…and this is a 
I like ‘framing’ less and less; why are scientists the targets?
Category: Media • Science
Posted on: April 7, 2007 7:46 PM, by PZ Myers
Abbie makes an excellent point on it the ongoing discussion of the Nisbet/Mooney paper: just how often do scientists get an opportunity to discuss their work to the public, anyway?
I have a few simple points to make.
1. Why are scientists being told so often that they're bad at communicating? Because, like, we aren't. Most scientists are awesome at communicating, just not on the terms dictated by Fox News.
Try grabbing some random person and telling them that they are expected to do a one hour presentation to an auditorium of 90 people on some specific, complex subject…tomorrow. Most will freak out — it's the #1 example of social anxiety. That, however, is routine for your average college professor. Not only do we do it all the time, we enjoy it, especially if the subject is something we think is important. We also won't waste the listener's time with platitudes and filler—we'll sit down and dig up real information on whatever we're discussing.
I'm in a profession where I'm expected to get up in front of a large audience and talk formally and at length on complex subjects several times a week. I do not have a speechwriter; I have to generate my own analyses and explanations, and it's not as if I give the same speech time after time. I teach 18 year olds. Now I know different professors have different styles and levels of effectiveness, and my own lectures vary in quality … but really, how many professions out there demand that kind of frequent exercise of rhetoric and public speaking? Why are we being singled out as a target for accusations of incompetence at communication? Why am I going along with it? I'm beginning to feel that we are currently the target of some malicious framing.
The problem isn't that we're bad at communicating. It's that we've got people telling us to take our complex subject and squeeze it into a 15-second soundbite. While they're at it, maybe they should also tell us to do it while standing on our head and juggling monkeys, so they could tell us we suck at that, too. Of course we aren't going to look good when you try to shoehorn our expertise into a medium inappropriately. I bet da Vinci was a crappy tap-dancer, too.
2. Blame the media. Slamming the scientists is the wrong thing to do when the flaws are obvious and elsewhere.
Now we may suck at giving the attention-grabbing 15-second sound bite, but that's not what we do. We are experts at explaining complex subjects which do not fit into the format expected of television news, but hasn't everyone noticed that television news is utterly useless at transmitting substantive information? Instead of complaining that our culture's class of experts at technical subjects aren't sufficiently pithy for a dumbed-down, low-bandwidth, superficial medium, why aren't we fastening the blame on the media for inappropriately using our experts' talents?
Look at your television. Check out Fox, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS. How many scientists do you see? And don't tell me it's because we demand more than a few seconds for a soundbite; those stations will give plenty of indulgence to a Deepak Chopra on medicine or a Glenn Beck on global warming. How much time does Rush Limbaugh get on radio to just talk and talk and talk? My cable provider has dedicated several channels to non-step vacuous garbage: try watching a few minutes of the Trinity Broadcasting Network sometime. Am I supposed to believe that Paul Crouch and Benny Hinn are instinctive masters of 'framing'?
A perfect example: the recent Anderson Cooper show that purported to be discussing the role of religion and science. What did we get? Ten minutes of animatronic dinosaurs, Ken Ham babbling, home schooling moms explaining that evolution is bunk, and the one token scientist gets two sentences. What if instead, he'd been given 5 minutes and the opportunity to explain why his favorite mammal fossil was important, and how it supported evolution? I guarantee you that it would be informative, interesting television in which the audience might have learned something that would make them think. But no…cue the Fred and Wilma Flintstone Memorial Museum and the lying con man who will promise you eternal life, if only you really believe Jesus created the earth in 4004 BC.
I'm wondering why I'm told to hone my media skills when the media would rather show a prancing, lying con man than a scientist, and when those brilliant media mavens are going to pare me down to a talking head saying two sentences?
3. I blame YOU. Yeah, YOU. Why aren't you, the consumer of media, demanding better fare?
There is another part of the problem, the one that Abbie brought up: we rarely get to use those skills in public. Why not? When people call me and ask me to talk, I first check my calendar, and if the date is free, the second thing I do is say yes. We academics are easy. I've run the Café Scientifique in my town for the last couple of years, and every year in late summer when I ask, "Who would like to talk about their work in a public lecture here in town?", I get more volunteers than I have time slots. And without exception, every talk has been excellent — tell scientists to talk about their enthusiasms in informal terms to an audience, and you get a good show.
I'm always told by those pious left-wing moderate Christians that they really, truly care, and that we shouldn't judge them by the religious loons. Right. The churches in my town invite creationists to come speak at public meetings, and there are apparently some church representatives that skulk around campus and show students Kent Hovind videos. Does your church invite scientists to speak about the issues your congregation cares about? Do you tell your pastor that if he's going to preach against evolution, abortion, and climate change, that maybe it would be informative to invite someone informed to come talk about real biology, reproductive biology, or the environment? It doesn't happen in my community. It didn't happen in the Philadelphia suburb where I used to live. The church circuit is a profitable network of lying incompetents who wander about making stuff up. Why not change that?
Have you told your local radio and television stations that they ought to try to tap into local scientific talent and get some short features on real science? Academics don't mind at all; we'll cooperate and help out. Just don't ask us to do all of a huge subject like evolution in a couple of snazzy sentences — ask us to explain some cool subset of a bigger issue in at least a little length, and we'll pass along interesting information.
There are a lot of dysfunctional issues in the transmission of science to popular culture and vice versa. Somehow, though, when it's time to apportion the blame, everyone turns to the scientists, the ones with little clout, but the actual expertise and the willingness to contribute to solving the problems, and the real source of the problem, media and a culture with a negligible attention span, gets a pass.
I think the greater problem is not some failure of the scientists to accommodate themselves to the demands of an increasingly dumbed-down culture, but the inability of everyone to make a deeper commitment to understanding. I don't believe that the path to that understanding should involve scientists surrendering their principles to pursue those of a PR flack.
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
The consumers of media DO speak their mind and demand that they be offered what they want.
It's why there's so much garbage.
Posted by: Caledonian | April 7, 2007 8:10 PM
Clap Clap clap.
Well said. What scientists are really being criticised for here is that they don't attract large followings with simple platitudes. That should not ever be something to feel bad about.
