Questions Posed at the Cal Tech Framing Science Seminar
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."
I'm back in DC after a week long tour of southern California. On Monday night, an audience of close to 100 scientists, students, and staff turned out at Cal Tech for our latest Framing Science lecture. We followed on Tuesday with a day long science communication seminar (syllabus) that included 30 PhD students, post-docs, and Cal Tech staff. (Read one blogger's summary.)
I ended my morning session by posing the following issues and questions to the participants, with these issues arising from what I see as major changes in the political and media system that are generating new demands for scientists and their institutions as public communicators.
As I've noted at this blog many times and outlined in a talk last week at the BIO 2008 meetings, what are needed are novel forms of public dialogue complemented by media strategies that are informed by careful audience research.
Yet these initiatives raise several important questions. Namely:
What are the implications for the traditional role of the scientist?
Under what conditions do scientists turn into advocates and public persuaders? Is the traditional popularization process really that neutral, or does it actually mask other interests such as the need to publicize research, win grants, gain prestige, and influence peers?
Is framing just spin?
I have argued in many places "no" but the misperception remains.
Where does science end and worldview begin?
Many of the seminar participants agreed that an improved partnership between science and religion was needed and that the New Atheist movement, by confusing the differences between science and atheism, was likely to be harmful to public engagement.
Is this advocacy?
The goals and strategies involved in science communication will vary by issue and context. For example, with climate change, the communication goal should be to create the public opinion environment where meaningful policy action can take place. (For more, see this column.)
On other issues, such as nanotechnology, the communication goals are less obvious. In fact, one of the problems with much of the work in the area of nanotech engagement is that the goals, outcomes, and motivations of many of the participants have yet to be clearly defined or acknowledged.
Is public dialogue just PR by another name?
This relates again to an issue such as nanotechnology where institutions claim to be conducting "upstream engagement." In other words, the ideal is that they are consulting the public as an area of science is in development with the intention that public feedback will guide the trajectory of nanotech.
But will scientists and their institutions really listen to the public? Science has always enjoyed relative freedom and autonomy from society, despite strong levels of government patronage.
What happens if a well informed group of citizens comes together in a town meeting or consensus conference and issues recommendations that run counter to the interests of scientists? In other words, what if they recommend that nanotech be tightly regulated or even that there be legal moratoriums on certain areas of research given concerns over risks, ethics, or economic impacts?
When engaging and consulting with an informed public, are scientists and industry ready to receive feedback and answers that they might not like?
And if public feedback is rejected or re-interpreted, is this just PR by another name, risking public trust in the governance of science?
These five main food groups are important for your brain's health and likely to boost the production of feel-good chemicals.
We all know eating “healthy” food is good for our physical health and can decrease our risk of developing diabetes, cancer, obesity and heart disease. What is not as well known is that eating healthy food is also good for our mental health and can decrease our risk of depression and anxiety.
Infographics show the classes and anxieties in the supposedly classless U.S. economy.
For those of us who follow politics, we’re used to commentators referring to the President’s low approval rating as a surprise given the U.S.'s “booming” economy. This seeming disconnect, however, should really prompt us to reconsider the measurements by which we assess the health of an economy. With a robust U.S. stock market and GDP and low unemployment figures, it’s easy to see why some think all is well. But looking at real U.S. wages, which have remained stagnant—and have, thus, in effect gone down given rising costs from inflation—a very different picture emerges. For the 1%, the economy is booming. For the rest of us, it’s hard to even know where we stand. A recent study by Porch (a home-improvement company) of blue-collar vs. white-collar workers shows how traditional categories are becoming less distinct—the study references "new-collar" workers, who require technical certifications but not college degrees. And a set of recent infographics from CreditLoan capturing the thoughts of America’s middle class as defined by the Pew Research Center shows how confused we are.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.