Reflections on American Academy's Report: Do Scientists Understand the Public?

Held in over 30 countries, the World Wide Views on Global Warming initiative represents the state-of-the-art in new approaches to public engagement, the subject of several recent reports and meetings. This video features a short documentary on the Australian event.

Over the weekend, my friend Chris Mooney contributed an excellent op-ed to the Washington Post pegged to an American Academy of Arts and Sciences event yesterday. The op-ed previewed a longer essay by Chris released at the event in which he described some of the major themes expressed in the transcripts of three meetings convened by the Academy over the past year. The Academy meetings prompted attending scientists, policy experts, ethicists, journalists, social scientists, and lawyers to discuss key issues in science communication and public engagement.

Summarized in an Academy news release, the meetings emphasized the following conclusions:

Scientists and the public both share a responsibility for the divide. Scientists and technical experts sometimes take for granted that their work will be viewed as ultimately serving the public good. Members of the public can react viscerally and along ideological lines, but they can also raise important issues that deserve consideration.

Scientific issues require an "anticipatory approach." A diverse group of stakeholders -- research scientists, social scientists, public engagement experts, and skilled communicators -- should collaborate early to identify potential scientific controversies and the best method to address resulting public concerns.

Communications solutions differ significantly depending on whether a scientific issue has been around for a long time (e.g., how to dispose of nuclear waste) or is relatively new (e.g., the spread of personal genetic information). In the case of longstanding controversies, social scientists may have had the opportunity to conduct research on public views that can inform communication strategies. For emerging technologies, there will be less reliable analysis available of public attitudes.

As I reviewed in an article last year with Dietram Scheufele, these conclusions reflect the dominant focus of research in the fields of science communication and science studies over the past 15 years and can be used to plan, guide, and evaluate a range of communication and public engagement initiatives. It is therefore deeply encouraging that these same conclusions emerged from the meetings convened by the American Academy and are given attention in the essay. It's a sign that research in the field has contributed to a cultural shift in how leaders in U.S. science view public engagement.

The focus on two-way dialogue and learning between experts, stakeholders, and the public is also one of the major recommendations of the recent National Academies' report on Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change. As the report describes relative to risk communication (page 116):

What most risk researchers consider the ideal approach for communicating uncertainty and risk focuses on establishing an iterative dialogue between stakeholders and experts, where the experts can explain uncertainty and the ways it is likely to be misinterpreted; the stakeholders in turn can explain their decision-making criteria as well as their own local knowledge in the area of concern; and the various parties can work together to design a risk management strategy, answering each others' questions and concerns in an iterative fashion


My only major critique of Chris' valuable essay is how he frames the introduction and defines the importance of science communication. As I commented at Andrew Revkin's Dot Earth blog, the lede to the essay employs some of the very same exaggerated metaphors that often distract scientists and their organizations from successful public engagement efforts. Until we stop defining science-society relations in terms of "war," "anti-science," "street fights," "assaults," "cultural collisions," "exploding protests," " widening divides," and "dangerous gulfs," public engagement efforts will always be hindered. These metaphors and comparisons tend to reinforce polarized views, accent differences between groups, falsely dichotomize complex issues, and appeal to only the most ideologically committed individuals.

Here are a few more thoughts on the important American Academy report along with notes on other recent resources related to the topic of public engagement:

** Perhaps the most innovative and large scale public engagement initiative to date happened last year in the build up to the Copenhagen meetings. Coordinated by the Danish Technology Board, the World Wide Views on Global Warming project involved social scientists and co-sponsoring organizations in more than 30 countries and regions. At each site, the initiative recruited 100 nationally or regionally representative citizens to spend a weekend discussing, deliberating, and voting on key policy issues related to climate change. The results of the meetings were aggregated by country and released via the project's Web site and at the Copenhagen meetings. The report on the initiative is here. Above, you can also watch a short video documentary featuring the meeting held in Australia.

Notice in the video how participants describe the personal importance of being heard and the value they placed on having the opportunity to listen to multiple points of view. Another notable feature of the initiative is that there was no expert in the room. Participants were provided informational materials and videos before the meetings, had reference materials at their discussion tables, but the meeting was not organized around a "sage on the stage," i.e. an expert telling participants what they should know about climate change. Instead, careful planning was done in using a meeting facilitator and then trained discussion moderators at each table. The content of the meeting was the social interaction and discussion rather than a presentation or lecture.

As this example suggests, perhaps the best role for science organizations is to conceive of themselves not as communicators to the public but as conveners, facilitators, and sponsors who guide, enable, and support the public in discussion, deliberation, and decisions. Learning occurs among all participants, including experts.

** The strongest recent resource I can recommend on public engagement is The Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, published in 2008. Of particular relevance to the American Academy report is the chapter by Alan Irwin, dean of research at Copenhagen Business School and a leading theorist in the area of science and society. Irwin argues that the deficit model approach to communication represents "first order" thinking about science-society relations, while the emphasis of the American Academy report can be characterized as "second order" thinking, proposing bottom up participation, two-way dialogue, the building of trust, and the ultimate goal of reaching consensus.

Yet what's still missing, argues Irwin, is "third order" thinking about science and society, an evolution in views and practice which involves deeper consideration about the governance of science-related issues and policy decisions. As I commented at Dot Earth, it's not clear to me that the science community realizes the full implications of public engagement and there's a useful analogy to U.S. public diplomacy. In Irwin's classification, we have yet to really approach third order thinking. Current innovative approaches designed to broker dialogue, for example, are often in practice just another version of the deficit model.

Empowering the public to participate in collective decisions over nanotechnology or biomedicine requires science organizations to accept that sometimes a well-informed and consulted public may prefer policies that cut against the direct interests of science. If these preferences are not given formal weight in decision-making, then any exercise in public engagement is merely a sophisticated effort at winning public consent to the preferred policies of scientists rather than inviting actual public participation in decision-making. (The only downside to the book is the cost. So look to request at your library.)

