Reader Poll: The Next Big Framing Controversies?
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."
Over at the Intersection, Chris generated a discussion of what issues might be the next big science policy debates. I'd like to turn the question in a slightly different direction and solicit reader opinion:
In the coming decades, what are the next great framing controversies?
In my research and at this blog, I have tracked how strategists selectively define stem cell research, intelligent design, and climate change to suit their policy goals, and how media coverage combines with citizen values to shape public concern and policy preferences.
As I have also argued, given certain conditions, food biotechnology and nanotechnology are potentially the next big issues to go political in the U.S., erupting into major frame contests.
Within these new communication contexts, scientists have a duty to engage in effective public engagement efforts. If they don't, they cede the communication ground to others, in many cases the opponents of science.
But in coming years, what are the other public engagement flashpoints to anticipate? On what issues can we apply a scientific understanding of the public and the media system to avoid communication failures?
These potential communication breakdowns might be specific to a particular issue but might also be more meta-topics. Here are a just a few possibilities. Let me know your own thoughts:
With increased investment in biomedical research, will animal experimentation become a major debate?
With genomics research, will the patenting of novel or synthetic lifeforms be an issue?
Perhaps the ethical and economic implications of life extension research?
Genetic enhancement for athletic performance and other human traits?
In the face of climate change, a renewed debate over nuclear energy?
The impact of the New Atheism movement on the public's trust and image of science?
What about sources of authority when it comes to bioethics? Who is a bioethicist and what does expertise and expert consensus mean in the field of bioethics? How will bioethics be communicated to the public? How should it be covered by journalists?
Is there a realistic future for science journalism, the traditional vehicle for science communication?
It's the first time the association hasn't hired a comedian in 16 years.
- The 2018 WHCA ended in controversy after comedian Michelle Wolf made jokes some considered to be offensive.
- The WHCA apologized for Wolf's jokes, though some journalists and many comedians backed the comedian and decried arguments in favor of limiting the types of speech permitted at the event.
- Ron Chernow, who penned a bestselling biography of Alexander Hamilton, will speak at next year's dinner.
Progressive America would be half as big, but twice as populated as its conservative twin.
- America's two political tribes have consolidated into 'red' and 'blue' nations, with seemingly irreconcilable differences.
- Perhaps the best way to stop the infighting is to go for a divorce and give the two nations a country each
- Based on the UN's partition plan for Israel/Palestine, this proposal provides territorial contiguity and sea access to both 'red' and 'blue' America
A study on flies may hold the key to future addiction treatments.
- A new study suggests that drinking alcohol can affect how memories are stored away as good or bad.
- This may have drastic implications for how addiction is caused and how people recall intoxication.
- The findings may one day lead to a new form of treatment for those suffering from addiction.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.