Self-Motivation
David Goggins
Former Navy Seal
Career Development
Bryan Cranston
Actor
Critical Thinking
Liv Boeree
International Poker Champion
Emotional Intelligence
Amaryllis Fox
Former CIA Clandestine Operative
Management
Chris Hadfield
Retired Canadian Astronaut & Author
Learn
from the world's big
thinkers
Start Learning

The Science of Science Communication: National Academies Event Examines Our Inconvenient Minds and Social Identities

The Science of Science Communication: National Academies Event Examines Our Inconvenient Minds and Social Identities

Over the past decade, there has been an explosion of research from the social and behavioral sciences offering insight on how individuals, social groups and political systems come to understand and make decisions related to science, the environment, technology, and medicine.


Research in this area stretches across disciplinary boundaries, university departments, funding agencies and field-specific journals, is the subject of inquiry at journals like Science and Nature, debated in the media and at blogs, and the focus of top-selling books.

Indeed, as New Scientist magazine proclaimed in a recent cover story: "It may be high time US scientists put aside their own scepticism about the 'soft' social sciences, and embrace what these studies have to say" about the communication processes shaping debates ranging from climate change to stem cell research.

Enter the National Academies.  

Marshaling the very best of its convening and agenda-setting function, on May 20-21 in Washington, DC, the Academies will be hosting a prestigious 2-day Sackler Colloquia surveying the state-of-the-art of social science research on communication, connecting this research to its implications for science-related governance, policy and public engagement.

Highlights include:

  • A keynote address by Nobel prize-winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman, author of the current best-seller Thinking Fast, Thinking Slow.
  • Presentations by a diversity of leading social scientists summarizing the state of knowledge in their fields.
  • A roundtable featuring former and current White House Science Advisers Neal Lane, John Gibbon, and John Holdren (invited).
  • Discussions by Arizona State President Michael Crow, New York Times journalist David Pogue, and PBS Nova producer Paula Apsell.
  • In one of the sessions, I will be joined by colleagues William Eveland and Dominique Brossard, reviewing research on how the media cover and portray science; the relationship to policy and societal decisions; how audiences find and use information, and the impact on attitudes, behavior and knowledge.

    Other presentations by collaborators familiar to readers of this blog include Edward Maibach reviewing the role of research in science communication across the private, government and non-profit sectors; Anthony Leiserowitz proposing innovations related to climate change communication; and Dietram Scheufele integrating research across fields on the societal dynamics of science communication

    I have posted the 2 day agenda below. You will want to register early by May 7. The event will be held in the historic National Academy of Sciences building, located at 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, in Washington, DC, adjacent to the National Mall, U.S. State Department and Lincoln Memorial.

    The event was organized by National Academies president Ralph Cicerone and Vice President Barbara Schaal, AAAS CEO Alan Leshner, Carnegie Mellon University's Baruch Fischhoff, and the University of Wisconsin's Dietram Scheufele.  Video will be available and summary papers by participants will be submitted for review and possible publication at the Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences.

    Program and Agenda

    Monday, May 21, 2012

    8:30 a.m.Welcome

  • Ralph Cicerone, President, National Academy of Sciences
  • Alan Leshner, Chief Executive Officer, American Association for the Advancement of Science
  • Barbara Schaal, Vice President, National Academy of Sciences
  • The Science of Science Communication: Overviews

  • The Micro View: Individual Responses in Science Communication, Baruch Fischhoff, Carnegie Mellon
  • The Macro View: Social Dynamics in Science Communication, Dietram Scheufele, Wisconsin
  • Discussion

    10:00 a.m.Science in our Daily Life: Emerging Technologies and Their Likely Impacts on Lay Publics

  • Nuclear Power and other Site Selection Issues, Kate Jackson, Westinghouse CTO
  • Agricultural Biotechnology, David Fischhoff, Monsanto
  • Nanotechnology, Vicky Colvin, Rice University
  • Geoengineering, David Keith, Calgary
  • Discussion

    12:00 p.m.Lunch Speaker

  • Why We Can’t Trust Our Intuitions: Communication as a Science, Arthur Lupia, Michigan 
  • 1:00 p.m.The Science of Science Communication I: What do people likely need to know about science?

  • The Content of Scientific Communication: Identifying the Scientific Knowledge that is Most Relevant to Personal and Policy Decisions, Detlof von Winterfeldt, University of Southern California
  • Personal Beliefs: How People Perceive Scientific Facts and Issues, Wändi Bruine de Bruin, Carnegie Mellon University
  • Current Attitudes: People’s Evaluative Responses to Socially-Relevant Scientific Content, Jon Krosnick, Stanford University
  • Discussion

    3:00 p.m.The Science of Science Communication II: How can scientists provide the information that individuals need? How can that information be conveyed effectively? How can trustworthy communication channels be created? 