** This spring, the Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology convened a meeting in Madrid to examine similar questions related to public engagement and the media. In conjunction with the meeting, Vladimir de Semir, director of the Science Communication Observatory at Pompeu Fabra University, authored a "meta-review" focused on science communication and media. The report in PDF form is a valuable resource and includes a detailed discussion of recent research and arguments in the field.

** Also of relevance, later this year, a special issue of the journal Frontiers in Ecology and Environment will feature synthesis articles authored by participants in a meeting convened by the Cary Institute of Ecological Studies. The articles focus on overarching themes in science communication and informal learning and the specific roles of universities, non-profit organizations, and advocates. There is also an article proposing "four culture" synergies in climate change communication that bring together environmental scientists, social scientists, moral and religious philosophers, and creative artists, writers, and professionals. I will blog more about these articles when they are published.


More like this

June edition of the Journal of Science Communication is out. Focus seems to be on communication in physical space and democracy. Check out the table of contents: Bringing the universe to the street. A preliminary look at informal learning implications for a large-scale non-traditional science…
The new issue of Journal of Science Communication is now online (Open Access, so you can download all PDFs for free). Apart from the article on blogging that we already dissected at length, this issue has a number of interesting articles, reviews, perspectives and papers: Users and peers. From…
Among the different professional categories, scientists and engineers remain very highly respected by the public, at least compared to politicians, business leaders, the media, and even religious authorities. Part of this is due to the fact that success in the scientific enterprise depends on…
The new issue of the open access Journal of Science Communication is out. From the Table of Contents: Filling the gap between theory and practice: Jcom's adventure was launched nearly eight years ago, when a group of lecturers and former students of the Master's degree in Science Communication at…

In celebration of its Golden Jubilee, the Indo-American Society (IAS) is proud to convene the first ever Indo-American Summit on Higher Education during 30, 31 July 2010 and 1 August 2010 at the Hotel Grand Hyatt, Mumbai.

The Summit will present participants with an invaluable opportunity to collaborate with key business, political and academic personalities at a national and international level and address important issues, particularly in regard to policy framing and regulations and international partnerships.

In celebration of its Golden Jubilee, the Indo-American Society (IAS) is proud to convene the first ever Indo-American Summit on Higher Education during 30, 31 July 2010 and 1 August 2010 at the Hotel Grand Hyatt, Mumbai.

The Summit will present participants with an invaluable opportunity to collaborate with key business, political and academic personalities at a national and international level and address important issues, particularly in regard to policy framing and regulations and international partnerships.

I had terrible stretch marks all over my body. And obviously I wanted to get rid of them. But I couldnât find anyone reliable to help me. Then one of my friend told me about Epione clinic.i trusted them and now I donât have any more marks anywhere. And all this at such a reasonable price. botox los angeles

I am very interested in what you have to say about Irwinâs work on third stage thinking, and thoughts on four culture interactions. I will read the reference you cite, and look forward to more contributions from you regarding this in the future.
My concern with Chris Mooneyâs âDo Scientists Understand the Public?â essay is what I perceive to be a way too sharp and way too simplistic divide drawn between science and the public. I am someone with professional experience in the area of nuclear waste disposal (although certainly not one of âThe Expertsâ). I have a number of objections to the way in which this topic was presented by Mooney as a communication example. In my opinion, Mooney does not express an awareness of the complex historic interrelationships between nuclear arms, nuclear power, and nuclear waste disposal in this country. Nuclear waste disposal, and radiation exposure was a contentious issue for scientists from the very beginnings of the Manhattan Project. The 1960âs were not just about a happy era of âAtoms for Peaceâ; it was, after all, still the time of the cold war. Into the 1970âs more information regarding problems with prior nuclear testing, disposal, and radiation exposure became available both to the public and the workers involved. There were, and are, many people, especially in the Western United States, who felt that they had been deceived. The efforts of scientists to conduct research on possible nuclear waste disposal methods has been greatly affected over time by changes in funding availability that follow political transitions in Washington.
The choice of Yucca Mountain as a waste disposal site is based on geological studies, but it also has much to do with geography (factoring people into the landscape). There are real scientifically based concerns about this choice. I find it very condescending and not at all conducive to rational discussion, to characterize Nevadans objections as being based on feelings that the federal government was making efforts to âscrew Nevadaâ or dump on their state
It is sometimes necessary for society to make decisions for the greater common good that adversely affect the lives of some. It is sometimes necessary for society to act knowing that scientific uncertainties exist. But political acceptance of the Yucca Mountain waste disposal site is not just a communication problem.
Canada has advantages when it comes to having geologically stable and largely vacant tracts of land. I have very little idea how well they are doing at communication on this topic. But I do know that the public not likely to respond with activism to a bunch of hypotheticals. Thus, I do not believe that the merits of the Canadian nuclear waste disposal communication process can be evaluated until an actual site is chosen.
I have been involved in public hearings which seemed to me to be largely political window dressing. And some where I felt high paid consultants were using every psychological audience manipulation trick in the book to lead the public to a preordained conclusion. These forms of âcommunicationâ are not enough.

Colin Macilwain reported on some of the recent fallout of dialogues in the UK about GM food. A couple of the members of the steering panel (including Brian Wynne) perceived it to be a public relations exercise to simply build trust and acceptance of the technology rather than a genuine public consultation.

By John Kotcher (not verified) on 01 Jul 2010 #permalink

Just watched the Australian video. How burned did those people feel AFTER Copenhagen? Unfortunately, those reactions are probably as politically important as their participation. Any insights?