As for blaming the public..well...I can't speak for everyone, but I get most of my information from internet sources these days. Here you've written 1300 words, which takes a few minutes to read, and isn't really putting forward any complex ideas. But to read it aloud, it takes maybe 10 minutes. In a news format, it would be an entire half hour prgram, once the requisite pictures and images are put in. TV is only good when it makes full use of video to convey information, which is almost impossible wih most science (scientist standing in lab, working with testube doesn't really tell you anything...)
Posted by: aweb | April 7, 2007 8:13 PM
"I think the greater problem is not some failure of the scientists to accommodate themselves to the demands of an increasingly dumbed-down culture, but the inability of everyone to make a deeper commitment to understanding."
That's the nail on the head, right there. However, seeing as those with that inability are comfortable with forming their opinions part and parcel from pulpits and talking heads- if they form opinions at all, doesn't it make sense strategically that we need to become those talking heads and to assume those pulpits?
Destroy the system from within and whatnot.
Posted by: raindogzilla | April 7, 2007 8:17 PM
Here's a thought: instead of demanding that the intelligent, educated segment of the population change in order to accomodate the least intelligent, uneducated segment, why don't we expect the common people to reach out to the elites?
Posted by: Caledonian | April 7, 2007 8:22 PM
What a great post!
The only cable news presenter I find tolerable is Keith Olbermann. Even he devotes less than half his program to actual news- the rest is showbizz gossip and he almost always has a feature on American Idol.
Even the first 20 minutes of Olbermann, which contains actual news, is almost entirely devoted to horse-race political coverage. Almost no coverage of world news, and certainly no coverage of science.
---------------------------------------------------------
And I agree- it's pretty easy to find world-class scientists to give up their own time and energy to give brilliant talks to the public. The public also seems interested in hearing those talks (the ones I've attended). Why is it so hard to connect A to B?
Posted by: Christian Burnham | April 7, 2007 8:33 PM
I attended some of the sessions, and visited the church several times after that hoping to set up a time to do an afternoon/evening session for church goers to ask me questions about evolution. For free. After leading me on for a few weeks, they finally stopped returning my calls.
*shrug*
Posted by: ERV | April 7, 2007 8:45 PM
Great post!
I totally agree it's not all scientists' fault, it's mostly the media/general public's fault. However, I really don't see this changing. People are lazy, and unless someone figures out a way to stop people from being lazy, this will only get worse.
Fairly or unfairly (totally unfairly), it will be up to scientists to learn to communicate science better. That's just how it is. I think ultimately, scientists will HAVE to basically turn into propagandists. Figure out how to get people to WANT to learn more (by being brief, oversimplifying, using a lot of fancy graphics, etc), and THEN go into the details. Otherwise scientists will become rarer and rarer, and because stupid people (creationists and such) ARE all about being brief, oversimplifying things, and fancy graphics (and no substance), people like that will just increase.
There's just no other way around it. When given a choice between visually appealing but completely substance-less shows and seemingly boring, longwinded shows, people choose the short one even if that means giving up real substance.
Posted by: TAW | April 7, 2007 9:09 PM
I know. The only invitation I've received from a church to come talk to them about evolution was the Unitarians. I'm not worried about the UUs. If everyone on the planet but me was a UU, I'd regularly cuss 'em out for that goofy belief, but I wouldn't be concerned that they were going to create a hell on Earth.
And you know, the churches don't need to invite me to explain science to them -- there are lots of friendlier, less ungodly biologists around who'd be happy to have a conversation with them.
Posted by: PZ Myers | April 7, 2007 9:12 PM
No, you missed my point. Scientists already communicate well. It's just in a different style than the format preferred by mass media today.
And I don't think we should be propagandists. That would compromise our message.
Here's a suggestion: let's have those appeasin' Chamberlainin' softies and progressive Christians be the propagandists. As I said above, the Christian left is always making excuses and telling us how supportive they want to be, so here's the perfect job for them. They can start criticizing the fundie right instead of the atheists, they can play up science for us, they can draw the pentagram on the altar and summon the occasional fierce godless scientist to communicate with the congregation, and the can clean up the virgin's blood and resanctify everything after we've been dismissed.
Posted by: PZ Myers | April 7, 2007 9:18 PM
Oh My, you seem to think having a useful opinion about a complex subject requires time and study. Who elected you the No Fun Sheriff?
Posted by: kellgo | April 7, 2007 9:24 PM
Oh don't get me wrong I completely agree that scientists communicate perfectly well in their own environment, I'm just saying that if scientists want to get the message out in today's world, a world which in all likelyhood won't get any better (in that respect), they will have to do so in the terms of the general public.
I think you CAN be brief, oversimplify a bit, and use fancy graphics to get the message across without compromising your message. You just have to make it clear that you're doing so.
I frankly am not sure if I would want to major in biology if I got a long, technically correct speech every time I wanted to figure something out. That's how education works- you first oversimplify, and you gradually get more specific and correct.
And yes, that's a good suggestion :P however, they're not scientists. I'm SURE that if progressive Christians started trying to play up science and stuff, you would be complaining about how they only focus on the charismatic animals and whatnot. ... I'm sure because you've done it before :)
Posted by: TAW | April 7, 2007 9:32 PM
PZ,
I definitely see where you're coming from. I think your expression in this post is similar in spirit to a question I've been asking lately, that being the one where the media (and thus the public as sheep) parrot the line about scientists occupying the so-called ivory tower.
This charge usually comes in close proximity to what you are talking about, i.e. the lack of media-savvy speaking expertise on the part of scientific visonaries and leaders. My question in response to this charge is, what ivory tower? Did anyone honestly ask for the scientists' input, of make a charge in their absence because they did not appear like a genie from a bottle to answer a sincere question on the spot?
What about pastors and their ivory pulpits? Nobody is allowed to question them (lest it be with regard to molested children) on anything. Perhaps it is the demeanor and deference pastors are entitled to use (and that some actually have and practice) as shepards of their flock. After all, who would want to trouble a simple man in a robe that does the Lord's work every day, regardless of what he preaches?
Nevertheless I think the lesson the media is conveying - but is not appropriately wording at all - is that scientists need to figure out a way to get this partiicular job done. As has been made quite obvious to me in the cowing of the once almost unassailable Democratic Party, if you do not speak at all, someone else will speak for you.