  • Generating the Science Needed for Relevant Communication: How Can Social, Behavioral, and Decision Research Extract the Information that the Public Needs Most from the Wealth of Scientific Knowledge?, Lisa Schwartz and Steven Woloshin, Dartmouth
  • Updating Beliefs: How Can We Provide Scientific Information in the Interest of Creating More Coherent Public “Mental Models?”, David Klahr, Carnegie Mellon
  • The Science of Citizen Participation: What Are the Best Ways to Engage in Two-Way Communication with Those Concerned About Science-Related Issues?, Tom Dietz, Michigan State
  • Discussion

    5:00 p.m.Annual Sackler Lecture

    5:00 p.m. – Reception6:00 p.m. – Annual Sackler Lecture, Daniel Kahneman, Princeton University

    Tuesday, May 22, 2012

    8:30 a.m.Welcome

  • Ralph Cicerone, President, National Academy of Sciences
  • Alan Leshner, Chief Executive Officer, American Association for the Advancement of Science
  • Barbara Schaal, Vice President, National Academy of Sciences
  • 8:45 a.m.The Science of Science Communication III: Communication Dynamics in Socio-Political Contexts – How Science is Presented and Understood in Modern Mass Cultures

  • Effects of Mass Media on the Political Process: How Do Mass Media Shape the Nature of Public Debates About Science? Matthew C. Nisbet, American University
  • Effects of Mass Media on Attitudes and Behaviors: How Do Mass Media (Across Different Channels and Content) Influence the Public? William P. Eveland, Ohio State University
  • New Media Landscapes: Where Do People Go for Information About Science and How Do They Evaluate What they find? Dominique Brossard, University of Wisconsin
  • Discussion

    10:45 a.m.Science and Politics: Forum of Presidential Science Advisors

    Moderator:  Ralph Cicerone

  • John Holdren, Presidential Office of Science and Technology (invited)
  • Neal Lane, Rice University
  • John H. Gibbons, Resource Strategies
  • Discussi

    12:15 p.m.Lunch

  • Lost in Translation? Journalists as Conduits Between Science and the Public David Pogue, NY Times/NOVA
  • 1:15 p.m.The Science of Science Communication IV: Structures and Strategies—Developing Organizational Infrastructures for Evidence-Based Communication about Science

  • Institutional Constraints and Incentives: What Factors Determine When Scientists Act as Communicators and How They Succeed?,  Hans-Peter Peters, Research Center Jülich
  • Building Organizational Infrastructures for Effective Communication: What Have We Learned from Experiences in the Corporate, Governmental, and Academic Worlds?, Ed Maibach, George Mason University
  • Communication as an Empirical Endeavor: Why Is Systematic Evaluation So Rare and How Can We Make It the Norm? Martin Storksdeick, National Research Council
  • Discussion

    3:15 p.m.Bold Proposals: Harnessing Communication Science

    Speakers: Barbara Kline Pope, National Academy of Sciences

    Anthony Leiserowitz, Yale University

    Valerie Reyna, Cornell University

    Respondents:Alan Leshner, American Association for the Advancement of Science

    Michael Crow, Arizona State

    Paula S. Apsell, PBS/NOVA

    4:30 p.m.General Discussion

    5:00 p.m.Adjourn

     See Also:

    What's Next for Science Communication? Promising Directions and Emerging Best Practices

    Reading List and Videos for American University Seminar on Science and Environmental Communication

    How Scientists View the Public, the Media,, and the Political Process

    Understanding Public Opinion and Participation in the Climate Change Debate

    Reframing Climate Change as a Public Health Problem

    Science Journalists Online: Shifting Roles and Emerging Practices

    Study Maps Relationship Between Cable News and Climate Change Perceptions

    America's Peak Oil Perceptions

    Radical innovation: Unlocking the future of human invention

    Ready to see the future? Nanotronics CEO Matthew Putman talks innovation and the solutions that are right under our noses.

    Big Think LIVE

    Innovation in manufacturing has crawled since the 1950s. That's about to speed up.

    Keep reading Show less

    Your body’s full of stuff you no longer need. Here's a list.

    Evolution doesn't clean up after itself very well.

    Image source: Ernst Haeckel
    Surprising Science
    • An evolutionary biologist got people swapping ideas about our lingering vestigia.
    • Basically, this is the stuff that served some evolutionary purpose at some point, but now is kind of, well, extra.
    • Here are the six traits that inaugurated the fun.
    Keep reading Show less

    Quantum particles timed as they tunnel through a solid

    A clever new study definitively measures how long it takes for quantum particles to pass through a barrier.

