Orac is the nom de blog of a humble pseudonymous surgeon/scientist with an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his miscellaneous verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few will. (Continued 
I remain confused.
Yes, I know that people who don't like me very much or at least don't like the message that I lay down here day in, day out, week in, week out probably aren't surprised at this startling admission, but I don't mean it in a general fashion (although no doubt those aforementioned people will take it that way). No, in 10 days or so since I first weighed in about it, I remain confused at the vociferously hostile reaction that Chris Mooney's and Matthew Nisbet's recent article in Science, Framing Science, and their follow up article published on Sunday in the Washington Post. Since then, as Bora has pointed out, a certain spin about Mooney's and Nisbet's message about how scientists need to frame their work in ways that will resonate with the public has arisen, specifically that "framing = spin," with Larry Moran in particular characterizing framing as "a fancy word for spin," a comment that I found particularly ironic, given that that comment is a particularly good example of "spinning." At least, that's how I "spin it."
Yes, I'm being a bit sarcastic, but that's OK. My sarcasm is quite mild compared to what I've seen in the anti-framing contingent; so I hope you'll forgive me. It's just a mild taste of my Respectful Insolence™ applied to bloggers that I respect but who, to my frustration, maintain a persistent blind spot when it comes to this particular issue. This led me to think about why this might be, given that it's patently obvious to me that as scientists we frame our data and message all the time and my puzzlement as to why there is such hostility to Mooney and Nisbet's mostly quite reasonable suggestion that we as scientists should do a better job at framing discussions of our work for the consumption of the lay public. After all, when bloggers I respect (although frequently disagree with on some issues) are so incensed over something, I can do one of two things: either dismiss them as wrong (which would be the surgeon thing to do, à la Dr. Egnor) or reexamine my view on the topic. I chose to do the latter, and doing so led me to an idea about why there might be such a violent disagreement over this issue.
I've concluded that a lot of issues underlying this kerfuffle may be the difference between the "pure" scientists and science teachers (like PZ and Larry Moran, for example), who are not dependent upon selling their science for the continued livelihood of their careers, and scientists like me, who are, not to mention nonscientist journalists and communications faculty (like Mooney and Nisbet), for whom communication is their career. As I've mentioned before, writing grants and giving scientific talks force scientists to "frame" their data all the time, to maximize their persuasive powers in the service of convincing their audience that their science is valid. Indeed, just presenting data in different formats involves framing, as Bora detailed so well. PZ and Moran, for example, appear no longer to have to sell their ideas to external granting agencies or suffer a severe hit to their careers, as far as I can tell. I do not have that luxury. If I lose my grants and go without funding for more than a year or so (which is all the buffer I have left in my startup funds), I will lose my lab. Period. This provides an enormous incentive for me to frame my work in such a way that I can convince other scientists of its correctness and value.
Perhaps I can make this clearer with a couple of concrete examples. Instead of just talking about writing grants in general, I'll discuss a specific grant mechanism, the Department of Defense Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs, specifically the Breast Cancer Research Program Idea Award. This is a grant program that exists to reward innovative, high risk projects. Right there, that tells a scientist that "framing" his work as a natural stepwise extension of previous work in his lab (as one would do when trying to apply for an NIH R01 or to renew one's R01) would not be very likely to be successful. The "audience" (namely the Army reviewers) are looking for innovation and impact. A second aspect of these grants is that there are breast cancer survivors and advocates on the committees and study sections deciding which grant proposals are funded. Consequently, one has to "frame" one's proposed study with that additional audience in mind. These advocates will tend to be less interested in obscure, albeit scientifically interesting minutiae of mechanisms of cancer progression, unless it can be framed in such a way as to convince them that it will make concrete progress at laying the groundwork for a better cancer treatment.
There are multiple components of a D.O.D. Idea Award application, but the most relevant for the issue of framing are the public abstract, innovation statement, and impact statement. Here's what the Army says about the Public Abstract:
Public Abstract: One-page limit. Start on a new page. The public abstract is an important component of the proposal review process because it addresses issues of particular interest to the consumer advocate community.
- Describe the scientific objective and rationale for the proposal in a manner readily understandable by non-scientists.
- Do not duplicate the technical abstract.
- Describe the ultimate applicability of the research.
- What types of patients will it help and how will it help them?
- What are the potential clinical applications, benefits, and risks?
- What is the projected time it may take to achieve a consumer-related outcome?
- If the research is too basic for clinical applicability, describe the interim outcomes.
- What types of contributions will this study make to advance breast cancer research?
- How will the research enhance this or other studies being conducted?
There you have it, your frame. It's a rather difficult and unforgiving frame as well. You have one page (0.5" margins, 12 pt. Times New Roman type) to represent your science accurately in language that an interested lay audience can understand in such a way that the audience will be excited enough about it to fund your project to the tune of $300,000 over three years. I would submit to you that you would have to be quite good at framing your work to describe your work accurately in such a short span and in such a way to get this audience interested enough in it to recommend it for funding. But that's not all. Let's look at the Impact Statement and Innovation Statement, which are both even more difficult:
Impact Statement: One-half-page limit. The Impact Statement must be submitted as a single PDF file named "Impact.pdf," in accordance with the formatting guidelines specified in Appendix 4. State explicitly how the proposed work will have an impact on breast cancer research or patient care. Describe how the combination of innovation and the expected results of the proposal will contribute to the goals of eradicating the disease and advancing methods, concepts, prevention, diagnosis, or treatment of the disease or quality of life for patients.