Thus, I totally see your point PZ, and agree that it's a stupid situation that many ignorant people promulgate with abandon. But the ugly reality that must underpin the response is, if a plan to get the truth out isn't devised, the truth will in fact die. Fifty percent of the work resides with the scientific community, and the other fifty with the consuming public.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | April 7, 2007 9:34 PM
Sorry to say it but scientists are lousy communicators. They are trained to communicate very technical information to fellow experts who use the same very specialized terminology, and peculiar stylized writing developed for scientific journals. It is part of the "in-the-club" kind of writing. For many years I have worked in technical writing (before I went to UH and got a degree in Geophysics) trying to make the kind of goblety Gook engineers write understandable. They also suffer from "in-the-club-itis". All engineers think they write well, and maybe so to each other. But not to managers, administrators, or even technicians; people who make acquisition decisions, funding decisions, or even repair a system. They need a translator badly. The difference here is even more stark. At least the people the engineers are trying to reach have some technical background. Scientists need badly to reach people who have no basis from which to understand them. No math, chemistry, biology, physics, or science.
The worst excuse I hear is the "I gotta dumb-down" argument. These people aren't stupid, just not trained. I wouldn't hire a carpenter to do your job anymore than I would hire you to do his. Does the fact that you can't cut a sraight line on a 2X4 make you stupid? No! But neither does his inability to genotype fruit flies (yes I read your blog). But that is not the issue, the issue is to get the carpenter to follow your thoughts and convince him you are right, even though he has no background from which to judge the information. It takes a great deal of skill and technical understanding to write complex ideas so that a non-expert can get the overall concept. Forget trying to make him understand the science behind it, it's beyond his grasp, and his interest. Thats for grad students and highly motivated undergrads.
The secret is to state interesting conclusions, unfortunately without all the painfull backup data, something you are trained not to do, and what you enjoy most. You can refer them to more detailed discussions like "see my picture of Hagfish eggs" etc.. The idea is to hook them and get them to look for more information about the interesting conclusion.
What is being called framing is what I call targeting the audience. The IDots are doing that. They know their audience is not scientifically savy. Wells can write very general statements, some very misleading or wrong. He knows the audience is not going to research him, or understand the reference material even if he supplies it. To his benefit you or someone else will write a very well researched rebuttal, with citations and all the scientific jargon that his audience can't understand. He just passes it off to a dissagreement between him and another highly respected scientist in his field (feeling the pain yet?), which his audience buys. Even better, you do it on your blog, which provides him with publicity in an audience (yours) that he couldn't otherwise reach. Bad publicity is better than none, and his audience doesn't read you anyway (feeling more pain?).
You get why it's important to be able to target his audience. It's to break the dynamic he has set up. You have to be able to rebut him on his terms, in his audience, in a language they can understand. I know this is like teaching a pig to talk - just fustrates you and pisses-off the pig. And, nobody listens to a pig anyway... except maybe other pigs. It's vitally important!
Posted by: Dennis | April 7, 2007 9:38 PM
A problem, but not the only one, seems to be the popular stereotype of the "scientist": nearsighted, hunched over, socially maladroit, speaking incomprensible arcana in an exaggerated Austrian/Freudian accent.
A great part of the solution could be social networking (in the real world, not that MySpace junk). After all, we are supposedly separated from any given individual by something like five other people.
One could start with a local coffee shop and invite the public to come see a scientist talk about...something. Print and distribute flyers with an appropriate teaser line.
Then work at spreading the news. Get other scientists to talk about their areas.
The problem with getting people to let a scientist speak at an essentially unfriendly venue is the fact that the venue is, well, unfriendly. Use a neutral venue.
Getting people to show up is not rocket science...just social science ;)
Posted by: complex_field | April 7, 2007 9:41 PM
I think the situation must be better here in Canada. This past week the CBC had four 20-minute segments on the effects of global warming on its national evening television news - and essentially no questioning that it is indeed happening. There are several other programs that treat serious issues responsibly, both on television and radio. Every Saturday morning there is a 50-minute science program (Quirks and Quarks) directed at intelligent lay-people.
I had never thought about it before but you are right to say that many scientists consider an hour-long presentation to be routine. What I enjoy about scientists (and other experts) talking about their work is their obvious and infectious enthusiasm.
For me, nothing has been as traumatic as the first course I delivered. I was basically tricked into giving a course (animal eco-physiology - I was told they wanted basic ecology) that was well out of my area of expertise (agricultural botany/statistics) with no realistic option of backing out as the students had to have the course and the few other available people were even less capable of giving it.
Posted by: Richard Simons | April 7, 2007 9:44 PM
Part of the problem, I think, is that when a scientist talks, s/he expects hir audience to listen. Scientific communication is all about being concise and direct (which is part of why scientific literature is so difficult for the layperson to understand: there is a lot compressed into a very small space). Laypeople expect things to be fed to them slowly.
I come to this conclusion after trying to watch televangelists (you know, the whole "know your enemy" thing). It was excruciating. They took ages to say anything! And then they repeated it. And again. I know that the old preacher's adage ("Tell them what you're going to tell them. Then tell it to them. Then tell them what you told them.") has some merit (I have heard it advised for giving scientific talks, even), but this was just outrageously slow. They draw things out. They talk slowly, and they pause more than Captain Kirk, and then they talk slowly again.
I would have regarded this as peculiar to the televangelists, but right-wing talk radio hosts (more of the "know thy enemy" thing) do the same thing. They do it without the amusing speech impediments, but they still do it. The real clincher came from my mother, who was surprised that watching something intense and thought-provoking meant that she had to pay attention; she could not just lapse in and out like she could with her soap operas.
In other words, people expect to learn by osmosis. By this I mean not the sort of osmotic learning that comes from shadowing an expert and picking up their habits, but by having some noise on in the background that feeds them their information subconsciously. Scientists, I suspect, have little patience for that sort of information dissemination. (I know that I certainly have none!) If nothing else, it is impractical; one cannot describe a long logical argument if the audience is not following along.
In other words, science is about complex things, and that requires attention. I suspect that what turns people off from scientific discourse is not so much the length of time that scientists ask of their audience as the amount of concentration. Scientists probably can put something useful into a thirty-second blip, but if it is to have any substance at all, it will be an impressively concentrated blip, well beyond the expectations of easy background absorption of the average American.
Posted by: Opisthokont | April 7, 2007 9:47 PM
No. Some are, but you are generalizing too much -- that's my complaint with this recent line of criticism.