    Image source: carlos castilla/Shutterstock
    • Quantum particles can tunnel through seemingly impassable barriers, popping up on the other side.
    • Quantum tunneling is not a new discovery, but there's a lot that's unknown about it.
    • By super-cooling rubidium particles, researchers use their spinning as a magnetic timer.

    When it comes to weird behavior, there's nothing quite like the quantum world. On top of that world-class head scratcher entanglement, there's also quantum tunneling — the mysterious process in which particles somehow find their way through what should be impenetrable barriers.

    Exactly why or even how quantum tunneling happens is unknown: Do particles just pop over to the other side instantaneously in the same way entangled particles interact? Or do they progressively tunnel through? Previous research has been conflicting.

    That quantum tunneling occurs has not been a matter of debate since it was discovered in the 1920s. When IBM famously wrote their name on a nickel substrate using 35 xenon atoms, they used a scanning tunneling microscope to see what they were doing. And tunnel diodes are fast-switching semiconductors that derive their negative resistance from quantum tunneling.

    Nonetheless, "Quantum tunneling is one of the most puzzling of quantum phenomena," says Aephraim Steinberg of the Quantum Information Science Program at Canadian Institute for Advanced Research in Toronto to Live Science. Speaking with Scientific American he explains, "It's as though the particle dug a tunnel under the hill and appeared on the other."

    Steinberg is a co-author of a study just published in the journal Nature that presents a series of clever experiments that allowed researchers to measure the amount of time it takes tunneling particles to find their way through a barrier. "And it is fantastic that we're now able to actually study it in this way."

    Frozen rubidium atoms

    Image source: Viktoriia Debopre/Shutterstock/Big Think

    One of the difficulties in ascertaining the time it takes for tunneling to occur is knowing precisely when it's begun and when it's finished. The authors of the new study solved this by devising a system based on particles' precession.

    Subatomic particles all have magnetic qualities, and they spin, or "precess," like a top when they encounter an external magnetic field. With this in mind, the authors of the study decided to construct a barrier with a magnetic field, causing any particles passing through it to precess as they did so. They wouldn't precess before entering the field or after, so by observing and timing the duration of the particles' precession, the researchers could definitively identify the length of time it took them to tunnel through the barrier.

    To construct their barrier, the scientists cooled about 8,000 rubidium atoms to a billionth of a degree above absolute zero. In this state, they form a Bose-Einstein condensate, AKA the fifth-known form of matter. When in this state, atoms slow down and can be clumped together rather than flying around independently at high speeds. (We've written before about a Bose-Einstein experiment in space.)

    Using a laser, the researchers pusehd about 2,000 rubidium atoms together in a barrier about 1.3 micrometers thick, endowing it with a pseudo-magnetic field. Compared to a single rubidium atom, this is a very thick wall, comparable to a half a mile deep if you yourself were a foot thick.

    With the wall prepared, a second laser nudged individual rubidium atoms toward it. Most of the atoms simply bounced off the barrier, but about 3% of them went right through as hoped. Precise measurement of their precession produced the result: It took them 0.61 milliseconds to get through.

    Reactions to the study

    Scientists not involved in the research find its results compelling.

    "This is a beautiful experiment," according to Igor Litvinyuk of Griffith University in Australia. "Just to do it is a heroic effort." Drew Alton of Augustana University, in South Dakota tells Live Science, "The experiment is a breathtaking technical achievement."

    What makes the researchers' results so exceptional is their unambiguity. Says Chad Orzel at Union College in New York, "Their experiment is ingeniously constructed to make it difficult to interpret as anything other than what they say." He calls the research, "one of the best examples you'll see of a thought experiment made real." Litvinyuk agrees: "I see no holes in this."

    As for the researchers themselves, enhancements to their experimental apparatus are underway to help them learn more. "We're working on a new measurement where we make the barrier thicker," Steinberg said. In addition, there's also the interesting question of whether or not that 0.61-millisecond trip occurs at a steady rate: "It will be very interesting to see if the atoms' speed is constant or not."

    Self-driving cars to race for $1.5 million at Indianapolis Motor Speedway ​

    So far, 30 student teams have entered the Indy Autonomous Challenge, scheduled for October 2021.

    Illustration of cockpit of a self-driving car

    Indy Autonomous Challenge
    Technology & Innovation
    • The Indy Autonomous Challenge will task student teams with developing self-driving software for race cars.
    • The competition requires cars to complete 20 laps within 25 minutes, meaning cars would need to average about 110 mph.
    • The organizers say they hope to advance the field of driverless cars and "inspire the next generation of STEM talent."
    Keep reading Show less
    Mind & Brain

    The dangers of the chemical imbalance theory of depression

    A new Harvard study finds that the language you use affects patient outcome.

    Scroll down to load more…
    Quantcast