And:
Innovation Statement: One-half-page limit. The Innovation Statement must be submitted as a single PDF file named "Innovation.pdf," in accordance with the formatting guidelines specified in Appendix 4. Summarize how the proposal is innovative. The following examples of ways in which proposals may be innovative, although not all-inclusive, are intended to help PIs frame the innovative features of their proposals:
- Study concept - Investigation of a novel idea and/or research question.
- Research method or technology - Use of novel research methods or new technologies, including technology development, to address a research question.
- Clinical interventions - Use of a novel method or technology for preventing, detecting, diagnosing, or treatment.
- Existing methods or technologies - Application or adaptation of existing methods or technologies for novel research or clinical purposes, or for research or clinical purposes that differ fundamentally from those originally intended.
Oh, my goodness, did I actually see the dreaded f-word in these instructions? And, between these two statements, you only have one page to accomplish all this framing. (Of course, it is the dreaded military-industrial complex, I guess, so I would guess that the Army would require all sorts of Orwellian "framing" in its applications.) Do you think this sort of framing is "spinning" or "lying" or "dumbing down" your science, charges that have been leveled at the word "framing"? What about the fact that you only have six pages to describe a three year project and expand the "frame" in such a way to convince those who were interested based on your Public and Lay Abstracts and Innovation Statement to think it might be worth funding? Do you think this additional, albeit somewhat different, framing is "lying" or "spinning" and thus not to be done by a scientist? Too bad for you, I guess. No grant money for you. Good luck keeping your lab funded, because all grant applications, federal or private, require a high degree of framing, based on the purpose of the granting agency and the constraints in space and form placed on the application. Longer grant applications allow one to discuss more of the science, but there are grant applications out there that are only one page long (I know; I've applied for a couple such grants). You're deluding yourself if you think you can write a successful application that short without some serious framing. Longer applications, such as NIH applications, allow more leeway for detailed discussions of data and science, but pointing out that "it is the job of the applicant to convince the reviewer" and that reviewers "may not fully understand the significance of the research area without a clear, compelling argument presented in the application." Given that many reviewers will not be familiar with the specific issues involved, it will be up to the applicant to frame those issues for them.
Thus, I ask again: If it's acceptable to frame science in such a way that will convince granting agencies to fund that science, why is it not acceptable to frame science for a different audience, the public? Or are both not OK? And if both are not OK, then how does a scientist convince his fellow scientists and lay people controlling the purse strings at private foundations that his work is worthy of funding otherwise? As an example, a typical reviewer for an NIH study section has to read in detail and review around 10 grants, each of which is 25 pages long, often with an additional 50 pages or so of other supporting documentation (budgets, BioSketches, etc.). Salesmanship within the bounds of scientific accuracy is, like it or not, essential to catch the reviewer's attention and inspire him remember and support the grant. Lastly on this issue, I'll point out that framing data and the science this way can help an investigator hone his science and intentions to a fine edge. To write such a grant, it's necessary to distill the supporting data and the aims of the project down to their bare essences, casting aside all extraneous sidelines that do anything to distract from your core hypothesis and plan. It's also necessary to review all the literature related to your project and distill it, too, down to its essence and describe correctly but in a way that supports your rationale and hypothesis while recognizing controversy. All in all, as painful as it is, when looked at properly, the framing that is necessary to write a grant can actually be a powerful tool to help an investigator clarify his understanding, ideas, and research plan. Admittedly, the downside of this process is something called "grantsmanship," where certain buzzwords, catch phrases, and strategies are used to frame the application, but, by and large, grantsmanship is nothing more than knowing how to persuade other scientists and knowing how to budget.
Being the long-winded type that you all know that I am, I can't resist one last example, which may explain why physician-scientists appear not to be nearly as afraid of or hostile to the frame as our esteemed colleagues, such as PZ, Larry, or ERV. This came in response to a comment that framing is "condescending, offensive, and naive." My retort to that is that it is naive to think that framing isn't necessary. It seems to rely on the idealistic belief that people will just "understand" if you put the facts out there enough times or that the "facts will speak for themselves." They won't, because any presentation of the "facts" will require choosing which facts and in what context to present them, in other words, a "frame."
Be that as it may, I have to wonder why someone would would consider framing necessarily "condescending" or "offensive"? I suppose that there are cases where it could indeed be all of those things, but it is not inherently so. And, in fact, it is essential for what I do. Consider this example, which I as a surgeon encounter all the time. A woman is diagnosed with breast cancer, and I need to explain the scientific rationale behind my proposed course of surgical treatment. Let's say that she is a high school dropout (I have a high percentage of charity care patients in my practice), and hasn't had any science or biology education beyond the seventh or eighth grade. Moreover, let's assume that she doesn't read about science; she's too busy working a crappy, low-wage job with no health insurance to support her family. What is more "condescending," simply to tell her this operation is what needs to be done, with no attempt to explain the scientific rationale behind the surgery and the evidence supporting its efficacy, which, given her lack of education, will certainly require considerable simplification of the facts and scientific research behind it, or to "frame" this information for her so that she understands it as well as her educational background allows?
