The DinoBase Public Forum

Previously I have just more or less randomly shoved all the answers together, perhaps with a slight organization where several answers overlap. However, as this one is specific to certain places, it seemed sensible to organize them by regions (North America, Europe and Asia).

5. How do you think the general public view science / palaeontology in your country?

Asia:
They have some knowledge but lacking the basic scientific spirit: suspicion. They accept almost all received information from public media. However, they generally do not really care about it – LJ


North America:
According to a recent poll, a majority of school children want to be paleontologists. But unfortunately this lasts about till puberty and then they forget the meaning of the word. Unless they watch ‘Friends’. And then they just think you are lame anyway – JO

Paleontology is popular but far too sensationalized at the present time. All most people talk about is the K/T and the biggest fiercest dinosaurs and other nasty predators. Nothing subtle alas, and in the USA insufficient long term planning to manage non-renewable resources and adequately care for collections. - ML

I think that paleontology is pretty well respected in the non-academic public in the U.S., but less well respected in academia proper. Most people on the street seem very interested in paleontology (especially dinosaur paleontology and paleoanthropology); more interested, for instance, than they are in Earth history or cell biology or the like. – TH

It's bipolar here in the US. People love dinosaurs and all of the ancient life. They just love it. If I'm on a bus or a plane and I get into a conversation with someone and it comes out that I'm a paleontologist, I'll be fielding questions from everyone within earshot for the rest of the ride (and I'm happy to do so). But paleontology is also the poster child for Deep Time and evolution and that causes a lot of distrust in some circles. And that's something we have to be aware of, and even a little sensitive about. I don't mean that we should back down on the fact of evolution or cease battling creationism at all. What I mean is that the immensity of time and the fact that we are the product of this uncaring, relentless process is, I think, naturally unsettling to our little monkey brains. And I think that is at the bottom of at least some of the anti-evolution and anti-science sentiment in this country. What we have to do is show people - and I mean really explain to them, with evidence and with enthusiasm - that there really is grandeur in this view of life, that looking back on the full history of life and time does not make us smaller by comparison. It makes us great, because we have the means and the courage to do so. Think about it - right now we know more about the real history of the universe, Earth, and life, than any generation that has ever lived. That thought makes my heart soar, and I want to help other people feel that, too - MW

Very keen interest in the field, lots of enthusiasm shown for discoveries and the work – RR

Everybody likes fossils, but maybe few realize how dynamic our understanding of the history of life is based on continued new discovery (not necessarily of the 'new fossil specimen' kind) – A2

I think Canadians tend to engage with science when they perceive it as being relevant to their lives (as in the case of climate change) or when it produces results that are spectacular and easy to digest. Referring specifically to palaeontology, Canadians are enthusiastic in the sense that many of them are willing to sit up and pay attention to the latest dinosaur discoveries or take their children to look at huge, grotesque skeletons in a museum. On the other hand, I strongly suspect that there's much less public interest in the broader questions palaeontology raises in areas like macroevolution or the relationship between the biosphere and the abiotic environment over geological time. Our culture has an unfortunate whiff of anti-intellectualism that makes it difficult for people to appreciate the more theoretical and analytical side of the discipline. The end result is that palaeontology is probably perceived as a bit of an entertaining sideshow, rather than as a window on profound and interesting questions. But at least fossils get noticed, and we don't have much of a creationism problem, although I suspect this is on the increase – CS

Ever since the US government started forcing more science on students in response to the launch of Sputnik, the rebellious backlash from students has been to disparage anyone with an obvious interest in science as a "nerd" worthy of deprication. Science therefore plummeted in importance compared to subject matter that does not have the same kind of potential of science to benefit humanity and forward our understanding of the universe. Paleontology may be somewhat of an exception in that most people here tend to conflate "paleontology" and "dinosaurs" (i.e., all paleontology is dinosaurological) and dinosaurs are "cool," but only to a point before they too succumb to being "science." Science education has continued to decline, so the gap between the average member of the public and the average scientist in terms of knowledge and, all too often, ability to communicate with one another has done nothing but broaden. I think that the whole creationism / intelligent design thing is a result of the general fecklessness (and/or lack of desire) of scientists to communicate what they do and what their results are to a completely science-disoriented public. Lacking the ability to comprehend modern evolutionary theory, and the data sets behind it (as well as an abbreviated attention span), people gravitate toward simplistic explanations, like ID. Hence, the solution is more and better science education presented in a fun and attractive manner. Easier said than done, to be sure! - JH


Europe:
If it is dinosaurs, they love it. If it isn't, they couldn't give a #?@* - DM

The general public here in France, if it cares at all about science, views palaeontology as an interesting, even fascinating branch of science, but actually knows extremely little about it. Even amateur palaeontologists / fossil collectors (and there are thousands of them in this country) often know appallingly little about palaeontology as a science. - EB

Catastrophic. The answer is the same as that in question 3. People and thus possible sponsors usually do not care about basic research (i.e. palaeontology, geology) because usually there is no direct, financial results of our work – AO

The British majority view palaeontology and in fact a lot of science subjects rather like fire extinguishers. In other words, the British public like to know they are there, and they know they're there for a beneficial reason, but none of them wants to know how it works. That said, the Natural History Museum and our amazing geology in the UK has led to an innate love, especially from children of fossils and dinosaurs. Dinosaur stories are always in the news and I don't know what the press would do on slow news days if it weren't for people like us busying ourselves! - TF

In Germany there was a time when many children and teenagers were highly fascinated and thrilled by primeval beings (especially dinosaurs of course, but also others) and for many younger scientists of nowadays this might have been the starting point of their interest and their decision to deal with these creatures.
At the moment it seems to be increasingly difficult to fill kids and younger people with enthusiasm for fossils, evolution and similar topics:  Natural history societies / clubs / organisations with geological & palaeontological background have a very serious lack of young people and also of younger members (between 30 and 40) -  most of them have a disproportionately percentage of old members – HT

