Policy
nisbetmc |
How do you influence conservative media outlets to take climate change seriously, re-casting the issue in a light that connects to their conservative audiences?
You got it: Framing.
It's a strategy that two scientists apply today in an op-ed published at the Washington Times. Bryan K. Mignone, a Science & Technology Fellow in the Foreign Policy Studies Program at the Brookings Institution, and Mark D. Drapeau, a AAAS Fellow at the National Defense University, strategically piggyback on last week's military report on climate change to gain an audience at the notoriously conservative…
tlambert |
The Lancet authors have released the data to other researchers:
Six months have passed since the publication of the study and we feel the time is now right to make the data set available to academic and other scientific groups whom we judge have the technical capacity to objectively analyze the data. It is our desire that the data be used in a way that will advance the understanding of how to best assess mortality during conflicts and to improve the protection of those caught in conflict. Although conflict is inextricably intertwined with national and international politics, it is our very…
clock |
You may be aware that there is a huge discussion about framing science going on in the blogosphere. It has gotten out of hand. But, for those who want to dig in, or want to analyze the posts and comments (that is a lot of data!), here is the comprehensive list of links (excluded are links to Creationists' sites). Most of the posts also have long and interesting comment threads as well, worth reading through:
First, the source metarial, i.e., the stuff that appeared in non-blog media, and some background resources (which, if everyone have read them, would have reduced some of the…
goodmath |
Ok, I give up. I've stayed out of the framing debate until now, but I just can't take it anymore.
As much as I respect people like PZ and Larry Moran, the simple fact is: they've got it wrong. And not just them: there is a consistent problem with the political left in America when it comes to things like framing, and it's a big part of why we've lost so many political battles over the last decade.
"Framing" is not spinning. And even the most vocal opponents of framing
are doing framing in their arguments. It's unavoidable. Whether you like it or not, framing is an inescapable part of…
clock |
On Neurophilosopher's blog, I saw this, one of the winning cartoons from the 2006 Scientific Integrity Editorial Cartoon Contest, drawn by Reva Sharp from Warren, PA (btw, you have only about a month to send in your entries for the 2007 contest):
The image obviously mocks the relationship between the published peer-reviewed papers and the data they are based on, putting a negative spin on the way we all frame our scientific communication for the audience of peers, something that both Orac and I addressed previously.
But the cartoon also depicts how many participants in the debate,…
nisbetmc |
Bora continues to play a very important role in synthesizing and interpreting the whole strange chorus that seems to be going on in reaction to our Framing Science thesis. In his latest post, I couldn't have stated it better myself. He definitely gets it. He captures pretty much everything that needs to be said at this point.
The next several weeks are going to be very busy. I'm finishing off the semester teaching, and I have a lot of deadlines coming up. So what I'm saying is that this is going to be a very slow couple of weeks for me blog wise.
PS: Bora offers more light on the matter…
revere |
The last time we reported on the concern of five former CDC Directors that morale was going down the toilet at the agency was September 11, 2006. That was in a joint letter sent to Director Gerberding. Now it's 7 months later and the venue is more public, a symposium sponsored by the George Washington University School of Public Health. One of them was William Foege who was CDC Director under Carter and Bush (1977 to 1983):
Foege said that CDC must eliminate the "perception ... that politics trumps science and truth" and strengthen the "role of science that has always characterized CDC"…
clock |
Matt Nisbet analyses George Will and Chris Mooney responds to some more recent discussions.
Matt talks about framing on NPR (listen here) and now they both have an article published in the Washington Post.
Also, check out some older articles by Matt and Chris, including this one on CSI and this one in CJR.
With this, I will stop adding new links to blogospheric discussion at the bottom of this post (my first - and uber-long one - on the topic) and will start with a clean slate. But you go and check them, as discussions in the comments are still going on at some of those linked blogs.…
After all the chatter that's been going on throughout ScienceBlogs about Matt Nisbet and Chris Mooney's editorial, Framing Science, published in Science on Friday, I almost thought that there was nothing really left for me to say. Of course, regular readers of this blog know that there's rarely an issue that's been so thoroughly picked over by my fellow science bloggers (ScienceBloggers and otherwise) that I can't find something else to say about it. And I'll do it by, in effect, "framing" the issue in perhaps a slightly different way than Mooney and Nisbet did. But first, let's examine a bit…
I've just finished reading Chris Mooney's and Matt Nisbet's Science article about communicating science to the general public. It's right on target.