I remain puzzled why "framing" my rationale so that the patient understands as well as her background allows her to my rationale for my proposed treatment might be so "offensive" or "condescending" in this situation. In fact, I would consider it far more condescending to revert to the paternalistic model of medicine and just tell this patient that she needs a lumpectomy and sentinel lymph node biopsy with a followup course of chemotherapy and radiation without bothering to attempt to explain why. If I were to do that, the end result would be that my well-educated patients would get an explanation of my rationale (because they wouldn't accept treatment otherwise or would quickly find a new surgeon) while the less-educated would get a pat on the head and instructions just to trust me on this. In fact, in this case, there is an absolute ethical imperative to attempt to explain the scientific rationale for the procedure, along with its potential risks and benefits, to the best of my knowledge and to the best of my ability to frame the issues involved in such a way that the patient can understand. I may not always succeed (indeed, I can think of a few spectacular failures at doing this that I've had), but I at least have to try. Moreover, clinical trials themselves would be impossible, because it is also an ethical imperative for physicians to frame the scientific rationale behind the trial to potential research subjects so that they understand the potential risks, benefits, and uncertainties as well as possible.
Thinking about this issue in these terms, I have to admit a grudging respect for PZ and Larry's purity of vision when it comes to science, even as I remain puzzled and exasperated by it (particularly given the way Larry, for example, persists in enthusiastically repeating the execrable and historically inaccurate "Neville Chamberlain atheist" and "Neville Chamberlain school of evolutionists" spin, which shows that he's quite willing to spin to his heart's content when it suits his purposes, although I'm sure he doesn't see it that way). Sadly, in my position, I can't maintain such a rigorous level of intellectual purity when it comes to selling my work. Science is a human endeavor, which means that all the foibles of humans and their modes of communications necessarily enter into any discourse about science, be it between a grant applicant and the study section evaluating the grant, a speaker at a scientific conference and the audience, a physician and his patient, or a scientist and the public. Perhaps one of them can explain to me why, if it isn't "spin" or "lying" to frame one's science for a grant application or to patients in a clinical trial, it is "spin" or "lying" to do so when explaining complex science to the public. I realize that framing can be used for good or bad, but tell me why it is inherently such a bad thing, a characterization that seems to be the "spin" being placed on it.
I really want to know. And, please. frame it in simple terms for me. After all, I'm just a dumb surgeon.
Comments
I dont think you saw my last post to you at coturnix's place :) I think I understand where our break down in communication is-- repost:
This is a perfect example of why I am annoyed with the 'Frame' and how it was presented! (though the WP article is another matter entirely, completely unprofessional behavior from N/M)
Posted by: ERV | April 18, 2007 10:00 AM
Fair enough, but yours is not the most common complaint about Nisbet and Mooney that I've seen.
Yours is also a bit of a straw man, given that Mooney and Nisbet never implied or claimed anything "mystical" or "magical" about it or that it was anything other than basic Communication 101.
Posted by: Orac | April 18, 2007 10:04 AM
Is anyone even listening to anyone else by this point? I get the feeling that by now, most everybody just sees a comment on fr*ming and scrolls on past. For the two people still reading, though, I have a few points:
1. If fr*ming boils down to the adage, "Know thy audience," why justify it with footnotes to anthropology journals?
2. And if a healthy fraction of scientists are used to fr*ming for their grant proposals, why wouldn't they do it for the public — you know, just by default?
3. In the linguist community, it's taken as a default assumption that "speakers adjust their speech primarily towards that of their audience in order to express solidarity or intimacy with them, or conversely away from their audience's speech in order to express distance." They call this effect "audience design", and (as Mark Liberman says) "most of us are pretty good" at it.
4. Can we see a block of text — say, an example press release intended for general distribution — written in an uncompromising manner, which we can then try to fr*me together, so we can see what this process entails in practical terms?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 18, 2007 10:09 AM
And if a healthy fraction of scientists are used to fr*ming for their grant proposals, why wouldn't they do it for the public -- you know, just by default?
One problem is that you have to frame things differently for grant proposals than for the public. You can be really good at writing grant proposals and still be lousy at writing for the public.
Posted by: James | April 18, 2007 10:13 AM
Oh, I forgot:
5. If Nisbet and Mooney wanted to convince anybody of anything, why in blazes did they lead off with the "Dawkins is boosting the creationists" gambit? At the very least, setting aside Sean Carroll's argument about shifting the Overton Window, this contention is divisive and unsupported by the data. That's, ahem, poor fr*ming.
6. Since the social feedback mechanisms in place to correct excessive hype are completely different within and without the scientific community, can we really say that what we do on grant proposals is "the same as" what we'd do for the public? Insofar as right and wrong depend on the consequences of our actions. . . .
7. One big problem with this whole thing is that it presumes the people we're trying to educate are busy, short-sighted, uninformed but basically honest. But guess what? The honest folk of America have nuclei of pure evil in their midst, professional liars and authoritarian power-trippers who will counter every "reason is a gift of God" with a "Darwinism caused the Nazis." Please tell me how tweaking the phrasing on our press releases will change that.
I suspect that the whole debate has become so ill-formed that no practical changes will come of it, so I too will probably stop listening soon.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 18, 2007 10:26 AM
True enough. However, my point was that the hostility that I've read seems to be towards the concept of framing itself, which makes me wonder if it's really hostility towards having to frame for the public rather than hostility against framing itself.
