{"id":10446,"date":"2016-11-08T07:49:08","date_gmt":"2016-11-08T07:49:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/revoscience.com\/en\/?p=10446"},"modified":"2016-11-08T07:49:12","modified_gmt":"2016-11-08T07:49:12","slug":"most-british-scientists-cited-in-study-feel-richard-dawkins-work-misrepresents-science","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.revoscience.com\/en\/most-british-scientists-cited-in-study-feel-richard-dawkins-work-misrepresents-science\/","title":{"rendered":"Most British scientists cited in study feel Richard Dawkins\u2019 work misrepresents science"},"content":{"rendered":"

\n

\"Photo<\/a>
Photo credit: Jeff Fitlow\/Rice University.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

HOUSTON<\/strong> \u2013 Controversial British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins is well-known for his criticism of religion, but a new Rice University\u00a0<\/span>study<\/span><\/a>\u00a0of British scientists reveals that a majority who mentioned Dawkins\u2019 work during research interviews reject his approach to public engagement and said his work misrepresents science and scientists because he conveys the wrong impression about what science can do and the norms that scientists observe in their work.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The findings in\u00a0\u201cResponding to Richard: Celebrity and (Mis)representation of Science\u201d<\/span><\/a>\u00a0appeared in a recent edition of Public Understandings of Science and are part of a larger Religion Among Scientists in International Context study. The RASIC study includes a survey of over 20,000 scientists from eight countries. In the United Kingdom, 1,581 randomly sampled scientists participated in the survey, and 137 of them also participated in in-depth interviews.<\/span><\/p>\n

[pullquote]Elaine Howard Ecklund, the study\u2019s principal investigator and the Herbert S. Autrey Chair in Social Sciences at Rice, said that some scientists, independent of their religious beliefs, do not view Dawkins as a good representative because they believe he conveys \u201cthe wrong impression about the borders of scientific inquiry.\u201d[\/pullquote]<\/p>\n

Although the researchers did not ask questions about Dawkins, 48 scientists mentioned him during in-depth interviews without prompting, and nearly 80 percent of those scientists believe that he misrepresents science and scientists in his books and public engagements. This group included 23 nonreligious scientists and 15 religious scientists. Approximately 20 percent of scientists interviewed \u2013 10 scientists all identifying as nonreligious \u2013 said that he plays an important role in asserting the cultural authority of science in the public sphere. One biologist surveyed said Dawkins has \u201cquite an important place in society\u201d in his criticism of creationism and intelligent design.<\/span><\/p>\n

Elaine Howard Ecklund, the study\u2019s principal investigator and the Herbert S. Autrey Chair in Social Sciences at Rice, said that some scientists, independent of their religious beliefs, do not view Dawkins as a good representative because they believe he conveys \u201cthe wrong impression about the borders of scientific inquiry.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cScientists differ in their view of where such borders rest,\u201d said David Johnson, an assistant professor at the University of Nevada in Reno and the paper\u2019s lead author. \u201cAnd they may even view belief in a deity as irrational, but they do not view questions related to the existence of deities or \u2018the sacred\u2019 as within the scope of science.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cSome people like Richard Dawkins,\u201d said a nonreligious professor of biology. \u201cHe\u2019s a fundamental atheist. He feels compelled to take the evidence way beyond that which other scientists would regard as possible. \u2026 I want [students] to develop [science] in their own lives. And I think it\u2019s necessary to understand what science does address directly.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

A nonreligious physicist said, \u201cHe\u2019s much too strong about the way he denies religion. \u2026 As a scientist, you\u2019ve got to be very open, and I\u2019m open to people\u2019s belief in religion. \u2026 I don\u2019t think we\u2019re in a position to deny anything unless it\u2019s something which is within the scope of science to deny. \u2026 I think as a scientist you should be open to it. \u2026 It doesn\u2019t end up encroaching for me because I think there\u2019s quite a space between the two.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Dawkins has \u201cgone on a crusade, basically,\u201d another professor of biology said. \u201cAlthough there is a lot of truth behind what he says, he does it in a way that I think is deliberately designed to alienate religious people.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Ecklund said it is important to note that none of the scientists interviewed questioned Dawkins\u2019 integrity as a scientist. Rather, they were critical of his representation of science to the public.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cIn general, scientists in interviews emphasized promotion of science over the scientist, diplomacy over derision and dialogue over ideological extremism,\u201d she said.<\/span><\/p>\n

Johnson said he hopes the research will help scientists learn to communicate science without alienating the public.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe best science communication does not begin with insults and arrogance,\u201d Johnson said. \u201cIt encourages curiosity, open-mindedness and appreciation for science.\u201d\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Kirstin Matthews, a fellow in science and technology policy at Rice\u2019s Baker Institute for Public Policy, and Di Di, a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Sociology at Rice, co-authored the paper.<\/span><\/p>\n

The research was funded by the Templeton World Charity Foundation.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The findings in \u201cResponding to Richard: Celebrity and (Mis)representation of Science\u201d appeared in a recent edition of Public Understandings of Science and are part of a larger Religion Among Scientists in International Context study. The RASIC study includes a survey of over 20,000 scientists from eight countries. In the United Kingdom, 1,581 randomly sampled scientists participated in the survey, and 137 of them also participated in in-depth interviews.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":10447,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[38,22,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10446","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-curiosity","category-other","category-research"],"featured_image_urls":{"full":["https:\/\/www.revoscience.com\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/unnamed.jpg",640,430,false],"thumbnail":["https:\/\/www.revoscience.com\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/unnamed-150x150.jpg",150,150,true],"medium":["https:\/\/www.revoscience.com\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/unnamed-300x201.jpg",300,201,true],"medium_large":["https:\/\/www.revoscience.com\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/unnamed.jpg",640,430,false],"large":["https:\/\/www.revoscience.com\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/unnamed.jpg",640,430,false],"1536x1536":["https:\/\/www.revoscience.com\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/unnamed.jpg",640,430,false],"2048x2048":["https:\/\/www.revoscience.com\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/unnamed.jpg",640,430,false],"ultp_layout_landscape_large":["https:\/\/www.revoscience.com\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/unnamed.jpg",640,430,false],"ultp_layout_landscape":["https:\/\/www.revoscience.com\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/unnamed.jpg",640,430,false],"ultp_layout_portrait":["https:\/\/www.revoscience.com\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/unnamed.jpg",600,403,false],"ultp_layout_square":["https:\/\/www.revoscience.com\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/unnamed.jpg",600,403,false],"newspaper-x-single-post":["https:\/\/www.revoscience.com\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/unnamed.jpg",640,430,false],"newspaper-x-recent-post-big":["https:\/\/www.revoscience.com\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/unnamed.jpg",536,360,false],"newspaper-x-recent-post-list-image":["https:\/\/www.revoscience.com\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/unnamed.jpg",95,65,false],"web-stories-poster-portrait":["https:\/\/www.revoscience.com\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/unnamed.jpg",640,430,false],"web-stories-publisher-logo":["https:\/\/www.revoscience.com\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/unnamed.jpg",96,65,false],"web-stories-thumbnail":["https:\/\/www.revoscience.com\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/unnamed.jpg",150,101,false]},"author_info":{"info":["Amrita Tuladhar"]},"category_info":"Curiosity<\/a> Other<\/a> Research<\/a>","tag_info":"Research","comment_count":"0","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.revoscience.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10446","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.revoscience.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.revoscience.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.revoscience.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.revoscience.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10446"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.revoscience.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10446\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.revoscience.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/10447"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.revoscience.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10446"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.revoscience.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10446"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.revoscience.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10446"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}