Matt Dumont takes a look at the role of science in our society, and whether it deserves all of its bad press.

The role of science in society is simple; to progress our understanding of the universe, and convey the findings to the rest of society. However, between the research and teaching there is a fracture in the process preventing knowledge from being passed smoothly on to the masses.

Scientists have been, and are now, perceived by some to be arrogant, self-important liberals who remain estranged from the real world in their ivory tower of academia. This has led to a disregard of science as the path to truth, but rather as a selfish scheme led by intellectuals so they can – as Rick Perry puts it – “have dollars rolling into their pockets.”

The situation is exacerbated by misinterpretation and sensationalism in the media. People are unceasingly told things such as how they must not eat certain foods or they’ll give you cancer, a type of vaccine will give you autism, or genetically modified foods will kill us all. This misinformation, caused by poor reporting and heavy concision, has sprung a following of ‘denialists’ who question the teachings of science. However, one could argue, this is actually not such a bad thing. After all, are they not simply asking the questions that scientists once asked, and above all, reinforcing theories?

Nevertheless persistent, seemingly irrational, denialism that serves political, financial or religious interests can be dangerous, and is no more prevalent than in America’s Republican Party. In Iowa, only 21 per cent of Republican voters believe Climate Change is true and only 35 per cent believe in evolution. It is in these two topics that scientists like Richard Dawkins are struggling to teach to the world.

In doing so, Dawkins himself has come under fire by many including scientists and atheists for being too aggressive and arrogant. What’s worse is that few Republican representatives have shown support for scientific advice. Michele Bachman wrongfully dismissed a potentially life-saving HPV vaccine as ‘dangerous’, Rick Perry has persistently spoken out against climate science and has called evolution ‘just a theory’, whilst both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have expressed their doubts about the validity of scientific data.

The dismissal of science is, however, a transatlantic problem. Back in 2009, Professor David Nutt was accused of acting irresponsibly when asked for his advice on the legalisation of drugs, with many, including the Daily Mail reporter A. N. Wilson claiming his scientific argument as unfit for the real world. David Nutt was forced to resign as a government advisor for stating scientific evidence that alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than cannabis.

So, are scientists arrogant? Yes. I witness it every day. My friends in geosciences regularly belittle the geography department for their apparent lack of scientific rigour as if they truly want to be ‘scientists’ but cannot. Outside academia, scientists can also be counter-productively belittling and patronising to those who dare question the wisdom of scientific rationale.

Nevertheless, if the Republicans do succeed in the presidential battle this year, and as a result little is done to mitigate climate change, I doubt the scientists will be the ones screaming ‘I told you so!’ whilst New York is washed away by a gigantic tidal wave (disclaimer: this is unlikely to happen). I would imagine they’ll be back in the labs, researching away until their faces fall off. Then, like Professor Nutt, they’ll despondently explain to the world what is going on, whilst trying hard not to sound like a smug doctor caring for a disobedient patient.