Really -- ask us to put together a presentation for 12 year olds, or for seniors at the retirement center, or the Rotarians, or a science conference, and we can do it. We're not idiots. We do try to tailor our talks to our audience, giving appropriate levels of background and avoiding the usual jargon. We do it all the time. But we're rarely asked.
This whole framing business seems to be about what scientists should do when some Fox News guy sticks a microphone in our face and tells us to explain evolution in 10 seconds. We should refuse. We should say, "Come to my talk at the town library tonight, I'll explain a basic overview in under an hour and let you ask less stupid questions than that. And if you're really serious about learning more, here, read this book or take my course at the U or watch this nice documentary on PBS."
This soundbite mentality is a mind-killer. Let's stop it.
Posted by: PZ Myers | April 7, 2007 9:50 PM
Sayeth PZ sagely: Most scientists are *awesome* at communicating, I agree but must add: communicating information. But communication between people, as between other animals, can also be about (and almost always retains some subtext conveying): affiliation; dominance; dependance ...
I mean, this blog has some information content (invaluable in some cases) but mostly it's about affiliation. What I'm still confused about in general is, what determines who wants to affiliate with whom... this can lead, unhappily, to Cal's perspective.
Posted by: thwaite | April 7, 2007 9:55 PM
Scientists are the 'targets' because Mooney and Nisbet know scientists will listen, and try to improve. That cannot be said of most media, or most consumers.
Posted by: llewelly | April 7, 2007 9:55 PM
Damn straight. P.Z., this one's a home run.
Let me know anytime you've got a couple of hours in Dallas, I'll find an audience for you.
In the meantime, you've laid out a clear plan of action for the rest of us. Not an easy one, but a clear one.
Off to work on it.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | April 7, 2007 9:57 PM
I fully agree. To discuss science effectively a person must know the specific discipline and be engaged in it in a dynamic way. The news never will convey science the way this blog can and does. The trap is that some will try and in turn fail at bringing some of the good that science does into the living rooms of the very people who need it most. My opoinion is that school is the place to start and we must do what the xians have done and take over the school boards and fill the schools with real science first.
I get most of my news online and very little on broadcast TV. I am also exposed to more news this way and can be informed in less time. we must be sure that the internet is kept free to use and that we have access rights without giving in to censorship.
Posted by: JamesR | April 7, 2007 9:59 PM
I think the ones to blame are the people who willingly remain ignorant. They don't care to learn, which is why everyone caters to the lowest common denominator.
Posted by: Stuart Coleman | April 7, 2007 10:06 PM
I agree with this part. However, some of the post seems to be beside the point of the 'framers', that when scientists do communicate on social issues the would be competitive by using frames.
I think the post is great otherwise. As someone noted, scientists are experts in quite a few fields, communicating in seminars being one of them. Asking for more will detract from the other stuff.
But I do think scientists should participate to some extent in social issues debates, and especially suggest good frames. Perhaps it could help assuage a common complaint, that the media frames the science badly.
So yes, we can blame the media. If they think scientists have boring messages that can't compete with others, the main problem is probably with media incompetence.
One can also note that when media presents science (or technology) that seems interesting to the public, they have often overstated the case. (Which often translates to having picked the wrong frame.)
Um, Joe Public here - I can only vote with my feet. Why do you think we read your blog nowadays?
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | April 7, 2007 10:08 PM
Thank you, thank you, thank you. Not only do most scientists communicate well, they can do it in a variety of ways at multiple levels. Most of us are not like the "I'm not a scientist but I play one on TV" characters, parading around in either a white lab coat or tweed jacket (for the physicists and mathematicians) spouting gobbledygook. Instead, we're pinging around between teaching general education classes to students who barely know what science is, training grad students, and communicating with colleagues, often all in the same day. We slingshot between explaining the same concept using terms as different as "evapotranspiration" and "sucking like through a straw". Any half-decent scientist can give you a two-minute summary of his or her work in understandable terms, (often with references to common household objects), it's just that people tend not to ask or listen.
Posted by: Carlie | April 7, 2007 10:15 PM
We are demanding better fare. This is why we're flocking to the internet, where we can have access to real scientists and real information. (Although the fifteen second sound byte is common online, too, to be honest.)
Sometimes they do have in-depth discussions on these topics, but they are usually on channels that no one watches, like the book channel or something.
The solution is for more scientists to have big breasts and celebrity flings. Just think, PZ...if you made it with Paris Hilton just once, 98% of the world would instantaneously know who you are and pay attention to you.
Posted by: Saint Gasoline | April 7, 2007 10:17 PM
PZ, even if scientists shouldn't have to serve double duty as propagandists, i find organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists do a remarkably ineffective job of representing science and scientists. Obviously i say that having only been introduced to them via the filters that the media use, but still, i can name you a half a dozen organizations who are anti-science and what their major beef is (illegitimate as it may be), and i can't think of corresponding pro-science organizations. Now mind you, that's due in part to the fact that pro-science organizations tend to defend all of science, and as such tend to put out fairly tepid defenses on any particular issue.
Science does run the risk of propagandizing, but, frankly, that's the level of 'debate' that's taking place. You're not going to be able to raise or change the level of discourse, because doing so would require the willing participation of both parties. The best thing i can figure to do, is make the other party look absolutely ridiculous. This is the strategy that the Daily Show has been successful with (hell they even did a series of ID shows that i bet most of PZ's readers have seen).
And doing this isn't that hard. The example from my personal experience on the college campus i graduated from is the following:
There is a group (which i'm sure is still out there visiting universities) of anti-abortion protesters who showed up at the Ohio State University every two years. Their modus operandi is to claim that abortion is a form of genocide. As such, they set up a 3 ringed set of steel fencing, which housed a series of posters which showed aborted fetuses, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, an actual picture of a black man strung up to a tree in the Jim Crow South, the Twin Towers burning, pictures of Emperor Akihiro and many more i haven't bothered remembering. They spend a week set up on campus yelling at students as they pass by.
The first time i saw them on campus, i watched as the Planned Parenthood club on campus gathered together a bunch of girls to counter-protest, which resulted in the passer-bys and bistanders not just avoiding the abortion protesters, but also avoiding the planned parenthood girls as well. They had turned off their brains, and were doing their best to run the gauntlet to get to class. Seems a shame, and pretty ineffectual.
