US trust in science

 The PNAS published a piece earlier this year about whether US public confidence in science is changing.

The authors said that “to clarify recent trends in the public’s confidence and factors that are associated with these feelings, an effort initiated by the National Academies’ Strategic Council for Research Excellence, Integrity, and Trust (the Strategic Council) analyzed findings from multiple survey research organizations. The Strategic Council’s effort, which began in 2022, found that U.S. public confidence in science, the scientific community, and leaders of scientific communities is high relative to other civic, cultural, and governmental institutions for which researchers regularly collect such data.”

But confidence in science has declined in ways similar to, or less pronounced, than confidence in many institutions.

Nevertheless, it found that the “public has high levels of confidence in scientists’ competence, trustworthiness, and honesty. For example, when asked the question ‘How confident are you that scientists provide the public with trustworthy information about the science in their area of inquiry?’ 84% of respondents report that they are very confident or somewhat confident.

“However, many U.S. adults question whether scientists share their values and whether they can overcome their biases. For example, when asked, ‘When a study runs counter to the interests of the organization running the study, which is more likely to happen?’ and given a choice between the response ‘Scientists will publish the finding’ and ‘Scientists will not publish the finding’ 70% of the sample chooses the latter.”

Significantly, 84% of U.S. adults responded that it is “somewhat important” or “very important” for scientists to disclose their funders. 92% offered the same responses to a question about the importance of scientists “being open to changing their minds based on new evidence”

Given the overwhelming evidence – from smoking to other problems – of industry funding dodgy research and disinformation you can hardly blame the US public for noticing.

 A myth debunked

 For many years it was believed that Rapa Nui’s (Easter Island) population collapsed owing to overexploitation of natural resources – a view promulgated in Jared Diamond’s 2006 book Collapse.

A Nature article (11/9) shows that genome analysis provides evidence suggesting that this view is wrong. Instead, it finds that after the original settlers arrived in Rap Nui around 1200AD and when Europeans first arrived at the island in 1722 there was a population of between 1,500 and 3,000 but that was after a smallpox epidemic introduced by the Europeans, and kidnapping by Peruvian slave traders of one third of the population, the population had dwindled to just 110 people.

So, the problem was genocide and not ecocide.

The Europeans also scoffed at the local belief that Rapa Nui people had also travelled to America. Now the latest genetic research has shown that Rapa Nui people had been to the Americas long before the arrival of Europeans. Yet another example of Europeans messily under-estimating the maritime achievements of Pacific populations.

Meanwhile, as much of the research has been based on human remains in France’s National Museum of Natural History collected in the 19^th and early 20th centuries, the local community is now campaigning for the remains to be returned to Rapa Nui.

Republicans opposing Trump

 The US columnist Heather Cox Richardson had an update (18/9) on Republicans opposing Trump and supporting Harris in her regular newsletter.

She wrote: “Republican endorsements of the Harris-Walz ticket continue to pile up. On Monday, six-term representative Bob Inglis (R-SC) told the Charleston City Paper that ‘Donald Trump is a clear and present danger to the republic’ and said he would vote for Harris. ‘If Donald Trump loses, that would be a good thing for the Republican Party,’ Inglis said. ‘Because then we could have a Republican rethink and get a correction.’

“George W. Bush’s attorney general Alberto Gonzales, conservative columnist George Will, more than 230 former officials for presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, and 17 former staff members for Ronald Reagan have all recently added their names to the list of those supporting Harris. Today more than 100 Republican former members of Congress and national security officials who served in Republican administrations endorsed Harris, saying they ‘firmly oppose the election of Donald Trump.’ They cited his chaotic governance, his praising of enemies and undermining allies, his politicizing the military and disparaging veterans, his susceptibility to manipulation by Russian president Vladimir Putin, and his attempt to overthrow democracy.”

Will George W Bush be next?

Gambling donations explain Parliamentary cowardice on controls

 The Centre for Integrity has prepared a major report on who donates what to political parties.

It found that since 1998/99, the Coalition has disclosed having received $6,814,431, and the Labor Party $5,867,807. The Greens received $0. The major donors and to who were:

 

Rank	Name	ALP	Coalition	Total
1	Tabcorp Holdings Ltd	$1,178,405	$1,728,008	$2,906,413
2	Tattersalls Holdings Pty Ltd	$822,554	$826,501	$1,649,055
3	Star City Pty Ltd	$800,920	$368,832	$1,169,752
4	Burswood Nominees Pty Ltd	$387,106	$743,291	$1,130,397
5	Crown Ltd	$500,655	$555,249	$1,055,904
6	Sportsbet	$508,163	$461,910	$970,073
7	The Star Entertainment Group	$471,419	$237,450	$708,869
8	True Stanley Ho	$662,885	$0	$662,885
9	Responsible Wagering Australia	$303,330	$288,083	$591,413
10	Tab Limited	$243,975	$217,426	$461,401

The PNAS and Nature articles were brought to the blog’s attention by his friend John Spitzer.