I Believe in Science

Andrew Zwicker, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory and 16th Legislative District of the New Jersey General Assembly

The Trenton War Memorial is a national historic site overlooking the NJ Statehouse and dedicated to "beauty, dignity, and civic utility” in honor of those who died fighting in WWI. On April 22, 2017 which was, not coincidentally Earth Day, I stood on those grand steps in front of a podium getting ready to speak looking out at thousands of people who had gathered together in solidarity with the many thousands of people gathered around the country and the world for the “March for Science.”

I stood at the podium looking out at the assembled crowd and opened my remarks with, “Hello to all you fact checking, evidence seeking, science believing, Earth loving people out there.” I spoke about how I was angry and frustrated by the lies about scientific results that didn’t fit a particular political point of view, how I was horrified by the attacks on scientific principles, deeply concerned about the proposed federal funding cuts, and outraged by the attempts to stop scientists from speaking out on climate change.

For some scientists, there was a deep philosophical concern about whether or not to even participate in a March for Science. That doing so politicized science when we know that scientific results and the scientific process have never been about politics. That evidence has no association with any political party and facts are never alternative. However, a few years ago, I decided to live in both the world of science and the world of politics. I felt strongly that we needed more scientists to participate in the political process and that I had to start with myself. (I’ve written about this decision and my political journey that resulted in becoming a member of the NJ Legislature in 2016 in the November, 2017 edition of the APS News.)

Neil deGrasse Tyson has said, “The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” Of course that is correct, but it is also clear to me that it is not enough. Today, we live in a time where misinformation and an attack on scientific principles has become a part of the daily news. We live in a time when there is still an astonishingly large number of people that believe the Earth is flat, that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, that Darwin’s theory of evolution is not the best explanation we have for the origin of organisms. We live in a time of nearly instantaneous communication, of ubiquitous social media posts and the ability to “Google” any question conceivable. Yet all of this information, as powerful as it is, has added to the confusion of who to believe, what to believe, or even why to believe.

Twenty years ago, Carl Sagan wrote, “We've arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.”

I don’t know what you think, but when thousands of people in Trenton, NJ and across the globe come together to march for science I believe it is because, in part, that Sagan’s prediction has come true.

A few months after the March for Science, I was in the NJ Statehouse for a hearing on the status of NJ’s train system. We were there to hear from witnesses about train safety and the decaying infrastructure of our rail system when, near the end of the hearing, a group of parents made a presentation against a proposal by a local utility company to run a new high voltage line along the right-of-way of an existing rail line. The group was well-prepared and had clear and logical arguments about their concerns of suspending a high voltage wire directly above a commuter train and the potential impact on property values along the route from the 100 ft high towers that would be erected for the power line. What got my attention, however, was when they brought up their concern about an increase in childhood cancer rates from the proposed power line. When I pointed out that there has been numerous studies that have shown that the correlation is either zero or extremely small and pointed out to them that the magnitude of a magnetic field from this power line would be less than what is generated by a typical household appliance, their reply was that they disagreed with me but “respected my opinion.”

My opinion? Since when did referring to peer-reviewed studies and calculating the magnitude of a magnetic field become a matter of opinion?

The politician and the parent in me understands that these advocates were expressing their deeply held concerns about the safety of these power lines. I, too, want to do everything in my power to keep children safe. The scientist in me understands the data used to reach the conclusions from the various studies and the implications from the uncertainty in the studies. Given the deluge of information that bombards us every day, it has become even more difficult to determine what scientific results to believe.

Cancer and power lines. Vaccinations. Alternative medicines. GMO food. Climate change policy, and so much more. So what should we, the scientific community do?

There is no easy answer to what is a large and difficult problem. But I’d like to offer one suggestion that I believe has the opportunity to make a significant difference. We, the scientific community, have to make a more concerted effort to improve and increase the dialogue between scientists and the general public. One of the things that I learned early in my political career is that genuine dialogue between divergent opinions is by far the most efficient way to come to an understanding. And given the divide between much of the general public and science, the more ways we do that and the more of us that do that, the better. For example, if you haven’t already, give a public lecture on your research. The key is not the lecture itself, when we tend to simply read our powerpoint slides out loud, but in the Q&A afterwards. That’s when there is a chance for a true dialogue. If you want to go further, help organize a public lecture series or a “Science Cafe.” Use your scientific training to learn the details of topics with difficult public policy implications, even if they are not in your field of expertise. Then, make an appointment with your elected officials at the local, state, and federal level to talk about the importance of your own research and offer to consult on any scientific or technical public policy issues. In the end, do what you are comfortable doing but make sure you do something. It won’t change things overnight, but the cumulative effect will make a difference.

My dual life as a scientist and a politician has brought me to the conclusion that there is no more important time than now to make your voice heard. That we must all work to ensure that peer-reviewed science is funded, that scientists are free to work on their research, free to publish their research, and free to speak out on their discoveries. If we don’t fight for this, who will?

Andrew Zwicker is the head of Communication and Public Outreach at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, and a member of the New Jersey General Assembly representing the 16th Legislative District. He is a Fellow of the APS, Past-Chair of the Forum on Physics and Society (FPS), was editor of the FPS newsletter “Physics and Society,” and was Past-Chair of the Mid-Atlantic Section.

Disclaimer – The articles and opinion pieces found in this issue of the APS Forum on Education Newsletter are not peer refereed and represent solely the views of the authors and not necessarily the views of the APS.