This blog has a ton of readers from the Madison, Wisconsin area. It's not surprising given that the university town is a major international hub for interest in science communication and public affairs.
For Madison-area readers, tonight offers a great opportunity to discuss first hand many of the research principles and arguments that have been made here at Framing Science. My colleague Dietram Scheufele will be giving a presentation titled "Does Science Have a Marketing Problem? The Convergence of Science, Policy & Communication."
Scheufele is a professor of Life Sciences Communication at Wisconsin and co-authored with me last year's cover article at The Scientist magazine (PDF). Details are below. If you can make the presentation and discussion, I can guarantee you it will be well worth it. And following the talk, feel free to log on and leave your thoughts in this comment space.
UW Life Sciences Communication Forum
Special Interests
Lecture series, "Does Science Have a Marketing Problem? The Convergence of Science, Policy & Communication," by Prof. Dietram ScheufeleWhen: 08/07/08 @ 7:00pm
Cost: Room 1100
Call: 262-1464
Web: www.dietramscheufele.com/sforumsch.pdf
Email: scheufele@wisc.eduMore Information:
Summer 2008
Tuesday/Thursday
7:00-8pm
1100 GraingerGoogle co-founder Larry Page last year bluntly told scientists that they have "a serious marketing problem." While his keynote speech was meant to be provocative his point is well taken. Scientistsoften have a hard time connecting with the general public about the importance of their findings and their relevance for their everyday lives. And this gap widens as new technologies raise ethical, legal, and societal questions for which we have no easy answers. How do we balance the sanctity of life with the great promise of stem cell research? Does the economic and scientific potential of nanotechnology outweigh potential unknown risks? And how can scientists get their information across in public discourse without engaging in public relations wars with interest groups or partisan players in the policy arena?
These issues are not trivial ones. Many citizens look at emerging technologies, such as stem cell research or nanotechnology, as much more than scientific issues. In fact, emerging technologies often have social, legal and ethical implications that many citizens see as much more important than scientific aspects when forming attitudes about science policy and funding. Unfortunately, scientists all too often reject such concerns as irrelevant to the scientific debate and blame them on a lack of understanding of the technical and regulatory facts related to nanotech.
This forum brings together bloggers, scientists, journalists, and social scientists to brainstorm solutions to the marketing problem Larry Page talked about. We will hear from people in policy, media, and academe about campaigns and outreach efforts that worked, issues that remain unresolved, and broader implications for Wisconsin and beyond.
- Log in to post comments
Much needed conference.
I was recently present in an office discussion of taboo subjects in the corporate workplace - religion and politics. The role of science came up, and all the common misconceptions were expressed:
1. Science is a belief system
2. To accept science you have to give up your belief in God, with its closely related perception that all scientists are atheists.
3. Science is too complex to understand so why bother?
The first two in particular strangle science in the public debate.
I know there's sympathy for had-core atheism around here, but the reality is that if you frame the science debate like this-
"I'm willing share some science with you but first you have to give up your religion in order to participate"
- the result is going to be to throw things back to the days to Galileo.
I'm just saying...
So this kind of work is badly needed.
DDDDD'OOHHHHHHHHHHHH....
Today being the 9th of August, and me living in Madison, this bites.
I'm putting together a study centered around this very issue- using a social cognitive neuroscience perspective, I will be looking at means by which the source of a science communication can enhance the believability of their message. Any thoughts? Too bad I missed this talk....