Defending Science
CSE professor creates Science Court to draw on scientific research
December 6, 2019
Ellad Tadmor couldn’t stand it anymore.
For years, Tadmor, a professor in the Department of Aerospace Engineering and Mechanics, watched the erosion of public debates and scientific discourse in the United States.
Political factions twisted facts and turned opponents into caricatures. Ballot initiatives reduced important policy issues to slogans. The internet, despite being a great river of information, somehow managed to dilute the very notion of truth.
“Many topics have become more complicated, and science is playing an ever-larger role in the decisions we have to make,” said Tadmor, “and yet the public is not more informed about it.”
“The way we make decisions has gotten worse,” Tadmor said. “Especially in recent years, it’s become almost tribal.”
For years, Tadmor studied the literature on human decision-making and toyed with the idea of stepping outside his normal research (materials response at the microscopic level) and developing a science-based method for reasoning about controversial topics.
Then the 2016 election happened.
“There just seemed to be frontal assault on truth itself,” he recalled. “It went beyond the usual conservative-liberal stuff.”
As a scientist, Tadmor’s work is all about truth—he couldn’t stand to watch it become a devalued currency.
Being an engineer, he set out to solve the problem.
In the fall of 2017, he took a semester leave to plan a new class and create a model of a rational, scientific approach to public policy.
From his readings on the psychology of decision-making, Tadmor had learned that human behavior was a complex mix of emotion and reason—even scientists were not reliably rational. To the contrary, people often behave more like rationalizers and engage in what some researchers have described as “motivated reasoning” biased toward conclusions that fit their preconceptions.
“The more emotional the matter,” Tadmor observed, “the less rational the decision process.”
He designed an undergraduate class called Science Court—an investigative and decision-making process that would draw on scientific research to incorporate diverse views, establish a reliable body of facts, and dispassionately deliver fair conclusions.
He enlisted three coteachers: Collin Tierney, an assistant Hennepin County public defender; Lauren Clatch, a law and Ph.D. psychology student; and Melody Gilbert, a documentary filmmaker.
Science Court was first offered in the fall of 2018 as a course within the University of Minnesota Honors Program.
A classroom courtroom
The students held a competition to select the policy question to be addressed that semester—the winner: Should the state of Minnesota implement a 1:1 technology program and provide one laptop or tablet to every K–12 student? To prepare for trial, students divided into teams specializing in science, law, and media.
About half of the 17 students came from CSE; others from the liberal arts, design, or journalism.
“They needed to learn each other’s language,” said Tadmor. “There were some tensions.”
Two teams presented arguments for and against the proposal. Bill McGinnis, an intellectual property law attorney, presided as judge and volunteers recruited from the general public served as the jury. All evidence had to meet scientific standards. Several studies were ruled inadmissible and thrown out.
After many hours of courtroom argument and deliberations, the jury voted 10-3 against the 1:1 technology program.
The media team reported on progress with blogs, podcasts, and videos—all part of the campaign to educate the public in what Tadmor envisions as “a tool for social change.”
“This isn’t just about educating students,” he explained. “This is about students playing an important role and doing something useful for the community. Universities are always being criticized for being insular.”
“This is a direct attempt to engage with society,” Tadmor said.
“The students serve as conduits for getting all this knowledge from behind the university walls and sending it out to the public,” he added.
The class was offered again in the fall of 2019.
Ever the engineer, Tadmor has made improvements since the first experiment. He hopes the project will inspire similar efforts at other universities—and inject a dose of calm rationality into the fevered bloodstream of American politics.
by Kermit Pattison
Read about CSE assistant professor Lana Yarosh's work on social isolation in "Networking for Humans."
Read about CSE teaching professor Paul Imbertson's path to cleaner energy in "A Powerful Journey."