge 2012], students’ disinterest and poor-performance in sci- [McInnes et al., 2003]. Finally, the strong racial and class ence and engineering [NSB, 2012], and the conflict bet- differences in the impact of the storm [Elliott and Pias, ween science and other ways of knowing, as epitomized 2006] raises difficult questions about inequitable applica- by the longstanding controversy in the United States over tion of scientific research and underscores the urgency of applying science for all of society. * Thriving Earth Exchange, American Geophysical Union, Hurricane Katrina also illustrates a fundamental Washington, D.C., and University Corporation for Atmospheric point: disasters result from the combination of physical Research, Boulder, Colorado events—environmental phenomena such as drought or Future Earth—Advancing Civic Understanding of the Anthropocene, Geophysical Monograph 203, First Edition. Edited by Diana Dalbotten, Gillian Roehrig, and Patrick Hamilton. © 2014 American Geophysical Union. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 53 54 FUTURE EARTH: ADVANCING CIVIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE ANTHROPOCENE earthquakes—and the social, economic, political, and the last forty years in nearly every field of science cultural environments that structure how people live [O’Brien, 2012], including geosciences [Engelder, 2007]. and make them more or less vulnerable to those events As another example, from personal experience, I have [Wisner, 2004]. Anticipating, mitigating, and recov- seen the scientific norm of skepticism (i.e., the critical ering from disasters, therefore, requires the integration scrutiny of ideas before acceptance) create tension when of multiple kinds of scientific knowledge into the overused in social contexts that call for support for students broader social context used to support decisions or respect for elders. Communalism, or the norm that [Alexander, 1997]. In other words, living in the makes scientific results the common property of the entire Anthropocene requires we bring science and society scientific community [Merton, 1973], can conflict with the closer together. notion that some kinds of indigenous knowledge are Our continuing descent into the Anthropocene argues privileged and only appropriate for a specific time, place, or for a new approach. The large difference between the community [Thornburgh, personal communication, 2009]. scientific consensus and public opinion about anthropo- Even the norm of universalism [Merton, 1973] or the genic climate change—97 percent publishing climate sci- belief that anyone can make a contribution to science entists agree that humans’ activities are contributing to a regardless of race, gender, or ethnicity can interfere with changing climate [Anderegg, 2010] versus only 40 percent the connection between scientists and non-scientists. of Americans [Leiserowitz, 2011]—points to a basic com- Some scientists conflate the intent of science with the munication gap. The polarized nature of belief in climate practice and assume that biases and preconceptions are change suggests that scientific evidence alone is not not active in the conduct and evaluation of science. sufficient to affect change or impact behavior [Moser and Research, not to mention the readily apparent dearth of Dilling, 2006] and challenges us to better integrate minorities in many sciences, demonstrates that biases do scientific knowledge into cultural, ethical, and aesthetic influence decisions such as hiring and mentoring [Moss- frameworks. Indeed, the notion that political opinions Racusina et al., 2009]. This visible difference between the can influence belief in empirical phenomena is frustrating aspirational norm and the actual practice can undermine to many scientists and highlights some of the challenges the overall credibility of scientists. Insidiously, the of expecting scientific findings to influence actions and presence of the aspirational norm may exacerbate the policy. problem by discouraging people from acknowledging and addressing bias [Valian, 1999]. 6.2. MIND THE GAP Communication norms also contribute to the science– society gap. At the most basic level, communication Because this book is aimed at scientists and science to the public is often valued less than communication to educators, this chapter focuses on what scientists and sci- other scientists. Excellent public communication may ence educators can do to bridge the science–society gap. even be penalized: Carl Sagan’s denial of membership in To do this, the chapter begins by exploring how scientist the National Academies of Science was partially attrib- and science educators contribute to the gap. This is not uted to his success connecting with general audiences meant to blame scientists, paint them all with a broad [Poundstone, 1999]. More practically, the strategies scien- brush, or excuse the unhelpful approaches of some non- tists learn to communicate with each other may not work scientists; instead it is meant to identify things scientists as well in communicating with the public. Whereas scien- and science-educators could do differently that would tists focus on the content of the presentation and their have a positive impact. argument, many non-scientists, or scientists operating The cultural norms, or set of expectations and rules for outside of their own discipline, look to noncontent- behavior and interaction, associated with science con- related cues (such as style of dress, manner of speech, tribute to the gap between scientists and non-scientists. clarity of graphics) to judge the credibility of a scientific For example, the competitive norm in science shows up in messenger and her or his message [Olson, 2007]. Critical introductory science classes and the focus on “weeding questioning, common in scientific discussion, can alien- out” students; this in turn contributes to college students’ ate the general public [Olson, 2007]. The careful qualifica- decision to leave or avoid science majors [Tobias and tion of uncertainty can be confusing [Bubela et al., 2000] Fehrs, 1991; Seymour and Hewitt, 1994, Strenta et al., or frustrating to non-scientists seeking actionable 1994; Luppino and Sander, 2012]. A corresponding deval- information [Moser and Dilling, 2006]. Worse yet, uncer- uing of collaborative processes shows up in the tendency tainty may be deliberately exaggerated in an effort to to value single-authored publications above multi- influence public policy, as in the case of climate change authored publications in tenure and promotion [Oreskes, 2010]. [Macfarlane and Luzzadder-Beach, 1998], despite the fact For