Two years later, i, being better prepared, rhetorically speaking (hooray education), pulled out a piece of poster board, and wrote on it in big block letters the following: "Americans Against the Improper Use of Analogy" and wandered around the perimeter of the anti-abortion loonies. The thing that was so remarkable to me, was that people really did react differently to me than they did to either the Planned Parenthood posters or the genocide posters. You could actively see people avoiding making eye contact with either group. I'd at least get a smirk out of people who passed by. And just with a smirk you can tell that you're reaching people.
Most people aren't frankly interested in the debate (whatever the subject is). They're especially not interested in having either side force them to learn about it or change their mind when they're focused on something else. Presenting a thoughtful reasoned counter point to claims that are ultimately baseless has it's time and place (and should always be easily accessible), but also is horribly ineffective if your audience is not interested in hearing it at that particular moment (again, i'm sure this is something PZ, a college professor, is aware of).
On top of that fact, the thing that's most important, was that i wasn't making any statement about where i stood on the substance of the debate. There are legitimate discussions that should be had about abortion. But the fact that such a discussion would never take place there is the major issue that should be laid bare. Again this is also the way the Daily Show functions. It's a bunch of people who admit that they don't know better than the experts. But they also make it really clear that a lot of pundits don't know any better either. It's not a debate on the merit of the facts (since that's not what the anti-science crowd is interested in, and ultimately they can't stand up on those particular points anyway).
This is a propagandist's fight, and it should be fought by propagandists. The question then is why aren't there more effective science propagandists? And think it's absolutely the case that scientists should not be expected to fill that function. I'd rather have scientists spend their time and resources doing more research (and i'm sure most of them would prefer that too).
Posted by: Ted | April 7, 2007 10:19 PM
Sound bites are mind killers. They are mistaken for heuristics. I believe many scientists a great communicators. There are also a lot that can't talk to anyone except fellow experts. I'm a retired mainframe software guy. The software field has many folks that can explain what's going on to non-software folks and many that can only talk to themselves(and I think they even confuse themselves). I was usually regarded as one of the guys that could talk to the non-software folk, but not always. The folks I had trouble explaining things to split out several ways. 1) Folk with hare brained ideas. Not a lot of them but the most annoying. They really, really want the pretty moon. Not all that many but the most annoying. 2) People who don't understand their problem. Asking good questions exposes their level of preparation, very threatening. They can be handled carefully as long as they're not in a hurry. If they're in a hurry they devolve into category 1. Most the troublesome folk don't want to think about they're problem at all. They want whatever it is they're doing to work better, cheaper by sprinkling on some silicon fairy dust. I should have submitted a PO for fairy dust some time or another.
The unifying piece seems to be a lack of respect for expertise. Expertise takes time and study. While I went to college and had a career in software my brother when into construction and had a career moving dirt with large yellow machines. It's amazing how similar the argument we've had with folk that assume whatever we're doing is simple.
My rambling point the penalty for expertise is other folks will assume you're being obtuse when you wish they'd do some homework.
Posted by: kellgo | April 7, 2007 10:27 PM
I think there's should be a holiday where everyone walks around wearing a sign that says something like:
"Hi! I am A BIOLOGY PHD.
Ask me about EVOLUTION."
Everyone could participate.
"Hi! I am A FIVE-YEAR-OLD.
Ask me about DINOSAURS."
"Hi! I am A CHEF.
Ask me about NON-STICK PANS."
"Hi! I am CARTOONIST.
Ask me about INTELLIGENT DESIGN."
And everyone would have to have conversations with anyone who asked them about their topic. I think it would be good for community, too. The nation could spend the day in coffee shops and bars.
Posted by: Olive | April 7, 2007 10:29 PM
PZ: "Most scientists are awesome at communicating, just not on the terms dictated by Fox News."
That's like saying "I'm a skilled musician, but I can't show those skills on a four-minute pop song." It's true that the format of Fox News, and the LCD the media tends to serve, does not show the real strength of scientists as far as their communication skills go, any more than clapping on 'Hey Jude' shows the classical musician's skill. So what? Real skill in either scenario depends not on what we might prefer the format to be, but on whether we are able to tailor those skills toward a desired end, independent of the format.
PZ: "Why are we being singled out as a target for accusations of incompetence at communication? Why am I going along with it? I'm beginning to feel that we are currently the target of some malicious framing."
Incompetent is probably the wrong word: the words that come to my mind are unpolished, reluctance, intimidated.
Unpolished: I talk for a living, and it's probably the best of my skill sets. I'm keenly aware, however, that many of my colleagues in the public schools and the universities are not all that good. Lecturing is an efficient way of presenting information, but how many teachers at any level routinely critique their delivery, pacing, etc.? Most of them pretty much wing it, get used to doing it a certain way, and never refine those skills, many of which have nothing to do with the truth but which have everything to do with getting your ideas a fair hearing. Is it any wonder that when we depart the comfort zone of the classroom setting, many of us stumble badly?
Reluctance: many scientists are working scientists first, and educators second: teaching or otherwise interacting with the general public is typically not their first love, or even their second love. No matter how skilled such folk are, they do what they have to for the sake of their position, but leave the jousting to others.
Intimidated: even those who are good at communicating tend not to do anything to engage the public on any matter that is particularly contentious. As an example, there are three profs at my local university who regularly stick up for science education in the local paper. There is also, to the best of my knowledge, exactly one high school science teacher who does this as well (yours truly). That's a total of four in a metropolitan area of half a million people. Of those four, three are retired. What does that tell you?
Working scientists not only don't want to take time away from doing science to defend it, they are worried about the price they and others might pay for doing so. I've talked to at least two current profs who've laid it on the line: they don't want any of the local GOP scrutinizing their work or that of their department.
PZ:." Of course we aren't going to look good when you try to shoehorn our expertise into a medium inappropriately. I bet da Vinci was a crappy tap-dancer, too."
In such settings, the role of the speaker is not to provide expertise, but to vigorously defend the involvement and judgement of the scientific community.
PZ: "Does your church invite scientists to speak about the issues your congregation cares about?"
It's happened, but it's not typical.
PZ: "Have you told your local radio and television stations that they ought to try to tap into local scientific talent and get some short features on real science?"
Yes, I have. No results so far. I'll keep at it.
