A bit over a month ago, "framing" was the hot argument in these parts (see here, here, and here, and links therein), with zillions of comments about how difficult it was to understand what Mooney and Nisbet were advocating. Today, Matt Nisbet appears to endorse a suggestion made in a letter to Science, namely that graduate schools should offer formal instruction in science communication. Somewhat weirdly, this hasn't generated any comments at all.
Their suggestions are pretty clear and concrete:
From this experience, we strongly encourage other graduate programs to implement science communication training. We have three key pieces of advice based on our effort that we hope will help others in their course development:
First, involve people from multiple fields across your college or university. In particular, we highly recommend involving staff from the press relations office. [...]
Second, visit a news room (radio, print, or television) and talk to reporters--not just science reporters, but reporters in all fields. Ask to sit in on a meeting where reporters and editors pitch stories to each other. [...]
Third, get hands-on experience communicating science as part of the class. Do not just set up a series of lectures and field trips: write press releases, write articles, conduct interviews, get interviewed, create a Web page, and set up a science blog. [...]
(I've edited out most of the explanations-- go to Matt's site or the Science, and read the whole thing.)
In principle, this is all excellent advice. If the goal is to learn how to communicate science, the best way to do it is to talk to the people who actually do that sort of thing, which means university press offices and science journalists. And, really, the very best way to learn to communicate with the public is to talk to people who aren't scientists themselves-- one of the most important steps in the writing of the grants I've had funded was having Kate read the proposal over. Not just because she caught all my many grammar and spelling errors, but because she provided a very useful perspective as someone who wasn't already intimately familiar with all the jargon of my field.
At the same time, though, those first two suggestions make me a little nervous. The tiny bit I know about the world of journalism makes me think that a lot of scientists are really much happier not knowing how news gets made...
- Log in to post comments
a lot of scientists are really much happier not knowing how news gets made
It may also be that this ignorance leads them to report their science more accurately too.
If researchers are less aware of the sensationalism that pervades our media, they may be less inclined to make questionable claims that get them free press. ("This discovery may cure cancer!" "This may prove string theory!" etc) When writing for a science audience, one generally favors more qualified claims ("This discovery is a small step towards understanding the pathogenesis of cancer")
In essence, making these kinds of big claims is trading the respect of your peers for the respect of the press and the general public. It probably happens more often than it should.
Not quite what Matt Nesbit is talking about but there's a course at UW-Madison that does something like this: http://www.delta.wisc.edu/Courses/InformalEd/IE.html.
I took a version of this class several years ago and it was very helpful for trying to detect what level to pitch things at when you're talking to a non-scientist.
The tiny bit I know about the world of journalism makes me think that a lot of scientists are really much happier not knowing how news gets made...
A similar line of reason explains why I want to know as little as possible about politics, and about how the legal system really works....
-Rob
The tiny bit I know about the world of journalism makes me think that a lot of scientists are really much happier not knowing how news gets made...
A lot of people in general are probably much happier not knowing how the news gets made...
Which, in my humble opinion, is part of the problem with how the news gets made. Like you, I have a bit of knowledge about journalism, and seeing how easily the news media can botch even simple stories makes my skin crawl. I'd like to think that if more people knew what was wrong with the news process, more people would demand that the news process be fixed.
I doubt focusing on training research scientists to communicate is the right focus. Ask yourself, would that have helped in past areas of extensive fraud and deception?
Seems to me it's a mistake to accept the "two sides, debate, let the public decide" frame. That frame's crafted by the lawyers and PR firms for the industries, and they're very good at it. Once the science starts revealing that the industry's using its standard tactics to obfuscate, that's the smoking gun right there. Investigate _that_. Get PhDs in the study of the tactics working on it.
Look at the work done by Stanton Glantz at UCSF.
http://www.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/tcacoll.html
http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft8489p25j/
It's the hidden facts, revealed, that change public opinion, I think.
"... any subject from the basic science of addiction to the most hellish business practices the industry could dredge up."...
"The new research center, which will be headed by Glantz, will expand on the tobacco control research already under way by 18 faculty at UCSF by promoting further study of tobacco-related documents and training scholars in the field.
"Glantz said the center also would play a key role in educating community groups on the tobacco industry's advertising practices and aggressive marketing to children and minority groups.
"'People need to understand how to deal with that and how to counter it and how to ask the important questions, not just the easy ones,' he said.
"The $15 million award to UCSF is the largest ever by the American Legacy Foundation. ... a $10 million endowment for the Internet library.....
...
"Under the 1998 settlement agreement, tobacco companies must release any other documents arising from subsequent litigation. Such materials also will be added to the archive."
http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/Tobacco-Papers-UCSF-Website.htm
The climate archive is going to be a lot bigger, if we survive as a scientific culture long enough to assemble it.
Consider the history of the tobacco industry, the tetraethyl lead industry, or the lead paint industry, the asbestos industry, the pesticide industry, and no doubt more.
I'm not saying not to do what Mr. Mooney suggests -- but that it's not the big strong wedge that cracks these problems. Public opinion, until there's evidence of the deceit and intentional delay and confusion, will be weak.
"It's not the mistake, it's the coverup." In industry as in politics.
What could Rachel Carson have studied about presenting the science, that she didn't know?
What didn't these authors do that they should have done in 1962? in 1925?
Science 7 September 1962:
Vol. 137. no. 3532, pp. 765 - 766
DOI: 10.1126/science.137.3532.765
Contamination of Vegetation by Tetraethyl Lead
Helen L. Cannon 1 and Jessie M. Bowles
U. S. Geological Survey
"Tetraethyl lead is a normal constituent of vegetation growing along our highways. Washed grass near Denver contained 3000 ppm (in ash) near major intersections and > 50 ppm for 500 feet downwind. Vegetables grown within 25 feet of a road in upstate New York and western Maryland averaged 80 to 115 ppm."
What price safety, tetraethyl lead reveals a flaw in our defenses. A Hamilton - The Survey Mid-Monthly, 1925
Tetraethyl Lead Poison Hazards. T Midgley Jr - Industrial & Engineering Chemistry, 1925 pubs.acs.org
Does anybody remember the critical axiom from a bygone era?
" A good reporter tries to report the news; not make the news."
Now comes the two despicable framing yuppies telling the universe that only they know how how to PITCH the news. It's all about pitching, pitching, pitching. And you had better listen!
Long suffering Nisbet squandered his brain cells on post modern pooh and he wants everybody else to drink as deeply as he has. Mooney is a non-card carrying member of Garrison Keillor's Society of English majors.
Could either of these up-and-coming yuppies give us an acceptable scientific statement of the inverse square law? They sure can create issues where no issues exist!