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.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Over at the Intersection, Chris generated a discussion of what issues might be the next big science policy debates. I'd like to turn the question in a slightly different direction and solicit reader opinion:
In the coming decades, what are the next great framing controversies?
In my research…
Appearing as the cover story for the October issue of The Scientist, I've teamed up with my colleague Dietram Scheufele to pen a 4,000 word feature that expands on the Framing Science thesis previously introduced in short articles at Science and the Washington Post.
There's a great deal of context…
For those in the DC area, tomorrow I will be giving the following presentation at AAAS HQ as part of the Science Policy Alliance speaker series. Breakfast is at 730 and the talk kick-offs at 815. I'm told about 180 people have RSVPed. I hope some readers can make it!
In the presentation, I…
Over the past year, I've done well over two dozen talks, with Matthew Nisbet, about science communication. And now we're taking it to the next level.
Next week at CalTech, we're unveiling a two-part affair: Our lecture (entitled "Speaking Science 2.0") followed by an all day "Speaking Science" boot…
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.
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."
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.