It's also no longer entirely true that you have to frame things differently in grant proposals. Increasingly, there are lay people on the boards and study sections reviewing grants, and they need to have the application framed--which was the point of my including an excerpt from the grant application instructions above.
Posted by: Orac | April 18, 2007 10:32 AM
No comment. :-)
But seriously, folks ... this is the best extended comment on framing that I've seen. My belief is that lots of folks are getting too knotted up about the "academic details," and losing sight of the reality that we all use framing frequently. Some of us are better at it than others, but use of frames is not optional, whether you realize it or not.
It's struck me that physicians are in a strong position to understand this reality more explicitly than research scientists. Your breast cancer example is an excellent illustration of this.
The best I've ever seen was the surgeon who did serious emergency surgery on my late father. I'd flown down to be with him, and arrived about an hour before they took him off to prep him. The surgeon came to speak to me. She was understandably generic at first, but it took her less then a minute to to size me up and decide that I knew enough and wanted some level of detail (my use of the term "necrotic tissue" seemed to help). She was then very forthcoming and allowed me to guide the conversation.
In my mind, that was "framing" at its best.
Posted by: Scott Belyea | April 18, 2007 10:33 AM
Scott Belyea:
That comes dangerously close to the following:
And if we say that "all talk is framing," why not just go ahead and admit that all is Love and all is God, so we can go home early?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 18, 2007 10:38 AM
I think the initial problem with the framing debate was how it was framed. Framing, after all, is a metaphor with all sorts of connotations. Unfortunately framing, to some, raises sinister images. As in "I was framed!" That is "You have been misled based upon false evidence." And indeed Mooney and Nisbett's article, "Framing Science" is quite easily misinterpreted. Framing science seems to be something the DI would do.
With that said, the intent of the article could not be more true. Know the audience to whom you are presenting, and present your science accordingly.
Posted by: Ompus | April 18, 2007 10:39 AM
Please don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing even close to that, or anything that would lead to your silly new-agey nonsense ...
Posted by: Scott Belyea | April 18, 2007 10:58 AM
Scott Belyea:
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to point out that your statement, if read carelessly, tends to resemble a tautology. Please. I think pantheism is logically void (like Dawkins says, it's "sexed up atheism"), and I don't even like to hear Susan Blackmore say that "all thoughts are memes".
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 18, 2007 11:06 AM
*shrug*
Its been my complaint from the beginning. The very beginning.
I was being sarcastic with the 'mystical magical', jabbing at the pretentiousness of the N/M Science article. As if this was a wonderful magical discovery no one had thought of before that can solve all the worlds ills. Like Blake said (and you, and most of us), 'framing' is a fancy way of saying 'do what you did to get a decent grade in high school speech.' Its offensive and conveniently side-steps addressing real problems with science communication.
Posted by: ERV | April 18, 2007 11:10 AM
On Discovery Institute, scientists, framing, and spin, I have this post up, just restating exactly what we have said all along, but applying it what DI pulled off. Hopefully you will take a look:
http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2007/04/what_the_discovery_institute_u.php
Also on framing and truth, I note the transcript of the NPR interview is available, just again, restating what we have been saying all along. I've bolded key segments so people catch the important stuff:
http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2007/04/npr_are_we_asking_scientists_t.php
Posted by: Matthew C. Nisbet | April 18, 2007 11:10 AM
This is an excellent discussion of framing but I have a couple of things to add:
1) Sometimes the 'scientific' language we use means different things to the public who don't parse sentences like we do. In other words, we're using a frame without knowing it. This is why it's important to be cognizant of the frame you're using. Example: To scientists 'It hasn't been shown to be harmful' means something specific. To the lay-person it means 'It has been shown to be non-harmful'; a world of difference, really. Like it or not you're using a frame. No one can change language, we can only pay attention to how it is used and communicate appropriately.
2) Of course you can use it to spin. However, speaking 'scientifically' doesn't keep anyone from spinning away, integrity does. Integrity and style of communication are different concepts and posters need to seperate these two concepts. We're not talking about ethics, we're talking about how good people can get their point across.
Posted by: AngryToxicologist | April 18, 2007 11:14 AM
Fair enough ... I withdraw the accusation of "putting words in my mouth." Mind you, the "reading carelessly" point might have been well to have made first time around.
I have trouble commenting on this in context, since I don't see any connection with what I wrote. I was attempting to be very pragmatic about it, since I really don't think that the academic definitions, classifications, and subsequent debate have all that much to do with how people use framing effectively, perhaps without being really aware of it ... and perhaps even while resenting the terminology.
Posted by: Scott Belyea | April 18, 2007 11:27 AM
Of course the term 'framing' already has some negative baggage associated with it, which is where, I think, the root antagonism to the word comes from.
As many people understand the term, it is about intentional manipulation of the audience. Not simply being aware of the capabilities and limitations of the intended audience, but manipulation.
It's yet another case where the use of the concept in a political arena has added unrelated concepts to the word. Where 'intellectual' now carries the baggage concept of 'elitist'; 'progressive' implies to many people the concept of 'socialist'; and 'conservative' suggests to many people 'strongly religious'.
The concept of framing is an interesting tool, which allows a certain insight into the communication process. It's a shame that it has been coupled to the concept of manipulation.
