Artificial Intelligence – “AI” – continues to be the subject of hot debate around the world as governments seek ways to regulate it to protect the public, and developers continue to push towards AI with more human-like capabilities. What’s at stake depends on who you listen to: some extoll the benefits of AI to “transform” the way we live and work, downplaying the potential for negative impacts on society, while others warn of an existential threat to humanity.  Most perspectives land somewhere in between. We see AI, like other technological advances before it, as an exciting tool with tremendous potential. As such, it is not inherently helpful or harmful: its impacts depend on how it is used. Now is the perfect time for the thoughtful and extensive integration of social science evidence and expertise into AI development, deployment, implementation, and use so that AI can be optimally, positively effective while minimizing risks of harm to society.

AI has existed in various forms for decades and until recently, was developed under tightly constrained parameters to do specific tasks. However, the 2022 launch of easy-to-access Large Language Model (LLM) tools such as ChatGPT, which input massive amounts of data and generate responses to questions in conversational language, had leaders across many sectors – from education to business – scrambling to set guidelines and parameters for AI’s use in their domains. Indeed, AI and other technologies are not typically implemented in isolation but in systems. Social science approaches can help us understand and address these technologies’ reach, implications, and impact within these “AI systems.”

We know that social and behavioral science (SBS) has a hold on the conversation when institutional and government decision-makers parley over what goes into ‘policy.’ But oftentimes the SBS researchers whose own work goes into policy are unaware that they’re making an impact in the real world and are stymied from amplifying their findings or using them to advance their careers or fields.

With this in mind, Sage partnered with Overton to create Sage Policy Profiles, a free-to-use tool that enables researchers to discover the real-world impact – drawing from a pool of more than 10 million policy documents – of their work on policy, visualize, export, and share what they find.

In light of this launch, I sat down with Euan Adie, founder of Altmetric and Overton and currently Overton’s managing director, to learn more about the outsized impact that SBS makes on policy and his work creating tools to connect the scholarly and policy worlds.

There is a growing recognition in the scientific community that health research is richer when it incorporates the perspectives of those with lived experience.

What is lived experience? It is the unique expertise provided by individuals who have been directly affected by specific health issues. It could come from a patient or their caregiver, or from members of a community who have experienced something collectively, such as adverse health effects from contaminated drinking water. Those with lived experience hold powerful insights that can help improve health systems, research, and policy.

For those reading nearly any media outlet during 2023, it is hard to miss the fact that Artificial Intelligence (AI)–in all its varied manifestations–is a regularized component of public discussion and debate. The celebrated and feared emergence of ChatGPT in late 2022, the Writers Guild of America strike and the concerns that writing would cease to be a human endeavor, and the recent firing and subsequent rehiring of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman clearly illustrate that AI is having a moment. So much so that prediction and forecasting site Metaculus is tracking to see if Time's person of the year for 2023 will be AI. Honestly, it is hard to argue against this idea. But before we get too far down a path of contending and arguing that an AI revolution will fundamentally transform the world in which we live, perhaps we should consider what social science can tell us and has told us about the longitudinal impacts of technological change on society. The interdisciplinary world of Science & Technology Studies can provide a window into how new and emerging technologies impact how we live on the planet.

Science & Technology Studies as a field of inquiry that emerged in the middle of the twentieth century, bringing together those interested and invested in better understanding the ways science and technology impacted society. Situated within broader discussions about science "and" society, and science "for" society, early work–exemplified by Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions–aimed to reveal the deep social roots of scientific discovery and technological innovation.

Universities have the resources to help combat the climate crisis. What’s more, they have a responsibility to their students – who want to take action, but may lack the support they need to do so.

One way universities can do this is to help students use their skills to contribute to university- and community-wide projects. This can create real change, as well as teaching students how to take collaborative action.

In 2019, we started a research project with colleagues at York St John University to find out what students felt about the climate crisis. To begin, we held focus groups with 23 students who had responded to a call for participation posted on social media and around the campus.

