Science has published four letters in response to our framing article along with a fifth letter as our reply. Over at Framing Science, I have posted the text of the reply that I wrote to all four letters. Hopefully I will be able to get an author referral link in the near future so that readers can have access to the full text of the other letters.
In an upcoming issue of The Scientist magazine, I team up with Dietram Scheufele in contributing a feature article that elaborates on framing and its relevance to new directions in science communication. For the past couple of weeks, at its Web site, the magazine has been sponsoring a discussion on the topic and a Web poll of readers.
Over at Nanopublic, Scheufele has this blog post up about the letters. At the Intersection, Mooney has more.
- Log in to post comments
You science article is a great introduction to something all scientists must start to consciously bring to the forefront. That is communicating science to the public and non scientists in a positive productive manner. Where science has gone wrong in the last 20-30 years is not reaching out to the general public. Not keeping them adequately informed. Certainly there are many reasons why the general publics knowledge of science has eroded but as a group we need to focus on the things we can control. Your framing idea is one of them. It has become easy for scientists to live out their lives in enclaves of research without ever having to communicate what they are doing to the public. It is this very isolation or separatism that is at the heart of the problem, drives the distrust of the public, and allows science to be used by the politicians. It only takes a couple glances at CNNs science section to make me question what the crazy scientist are up to or say our tax dollars are paying for what? I think you article is good place to start and scientists have to become better communicator or we will continue to be used and misunderstood.
This blog has been created to share useful information. Thanks and greetings!