Posted by: Flex | April 18, 2007 11:51 AM
Scott Belyea:
I could probably have been much more clear the first time around. (Such, alas, is always the case.) My apologies.
The remarks about pantheism and my irritation at claims like "all thoughts are memes" were meant to indicate my real attitude about assertions like "all is love". Such claims — and I don't think I'm alone in saying this — have no real content worth bothering about. This is why I get edgy when I hear people say, "Whenever you talk, you're really framing" (not that you, specifically, said that here, but I've definitely seen that attitude elsewhere in these increasingly incoherent threads). What can you say to a statement like that? "Yeah, well, if talking has all the attributes of framing and vice versa, you've just invented a new, useless word. Congratulations."
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 18, 2007 12:16 PM
Blake Stacey:
Ah ... we can certainly agree on that! That's about when I wander off to get myself a glass of wine.
A rare pleasure to come to agreement without either of us resorting to personal invective. :-)
Posted by: Scott Belyea | April 18, 2007 12:23 PM
Talking is never just imparting of information. It is always also elicitation of emotional response to the message. There is no emotion-free language. Not even math.
For informaiton to get through, it has to avoid eliciting negative emotion towards the speaker.
Posted by: coturnix | April 18, 2007 12:29 PM
I think Blake raises some great points, and not just because he links to me.
In particular: What if the "problem" isn't that scientists are poor communicator, but rather that the well of public discourse is so poisoned that large numbers of people are automatically predisposed to disregard anything that a scientist says? Think evolution ("Satan's mouthpieces!") or climate change ("Hippie communist fearmongers!").
That's the problem we're largely dealing with. There's a lot of good, accurate, easily-digestible popular treatments on both evolution and climate change. The trouble is that if you give, say, At the Water's Edge to an evolution denier, he'll probably just add it to the bonfire.
It's not at all clear to me how "framing" is supposed to help with that. If your words are automatically suspect simply because you're a scientist, does it even matter what you say?
I think we as a group need to give up the illusion that we're going to win over most of the religious right who reject evolution, or most of the conservative right who reject climate change. What's the point, then, of saying, "Shh, Dr. Dawkins! You'll spook the Christians!" when the Christians are, in fact, already spooked?
I also find it fascinating that nobody criticises Al Gore for being "too strident" in defending climate change or suggests that he ought to tone it down a bit so as not to upset the oil companies. He's at least as "extreme" as Dawkins in respect to promoting acceptance of a hardcore version of anthrogenic climate change, but nobody tells him to tone it down even though legitimate climate scientists have raised objections to some of the simplifications and exaggerations he presents.
Posted by: Joshua | April 18, 2007 12:49 PM
And not merely manipulation, but manipulation without merit or goal beyond tricking the audience and obtaining their precious moneys. It's what consultants and marketing ghouls do.
Posted by: stogoe | April 18, 2007 12:50 PM
Joshua sez:
To which I would add:
If you're trying to win over people who possess an authoritarian personality, it doesn't matter one whit how you make your case if their chosen authorities tell them that you're Satan's spawn.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 18, 2007 1:19 PM
I find it a rich irony that M&N are telling scientists to frame thier work for the public so the public will understand it properly, and then when scientists interpret these statements incorrectly as frame=spin (i.e. the wrong frame), you blame the scientists. If framing boils down to knowing your audience, then their peice was very badly framed.
Still, this is an opener to a larger (and presumably more complete) argument, so I think we should wait and see what comes next.
But I really think your respectful insolence is not so respectful, as you really haven't addressed the strong form of opposing arguments here. For one thing, PZ points out that we have loads of great communicators among our ranks, who do a lot of outreach, and yet you pretty much posit that he doesn't get it 'cause he doesn't write grants.
So if we put together PZ's point that we have loads of great communicators doing outreach at every opportunity with yours that all grant-writers are doing framing already, it provides probably the the most damning critizism of the M&N peice so far, which is if we're already doing this to the extent that we are, then where the Hell do M&N get off telling us we're doing things wrong?
And if we're doing things wrong, as they seem to contend, then it's pretty understandable that people would get the idea that they're suggesting framing means more than you're suggesting, i.e. "spin".
Posted by: Brian | April 18, 2007 1:31 PM
Actually, I did address his arguments in the Part 1 of this two-part series. Respectfully insolently, if you don't think I addressed it, you weren't reading:
And:
You can disagree with me and tell me that what I said was idiotically wrong and why, but you're wrong when you claim that I didn't address PZ's argument directly.
By the way, characterizing my rather long posts on this topic my "pretty much positing that he doesn't get it 'cause he doesn't write grants" is an excellent example of framing in a way to mock my argument by making it sound less nuanced than it is. Very impressive.
Posted by: Orac | April 18, 2007 2:00 PM
I think that there is quite a difference between the two main "anti-frame" stand points here: PZ seems to be indicating the fact that N&M, while stating that scientists are not doing enough framing/doing it well enough, are not quite giving scientists any practical suggestions to improve. On the other hand, Larry seems to be stuck on the "framing = evil, immoral spinning" position (though I do have quite a feeling - just a feeling - that this is also PZ's opinion).
I think half of this discussion would basically either die or finally evolve (in the colloquial sense, mind you) once either N&M, or one of us, come up with some practical suggestions for framing science.