PZ: "I don't believe that the path to that understanding should involve scientists surrendering their principles to pursue those of a PR flack."
Um, as I'm sure you've noticed, most creationists don't have any principles. Under the circumstances, I don't feel the least bit of guilt in cultivating certain rhetorical strategies for certain occasions. Sometimes expertise and explanation have to take a back seat to winning, and you need good PR to win.
As far as the charge of propaganda goes, we make a mistake in thinking that the majority of people require understanding of the issues to support science and science education. This is like the old saw "no one cares how much you know until they know how much you care." What we need to do is pursue strategies that elicit their support and trust by appealing to common values and (by extension) exposing the betrayal of those values by the enemies of science.
PS While I have reservations on strategy, I deeply appreciate everything you do for science education. You are the least intimidated, the least reluctant, the most engaged science educator I have ever had the privilege to correspond with...SH
Posted by: Scott Hatfield | April 7, 2007 10:30 PM
PZ is so right. Soundbite communication is of little value in science, since so much of what we are trying to explain is nuanced; it usually assumes at least some baseline knowledge of the subject at hand, and often must address aspects of data that are open to several interpretations. Generalizing about almost any scientific or medical subject to fit a 30-second time restraint is just asking for trouble. Your colleagues will groan over your simplifications, and your professional dissenters will jump all over the errors that result from superficiality. In short, if you (the media) have a question to ask, allow time for a proper answer, or don't even bother.
Posted by: drb | April 7, 2007 10:36 PM
Olive,
Great Idea! Should the holiday be annual or monthly? I kinda lean towards monthly say first Tuesday.
Posted by: kellgo | April 7, 2007 10:44 PM
Dennis wrote,
Come on now, Dennis. Yes, we write tersely anc concisely for journals. (Damned page count limits!)
But any good speaker, lecturer, teacher knows to speak to their audience. As PZ said.. profs teach 18 year-olds. You want to me speak about my work? I can do a 1-hour technical seminar, 20-minute conference lecture, 1-hour undergraduate-level seminar, 2-hour public audience lab tour, 20-minute dinner party conversaion, 5-minute conversational summary, 30-second teaser, or 5-seconds for someone who really isn't interested. Every single scientist has to explain what they do to their parents. Every single scientist has friends.
I admit that I have trouble talking to people who don't know what "physics" is... it's a challenge.
But it's absolutely impossible to talk to people that don't want to listen.
Posted by: DrNathaniel | April 7, 2007 10:44 PM
"This soundbite mentality is a mind-killer. Let's stop it."
'Nuff Said!
Posted by: Christian Burnham | April 7, 2007 10:58 PM
It need not be scientists doing the dirty work of communicating to a mass audience; science writers could do the job. Sure, they would screw it up a little, but scientists constantly accuse their own peers across subfields or rival schools of thought of getting it wrong anyway.
Use a variety of models - Wildboyz, Family Guy, Jeopardy, Conan O'Brien - but, you know, more sciencey.
Don't get too hung up on the purity and majesty of science. Science, schmience. Communicate some ideas, generate some interest, do a little song and dance. If the lay public saw how science was really made - academic backbiting, grad servitude, grant scrounging, etc. - many would be turned off, like a fussy gourmet who accidentally wandered into a meat rendering plant.
Posted by: Colugo | April 7, 2007 11:00 PM
I expect that profs routinely overestimate how well they communicate techical material to students because even in the cases where students do pretty well on tests, they are commonly just regurgitating what they heard. In math courses, for example, students will often memorize proofs and reproduce 'em on exams without ever realizing that the proofs prove anything. In effect, the kids believe in the theorems on faith; and the derivations are simply some strange ritual, perversely meaningful to mathematicians.
Friends of mine have been at workshops where scientists made presentations to professors in the humanities and the social sciences. Without exception, the scientists thought they were able to communicate the jist of important results though they were always afraid that their listeners would feel insulted by the dumbed-down versions of basic biology or physics. Also without exception, the nonscientists didn't have much of a clue as to what they had just heard, as was revealed in postsession debriefings. (To be fair, the scientists didn't get much out of the lectures of the humanists, either. When they heard a discussion of Moby Dick, for example, they assumed that the prof knew the correct interpretation of the book but didn't tell 'em for pedagogic reasons. Lyrics aren't enough. You gotta get the melody.)
Let's start easy. Explaining evolutionary theory to the nation may be too big a first step. How about seriously examining how these ideas can be communicated to other educated people without assuming that (of course) we're really good at it.
Posted by: Jim Harrison | April 7, 2007 11:05 PM
So, do any of you watch or listen to Michio Kaku on Pacifica or the Discovery Channel? Here's a scientist who does a pretty good job of explaining science stuff in layman's terms--or getting other scientists to do the same. But all I can say is, if he happens to be on the radio when I'm driving around, I usually don't turn him off unless he's talking about something really boring.
Posted by: whomever1 | April 7, 2007 11:18 PM
Quoted for truth.
Posted by: Caledonian | April 7, 2007 11:20 PM
Café Scientifique sounds awesome! Now, I could probably do a search to find this out, but what kind of response does it get from the public?
Posted by: Markk | April 7, 2007 11:24 PM
I agree strongly with Dennis, and Opisthkant. We may be good communicators among ourselves, but our way of comunicating science presuposes that the audience has done, and is capable of, and willing to do some pretty tough homework to fully comprehend what it is we're saying. We treat most audiences with the attitude that if you don't fully understand all the nuances of Hilbert Spaces (or some other esoteric branch of mathematics), then you are unable and undeserving to have anything meaningful to do with my field. This is terribly offputting to people who can't do that- or even those who are capable, but don't want to put in a huge effort to uncover the couple of interesting insights about your field that they think you possess.
So if we want to communicate science to the other 99% of the world, we have to figure out how to distill it so they are capable, without a herculean personal effort to get the key points. And so that they can be comfortable with your conclusions. This can oftentimes be a pretty difficult task, especially if we are trying to discuss not just facts, but the process of understanding how we have come to beleive in them, and the remaining uncertainties, and yes why objection X is meritless.
