Play all audios:
An MP’s dismissive tweet that scientists have ‘no experience of the real world’ highlights a chasm in mutual understanding. Grammar and Twitter rarely sit happily, so it would be churlish to
point out that when the Welsh MP Glyn Davies tweeted at the weekend: “Nothing more irritating than academics rubbishing the efforts of those operating at the sharp end, without facing up
to the hard decisions”, he was inadvertently complaining that people at the sharp end (himself included presumably) do not confront hard decisions. Besides, the next social-media missive
from Davies made his position clear: “Personally, never thought of academics as ‘experts’. No experience of the real world.” His first point there might — just — be semantically defensible:
academics, by one definition, are full-time scholars; whereas experts can be classed as those who have learned not through study but through experience. But it was his second assertion
that prompted most of the angry backlash, and the inevitable hashtag response #realworldacademic that was still going strong as _Nature_ went to press. (Replies to Davies ranged from
“Practiced medicine in Intensive Care Unit and emergency medicine while I was doing a PhD” to “Dude, you literally work in a palace”.) There’s no need for _Nature_ to tell its readers —
mostly academics — that they have experience of the real world. They live it every day; and, for many, the realities of this academic life are starting to bite down hard. As we explored in a
special issue last week, the real world of academia for many young researchers is insecure and under increasing pressure. Many are looking to leave. (And when they do, Davies and others
please note, they seem to flourish.) The popular image of an academic as aloof, privileged and out of touch — if it ever was true — is now redundant. But then so is the popular view that
backbench MPs are, well, aloof, privileged and out of touch. In most cases, both groups work harder, and with more selfless goals, than critics claim. By their nature, those who study the
science of what is probable will come into conflict with those who practise the art of what is possible. But researchers, along with everybody else who criticizes policymakers and elected
officials, should remember that, as Davies seemed to be trying to point out, it is one thing to discuss problems and recommend solutions, and quite another to have to make and implement
decisions. One reason that the MP’s comments seem to have struck a nerve is that they feed into the popular idea — fuelled by the Brexit campaign and the rise of Donald Trump — that
politicians, and by extension the wider public, have shifted away from reason and evidence. In a recent World View column, Bill Colglazier, a former science adviser to the US government,
argued that this perception could be explained by differing attitudes to evidence — and on this point researchers seem to have some common ground with Davies. Criticized last month for
attending a lecture by the prominent climate sceptic Matt Ridley at the prominent climate sceptic organization the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Davies wrote on his blog: “I do not
think Government policy should be based on a partial view of science. I like to make judgements based on evidence … In the end, governments the world over will be guided by evidence — or
science delivered as evidence.” The conflict between Davies’ support for evidence and his Twitter dismissal of those who seek and provide evidence seems, in the real world, to make for a
curious paradox. Perhaps an expert could look into it. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Tweet Follow @NatureNews RELATED LINKS RELATED LINKS RELATED LINKS IN NATURE RESEARCH Young, talented and
fed-up: scientists tell their stories 2016-Oct-26 Early-career researchers need fewer burdens and more support 2016-Oct-26 Young scientists under pressure: what the data show 2016-Oct-26
RELATED EXTERNAL LINKS RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS Reprints and permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Twitterstorm shows why scientific evidence matters. _Nature_ 539, 6 (2016).
https://doi.org/10.1038/539006a Download citation * Published: 01 November 2016 * Issue Date: 03 November 2016 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/539006a SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the
following link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer
Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative