Public Perceptions of Scientists (& what about Engineers?)

This is a pretty good article (Thanks to Eric Addo for posting) explaining results of a Pew survey addressing public perceptions of science issues and scientists, and scientists perception of science issues and the public. As we move further into a future dominated by science and technology, the disconnects between scientists' and public perceptions on science policy issues (eg. global warming, nuclear energy) are troubling. How do we close the gap between the two?

My own anecdotal experiences find engineers (closely related to scientists, but with profound differences) to be aligned with more fiscally conservative politics than most similarly educated and compensated members of the public. The survey identified scientists as being more liberal than the public. This brings up a relevant question - What do scientists & engineers do?

• The classic definition for scientist is a person who works to expand the body of knowledge. There are obviously some constraints (scientists like to eat and live in buildings, meaning that someone has to pay for or sponsor their work), but it is generally understood that there is not a DIRECT link between scientific research and financial gain.
• According to former National Academy of Engineering president Wm. A. Wulf, "My favorite quick definition of what engineers do is 'design under constraint.'" This is a pretty good definition, at least for what I've experienced. There is a generally an expectation that engineering solutions have to make financial sense - that the solution has to solve a problem less expensively than existing products.

I'd be curious to see what scientists' and engineers' similarities and differences would be in a similar survey. Would it matter if people who are used to scientific principles (one group tests and probes, the other applies and uses) perceive politics differently?

One other issue that jumped out to me was the difference between public & scientists' perception of issues where religion and science intersect (eg. global warming, stem cell research). Scientists tend to believe in scientific theories or laws (evolution of species, gravity) that have been created based on empirical observation. The public often uses religious arguments to resist changes that originate with these scientific observations. My own belief is that God has not allowed us to fully understand our world, and this lack of understanding allows for uncertainty that science can aim to reduce, but never truly eliminate. However, science can not change how I'm supposed to deal with God, or how to follow his His teachings. What do you think - is the disconnect between scientists' and public perceptions on issues that touch on religion a big concern?

Sunday Reading

There were a few interesting articles from Sunday's NY Times. Registration is required, but it's free.

Town Halls by Invitation

Lining Up for Help

Are We Too Late?

Why We Need Health Care Reform

The Swiss Menace

Health Care Moral Hazards

So, everybody's talking about healthcare reform, but who's THINKING about healthcare reform? I've got some thoughts. But first let's define a term that is relevant to the discussion - moral hazard.

• Moral hazard is the result of eliminating the penalty for not doing the right thing. The risk of this penalty ensures parties in transactions will play by the rules of the free market. Markets require that parties in transactions bear some risk of penalty for failure to uphold their end of the transaction, or else markets eventually stop functioning.

The U.S. health delivery system has gone out of control - it doesn't respond to market forces, and its pricing is driving people out of the system. Several moral hazards have been introduced into the system, creating this condition.

• There is no individual health care cost for poor health maintenance - no penalty for smoking, for being overweight, for not exercising, for participating in injury-prone activities, for skipping routine checkups. This lack of cost to the individual is largely because we pay for routine health care with insurance. People would feel this cost more if they paid (or felt like they paid) for their care out of their own pockets.
  
  
• We haven't decided how to pay to care for many of those who opt out (I know many people can't afford to pay, but bear with this line of reasoning for a moment.) of health care, but we demand they get the most expensive care we offer - emergency care. Our national ethos demands that we do our best to save the dying. Our medical technology has evolved to perform remarkably at this task, but it's expensive to have those skilled professionals, sophisticated equipment, and modern facilities on hand throughout the nation. Preventing people from entering the emergency system should be the goal of our health care strategy, but people go to the emergency room and are treated for routine problems that have been allowed to fester. Just like people who buy a house with no money down and then walk away because housing values drop, people who ignore health care until deathly ill and then go to the emergency room are acting in their own best interest, because of the introduction of a moral hazard - not letting people die for lack of money - that I think speaks positively of our nation's values.
  
  
• The medical industry is an industry. There are best practices, not so good practices, and bad practices. Consumers aren't well informed about medical best practices. We don't know which are the best practices - most of us only deal with the industry a few times a year, and only once or twice in our lives for a big problem - so we can't look for the best practices. This results in another moral hazard - consumers can't punish bad medical industry actors by avoiding them, since consumers can't identify them.

In order to fix our health care system, we must eliminate the moral hazards. I've got more thoughts, but I want to hear from you. Are there any other moral hazards out there?