When it comes to defending evolutionary biology, the success one will have is far less dependent on marshalling the appropriate facts than many scientists would like. Since the Scopes trial 80 years ago, the evidence in favor of evolution has only increased--one discpline that supports it, genetics, was in its infancy, and another, molecular evolution/population genetics, didn't even exist. Yet we don't really seem to have made a dent, if…
clock |
My SciBlings Chris Mooney and Matt Nisbet just published an article in 'Science' (which, considering its topic is, ironically, behind the subscription wall, but you can check the short press release) about "Framing Science"
Carl Zimmer, PZ Myers, Mike Dunford (also check the comments here), John Fleck, Larry Moran, Dietram Scheufele, Kristina Chew, Randy Olson, James Hrynyshyn, Paul Sunstone and Alan Boyle have, so far, responded and their responses (and the comment threads) are worth your time to read. Chris and Matt respond to some of them. Matt has more in-depth explanations here, here and…
Matthew Nisbet and Chris Mooney have a short policy paper in Science that criticizes scientists for how they communicate to the public. Mooney says that "many scientists don't really know what they're up against when suddenly thrust into the media spotlight and interactions with politicians" — I agree completely. We are not trained to be glib and glossy, and we simply do not come across as well as we could. We're also not really that interested, generally speaking, in the kind of presentation that plays well in 3 minutes on a news broadcast. It's more than a cosmetological failure, though;…
tqa |
The latest issue of the journal Science includes a policy forum piece written by Sciencebloggers Chris Mooney (The Intersection) and Matt Nisbet (Framing Science). In the article, they argue that scientists do not, for the most part, use effective communications strategies when trying to defend science. Both Chris and Matt anticipate that this view is likely to be somewhat controversial, and that it is likely to spark a vigorous debate. I think that they are probably right about this, and not just because their article includes at least one paragraph that is likely to set PZ off faster than…
cmooney |
As a journalist who reports frequently on science, I never expected to be publishing in the literature. But tomorrow I will actually have a paper in the Policy Forum section of the latest issue of Science (April 6). To be sure, this wouldn't have come about if I hadn't had a co-author who's a real (social) scientist--our fellow Scienceblogger Matthew Nisbet, author of "Framing Science." And indeed, that's what the article is about: Nisbet and I are advising scientists to start to actively "frame" their knowledge, especially on hot-button issues like evolution, global warming, embryonic stem…
tfk |
There's something appropriate about having an election on the first day of our celebration of freedom.
Turnout has reportedly been light, so be sure to vote today. In Lawrence, you can figure out which candidates best match your views with the Journal-World's handy candidate selector for the school board and the city commission.
Click through for my endorsements.
My plan is to vote for Highberger, Schauner and Maynard-Moody, which is how Mike and Diane are voting, too.
On the School Board, Diane recommends Merrill, Minder, Pomes and Machell.
Mike, who is focussed on domestic partner benefits…
nisbetmc |
On April 24, investigative reporter Brooks Jackson and UPenn professor Kathleen Hall Jamieson are set to release a new book that is sure to be of interest to Framing Science readers...from the news release:
Friday, March 30, 2007
UnSpun: Finding Facts in a World of Disinformation, a new book described as "the secret decoder ring for the 21st-century world of disinformation," will officially be released by Random House on April 24. Co-authored by the Annenberg Public Policy Center's Brooks Jackson and Kathleen Hall Jamieson, the paperback lays bare the art of spinning - rampant in the world of…
bcohen |
Peter Melchett writes in The Guardian (on-line) that the scientific evidence for organic food's healthier claims is clear and persuasive. (Melchett is "policy director of the Soil Association, a UK organic food and farming organisation.") But will that sway governments to encourage organic over their preferred GMO or pesticide-based ag systems? Probably not.
It's a commentary on the relationship between macro-political influence and agricultural habits. More closely it's a commentary on food and politics, and science and politics, and science and food.
But to say it's just "politics…
sb admin |
For those whoâve been following the investigations into how the Bush Administration interfered with government climate science, the news about political interference into Interior Department science had a familiar ring.
Chris Mooney sums it up well: âSubstitute for Philip Cooney an Interior Department official named Julie MacDonald, and it's basically the same story as it was with climate change: A political appointee, friendly with industry, overruling the determinations of agency scientists.â (Cooney was chief of staff on the White Houseâs Council on Environmental Quality â previously…
cmooney |
So says Roger Pielke, Jr., in a very illuminating post. He also adds: "On the very hot-button issues of climate change and the teaching of evolution, Republican political agendas require confronting current scientific consensus."
I agree entirely--indeed, that's the whole point of The Republican War on Science (of which Roger has been critical). This doesn't mean partisan alignments on these issues can't change; it doesn't mean that the situation has necessarily been the same in other periods in history; it doesn't mean the situation is the same in other countries. But right now, these are…
One of the interesting things about blogging is that it has undermined the importance of the punditocracy. In the pre-interenet, and certainly pre-blog era, you had a very different relationship to politics, even if you were aware and relatively active: you were a consumer.
By consumer, I mean that you used to have to wait around and hope that some columnist or editorial board would speak for you. There were some alternatives, such as writing letters to the editor, or in the early days of the internet, posting at electronic bulletin boards (remember those?). But now with blogging, it is…