Defending the Ivory Tower against the end of the world

  • Andrew J. WrightEmail author


Science was once pure, unadulterated, and a source of public entertainment. Entertainment is now driven by celebrity, and choice is everywhere. Yet, many scientists still believe decision-makers will find and use their research to make science-based decisions. However, this is simply not the case. Articles are written in an inaccessible style, and access is often restricted. Thus, the Media acts as a gatekeeper, limiting stories to subjects directly related to human health, brief, feel-good human interest pieces that often include misinterpretations, oversimplifications, or (worse still) fair and balanced 1-1 discussions. Conversely, misinformation produced by those with economic interests is freely available and easy to find and understand. Yet, many scientists still avoid engaging or correcting factual errors in media and policy as this is often seen as Advocacy: impurity in the Ivory Tower existence, despite already advocating for their work when submitting grant proposals and permit applications. Meanwhile, damage is being done. A now-retracted paper linking autism to vaccinations induced a public movement that persists, with real-world implications for outbreak risks. Likewise, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC)’s reputation is being actively sabotaged by ‘grassroots’ organisations that are heavily, if not exclusively, funded by Big Oil, delaying appropriate policy action. Many lives are actually at stake. Science is under siege, but hiding inside the Ivory Tower is not the answer. Science budgets are falling with the use of science in management decisions. We must leave the Ivory Tower, or science will perish inside the walls to the detriment of the world around us.


Science Funding Advocacy Outreach Policy 



This paper was produced without funding and the author has no conflicts of interest. Thanks are due to Naomi Rose, Dominick DellaSala, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this work.


  1. Arnold R (2014) House panel takes hard look at UN climate change process. Published online: 27th May 2014. URL: Accessed 30 Sept 2014
  2. Barlass T (2014) Jane Goodall asks politicians: do you really not care about the future of your great-grandchildren? Sydney Morning Herald. Published online: 1st June 2014. URL: Accessed 30 Sept 2014
  3. Boykoff MT, Boykoff JM (2007) Climate change and journalistic norms: a case-study of US mass-media coverage. Geoforum 38:1190–1204. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.01.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Climate Science Watch (2013) Heartland Institute and its NIPCC report fail the credibility test. Published online: 9th September 2013. URL: Accessed 11 Jan 2015
  5. Darling ES, Shiffman D, Côté IM, Drew J (2013) The role of Twitter in the life cycle of a scientific publication. Ideas Ecol Evol 6:32–43Google Scholar
  6. Eastwood E (2014) Tweetable abstracts 101. Society for conservation biology videos. URL: Accessed 5 Jan 2015
  7. Eysenbach G (2011) Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. J Med Internet Res 13:e123. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fine P, Eames K, Heymann DL (2011) “Herd immunity”: a rough guide. Clin Infect Dis 52(7):911–916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gill N (2014) David Attenborough: changing viewing habits may halt future landmark series. Published online: 25th April 2014. URL: Accessed 30 Sept 2014
  10. Hardy BW, Gottfried JA, Winneg KM, Jamieson KH (2014) Stephen Colbert’s civics lesson: how Colbert super PAC taught viewers about campaign finance. Mass Commun Soc 17:329–353. doi: 10.1080/15205436.2014.891138 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harris G (2010) Journal retracts 1998 paper linking autism to vaccines. Published online: February 2, 2010 Accessed 30 Sept 2014
  12. Institute for 21st Century Energy (2014) Assessing the impact of potential new carbon regulations in the United States. U.S. Chamber of Commerce, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  13. Jones P (2013) Measles targets and herd immunity. Br J Gen Pract 63(613):403–404. doi: 10.3399/bjgp13X670570, Published online 1st August 2013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Klein N (2013) How science is telling us all to revolt. Published online: 29th October 2013. URL: Accessed 30 Sept 2014
  15. Lindstrom M (2012) Brandwashed: tricks companies use to manipulate our minds and persuade us to buy. Kogan Page Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Luntz S (2014) Congress tells scientists IPCC climate report “Not Science”. Published online: 2nd June 2014. URL: Accessed 30 Sept 2014
  17. Office of Management and Budget (2013) Fiscal year 2014 budget of the U.S. government. U.S. Government Printing Office, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  18. Olson R (2009) Don’t be such a scientist: talking substance in an age of style. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  19. Oreskes N, Conway EM (2010) Merchants of doubt: how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Parsons ECM (2013) So you want to be a Jedi? Advice for conservation researchers wanting to advocate for their findings. J Environ Stud Sci 3:340–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Parsons ECM, Shiffman DS, Darling ES, Spillman N, Wright AJ (2014) How twitter literacy can benefit conservation scientists. Conserv Biol 28:299–301. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12226 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sanner S (2014) Chef Jamie Oliver proves his case: McDonald’s ‘pink slime’ meat is deemed ‘Unfit for human consumption’. Posted online: 31st January 2014. URL: Accessed 30 Sept 2014
  23. Shiffman D (2014) Seaworld exaggerated its research record. Slate’s animal blog. Published online: 17th June 2014. URL: Accessed 30 Sept 2014
  24. Shuai X, Pepe A, Bollen J (2012) How the scientific community reacts to newly submitted preprints: article downloads, twitter mentions, and citations. PLoS One 7:e47523. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0047523 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. The Editors of The Lancet (2010) Retraction—ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Published online 2nd February 2010. Lancet. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60175-4 Google Scholar
  26. Triggle N (2010) MMR doctor struck from register. Published online: 24th May 2010. Accessed 30 Sept 2014

Copyright information

© AESS 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental Science and PolicyGeorge Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA

Personalised recommendations