Speaking Science 2.0

At Science, discussion of framing continues…

Matthew C. Nisbet — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 09:59:12 +0000

Science has published four letters in response to our framing article along with a fifth letter as our reply. Over at Framing Science, I have posted the text of the reply that I wrote to all four letters. Hopefully I will be able to get an author referral link in the near future so that readers can have access to the full text of the other letters.

In an upcoming issue of The Scientist magazine, I team up with Dietram Scheufele in contributing a feature article that elaborates on framing and its relevance to new directions in science communication. For the past couple of weeks, at its Web site, the magazine has been sponsoring a discussion on the topic and a Web poll of readers.

Over at Nanopublic, Scheufele has this blog post up about the letters. At the Intersection, Mooney has more.

Speaking Science 2.0 Resumes for Fall 2007

Chris C. Mooney — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 09:55:05 +0000

We will be going back on the road this fall–our calendar has in fact filled up quite quickly. So we’re pleased to announce the following confirmed events this September through November, with as many details as are currently available. Stops include Minneapolis, New York, Washington, D.C., and Seattle; note in particular the second Sept. 28 event where we’ll be on a panel with Greg Laden, which we’re hoping PZ Myers will also join as this is kinda his stomping grounds:

Friday, September 28

3:15 pm

Annual Meeting–Association of Reproductive Health Professionals

Hilton Minneapolis

Minneapolis, MN

Friday, September 28
Panel Discussion***: Speaking Science 2.0: New directions in science communication
7:30p.m.
Bell Museum Auditorium
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN

Tuesday, October 2
6:30 PM
George Washington University–Mt Vernon Campus
Foxhall Rd., NW
More details TBA

Friday, October 5

7:00 pm

Sponsored by the Forum on Science, Ethics, and Policy (FOSEP)

Pacific Science Center’s Eames IMAX Theater

Seattle, WA

Wednesday, October 24

6:30 pm

General Society of Mechanics & Tradesmen, 20 W. 44th St.

New York, NY

Event sponsored by Center for Inquiry-New York

Tuesday, November 27

Time and Location TBA

National Academy of Sciences

Washington, D.C.

(*** Featuring Mooney, Nisbet, University of Minnesota anthropologist Greg Laden, and moderator Jessica Marshall, a U of M science journalism professor. A reception in Dinkytown will follow the event. Co-sponsored by the Bell Museum of Natural History; Seed Magazine/ScienceBlogs; The Humphrey Institute’s Center for Science, Technology and Public Policy; and the Minnesota Journalism Center. See bellmuseum.org for reservation details and further information.)

The Latest Online Debate over Framing

Matthew C. Nisbet — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 13:00:28 +0000

The Scientist is currently sponsoring an online discussion about framing and new directions in science communication. The web feature is in advance of an article I am contributing to the magazine, co-authored with Dietram Scheufele, a colleague at the University of Wisconsin. So far, more than 40 comments have been posted. There is also a reader survey at the site.

Regarding The Scientist discussion, Mary Miller has more to add in a post at her blog The Accidental Scientist.

Why Definitions of Science Literacy Matter

Matthew C. Nisbet — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:34:28 +0000

Everyone claims it’s a major societal problem, but what does science literacy exactly mean? What does past research suggest are the valid definitions of this frequently used term? Similarly, what is meant by the “public understanding of science”? Is it the same thing as “public engagement”? As I explain in our Framing Science article at Science and in the Speaking Science 2.0 road show, these definitions matter when it comes to effective public communication.

Over at my blog Framing Science, I repost a 2005 column that I wrote for Skeptical Inquirer Online. The short piece offers a lot for thought and discussion. Ultimately how we come to define these terms has direct bearing for how we choose to engage the public on controversial areas of science.

At TreeHugger.com, More on Framing Science

Matthew C. Nisbet — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:22:21 +0000

Over at the immensely popular environmental site TreeHugger.com, Chris discusses Storm World, his new book on the science and politics of hurricanes, as well as the reaction to the Nisbet & Mooney article at Science and our Speaking Science 2.0 tour.

Forecasting the Next Big Science-Society Conflicts?

Matthew C. Nisbet — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:56:47 +0000

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.

Slides and Audio of Nisbet/Mooney Framing Tour

Matthew C. Nisbet — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 16:07:39 +0000

On June 4, more than 120 people turned out for the Nisbet & Mooney Speaking Science 2.0 talk at the New York Academy of Sciences. The talk is now part of their online content, including an E-briefing summary along with the powerpoint slides synchronized with audio of our presentation. With this tool you can listen to the entire talk or scroll through the labeled sections and slides based on topic.

NYAS has allowed free access to this member content by way of the following link from our respective Web sites.

The Poverty of the New Atheism Movement

Matthew C. Nisbet — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:41:05 +0000

Over at Framing Science, I describe what I find so troubling about the Dawkins/Hitchens PR campaign:

It has radicalized a New Atheist movement of complaints and attacks that is almost completely devoid of a positive message about what it means to live life without religion.

Long before the New Atheist movement, sociologists began to identify an increase in the number of Americans who report “no religion” in surveys. What this growing segment of Americans needs is not a set of leaders who employ a form of “us vs. them” binary reasoning to add further division and polarization to the country, but leaders who set an agenda focused on community life and social responsibility. We need leaders who encourage atheists to work together with religious Americans to solve collective problems such as poverty and climate change.

Next Talk: Center for American Progress, June 19

Matthew C. Nisbet — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 17:05:02 +0000

In our last major talk of the summer here in DC, on Tues. June 19 we will be delivering our Speaking Science 2.0 presentation at the Center for American Progress. Breakfast is served at 830am. The talk and discussion follows from 10 to 1130am. The Center has all the details here.

CAP senior fellow and former assistant Energy secretary Joseph Romm will be hosting the event. He’s the author of the terrific new book Hell and High Water: Global Warming-The Solution and the Politics and also contributes the popular Climate Progress blog.

As was the case earlier this month at the New York Academy of Sciences, we expect a very large turn out and a healthy discussion to follow. Hopefully readers in the Beltway area can make it out.

How James Hansen Shapes the Frame on Climate Science

Matthew C. Nisbet — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 12:26:55 +0000

Over at Framing Science, I have a post describing how James Hansen’s efforts to frame the scientific agenda on climate change are proving once again influential, as evidenced by a news feature last week at Science. In commentaries and media interviews, Hansen is using the frame device of “reticence” to challenge the assumptions applied by the IPCC in arriving at predictions of seal level rise. Joined by other climate scientists, Hansen backs up his efforts with scientific papers recently published at leading journals.