The other failure I see is a vast ignorance of the fact that good science differs from good public relations, or political campaigning, or winning in the courtroom. A scientist strives to consider ALL of the relevant data. He is expected to discuss potential shortcomings of his hypothesis with his colleges. A Madison avenue advertising manager is
expected to try to sell his product period. A lawyer is supposed to win his case, regardless of if he actually beleives his clients case is correct. A politician tries to convince his audience that he is the best and only choice for the job, and his opponents are seriously flawed individuals. When Rush Limbaugh attacks our professional integrity, we gotta fight back. We have to educate the public about the profound differences in the way we search for truth, and the way these more familiar areas of endeavor operate.
Posted by: bigTom | April 7, 2007 11:31 PM
Has anyone here watched the videos of PZ and other scientists explaining what gives them "inspiration" from their work? They are available from Seed. These are examples of very good communication from scientists that teach and entertain without dumbing down.
In progressive Meet-Ups, Democracy For America pushed "Framing" as a response to the conservative mindset of America evidenced by Bush's re-election in 2004. The main thrust was that the Republicans had successfully dumbed down American political thought to soundbytes using Orwellian techniques to attack liberal ideas. Yes, it worked. For the Republicans it succeeded in shifting the country for the right. But it is a propaganda technique that depends little on substance; and we struggled mightily to come up with ways to re-frame the debate in a progressive direction.
Our workshops dealt with simplifying concepts and I thought that we had to give up some degree of accuracy in order to term liberal concepts in ways that would appeal to the populace. I lost interest because I started to think that instead of illustrating important concepts such as the economic necessity of Universal Health Care we had sunk to the level of ridiculing conservatives (which is fun to do, but ultimately does little to raise the level of discourse.)
I have this naive notion that yes, indeed, people can be expected to learn complex concepts and that in the context of re-framing science in order to take back America from Creationists, scientists are very good communicators. It can be done without resorting to framing, but we laypeople need to join in expressing our enthusiasm for science. We need to help lay the groundwork so that our peers are more interested in learning complex concepts.
Mooney claims that framing is not "dumbing down" but the way in which I understand what he is saying is that it may entail "glossing over" details in many cases in order to hold the general public's interest.
Science is fascinating to me, even if I am not actively engaged as a scientist, and I believe that more presentations such as the ones at the Seed Inspiration Festival will continue to make it more accessible to people.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich | April 7, 2007 11:44 PM
In the past six weeks I have debated against creationists in a 3,000 seat lecture hall and an opponent of genetically modified crops on a radio show.
Both times, the major strategy of the opposition was to lie, mislead, or otherwise play fast and loose with the facts. I knew it, and they knew it, but probably audience did not. The only way to point out their lies was to bring in boring, technical facts that a general audience may not understand. Even if the audience understood the details, the real facts pale in comparison to assertions that modern genetics proves all humanity can be traced back to eight people on Noah's Ark or that Monsanto is trying to kill us all.
As long as scientists have any integrity and feel somewhat constrained by the facts, we will always lose out to people who feel free to lie for Jesus, or Greenpeace, or any other idiotic, but popular idea.
On the other hand, if I were comfortable just making shit up, I could communicate with the best of them.
Posted by: Tex | April 8, 2007 12:09 AM
I have to agree with bigTom when he says:
but I have to go further. The audience may not need to do the tough homework (my daughter teaches Bio Lab for non majors, so I hear a lot about this, and I used to teach Physics lab) but they DO need to be willing to have their minds open at least a crack.
Unfortunately, logic and information isn't enough to pry open small minds in today's society. No, we need someone loud, someone flashy, someone ENTERTAINING, because people really REALLY don't want to think, they just want to have these extreme emotional experiences of the sort religion and pop media offers.
There isn't any coincidence that our kids science experiences revolve around Bill Nye the Science Guy and Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin, because the PACKAGING is something they are used to swallowing. THAT'S where scientists are "bad at communicating", because they (rightfully) put substance over appearance.
Now I've seen some good science wrapped in some memorable packages (thank you Harry Fulbright, your first class in Physics 101 was/is the icon of the PERFECT science teaching!) but on the whole experiences that have BOTH are few and far between.
Posted by: dorid | April 8, 2007 12:45 AM
Since I don't have access to Dunbar's book at the moment I can't check the reference but he mentions an experiment where one of the major scientific journals - it could have been Nature or Science - published a paper alongside a 'translation' of the text into simpler, less technical language. The reaction was interesting in that while scientists who were not specialists in that field found it easier to understand, the specialists found the translation was less comprehensible.
So when you talk about scientists being good - or bad - at communicating science, you need to be a little more specific in order to make much sense. A Myers or Moran might be great talking about their fields to undergraduates in the lecture-hall but less effective to an interested layperson like myself and absolutely hopeless to the average Fox News viewer. You can sneer all you like at soundbite science but if that's all that's going to penetrate the consciousness of the average FNN viewer then that's what you have to work with - if you want to communicate with such people at all, that is.
The other barrier you have to overcome is the one encapsulated in that little quote from Dunbar's book. They may not be able to put it in that way but I suspect that's what a lot of ordinary people feel about science even if they aren't fully aware of it. They are already wary - even fearful - of science and scientists, so aggressively atheistic scientists are maybe not the best way to win over people who may not be strongly religious in the fundie sense but who still have a faith of sorts.
The other side of this coin, of course is that - in the US, certainly - scientists themselves are fearful, this time of the political influence wielded by well-organized and well-financed fundie Christian groups.
The thing is, I don't think I'm saying anything wildly original here. The notion that anger and resentment are born out of fear - and apply to both sides - is hardly new. Neither is the idea that if you want the other side to actually listen to and consider what you have to say, you have to find a way to get past that initial resistance. By all means, tell them to their faces that their beliefs are irrational and delusory if that's what you believe, just don't expect them to thank you for it or to change one iota as a result.
Posted by: Ian H Spedding FCD | April 8, 2007 1:00 AM
Tex: I admit we're at a disadvantage, but we're at more of a disadvantage when we try to 'reason' with the audience. Sometimes, you just have to let your inner pit bull have a bite. In many cases, you don't have to explain why they're lying, you just have to call them or their source a liar. Repeatedly, in clear, colorful language that exposes their true agenda.
For example, I was on a radio show about a year ago with a humanities professor and ID enthusiast who began parroting some of Jonathan Wells' misinformation. The conversation went something like this...
"ID Guy: In his book 'Icons of Evolution', Jonathan Wells talks about the peppered moth and--
Me: You mean the REVEREND Wells?
