On April 6, 2007, as many of you already know, my good friend Matthew Nisbet and I published a policy forum article in the journal Science. A week later, we followed up with a somewhat longer commentary in the Sunday edition of The Washington Post. In both articles, we argued that scientists, while always remaining true to the science, should "frame" issues and topics in ways that make them personally relevant to broader audiences.
The response was overwhelming. There was controversy; there were also many endorsements.
Most of all, there were many calls, from bloggers and other commentators, for us to expand upon our arguments, and elaborate on our suggestions. In other words, a road map--and a way forward.
Now we're doing so.
Even before the publication of our Science and Washington Post commentaries, Matt and I were asked to do a number of joint talks in various cities. As attention grew, we decided to step it up a notch and put together a national speaking tour.
So we're now pleased to announce our talk: "Speaking Science 2.0: The Road to 2008 and Beyond." With it comes a brand new website, which includes much additional information: Upcoming Events, Previous Speeches (available as Powerpoints, Audio, or Video), Articles, Media Coverage, and Further Resources.
The first of our presentations will be this Thursday, May 10, 2007, a public lecture at the distinguished Stowers Institute for Medical Research in Kansas City. (Details here.)
But of course, "lecture" is kind of a stuffy word...that's not what this is all about. We're hitting the road to (we hope) spark a national conversation about science communication. We're convinced that there couldn't be a more critical time for questioning old assumptions and trying out new ideas in this area. As our talk synopsis puts it:
Innovative strategies for public engagement could not be more urgent: Science will figure, as never before, in the 2008 presidential campaign and beyond. Scientific "facts" will increasingly be pulled into fraught political contexts, and bent and twisted in myriad ways. This political environment can seem perplexing to scientists, but it's one to which they must adapt if they want their hard-won knowledge to play its necessary role in shaping the future of our nation.
So let the conversation begin. We hope to see you soon.
- Log in to post comments
I am really sick and tired of so much of this debate.
It seems to me the people that I want to side with are callimg me irrational and crazy.
I firmly believe in evolution. I think ID is absurd.
I also am a Christian.
Why is it so hard for the left side of the political spectrum to accept that all Christians, and all religious people, are not crazy?
How can you convince anyone who disagrees with you of the logic of your arguments when so many people say you are stupid and ignorant if you believe in a supreme being?
Neil, you (religious people, believers in a god) are the vast majority in the US, not us. So you will get little sympathy from most of us. Your statements can easily be turned around to be reflect reality a lot closer:
I am really sick and tired of so much of this debate.
It seems to me the people that I want to side with are callimg me irrational and dangerous.
I firmly believe in evolution. I think ID is absurd.
I also am a atheist.
Why is it so hard for the right side of the political spectrum to accept that all atheists, and all agnostic people, are not crazy?
How can you convince anyone who disagrees with you of the logic of your arguments when so many people say you are a threat and ignorant if you have a lack of a belief in a supreme being?
That being said, framing is supposed to help solve your complaints so you should be happy that these debates are taking place.
Hurry up and add Denver, Chris, so I can save my pennies to buy you a good beer.
Best,
D
SPECIAL TROPICAL DISTURBANCE STATEMENT
NWS TPC/NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
905 AM EDT WED MAY 9 2007
SATELLITE IMAGERY AND PRELIMINARY REPORTS FROM AN AIR FORCE RESERVE
RECONNAISSANCE AIRCRAFT THIS MORNING INDICATE THAT THE AREA OF LOW
PRESSURE CENTERED ABOUT 150 MILES EAST OF JACKSONVILLE IS ACQUIRING
THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A SUBTROPICAL CYCLONE. THE SYSTEM CONTINUES
MOVING GENERALLY WESTWARD AT ABOUT 5 MPH. IF PRESENT TRENDS
CONTINUE... ADVISORIES ON SUBTROPICAL STORM ANDREA WOULD BE
INITIATED LATER THIS MORNING.
DANGEROUS SURF CONDITIONS CONTINUE ALONG THE COASTS OF THE
CAROLINAS... GEORGIA... AND NORTHEASTERN FLORIDA. INTERESTS IN
THESE AREAS SHOULD CONTINUE TO MONITOR PRODUCTS ISSUED BY LOCAL
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE FORECAST OFFICES. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
ON THIS SYSTEM CAN ALSO BE FOUND IN HIGH SEAS FORECASTS ISSUED BY
THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE... UNDER AWIPS HEADER NFDHSFAT1 AND
WMO HEADER FZNT01 KWBC.
$$
FORECASTER FRANKLIN/KNABB
I have zero problem with atheists. My son is one.
The problem I have with the debate about evolution vs God is that the pro-evolution people are calling the believers in God idiots.
I never knew that my CPA and IVY MBA are worthless just because I believe in God.
On the other hand, it is only a small portion of people who believe in God that think that people who believe in evolution are idiots.
Why are Jews, as a group, the smartest minority in the country? Kind of by definition, Jews believe in the same God that I do.
Faith, by definition, can't be proved. We can't prove evolution is correct. We just have faith that evolution is correct.
I don't want ID taught in school. However, when you give a school board a choice of saying that either they believe in God and are idiots, or they believe in evolution and must be atheists, then I know where a significant majority of people will turn.
There needs to be a middle ground.
You can believe what you want about God but all of the scientific evidence supports evolution. So public policy needs be based on the principles of freedom to worship however you want and that evolution is accepted as correct until another theory answers the basic questions better than the current theory of evolution.
In the mean time, stop calling people names.
Neil,
I think you're flat out wrong about who calls who what more. But I couldn't care less. Because regardless of who calls who what more, that question is not important. The important question is, "well, since these people probably are not going to stop calling you names on their own, what do you plan to do about it?" Nothing will change by ignoring them. For some, the issue is too important to not defend. That's why you see Dawkins and Harris on O'Riley, that's why you see the Rational Response Squad debating Comfort and Cameron. Sometimes people, people unlike the group of fellows I just mentioned, need extra motivation to think about their beliefs and if name calling is the worst thing they do to try to achieve this kind of thinking and subsequent debate, then I say it's worth it. Especially in this case because the goal is so incredibly important.
And you're right, we cannot prove that evolution is correct but you're only right because of a technicality. There are not any proofs in science. Math yes, science no. However, faith (defined as belief without evidence) is not required, nor is it utilized, nor is it appropriate, when talking about the correctness of the theory of evolution, or any other scientific theory. If a theory requires faith then it is not a theory. If science requires faith, then it is not science.
Chris and Matthew,
Last Night at the Stowers Institute in KC, you guys were great. This is going to be a Roadtrip that no one should miss, when it comes to your area.
Rational Response Squad? Oh man, it's the PC 90's all over again. There's a speaker on campus tonight with no feminist credentials. Bring the police whistle and bullhorn. Be on the lookout for patriarchy.
If Arthur Schlesinger were still alive he'd be warning us again.