Also, Blake says that "if a healthy fraction of scientists are used to fr*ming for their grant proposals, why wouldn't they do it for the public -- you know, just by default?". Well, I do not have stats, but how many scientists are actually active in the public debate (blogging, writing, collaborating with their university's communications department)? From my personal experience, they are not that many.
This means that, althought they might be perfectly able to frame their discourse for the lay audience, they might not actually be doing it quite as often as to make a visible (think of - uhm - Dawkins) impact.
Posted by: steppen wolf | April 18, 2007 2:18 PM
I forgot to mention that, for obvious reasons, the anti-framers of the kind "frame = evil" are already a lost cause, and no amount of Orac-length blog posts is ever going to change their mind.
Just as Bible-thumping bigots wouldn't, no matter how many books Dawkins writes.
But that, of course, is just a lousy artsy metaphor.
Posted by: steppen wolf | April 18, 2007 2:25 PM
Orac, I notice that you don't address the many comments (including mine) that agrees with Mooney and Nisbet to some degree, but make clear that they think it's a bad sell. All those posts goes a long way towards explaining why Mooney/Nisbet gets such strong reactions.
As PZ said, they claim to give people a method, but end up telling people what position they should hold (the lead paragraph of the Washington Post op-ed is a prima example of this). Also, to be honest, they have made a very bad job at addressing the criticism - Nisbet especially, which is strange considering what his expertice area is.
Posted by: Kristjan Wager | April 18, 2007 2:30 PM
steppen wolf:
On this point, I agree (see my #4 above, and my first post on this topic), except that I strongly suspect that if such suggestions ever appear, the word "framing" will not occur in them. We have all amply demonstrated, I believe, that it is a word which does not communicate a useful message.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 18, 2007 2:34 PM
At least some of the hostile reaction you're confused about comes from M&N's apparent citation of people like Dawkins and PZ Myers as examples of bad communicators. That's just wrong!
(I would have the same reaction if they singled out you--Orac--as ineffective at communicating since your arguments don't appeal to various denialists.)
However, I am grateful for the controversy since it has introduced me to some good blogs which were new to me, such as ERV's.
Posted by: JimV | April 18, 2007 3:19 PM
At least some of the hostile reaction you're confused about comes from M&N's apparent citation of people like Dawkins and PZ Myers as examples of bad communicators. That's just wrong!
(I would have the same reaction if they singled out you--Orac--as ineffective at communicating since your arguments don't appeal to various denialists.)
However, I am grateful for the controversy since it has introduced me to some good blogs which were new to me, such as ERV's.
Posted by: JimV | April 18, 2007 3:24 PM
Orac,
I certainly didn't mean to impugn your entire body of work on this issue. When I said that you hadn't "addressed the strong form of opposing arguments here", I meant here, in this post. Indeed you may have been fairer to PZ and others in other posts. Perhaps I should have been more explicit.
I would also like to apologize for "framing" your post in a manner that did not sufficiently express the nuance of your argument. If I may be frank, I didn't actually think your point had all that much nuance to it, but truthfully I was not trying to mischaracterize or charicature your position in any way. It's just that you specifically asked your commenters to "frame it in simple terms for me", so I did not take the time to restate your arguemtent in its fullest form.
But you did repeatedly express confusion as to why these people were hostile to the idea of framing, and I was merely trying to put in my two cents worth on why that might be.
You expressed particular confusion at the words "condescending, offensive, and naive", and I was trying to point out that it's naïve in that C&M seem to be attributing to scientists beliefs they probably, by and large, do not hold, and seem to be suggesting solutions that, as you, PZ, and ERV have gone on about at some length now, most scientists already do. It's condescending to be telling us what we already know. When you're naïve and condescending to a group of people, they tend to take offense.
I haven't seen anyone weigh in against the kind of framing you talk about in your grant writing or your "surgeon proclaiming from on high" examples, which led me to think that you have not really considered the reasons that the people whose attitudes you profess to be confused about hold those attitudes.
Unless of course this whole "I really am confused, somebody please explain it to me" thing is just a clever rhetorical gambit, in which case please disregard everything I've said and I will not trouble you further.
Posted by: Brian | April 18, 2007 4:42 PM
I guess ther main problem with framing is, that some people understand is as a kind of "backdoor in the brain" that can be used to make someone accept what ever you say regardless whether he understands it or not, whether it is true or false.
And of course they recoil from that regardless whether it is used to force people believe falsehoods or genuine truth.
Posted by: T_U_T | April 18, 2007 4:59 PM
Blake, I have checked your post - quite interesting, I will read it more carefully later. I must say though that simply avoiding the term "framing" will not necessarily solve some people's reticence to use any communication tool consciously, no matter whether it already works unconsciously on them and others or not.
T_U_T, framing is not somthing you can use to "force people to believe genuine truth". It is simply a way of wording a topic so that it recalls cultural/thought patterns already present in a certain population. The frame goes with the picture, not the other way round: framing only works because there are patterns of thought that already exist in a certain population.
We (as cultural entity) make a frame work, not the other way round. It is really like choosing a frame for the picture, not a picture for the frame. We can change the picture only in the long term (with more attention & funding for science education, for example). This is something people have failed to understand in the course of this debate.
Posted by: steppen wolf | April 18, 2007 5:32 PM
Heh. Upon reviewing these comments something strikes a chord in me. Both Blake Stacey's mention of The Authoritarian personality type, and T_U_T's comment about a "backdoor in the brain" remind me of the numerous urban legends (and earlier the mythological stories) about undetectable manipulation of people's minds.