IDG: Ah---DOCTOR Wells, he--he shows that the moths were not, not---
Me: Well, YOU can call him Doctor if you want to, because I believe he has a doctorate---in divinity. He's a religious cultist masquerading as a scientist.
IDG: That's ridiculous. He's a, a biologist---
Me: He's a phony biologist, preaching phony biology. There's no original research in his book.
IDG: Have you read his book?
Me: Yes. It's a tissue of lies.
IDG: You seem pretty angry about it.
Me: I'm a science teacher. The purpose of Wells' book is to use a series of misleading claims to undermine science instruction. If you were a scientist, you'd understand why I'm angry. But, since you're not, you don't. At least I hope you don't understand, because, if you do understand, (name), and you're still using Wells as an authority, you're just as much a liar as he is. And I'd rather think you were confused, instead of dishonest."
We were on for another five minutes in that vein, which is about all the time we had. I didn't waste time debating science particulars. I went after the source, trashed it and (most importantly) made the connection that this was all part of an effort to undermine science education.
In this kind of forum, it's a waste of time to debate particulars like the peppered moth or the bacterial flagella, etc. The mere fact that they can rattle off details to unsuspecting laypeople gives them a patina of credibility. Don't try to engage them in this kind of limited format. Instead, deny them their talking points. Go for the throat, interrupt them whenever you can, and paint them (correctly) as the enemies of civilization. You don't need to make shit up, you just throw their shit right back on them.
At least, that's been my experience...SH
Posted by: Scott Hatfield | April 8, 2007 1:05 AM
PZ recommends responding to reporters with: "...let you ask less stupid questions than that."
Unfair this stereotype of scientists as arrogant, unfair I say!
What, I only took a "sound bite" out of what you said? Whaddayou think Fox would do? Unfair, sure. Who said life was fair? But we all need to cope with the world as it is. So work on your 12-second teasers that'll make an audience want to find out more, and maybe the next time Discovery Channel or PBS has a show on evolutionary biology, they'll be interested enough to watch.
Those 12-second teasers ought not to be very hard at all - you do something very similar every time you title a blog post. One might almost call it "framing." ;-)
Posted by: Jud | April 8, 2007 1:07 AM
Excellent points, PZ. TV news really fails us on this - and I think they underestimate the intelligence of their viewers.
Posted by: Eva Young | April 8, 2007 1:15 AM
Yes! EXACTLY! the general public is NOT going to get any less lazy. It might be possible to get more time out of networks by asking for it, and scientists should certainly try, but they will NEVER give you nearly enough time to explain anything to experts' satisfaction. It is up to scientists, science writers, documentary makers, or anyone who wants to get their message across, to do so in a way that the general public listen to.
Posted by: TAW | April 8, 2007 1:19 AM
I don't know, because after the umpteenth email between the NY Times and me (back when Okrent was patrolling the fences for them) about something bizarre (and false) Michiko Kakutani had written I realized I had to tune them all out or go insane?
What about YOU, Mr. Science and consumer of media?
Posted by: Lettuce | April 8, 2007 1:20 AM
PZ and DrNethaniel, and all others,
The point is not berevity. Sound bites are not at issue. Of course you should respond with a thought out answer. It's the audience thats the key to communication. Wells, Behe, and the rest of the ID crud tailor their presentations and writings to their audience. They can afford to be imprecise, misleading, or wrong. If you tailor a response to your scientific standards you loose their audience in the first few sentences. They already know your audience doesn't accept their drivel. Your audience doesn't matter to them, except that they get to use it to give them the appearance of respectability. Someone has to get their audience to falter. Then they have a problem. They win the controversy within their audience as soon as the audience looses the thread, gets bored, and hangs up. In that regard the rigorous scientific answer plays to their strength, their audience is heavily insulated, they win! Tailoring your response to their audience and playing it in their forum is absolutely required! If they don't accept your comments on their blog, that gets difficult. In that case, you have to find a way to attract them to yours or some group blog "theocratic" that will let you reach that audience through posting call it "reverse evangelizing". The facts or conclusions stated simply and clearly with an invite to learn more cool stuff - has to be interesting. Here you go: They don't know fruit flies but they do know dogs and has anyone looked at all those breeds. If you were from mars would you belive that a pug and a great dane were the same family, thats called "VARIATION". All dogs have 72 chromasomes. All dogs can interbreed and create viable offspring except you can't breed a small dog with a big dog without unfortunate congenital defects thats called "SEXUAL DIFFERENTIATION". Sexual Differentiation may lead to "GENETIC DIFFERENTIATION"...onward and so forth, set the hook. None of that may be rigorous since I pulled it out of my rump. The point is the Evangelical cowboy probably has a dog, a bad dog, who ate the neighbor ladies chihuhua and he can see the difference between those two dogs. Fruit flies are just to have their wings pulled off and tortured, zebra fish are great to impress girls with when you eat them in the bar.
Posted by: Dennis | April 8, 2007 1:28 AM
The consumers of media DO speak their mind and demand that they be offered what they want.
It's why there's so much garbage.
I get the impression from this that you imagine that the "consumer" of the commercial media is the audience. Once more for the dummies: the consumer/customer is the person who pays the provider. Who pays for commercial media? Advertisers. The audience are the product; you get the programming you get because advertisers want a dumb, consumerist audience, preferably with money (so if they are pandering, they're pandering to a middle class audience - don't go blaming the trailer trash). This is why bugging the media about their crappy science reporting (and every other kind) will have zero effect. It is not the job of media to inform the audience - at best the job is to keep them entertained long enough so that they're there when the ads come on. While your media is profit-driven, this problem will not go away.
Posted by: RobW | April 8, 2007 3:51 AM
The whole issue with soundbites is this: some time ago, Steven Pinker was invited to the Colbert Report, and he was asked to summarise brain activity in four words, on the fly. Amazingly, he managed ("neurons fire in patterns"). Which is correct, concise, and to the point, but it just sits there. It's like giving you the title of a book without telling you anything else about the book. That's the problem, I think: a soundbite might be true, attractive, interesting, laughable, whatever you want, but in and of itself, it is meaningless. The only way in which it can mean anything is by adding extra information -and that might take minutes, which is what you won't get on a news program.
Posted by: Luis | April 8, 2007 4:38 AM