Read the full article on The Conversation.

Every 2 years, the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) within the National Science Foundation (NSF) publishes a congressionally mandated report on the demographic makeup of the population working in and studying science and engineering (S&E). For decades, the employment section of this report largely focused on those working in S&E occupations, which generally require at least a 4-year degree. However, a thriving economy is served by a wide array of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) jobs that may not require a bachelor’s degree—from electricians to technicians to construction workers. Historically, these professions were not included in NCSES analyses, leaving a notable gap in our understanding of the STEM enterprise.

On April 24-25, 2023, over 50 social and behavioral science researchers, students, and advocates from 11 different states participated in Social Science Advocacy Day. This annual event, organized by in the Consortium of Social Science Associations (COSSA), brings together advocates from across the country to discuss with Members of Congress and their staff the importance of funding federal agencies and programs that support social and behavioral science research. This year was COSSA’s first in-person Social Science Advocacy Day since 2019. Below are reflections from three advocates who participated: Brenna Tosh, an undergraduate student at Cornell University; Dr. Nicole R. Stokes, Dean for Social Sciences and Professor of Sociology at Pennsylvania State University at Abington; and Dr. Deborah Carr, Professor of Sociology and Director of the Center for Innovation in Social Science at Boston University.

America’s gun death rate is unacceptably high – it is well beyond that of any other developed country.  In 2020, there were 45,222 gun related deaths, with 24,264 (54%) of those being suicides and 20,958 (46%) being homicides.  Within America, gun violence is the leading cause of death for children (defined as persons being under the age of 18), and it is among the top 5 causes of death of those under the age of 44.  These staggering statistics are why many social scientists have labeled American gun violence a “public health crisis”.

While these numbers are staggering and the loss of life profound, there is good news. Gun violence is preventable and, in particular, the tools from the social sciences can help us reduce and prevent gun violence.  Social science offers a broad array of skills to inform solutions and each social science tool is necessary.  Due to the enormity and complexity of gun violence, the many disciplines of social science must be used in conjunction with each other to effectively prevent gun violence. 

Interventions designed to keep people safe can have hidden side effects. With an increased perception of safety, some people are more likely to take risks.

For example, some vehicle drivers take more risks when they are buckled up in a shoulder-and-lap belt. Some construction workers step closer to the edge of the roof because they are hooked to a fall-protection rope. Some parents of young children take less care with medicine bottles that are “childproof” and thus difficult to open.

Techniques designed to reduce harm can promote a false sense of security and increase risky behavior and unintentional injuries.

As civil engineers and applied behavioral scientists, we are interested in ways to improve workplace safety. Our ongoing research suggests that employers need to do more than provide injury-protection devices and mandate safety rules and procedures to follow. Job-site mottos like “safety is our priority” are not enough. Employers need to consider the crucial human dynamic that can counteract their desired injury-prevention effects – and tap into strategies that might get around this safety paradox.

Read the full article on The Conversation.

When it comes to opinion research, it sometimes isn’t just a matter of meeting scientific standards, but about assuaging doubts about whether measuring should be done at all. This is especially true these days when questions have been raised about the accuracy of scientific polling in recent elections. Some of the criticisms made after the 2016 and 2020 elections were helpful, and survey researchers responded as scientists —reviewing their methods and making improvements where necessary and possible. Other criticisms are often the result of disappointment with what public opinion research reports. Like election denial, disappointment with a preferred outcome causes some people to question legitimate results. Of course, we all know that polls are a snapshot in time and opinions can change — and have changed — dramatically following major events. In 2022, pre-election polls gave Americans an accurate sense of who was favored in the elections and how public evaluations of them were changing as the election approached. They also underscored those elections where polls were just too close to say what might happen (and the days of vote counting after November 8 underscored the accuracy of many close pre-election polls).

