Why You Should Be Grateful For Scientists This Thanksgiving

Thanksgiving approaches. There is finally a chill in the air and snow flying around in some places. Debates rage on at this time of year. What teams should be in the college football playoffs? Which is better pumpkin or sweet potato pie? By the way, I am from Georgia, so it is sweet potato pie, and there is no argument here (smile). Something that should not be a debate at all is the value that sound science brings to each of our lives. Here’s why you should be grateful for scientists on Thanksgiving (and beyond).

I was prompted to write these thoughts down after seeing recent articles discussing possible plans to sow distrust or greater uncertainty about climate change. That simple tactic is likely rooted in more complexity. For example, studies have consistently shown that people with less formal education skew more skeptical on climate change and are more likely to not trust climate scientists. A 2024 study suggested these findings may be related to feelings of being misrecognized by more-educated people, envious of their lifestyles, and frustrated by their attitudes.

The study concluded that trust in climate change science and the solution set by certain segments of society amplifies feelings of lower social status. In psychology, these feelings of insecurity or inadequacy are referred to as an inferiority complex. Though framed around climate change, I observe these same dynamics in narratives around vaccines or adoption of electric vehicles. The deep anger lobbed at those who have chosen to adopt EVs has always baffled me, but this new study offers clues.

Another factor driving trust in climate science is “marinades.” I often soak my meat or vegetables in marinades so that they take on additional flavor. Each of us has been “soaking” in geographical, cultural, religious, political, and other marinades all our lives. Studies suggest that flavoring can shape views on science. As a climate scientist, you would be stunned by how many people have told me that humans cannot change something that God controls. Oddly, some of those same people were claiming that the government can control hurricanes now.

As a scientist of faith, I was always baffled by that logic especially when I read scriptures about stewardship of Earth. Summarizing a 2023 study, Naseem Miller wrote an interesting take in The Journalist’s Resource. He said, “A PLOS Climate study, based on a survey of 2,096 registered U.S. voters, finds trust in university research centers was higher among voters under 30, non-Protestants, regular religious service attendees, Democrats, and ideologically moderate or liberal individuals.” These findings support a long thread of research. However, it is still baffling. Photosynthesis, planetary orbits, hurricanes, and nuclear reactors work the same no matter how you vote or what you believe.

Another tactic in sowing distrust is the “either/or” approach. Climate change opposition is often steeped in statements like “climate always changed” or “look its cold today and snowing.” These statements illustrate a lack of understanding of weather, climate, and why we have seasons. They also assume “either/or.” In fact, grass grows naturally, but if you fertilize your lawn, it grows differently. Yes, the climate (and weather) varies naturally, but it is now fertilized with the consequences of human emissions and land cover changes too. It’s “and.”

After the U.S. election, I am seeing another “either/or” approach. A narrative is emerging that it costs too much to fight climate change so the money should be spent ending global poverty through energy. Absolutely nobody will argue against ending global poverty. I am here for that. I am also here for the fact that we can do both and fight climate change. They are not mutually exclusive by the way. As I write this piece, 16 million people in southern Africa are constrained by a combination drought, food insecurity, and economic instability.

Researchers at the University of Texas and University of Utah found that unusually dry growing seasons is an underlying driver of migration from Central America to the U.S. Andrew Linke from the Geography Department at the University of Utah was the lead author on the study. In a University of Texas press release, he noted, “In our analysis, we find a robust association between drier than normal weather and families making the perilous journey from Central America to the United States, even after taking into account other drivers like violence and poverty.”

The good news is that a Pew Research Center survey in October found that roughly three out of four Americans have a great deal or fair amount of confidence that scientists are working in the best interest of society. Trust numbers have increased but remain lower than the pandemic years. The survey found that the public thinks scientists are intelligent and addressing important problems but lack communication skills. They also remain split on how much scientists should engage in policy.

I recently discussed cultivating trust in the publication Issues in Science and Technology. I said, “Cultivating trust in science requires commitment to the same basic principles that make strong leaders: authenticity, empathy, and logic. Though scholars are taught to be good researchers steeped in theory, methods, and scholarly reporting, I continually advocate for a more evolved approach in training the next generation of scientists, with the recognition that they will become the next generation of science leaders.” As scientists we are trained in theory, experiments, data and inquiry. We must step up our game in empathy, authenticity, and communication.

This Thanksgiving I am thankful for scientists and those who value credible science.

This post was originally published on here