Hi Elton,

I certainly didn't say I agreed with their choice or thought it was a 
good one. But as someone who grew up in a low-income, low-employment 
environment myself this has the ring of truth to it. I totally agree 
with you (and worry just as much) regarding the proliferation of 
anti-expert sentiment - but I don't think it's necessarily the biggest 
cause of what just happened in this case. It seems to me that a great 
many people didn't vote for Trump because of who he was, but *in spite* 
of who he was - given the choice between two people who they perceived 
as corrupt, malevolent billionaires, they went for the one who wasn't 
part of the political machine they see as irrevocably broken, and at 
least said some things to indicate that he noticed them. Essentially a 
protest vote, just on a country-wide scale. I just hope the consequences 
won't be as severe as we all fear.

My personal answer to your final question comes in two parts:

(1) As I understand it, there's at least some indication that it isn't 
as bad as it seems (or, more precisely, it's always been at least this 
bad, but we just couldn't see it as clearly before). History is littered 
with extreme examples of anti-science gaining control at the highest 
levels of government (Lysenkoism, witch hunts, creationism, etc.). At 
least these days it seems science is mostly on the front foot 
(anti-science movements and politicians seem to be mostly fighting a 
slowly losing battle against concepts introduced by scientists, rather 
than scientists mostly fighting back against unscientific dogma).

(2) A big part of the solution has to be in communication. Our ability 
to communicate our work (and its importance) directly to the public has 
never been greater. That "directly" bit is important, because science 
journalists and even university PR departments have historically had a 
habit of both mangling the science and overblowing its impact between 
the scientist and the newsprint. Providing clear, accessible and, above 
all, friendly explanations of key work online can count for a heck of a 
lot.

Yes, we're certainly facing big problems - but I'm not yet ready to 
despair.

Best regards,

Tristan





On 2016-11-10 09:47, Elton Zeqiraj wrote:
> Hi Tristan,
> 
> I’m afraid I don’t get the logic in the article you sent. In this
> case the farmers who are crying for the attention of the people in
> shiny palaces have voted for one who lives in golden mansions.
> 
> For me the really worrying thing here is how can so many people be
> misled by a false prophet who lies and misbehaves so much. It is a
> systemic problem in our society. We never before had so much access to
> information, and yet it is so easy to mislead people.
> 
> People understood what Trump was and they basically said: “I don’t
> care”! We are living in a world where people don’t care about
> facts, they just say “I know it to be true”. As scientists whose
> job and mission in life is to further and pass knowledge, it is very
> serious that we are in this post-truth era. It affects us all when we
> talk about climate change, evidence based treatments in our hospitals,
> GM debate, etc.
> 
> Instead of making this about Trump, I would like to pose a different
> question: How are we going to deal with the anti-expert movement that
> is now so prominent in our society?
> 
> Cheers,
> Elton
> 
>> On Nov 10, 2016, at 8:15 AM, Tristan Croll <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>> In the interests of promoting understanding... the link below is to
>> an article on what is ostensibly a comedy website and contains a bit
>> of coarse language, but nevertheless is quite possibly the most
>> insightful exposition of the situation I've come across. The
>> two-sentence synopsis: don't think of this as the forces of hate,
>> fear and ignorance winning. Think of it as a cry for attention from
>> a large number of people who are seriously struggling and (mostly
>> correctly) see their problems as being ignored by the system.
>> Writing them off as ignorant and hateful isn't the answer.
>> 
>> In agreement with various others, this is my first and last post
>> referencing politics or religion on this forum.
>> 
>> 
> http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/
>> [1]
>> 
>> On 2016-11-10 08:00, Marjolein Thunnissen wrote:
>> Dear Bill,
>> I fully agree with you, awareness has to be spread and one should
>> not
>> ignore politics completely, especially when there are so strong
>> anti-intellectual (anti-science) statements out there.
>> best regards
>> Marjolein
>> On 10 Nov 2016, at 04:17, William G. Scott <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Dear Edward et al:
>> I agree we shouldn’t engage in partisan arguments on the CCP4bb.
>> However, I think it is a mistake, and perhaps a missed opportunity,
>> to ignore politics completely.
>> For example, Newt Gingrich is currently in the running for Sec HHS.
>> He has previously written editorials in the NYT and Wall Street
>> Journal advocating doubling the budget of the NIH.
>> I think it is incumbent upon us to make our voices heard if such an
>> opportunity arises, regardless of what one may happen to think about
>> the individual’s political orientation, as it could potentially be
>> of enormous benefit to the scientific community.
>> Yours faithfully,
>> William G. Scott
>> Director, Program in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
>> Professor, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
>> and The Center for the Molecular Biology of RNA
>> University of California at Santa Cruz
>> Santa Cruz, California 95064
>> USA
>> http://scottlab.ucsc.edu [2] [1]
>> On Nov 9, 2016, at 9:02 AM, Edward Snell <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>> As a Brexit and Trumpet affected person having a foot in both
>> countries ,this topic is too far off the normal discussion on CCP4
>> and probably better taken up privately. CCP4 is not a political
>> discussion site. With CCP4 the signal is unusually high and the
>> noise low when compared to any discussion board. I for one would
>> like to keep it there. Political views aside, we’re all trying
>> to achieve the same scientific goals. Let’s remember that and
>> keep that the focus.
>> Edward Snell Ph.D.
>> President and CEO Hauptman-Woodward Medical Research Institute
>> Assistant Prof. Department of Structural Biology, University at
>> Buffalo
>> 700 Ellicott Street, Buffalo, NY 14203-1102
>> Phone: (716) 898 8631 Fax: (716) 898 8660
>> Skype: eddie.snell Email: [log in to unmask]
>> <image003.png>
>> Heisenberg was probably here!
>  DR. MARJOLEIN THUNNISSEN
> Head User Office
> MAX IV Laboratory
> Lund University
> P.O. Box 118, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden
> Visiting address: Fotongatan 2, 225 94 Lund
> Telephone: +46 46 2224668
> Mobile: +46 766 32 04 17
> www.maxliv.lu.se [3] [2]
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://scottlab.ucsc.edu [2]
> [2] http://www.maxlab.lu.se/ [4]
> 
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1] 
> http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/
> [2] http://scottlab.ucsc.edu/
> [3] http://www.maxliv.lu.se/
> [4] http://www.maxlab.lu.se/