A 2016 global attitudes study by the Pew Research Center found the U.S. “has the highest carbon emissions per capita, but it is among the least concerned about climate change and its potential impact.”
A later Pew Research Center study went on to find roughly one in three Americans believe climate scientists should not have a major role in shaping policies concerning climate change. Instead, they believe politicians and the voting public should have the most say over said policies even though they have no expert knowledge on the subject. 
This is not surprising based on the way the general American public treats scientific debate. Instead of being respected as something to learn from, science is used as a pawn in the political process.
In the case of important scientific matters, people oftentimes get their information on these issues from politicians. The problem with this is politicians on every part of the political spectrum manipulate data to fit their specific agenda. People should look to unbiased, peer-reviewed scientific data to get the real information on these issues.
The debate over the legitimacy of climate change is not the only scientifically centered issue to come to the forefront of the political arena in recent years. Intense debates about the link, or lack thereof, between vaccines and autism, genetically modified organisms and stem cell research have been key debate issues in local, state and national politics.
In all of these cases, scientists’ factually based opinions get shoved to the back while the voices of boisterous politicians and lobbyists get pushed to the front. Ask any average person on the street why they do not support the use of GMOs, and they will likely struggle to give an argument based on scientific fact. However, they will likely be able to rattle off rhetoric from their favorite politician’s speeches or tweets. This kind of thinking creates an ignorant society where people only know what they believe, not why they believe it.
When a politician makes a statement on a scientific matter, think about why the politician is saying it. How can the person benefit from taking that position? How can donors benefit from the politician’s position? Does the politician cite scientific evidence? Many times you will find a position is simply being taken because it is advantageous to the politicians, their party and their donors.
The general public trusts scientists as a group more than they trust politicians as a group, but they are still reluctant to accept their findings. Though people recognize the intelligence and value of scientists, they are more likely to believe politicians who are willing to confirm people’s world view and tell them what they want to hear.
Scientific discovery makes people uncomfortable. It frequently challenges what people know and want to be true which can be scary. Ultimately, this discomfort is a necessary component of progress. Developing an unbiased opinion based on well-researched, peer reviewed scientific data is the way to ensure the best progress possible for everyone, regardless of party affiliation.
Anna Coleman is a 19-year-old mass communication junior from Kennesaw, Georgia.