A Blog Around The 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, particularly those suspicious of the concept, frame framing. Apparently, the word 'framing' has a negative connotation to native speakers and seduces the reader into equating it with spin and lying, which it most definitively is not.

Of course, those who want to spin and lie are quite capable of using the findings from cognitive linguistics about framing and they can use the technique to spin and lie if it is in their interest. Perhaps as we've all watched Frank Luntz and his spin fool people into voting Republican, and heard the word 'framing' attached to what he is doing, we are leery of the idea to begin with.

Framing is pretty truth-neutral. Being cognisant of the way people listen, hear, process and understand information, then act upon it, helps one push whatever agenda one wants. Being aware that emotions strongly influence the way people accept or not accept information presented to them, irrespectively of the real truth-value of the information, is extremely important in the business of changing minds.

Aware that their policy positions are wrong and unpallatable to the majority of Americans, the only way the GOP could keep winning elections was to spin and lie. And they used the understanding of framing to spin and lie. It worked because Democrats had no idea that presenting dry truths, or laundry lists of policy proposals, or reams of statistics, does not change minds. People are busy surviving. People are busy entertaining themselves. That half of the population that even remembers to vote (in a Presidential election, much less in midterm and local elections) makes their decisions within seconds to minutes - not based on a careful analysis of the policies, but on which slogans make then happy.

Once they reframed the Iraq war, the Bush incompetence (Katrina) and corruption (Foley, Abramoff, DeLay...), Democrats won. Why?

Because when both sides try to frame the best they can, the side with the truth on its side has an advantage. One the framing efforts by the two sides cancel each other out, all that remains are facts, and the truth will win.

Science deals with facts and truths. Anti-science movements, religiously or politically motivated, do not have facts on their side. So, they mastered spin, using framing techniques as a part of their toolkit. Whenever the science side framed issues well, or was lucky that their frames were already agreeable to the majority of Americans, science won. Framing by one side cancels the framing by the other side and what remains are the facts. In other areas, science lost, or is chronically losing, or is temporarily winning only by the aid of courts. Framing the issues better is a necessity.

So, if you look at the cartoon again, this depicts the way anti-science spin machine works. The pro-science spin machine has no use for the "Fact Elimination" element of the machine.

"Reduction", in the sense of reducing gazillions of data points into a few well-worded statements that are scientifically correct, is just fine. "Political manipulation" - there is no reason not to tell people that the other side is lying and spinning. It is also good to point out how policies based on science (versus policies based on anti-science) will affect the average citizen, the economy, the country, the world and the environment - that is not manipulation, but it is politics, which is an important part of the process, actually the main goal of the process: changing minds of voters in a politically sensible direction. "Simplification" is important if one is to reach the target audience. There is a reason why newspapers are written at a 5th grade level. "Sugar-coating" sounds dishonest so the pro-science machine should have an "Accentuating the Positive" box instead.

So, if the same facts are fed into both the anti-science and pro-science spin machines, each will spit out a short message that appeals to the emotions (not rationality) of at least some voters. But the pro-science machine also leaves the facts and the truth intact, which gives it an advantage: it removes cognitive dissonance (which may bother some minority of people) and it appeals to rationality (which is also used by a minority of people). Moving a couple of minorities of people from 50:50 split over to your side means you win. And once you win, your people put in legislation that is actually based on science. And has a chance to stop global warming, or open the stem cell research, or ban teaching creationism from public school classrooms.

Another way to look at the cartoon is this: you have to frame a science-based issue in such a way that, if fed into the anti-science spin machine, it has to be immune to all modifications and will emerge at the other end completely intact and unaltered. Make your case invincible to the spin from the other side.

Now, it would be wonderful if 300 million Americans were rational, well-educated, understanding scientific method and science facts, holding scientists up as authorities, interested in science, willing to take time and effort to learn, etc. Unfortunately, that is a fantasy. People have their own backgrounds, and their own lives, families and businesses to tend to, and are unlikely to care much - "just tell me how to vote?" But that question needs to be asked of us, not of Dembski or Inhofe.

In the long-term, through improvements of science education, through science popularization, a total reform of the media, and, yes, through critical analysis of religion (as well as critical analysis of the conservative ideology which feeds the religion), we may make our job of selling science-related political policies easier than they are today. That will take some years. And that will face fierce opposition.

But we need to start funding stem cell research today. We need to start stopping global warming today. We need to rethink our energy use and energy production today. We need to rethink about food production and use today. We need to rethink our economic system, our electoral system, our foreign policy - everything. And science can inform all of those areas. And to an audience that is not interested in (or is even hostile to) science, the policies have to be sold on other merits, on the economic, medical, emotional and esthetic interests of the voters, with the underlying science being brought up as needed and in small, palatable measures.

Framing science is not teaching science. Framing science is persuading voters that a policy (which, in this case is based on some underlying science) is good. It has little to do with science, and all to do with politics. But we have to win some political battles first (hello, see who is running all branches of the government these days!?) if we want to survive and if we want science to survive as an endeavor.

Related:
Framing Science - the Dialogue of the Deaf
Framing 'framing'
Did I frame that wrong?
Framing and Truth
Just a quick update on 'framing science'
Joshua Bell and Framing Science
Framers are NOT appeasers!