The public have an uneasy relationship with science, due to the unfortunate equation of science with progress. They expect science to solve technological problems, rather than understanding it as a very powerful system of studying the natural world that might bring unwelcome information.
I think (and having just finished surveying New Scientist, Scientific American, Discover, Geotimes and Geology Today) that the UK public associate palaeontology with dinosaurs and human evolution due to the enormous amount of coverage devoted to these two subjects - AM

The paleontology is unfortunately often viewed by the public like an 'entertaining science'. A lot has to be done by paleontologists (at least in France) to spread the idea that the Paleontology is not only dedicated to museums, and that a better knowledge of evolutionary history of life can contribute to tackle the great problem of life preservation and diversity conservation in the future – OM

In my home country, in Hungary, invertebrate or cenozoic vertebrate palaeontology had been the existing fields among geologists for a long time (since not a lot else had been found there before) and it was, of course, not very popular with the general public at all. Since a talented young scientist, Attila Ösi dug up the first dinosaurs from an exceptional upper Cretaceous quarry in Hungary, the popularity of vertebrate palaeontology has been growing at the competent university and common interest has been arisen in funding dinosaur research. He and his colleagues have contributed a lot to the population's general knowledge of vertebrate palaeontology, however, pterosaurs remain persistently "flying dinosaurs" and contemporary animals, such as crocodylians will be only of moderate interest compared to dinosaurs in the future too. - EP

The image of paleontology swings between fascination and often at the same time scurrility – A3

Palaeo is rated highly by the public, but really only when it comes to dinosaurs. Again, anything where abstract concepts are considered is not high on the agenda of most people, so, evolution is not really properly understood. In many ways why should it have to be, the populus is equally lacking in interest when it comes to physics or chemistry, or for me much of the ‘arts’. A certain topic does not have to interest all, and I know much subject if of narrow interest to most academics. However, I think that it all comes back to alack of sensible imagination in government (in the UK) about how science should / could be taught. This links to the perception by pupils, that you are a ‘boffin’ if you do science. We have ‘elite’ footballers, but the idea of academic elitism (and pushing gifted kids) is still a stumbling block in science education. The press does not help this either when talking about controversial topics (that should not be all that controversial).
In many ways we really need to engage more with the public about what we do. Maybe then science will be seen in a better light – A1

I think Science and palaeontology are seen in the UK as being interesting, but only in the sense that it fills a bit of time. Palaeontology has definitely got the taint of "kids stuff" about it, and it's rare you see adults alone in a dinosaur museum. – SC



My comments:
Perhaps unsurprisingly this is the biggest post as there really is no simple answer to a complex problem (though Dave Martill tried manfully). Given the variations seen, I’ll order my comments according to the regions above.

Asia: From my own (admittedly limited) experience, in China palaeontology is well received. There are lots and lots of museums and they are well attended. Judging by the illustrations, the dinosaurs magazines (aimed primarily at kids) are pretty accurate, and TV crews are often filming spots on new discoveries or interesting specimens. Perhaps because of the huge amount of dinosaurs being found and the exciting work being done the Chinese are especially interested in palaeontology right now and this might not last, but certainly I think it is popular and perhaps quite well understood here.

North America: I must say the results here were more positive that I had expected. Clearly dinosaurs will always be popular, no matter what the theological issues are at hand (and indeed are central to the arguments used on one side, simply to entice people in). I rather imagine this pleasant surprise is a result of the inevitable way in which the ‘culture wars’ are reported (to those seeing it from the outside) as all I tend to get is the endless messages of lunatic creationists no matter how much in the minority they are, or how much they are ignored by the general public. However, it is still good to see how much interest seems to be taken by the public even if there are clearly at least some clouds on the horizon as exemplified by Corwin and Jerry’s answers.

Europe: Opinion here seems to be more mixed than for the Americas with lots of varied answers. Still, palaeontology seems to be popular (as indeed it has always been in the UK at least) although I would agree that the apparent lack of applicability (unlike medical research, or reneawable energy, or huge ‘whiz bang projects’ like travel to Mars) makes it difficult to get a positive message across. Too often it is seen as only something that produces new dinosaurs, pushes back dates of origins, or does something ‘cool’ like finding feathered dinosaurs. The actual research aspects that might affect even everyday people (where do people think past extinction rates come from for conservationists to get concerned about) are not advertised. This is, I think, part of the responsibility of researchers (and thus my own efforts in science communication). Not that people are doing it here, but we cannot condemn the public as not interested and unable to understand our work if we do not tell them what we are doing, what it means and why it is important and interesting.



Participants:
Anonymous 1, UK – A1
Anonymous 2, USA – A2
Anonymous 3, Austria – A3
Dr Eric Buffetaut, Paris – EB
Simon Clabby, Isle of Wight - SC
Tom Fletcher, Bristol – TF
Dr Jerry Harris, Utah - JH
Thomas Holtz, Maryland - TH
Dr Liu Jun, Beijing – LJ
Martin Lockley, Denver - ML
Dr Alistair McGowan, Aberdeen - AM
Dr Olivier Maridet, (French) Beijing – OM
Prof. David Martill, Portsmouth - DM
Jingmai O’Conner, Beijing (USA) – JO
Dr Attila Osi, Budapest - AO
Edina Prondvai, (Hungarian) Karlsruhe – EP
Prof. Robert Reisz, (Romanian) Canada - RR
Dr Corwin Sullivan, (Canadian) Beijing – CS
Dr Helmut Tischlinger, Eichstaett - HT
Dr Mathew Wedel, California - MW