As a new school year begins, it is understandable that students, parents, teachers and the community at large experience both excitement and apprehension. Excitement about a new year of in-person learning, reconnecting with old friends and making new ones, but apprehension about the safety of the school environment. The possibility of school violence occupies the minds of many. While the risk of mass shootings in schools remains exceedingly low, it is essential that we draw on the best data and research available to prevent such events and mitigate all manner of threats to school and student safety.

As the directors of two federal agencies tasked with collecting crime and justice data and advancing scientific research to enhance public safety and the administration of justice, we want to highlight some of what we know about school safety and mass shootings.

Gun control legislation almost never passes Congress, even when there is widespread public support for action in the wake of mass shootings such as those in Buffalo and Uvalde. That’s why we did not expect that on June 25, 2022, President Joe Biden would sign into law a bill containing a set of gun reform provisions known as the “Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.” Based on our expertise studying public opinion and the U.S. Congress, here are four reasons we believe some gun control measures got enacted this time around.

Read the full article on The Conversation.

Every day across the United States, more than 120 people die from firearm injuries. Tragic mass shootings in schools, grocery stores and places of worship, with increasing frequency, have highlighted the risk of firearm injury in every community. At the same time, daily tragedy plays out in events of interpersonal conflict that escalates between friends, intimate partners and in the form of suicide by firearm that often does not rise to the level of local news.

I have devoted the past 25 years of my career to researching this crisis. There are many facts that are known as we assess these tragedies.

We know that firearm injuries surpassed motor vehicle crash deaths in 2017 for the first time in over a generation, with firearms responsible for more than 45,000 fatalities in 2020. It is certain that firearms are now the leading cause of death among our children and teens, and that black Americans are disproportionately harmed by firearms, with data finding they are twice as likely to die by firearm than white Americans. We also know that suicide is a leading cause of death among adults over the age of 65, with 70 percent of suicides resulting from firearms. Firearm suicides also are particularly prevalent among veterans and active-duty military members with a suicide rate 1.5 times higher than the general population.

Do you ever wish you had a parenting handbook for raising your children? A guide to navigating a disagreement with your partner? A better understanding of your relationship with your in-laws?

For many of us, family is the cornerstone of our lives. Our family can also help us learn to navigate relationships and manage life’s challenges. Simply being in a family, however, does not mean we intrinsically know everything about building and maintaining healthy, well-functioning families.

Family science — the scientific study of families and close interpersonal relationships — helps us to understand all types of families and how family relationships affect us, our families, and society. Family science research shows us strategies to build strong relationships and marriages, ways to parent effectively, and so much more to support families’ well-being, which creates a better society for everyone.

Scientists across a wide range of disciplines agree that climate change is one of the biggest challenges currently facing our world. Climate change is now recognized as a dire threat to global public health, with a growing awareness of the mental health impacts. The discipline of psychology can contribute in multiple ways to the response to climate change, as described in the American Psychological Association’s recent report Addressing the Climate Crisis: An Action Plan for Psychologists. In this report, APA calls on psychologists to bring their expertise and experience to the fight against climate change and to collaborate with other disciplines and professions to magnify the impact of psychologists’ efforts. Psychologists have roles to play in helping society to mitigate climate change and adapt to it, as well as in building public understanding and attitudes and encouraging social action.

Mitigation, which is aimed at preventing further climate change, may involve the development of new technologies, alternative energy sources, and methods for removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere (e.g., large-scale tree planting, carbon dioxide filtering devices) along with new ways of living and working. New mitigation strategies also present untapped possibilities for incorporating psychological science, including the development of energy-saving smart home technologies that are sensitive and intuitive, ensuring ethical deployments of artificial intelligence, and identifying and breaking down the mental barriers to electric vehicle adoption. Psychologists will be essential to rethinking our world, from aiding the transition to remote work, to reshaping communities to encourage more emission free transportation, to helping people transition to plant-based diets. More broadly, psychologists can contribute to policy development and decision-making about climate change to facilitate acceptance and adoption of new technologies, environments, and routines.