One response I got from readers of The Republican War on Science was that the book depressed and outraged them, but provided little release, and didn't devote adequate energy to proposing positive solutions to the problems I had identified. I fully understand where this reaction is coming from, and began trying to address it in my column in the latest issue of Seed, available here.
There are many things that can be done to address the problem of science politicization and abuse, but certainly part of the burden falls on scientists themselves. They must work much harder to communicate their knowledge, and its relevance, to the public. Above all, language matters, as do accessible explanations.
That's the argument I make in the column, which might be described as "Mooney meets Lakoff." Here's a brief excerpt:
Ironically, followers of regular politics are catching on to something that doesn't seem to have dawned on most scientists yet: It's actually possible to study empirically which public communication messages work and which don't. It's even becoming possible to craft a communications strategy that's based on a rich understanding of how the human mind actually operates -- one that, if properly executed by scientists and their supporters, could help rescue scientific integrity in America while better informing the American public. If we want to defend the knowledge that science has brought into the world, perhaps we should consider drawing upon the talents of researchers -- social and cognitive scientists -- who have brought empirical methods to bear on the study of effective political communication itself.
Take the firm Cultural Logic, an innovative communications consulting company run by psychological anthropologist Axel Aubrun and cognitive linguist Joseph Grady. Aubrun and Grady use empirical techniques to determine how the American public actually thinks and, thus, what types of messages can positively change the way they understand an issue. They stress the importance of accurate but succinct explanations that can help the public get past cognitive blocks that impede their understanding of complex issues.
Facts alone, note Aubrun and Grady, aren't enough to educate people; instead, facts must be carefully packaged (or "framed") in the context of narratives or explanations if they're to enhance knowledge. Consider the technically complex issue of climate change, where attacks on science have been rampant and the public has been deeply confused. Grady and Aubrun have found that as an explanation, the "greenhouse effect" simply confuses people. Few Americans have any firsthand experience of greenhouses, and they don't grasp the proposed analogy between carbon dioxide (a gas) and glass walls. So instead, Grady and Aubrun suggest talking about a "carbon dioxide blanket" encircling the earth -- an explanation that instantly helps people understand why a heating effect is taking place. Sure, it's a metaphor and shouldn't be taken literally. But then, so was the concept of an ozone "hole" -- a phrasing that instantly allowed the public to understand the issue of ozone depletion and that helped to galvanize political action.
Again, the whole column is here. I'd love to hear your reactions.
- Log in to post comments
For the Kansas SBOE hearing and other ID creationist examples I've used the phrase rigged jury and fix the jury on Panda's Thumb. For anti-evolutionist Intelligent Design Creationists, an effective phrase might be something "magical thinking" or Behe's famous puff of smoke as a scientific "explanation".
Right, but these things would have to be poll/focus group tested...who knows what "magical thinking" means to average Americans....
I think you present some good ideas, but we need to make it beneficial to scientists to actually take the time and learn how to do these kinds of things. As it stands, there's no solid, easily-noted payoff--tenure and grant committees won't care, and indeed, doing this kind of thing takes time away from research, so those of us who work to bring science to the public may even take a hit when it comes to tenure and promotion. Start at a step up. Several university presidents have spoken out about the status of science education in the US; I wonder how many would be willing to take a stand on this, implementing programs to teach their faculty how to frame their research for the public, and to reward them for doing so. If successful programs are implemented at a few top schools, maybe others would be more willing to follow.
I saw that column last night and enjoyed reading it, even if I don't fully subscribe to the ideas you present.
Framing is not going to solve the problem of the public misunderstanding certain scientific issues due to political distortions. Explaining global warming as a "carbon dioxide blanket" won't do anything to counter the argument that 'scientists are still arguing over whether humans add to global warming and by how much and whether that's a bad thing etc etc.'
The solution is improved science education, and improved teaching of critical thinking, not catchier phrases.
And even still, I believe the public, even with all the misinformation around, largely understands that global warming is a problem. The issue with developing solutions is that the public (properly) views it as a long-term problem, not a short-term one. And, as always, long-term problems are very hard to address via democratic means.
That fundamental difficulty is not going to go away.
Chris-
Scholars who study science and the public are not too optimistic about "translating science for the general public" for political purposes. Some have even given it a pejorative moniker -- PUS for public understanding of science, read this:
link here
Also, a factual point - political action on the ozone issue was well underway well before the ozone hole was discovered.
There are some purists who might argue that using such terms as "blanket of CO" actually degrades scientific literacy. They might give people the illusion that they understand the problem rather than any real understanding. On the other hand, it's probably naive to expect the larger population to understand much of the real, complicated science, given the poor science education most have received. If the goal is to influence public attitudes on a specific policy issue, then I suppose it might be justified, even if it does not actually increase any public understanding. In other words, science becomes politics.
Folks,
I'm not talking about spin or making people dumber, or confusing them. I'm talking about putting out the right messages so as to actually prompt *understanding.* There are people who study how to do this. I recommend that you check out Cultural Logic. What they're doing is actually the opposite of spin....
http://www.culturallogic.com/
I am a scientist and I would find it challenging to answer the questions in your last paragraph:
What is the nature of the scientific method?
What is the importance of scientific knowledge?
What is the role of science in a democracy?
The first question was talked about in a psychology/sociology class and I personally read books that discussed the scientific method and the philosophy of science while I was a grad student.
The other questions were never really discussed at any time during my scientific career, which took place mostly in the UK as I moved here as a Post Doc. So my education wasn't as broad as an American "liberal arts" education but had more subject depth. Thus, it may take a little while to formulate satisfactory answers.