Certainly one of the biggest fears we have is that our thoughts are not private, or that we can be controlled by others without our knowledge.
Conversely, there have always been floating around in society mention of various tricks people (or elves, fairies, magicians or ghosts) use to control others.
Where we once feared pixies and demonic possession we now have subliminal suggestion and hypnosis. Possibly the concern over the concept of framing falls into that category. If 'framing' is seen as being able to be used to make someone accept whatever you say, as T_U_T suggests, no wonder it's a suspect technique for communication.
I'm just thinking out loud here (well not really), but 'framing' seems to be something that 'those other guys do in order to manipulate the masses into trusting them.' (I'm using quotation marks to indicate that I don't hold that belief myself.)
Finally, framing (like all other sorts of mind control) may offer an excuse to the individual affected to avoid responsibility. These days it's not that the Bush Administration mesmerised the public (or Karl Rove if you prefer) it's that administration never let the possibility that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass-destruction into the frame of discussion. Yes, I know I'm reaching a bit. But I could have just written that examples are left to the reader.
Now it is perfectly clear to me that while we are not immune to persuasion techniques, no one is so proficient at manipulating the thought paths of others so as to be able to directly control another's mind. The most accomplished artists in this field may well be Disney, as they have spent many, many years trying to learn to do this. And they are pretty good at it, but even they miss-read the pulse of the public on occasion.
Which brings up Dr. Bob's The Authoritarians again. It's much easier for someone in a position of authority to convince others that they are speaking sooth. Karl Rove didn't need to do much in the way of 'framing', regardless of how much he thought he did. He was speaking from a position of authority in the republican party, and his message was listened to. Don't get me wrong, the republican party is not alone in abusing authority, this was simply the first example which sprang to mind.
Oop! Class is about to start, I'd better log.
Posted by: Flex | April 18, 2007 5:59 PM
Orac says,
Sadly, in my position, I can't maintain such a rigorous level of intellectual purity when it comes to selling my work.
I know you said lots more than that but I want to address that particular comment because it brings up another issue.
I'm also sad that you, and me, and PZ, have to "frame" some of our comments from time to time. I have to do it whenever I'm writing my textbook. You have to do when you write grants.
This is sad. We know it's sad because "framing" is something that we know to be intellectually dishonest. We're forced to do it but we don't like it. Did you see where Nisbet & Mooney address this issue? Have they ever explained why we need to be "sad" for some greater good when we're not writing a textbook or a grant?
If I had my druthers, I'd ban framing from grant writing and textbook writing as well. It's not good to be sad. I don't think you make a case for framing being good by pointing out that you're forced to do it against your better judgement.
Posted by: Larry Moran | April 18, 2007 6:16 PM
While not wishing to trod on your valid points, Orac, it's time for an episode of "What Digby (or rather Tristero) said."
I'm seeing a lot of participants in this discussion talking past each other because the people involved are using the terms differently (like the way poor 'theory' gets abused). Anyone who writes (or rather anyone who's published) understands your argument about conforming to the editorial requirements where you're submitting (and knowing your market). Hearing all the members of an editor's panel on short fiction explain how three quarters of the submissions are rejected on format alone, followed by arguments from shocked would-be authors in the crowd, I quickly realized how to improve my chances for publication immensely.
Properly formatted westerns still don't get published in Analog, no matter how well written, and I doubt you're going to alter the frame of your grant writing far enough to pursue Templeton money.
Posted by: usagi | April 18, 2007 6:36 PM
Sadly, in my position, I can't maintain such a rigorous level of intellectual purity when it comes to selling my work.
I doubt Orac is really saying that it's sad, I would guess he's just framing it in a way that opens him up to your particular critique, Larry. I think what Orac is trying to say that even the positive aspects of grantsmanship are examples of framing. Where I would fault him is in acknowledging the dark side of framing and grantsmanship, but still professing confusion as to why some people might find approaching the public in this manner objectionable.
Posted by: Brian | April 18, 2007 6:43 PM
steppen wolf:
Of course not. It is, I think, a necessary but not sufficient condition for giving practical advice in the matter of science communication.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 18, 2007 6:47 PM
We know it's sad because "framing" is something that we know to be intellectually dishonest. We're forced to do it but we don't like it.
Let's imagine an architect drawing plans for a house. And we'll imagine he was doing it before computer 3-D modelling came in. For some purposes an architect will draw a floorplan. For some he will draw a front elevation. For some a side elevation. For some a perspective drawing of how the house will look from someone walking down the front gate.
Each drawing will leave something out. The floorplan doesn't tell anyone how high the windows are above the ground. The front elevation doesn't tell you how large the rooms inside are. The perspective drawing doesn't tell you how large the rooms inside are and gives you a distorted view of the size of the windows in the front.
Are all these drawings intellectually dishonest? Is the architect sad that they have to provide all these drawings that only show bits of the house?
Let's take another form of communication. My mother teaches presentation skills professionally. One of the things she teaches is to never use red and green to distinguish between two things (eg on a graph), because about 10% of men are red-green colourblind. Is adjusting your graphs in line with that advice intellectually dishonest?
