Matthew C. Nisbet, Ph.D, is a professor in the School of Communication at American University where his research focuses on the intersections between science, media, and politics. E-MAIL: nisbetmc@gmail.com. For more information, check out his longer bio and research, and his blog, "Framing Science."
Chris Mooney is Washington correspondent for Seed magazine and the author of two books, The Republican War on Science and the forthcoming Storm World.
For more information, check out his longer bio, Wikipedia entry, YouTube speeches, and his blog, "The Intersection."
« Slides and Audio of Nisbet/Mooney Framing Tour | Main | At TreeHugger.com, More on Framing Science »
Category: Discussion
Posted on: June 27, 2007 9:56 AM, by Matthew C. Nisbet
Over at Framing Science, I've posed a question to readers to comment on:
In the coming decades, what are the next great framing controversies? What are the public engagement flashpoints to anticipate? On what issues can we apply a scientific understanding of the public and the media system to avoid communication failures?
Here's the chance to offer some of your own thoughts.
Send this entry to:
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
TrackBack URL for this entry:
YES! Send me a free issue of Seed.
If I like what I see, I'll receive 5 more issues (6 in all) for just $14.95. That's 50% off the cover price! If I'm not completely satisfied, I'll simply write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing. The free issue is mine to keep.
(Non-U.S. subscribers, click here.)
Comments
We (The USA) WILL lose a city due to a Muslim atomic attack.
The question will be "What is a proper response". It will be a suicide attack, no surprise, so the actual perpetrator will be destroyed.
If this happens when Bush/ Cheney are still in office, I have no doubt the response will be quick, and it will be wrong.
So. We have the science and technology to obliterate entire countries. Do we use this power, or can we find other, better solutions?
Good luck on the test kids.
Posted by: J-Dog | June 27, 2007 11:05 AM
Now that Craig Venter has transplanted genomes between species of bacteria and human-animal chimeric embryos are more science than science-fiction, I predict we may need new frames to understand "human."
Posted by: Emily | June 29, 2007 11:21 AM
Growth. We need a much better understanding of the consequences of the naive assumption that growth is always a good thing in the economy, in cities and towns, in nations, .... The planet is finite so growth as we understand it today -- greater consumption and expanding populations -- must hit a wall. We need a new understanding of economics. We need to find ways for politicians to NOT run on a pro-growth platform.
Posted by: Trinifar | July 23, 2007 06:21 PM