One way that science faculty could help public understanding, is to make sure their students understand science. Not just topic material. Otherwise we are failing our future scientists as they still wouldn't be able to answer those questions either. I am seriously considering starting my freshman class, taught in the fall, with a very simple question: "What is science?" I fear that many of them, even biology or chemistry majors, don't really understand this.
These are very good starting points. Chris, thanks.
I should point out that purists also don't like the term "greenhouse effect" because it is really not a very good analogy for the atmosphere effect.
I am not arguing against framing the scientific debate in a way that average Americans can understand, but I have some real doubts that a very large percentage of the population will ever reach a real understanding of the technical issues. If that turns out to be the case, then the only way to pursue public policy, absent responsible politicians, is to use the methods of politics, the same way the anti-science crowd does.
Lakoff wants to teach people the "converging evidence" for evolution but only in "brief snippets." Can this be done? It seems like the strategy is to use sound bites, talking points, and cleverly named things (e.g. "tax relief", "Patriot Act") like politicians do to sell their ideas. This could indeed be a better way to inject science into the collective consciousness. But will it increase public understanding of science, or is it just a better way to sell our ideas?
Perhaps the best strategy is to win back the public's trust?
Anonymous--See my previous comment on spin vs. understanding.
All,
For more on "public understanding of science" see also two extremely informative essays by Matt Nisbet:
http://www.csicop.org/scienceandmedia/literacy/
http://www.csicop.org/scienceandmedia/definitions/
Framing is not going to solve the problem of the public misunderstanding certain scientific issues due to political distortions. Explaining global warming as a "carbon dioxide blanket" won't do anything to counter the argument that 'scientists are still arguing over whether humans add to global warming and by how much and whether that's a bad thing etc etc.' The solution is improved science education, and improved teaching of critical thinking, not catchier phrases.
But, in the meantime, what do we do? Turning around science education in America isn't going to happen overnight. And, even if it could be done rapidly, it would take at least one generation to begin to have effects.
I acknowledge that it is a sad state of affairs when the knowledgable people in our society have to package their message to an increasingly dumbed-down citizenry. And the notion of using PR theories and constructs to inform the public does not go over well with me.
But, we do not live in an ideal world; and there is the issue of realism and practicality. Yes, in an ideal world, PR firms would not be needed to educate the public on science. But, alas, we don't live in an ideal world.
My suggestion would be to have a two prong approach --
(1) the short-term (and hopefully temporary) use of PR strategies to make up for lost time on CURRENT issues of science. Although, I don't think you will ever be able to teach critical thinking this way, which is needed to understand and evaluate issues yet to come; and
(2) the longer-term goal of improving science education, including paying our teachers more to attract the best and brightest. If we can pour billions upon billions into Iraq infrastructure, I think we can afford to make science education worthwhile to teach and learn in America.
Ok I get what you're saying. Sorry for my cognitive block. :-)
My suggestion would be to have a two prong approach --
(1) the short-term (and hopefully temporary) use of PR strategies to make up for lost time on CURRENT issues of science. Although, I don't think you will ever be able to teach critical thinking this way, which is needed to understand and evaluate issues yet to come; and
(2) the longer-term goal of improving science education, including paying our teachers more to attract the best and brightest. If we can pour billions upon billions into Iraq infrastructure, I think we can afford to make science education worthwhile to teach and learn in America.
On #1, I am deeply concerned that using explicit PR strategies will only undermine scientists' credibility in the long run. I highly doubt the short-term gains would be worth that.
On #2, even Bush is on board--if you trust his words. Which, of course, is the big hitch. But either way, the fact that he is on board illustrates how strong a position scientists already hold. It is something they, and science supporters, should take advantage of.
Given the strong respect for science and scientists by the vast majority of the population of this country, I believe the safest approach, in both the long and short term, is for scientists and science-knowledgeable supporters to simply speak out more: become more publicly visible (TV etc), give more public lectures/demonstrations, etc.
Chris, thanks for the links to the Nisbet articles. After reading Roger's comment, I was curious as to what he meant, and the post he linked to only gave a distant view of a debate I am not very familiar with. So I am sure I will learn something new from these articles.
Chirs,
Overall, a good article, but I would like to touch on something that I thing is important in getting scientists more politically involved. Someone mentioned it above, and I feel that for many scientists, it simply requires too much time away from research and grant writing to have any impact. I work in a university research setting, and I know that both of my bosses spend 7 days a week 365 days a year working, writing papers, and trying to get more grant money. From what I have come to understand, most money doesnt come in hundred thousand or million dollar grants; at least for my direct bosses, they have to scrape here and there for a few thousand here, and a few thousand there. With what little money there is out there, to take time away from that is simply too much for some. I know from my colleagues that they are very concerned about the current state of science and how it is viewed in the nation, but when push comes to shove, being able to put food on their tables is a bit more important. Anyways, just thought I would throw that in
It seems like there are, in some ways, two issues: knowledge of the science itself, and knowledge that allows for scientific reasoning.
The first has both the advantage and disadvantage of being reducible to sound bites. And it has the total advantage of being, well, cool. Possibly esoteric, but cool.
But the latter is what's important in allowing people to string together bits and pieces of the cool stuff and actually realize what they mean. And that's something important for science, but also more generally in things like weighing evidence and thinking about causality in many other arenas. In a way, promoting the ability to think about science (or other parts of life), uh, scientifically is the role of science in a democracy.
The good thing is that it's not just up to the scientists, but to people like me (historian), too. Certainly science in principle is one of the best teachers of rationality, but other arenas can help there, too.
The bad thing is that, for example, my university is considering eliminating the "logic and critical thinking" requirement in its basic curriculum. I've no idea how common a trend that is, but I can't but think it's a bad one for just this sort of reason.