S3 Ep 4 - Dan Hicks on 'Public Scientific Controversies'

The HPS Podcast - Conversations from History, Philosophy and Social Studies of Science

Content provided by HPSUniMelb.org. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by HPSUniMelb.org or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://staging.podcastplayer.com/legal.

1y ago 27:34

MP3•Episode home

In today’s episode we have assistant professor and philosopher of science, Dan Hicks, taking us through better understanding public scientific controversies.

‘Public scientific controversies’ is a term Dan uses to capture a broad variety of controversies that involve both science and the public. This would include controversies around vaccines, genetically modified foods, medical research and climate change.

In studying why controversies like these arise and persist, Dan has found our common explanations are not always fit for purpose. Controversies aren’t all of one type, so a blanket diagnosis like, "it is all due to the public not properly understanding the science" or alternatively "the problem is widespread distrust of science," is not helpful.

Instead, Dan argues that what is required is more careful consideration of the specific processes and mechanisms at play in each case. Better diagnoses can then help us better determine appropriate and effective interventions.
Relevant links for Dan:

Profile - Dan Hicks - About
Research - Dan Hicks - Research
Discussion - Dan Hicks - philosophy of science, data science, environmental policy
Relevant Article - Dan Hicks - Misinformation and trustworthiness: Frenemies in the analysis of public scientific controversies