Now, imagine you are teaching American university classes about probability. You talk about baseball games and how probability is applied in them. One year you spend at a university in another part of the world where no one plays baseball. Is it intellectually dishonest to change your analogy to one the locals will recognise?
Posted by: Tracy W | April 18, 2007 8:02 PM
Orac,
I want to hear more about those one page grants.
Seriously.
P.S.-great post
Posted by: Mike the Mad Biologist | April 18, 2007 8:31 PM
Another example of framing from my mother. She did some work for the Public Trust Office. Their problem was that laws relating to inheritance had come in giving surviving spouses/domestic partners and children a right to a share of the estate. "Children" included any children born outside marriage.
This law meant that the Public Trust's employees were being obliged to ask grieving widows something like "Mrs Smith, do you have any reason to believe your husband might have had any other children than your own?" This was getting a negative reaction.
Mum taught them to say something like "I'm very sorry Mrs Smith to ask you at this time, but the law obliges us to ask if you have any reason to believe Mr Smith may have had any other children?"
Now is this second question dishonest, intellectually or otherwise? No - the law does oblige them to ask the question. It is supplying more information than the first question. The difference is that the second question frames it as a bureaucratic formality that the Public Trust must ask of everyone, not a personal attack on Mr Smith's morals.
Posted by: Tracy W | April 18, 2007 10:50 PM
Orac, as a non-scientist I think you're on target. We all "frame" things for our intended audience, whether we know it or not. And it's neither spin nor demeaning to the audience. I liken it to one of my favorite quotes from the German mathematician David Hilbert about a century ago
Hilbert's adage is, if not the same thing, than a corollary to M&N's point. And the adage applies to science, or any other discipline, academic or applied, just as much as mathematics. To be understood, one must speak in the language of one's audience.
Returning to M&N, I don't think they made one point with sufficient emphasis: That to attack religion all the time in the context of explaining evolution, as PZ, Dawkins and Moran are wont to do, accomplishes nothing other than to cause the majority of the public to tune out completely, defeating the whole purpose of trying to increase the acceptance of evolution. PZ even admits as much in explaining on Pharyngula that he never mentions religion or atheism in his lectures, unless it's brought up by a student. Were he to push his atheism there, not only would he incur the ire of the university but he'd turn off a significant number of his students.
Posted by: Keanus | April 18, 2007 11:21 PM
This is sad. We know it's sad because "framing" is something that we know to be intellectually dishonest. We're forced to do it but we don't like it. Larry Moran
"Framing" is intellectually dishonest? It's even more dishonest to pretend that a presentation of information can escape choices, exclusions, placing into contexts, ordering to achieve a specific purpose... And don't forget point of view, because there isn't a single thing that a human being produces that isn't the product of their point of view.
This kind of pretense of complete objectivity and honesty is one of the biggest flaws in what I roughly call the Dawkinsite cult. Oddly, Dawkins' polemical writings, as well as several mentioned above, is entirely dependent on the most rigorous framing, not only rejecting cards they don't want to see come up, but removing them from the pack.
Hey, guys, no matter how much you pretend, you're only human. I'd have thought that would be something you'd welcome hearing.
Posted by: olvlzl the Heretic | April 19, 2007 4:26 AM
Of course everything gets framed.
Which is why I am surprised you would say:
"I remain confused at the vociferously hostile reaction that Chris Mooney's and Matthew Nisbet's recent article in Science"
To me it is clear the vociferously hostile reaction came from extraordinarly bad framing on behalf of the authors.
Would you expect to change a priest's mind by starting off and telling him he is a dumb asshole and full of shit? No, similarly if I was trying to convice a group of well-informed mainly eitheistic crowd I would not start with:
"If the defenders of evolution wanted to give their creationist adversaries a boost, it's hard to see how they could do better than Richard Dawkins, the famed Oxford scientist who had a bestseller with "The God Delusion." Dawkins, who rose to fame with his lucid expositions of evolution in such books as "The Selfish Gene," has never gone easy on religion. But recently he has ramped up his atheist message, further mixing his defense of evolution with his attack on belief."
Especially when I had no evidence to back it up and there was some evidence that Dawkins et al have for the first time opened the window to let in some fresh air and start a discussion of what previously had been almost taboo.
In a strange way it is a very effective message of how important framing is! But unfortunately few will get it.
Posted by: sailor | April 19, 2007 8:04 AM
Strawman.
I never said I "against my better judgment." I said that I do it because I realize that it's inescapable in human communication. In fact, I am simply acknowledging the fact that it is impossible to communicate complex information effectively to people without framing, particularly if those people do not have the same level of knowledge about the topic as you do. That's all I was saying. It seems so self-obvious to me that it shocks me that people as smart and savvy as you and PZ don't "grok" the whole concept, as evidenced by your comment about "banning framing" from grant writing. That comment shows just how out of touch you are with regard to framing. Removing framing from grant-writing is utterly impossible! Any time you try to convince an audience, even discussing science to a study section, that your project is worth funding, you have to frame it. Similarly, although I've never read your biochemistry textbook, I'd be willing to bet that you frame a lot in it if you expect it to communicate and teach such complex information to students who do no yet understand it. Finally, you are actually pretty fond of framing when it suits your purpose, whether you'll admit it or not. The whole "appeaser" schtick is an example of a frame that's slipped into raw spin, and you use it frequently.
Posted by: Orac | April 19, 2007 10:12 AM