ClimateGate: Not Time to Fight Back, But to Engage
Matthew C. Nisbet, Ph.D. is Associate Professor of Communication Studies, Public Policy, and Urban Affairs at Northeastern University. Nisbet studies the role of communication and advocacy in policymaking and public affairs, focusing on debates over over climate change, energy, and sustainability. Among awards and recognition, Nisbet has been a Visiting Shorenstein Fellow on Press, Politics, and Public Policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, a Health Policy Investigator at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and a Google Science Communication Fellow. In 2011, the editors at the journal Nature recommended Nisbet's research as “essential reading for anyone with a passing interest in the climate change debate,” and the New Republic highlighted his work as a “fascinating dissection of the shortcomings of climate activism."
Last month, I did an interview with the Philadelphia City Paper on the stolen CRU emails. The feature story provides useful background and context on the communication dynamics of the event. Yet in organizing these details and assembling quotes, the reporter applies a now dominant narrative that the controversy is the latest sign of the growing strength of the climate skeptic movement, a movement fueled by the "anti-science" hostility of American society.
The moral lesson of this narrative, told by liberal commentators and reflected at mainstream outlets and various science media, argues that it's time for scientists to "fight back" and to become more politically savvy, with scientists encouraged to go so far as to organize political action committees and to openly support "pro-science" candidates. Scientists are told to learn how to better communicate with the public and with reporters, but only instrumentally, as a way to achieve their own ends and goals.
In short, from commentators on the left, the science community is being strongly encouraged to become more political and more partisan. Communication about issues such as climate change is a "street fight" that requires "war room"-style political campaigning.
Yet, the danger of this narrative and its recommendations, as Daniel Sarewitz and Samuel Thernstrom recently wrote at the LA Times, is that "citizens come to see science as nothing more than a tool for partisans of all stripes."
Instead of becoming more political and partisan, science institutions need to innovate and re-invest in public engagement initiatives that are aimed at restoring public trust, increasing transparency and public accountability, and increasing public participation in decisions related to science.
The communication goal is not to win a fictional struggle between "pro-science" good guys (usually Democrats) and "anti-science" bad guys (usually Republicans), but rather to increase and broaden public learning and input relative to how expert knowledge is developed, managed, and applied. The goal is to distribute and enable power across groups in society rather than to consolidate it within science institutions or within a specific political party.
Public engagement initiatives to these ends might range from hiring additional staff to process FOI requests while rethinking norms and policies related to the sharing and public release of data. Staff are also needed to effectively handle crisis communication situations in a way that enhances transparency and maintains public trust. These initiatives would also include longer term and more intensive investments in educating scientists, the public, and policymakers about the realities and myths of science-society relations, and the importance of public dialogue, two-way communication, and inclusive decision-making. These initiatives would also include new mechanisms for funding public engagement initiatives and for their organization and sponsorship, especially at the local and regional level.
These were among some of the major recommendations voiced at a recent panel held at the annual AGU meetings. For more on these goals and initiatives, see this recent paper. Also see this paper by Daniel Sarewitz at Issues in Science and Technology. For an example from the EU of educating scientists on science-society relations and public engagement, see this recent article.
Scientists have developed new ways of understanding how the biological forces of death drive important life processes.
- Researchers have found new ways on how decomposing plants and animals contribute to the life cycle.
- After a freak mass herd death of 300 reindeer, scientists were able to study a wide range of the decomposition processes.
- Promoting the necrobiome research will open up new areas of inquiry and even commerce.
What do we see from watching birds move across the country?
- A total of eight billion birds migrate across the U.S. in the fall.
- The birds who migrate to the tropics fair better than the birds who winter in the U.S.
- Conservationists can arguably use these numbers to encourage the development of better habitats in the U.S., especially if temperatures begin to vary in the south.
Explore how alcohol affects your brain, from the first sip at the bar to life-long drinking habits.
- Alcohol is the world's most popular drug and has been a part of human culture for at least 9,000 years.
- Alcohol's effects on the brain range from temporarily limiting mental activity to sustained brain damage, depending on levels consumed and frequency of use.
- Understanding how alcohol affects your brain can help you determine what drinking habits are best for you.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.