On April 6, 2007, my good friend Matthew Nisbet and I published a policy forum article in the journal Science. A week later, we followed up with a somewhat longer commentary in the Sunday edition of The Washington Post. In both articles, we argued that scientists, while always remaining true to the science, should "frame" issues and topics in ways that make them personally relevant to broader audiences.
The response was overwhelming. There was some controversy; there were also many endorsements.
Most of all, there were many calls, from bloggers and other commentators, for us to expand upon our arguments, and elaborate on our suggestions. In other words, a road map--and a way forward.
Now we're doing so.
Even before the publication of our Science and Washington Post commentaries, Matt and I were asked to do a number of joint talks in various cities. As attention grew, we decided to step it up a notch and put together a national speaking tour.
So we're now pleased to announce our talk: "Speaking Science 2.0: The Road to 2008 and Beyond." With it comes this website, which includes much additional information: Upcoming Events, Previous Speeches (available as Powerpoints, Audio, or Video), Articles, Media Coverage, and Further Resources.
The first of our presentations will be on May 10, 2007, a public lecture at the distinguished Stowers Institute for Medical Research in Kansas City. (Details here.)
But of course, "lecture" is kind of a stuffy word...that's not what this is all about. We're hitting the road to (we hope) spark a national conversation about science communication. We're convinced that there couldn't be a more critical time for questioning old assumptions and trying out new ideas in this area. As our talk synopsis puts it:
Innovative strategies for public engagement could not be more urgent: Science will figure, as never before, in the 2008 presidential campaign and beyond. Scientific "facts" will increasingly be pulled into fraught political contexts, and bent and twisted in myriad ways. This political environment can seem perplexing to scientists, but it's one to which they must adapt if they want their hard-won knowledge to play its necessary role in shaping the future of our nation.
So let the conversation begin. We hope to see you soon.
- Log in to post comments
Saw you guys in Kansas City yesterday. Sure, you made sense, but in the face of the provocations launched by the likes of Dawkins, Harris (is he even a scientist?)and science blogs own PZ Myers (apparently the most popular of those blogs) you certainly have an uphill battle.
Of course, those guys could say you are not scientists, so what do you know?
And, unfortunately, those guys are the ones the general public is familiar with.
Grady,
Thanks for coming to our talk. A question:
What's "general public"? For example, PZ Myers might have a large following among science enthusiasts who read blogs, but that's a very small slice of America.
Richard Dawkins is surely much better known, but even his book-reading audience is tiny in comparison with the general American population. Most Americans who hear of Dawkins will do so not by reading his book or studying his arguments but through the media--and that's precisely our point. In this context Dawkins' message will get reduced to the conflict frame, focused on "science versus religion." That in turn will be a turn-off to much of the public--a public that will never even engage with Dawkins' arguments as they are conveyed in written form.
PS: Matthew Nisbet is a scientist--a social scientist. Our presentation contained an abundance of data on media coverage patterns and on public opinion.