Framing Science

Text of Remarks on "Re-Imagining University Science Media"

Wed, 19 May 2010 14:50:47 -0500

Tomorrow morning at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, I will be addressing the annual conference of the University Research Magazine Association. I have pasted the text of my prepared remarks below with relevant links embedded. I will post a follow up on Friday highlighting questions, comments, and reactions. Readers are strongly encouraged to weigh in with their own reactions.

As professional science communicators and journalists, you are living in an era of convergence between two major trends in society.
The first trend is a dominant focus of this conference: Technology, audience preferences and behaviors have dramatically altered the nature of journalism. The balance of control over media content and information has shifted from the journalist as the gatekeeper and producer to the people formerly known as sources, experts, and audiences who have emerged as active contributors, collaborators, users, creators, disseminators, recommenders, and at times, powerful critics of content.

In this new era of digital technology, traditional media forms such as the printed science magazine, I would argue, should now be considered as secondary products to the Web, which should offer a "mega-content plus" version of the magazine, constantly updated, archived, curated, interactive, sharable, transportable, collaborative with other media, and actively connected to face-to-face dialogue, participation, and learning.

In this digital era, replacing the traditional audience for science content are two important groups. The first are "science publics," these are highly motivated individuals, usually with personal or professional ties to a field of science, an area of research, or a policy debate such as climate change or stem cell research. These "science publics" deep dive into media content, consuming news and discussion of the science topic across media and platforms. They expect high standards and quality for content, and they expect that content be interactive and responsive to their feedback, reposting, forwarding, or commenting. From the perspective of the university or research institution, these are perhaps the most strategically important users of media content, since "science publics" typically constitute the influentials and decision-makers that shape the reputation, brand, funding, and regulation of scientific research.

The other group constitutes a broader, diverse mass public. These individuals may lack the motivation and/or ability to regularly take advantage of the many rich sources of science content online. Yet in moments of personal need--such as a health problem--or at times of a focusing event -such as the Gulf oil spill--they will turn to the Web to seek out specific information about the topic. At other times they may simply "bump" into science media while searching out other topics or using entertainment or political media. On other occasions, through digital and face-to-face networks they will follow recommendations to science content from friends or colleagues who as opinion-leaders are members of the active "science public." To the extent that universities and research institutions hold a broader philosophical and social commitment to public education and engagement, these users of science content also remain centrally important.

The second trend involves a continuing shift in how the public is viewed relative to societal decisions about science. For decades, science communication has been defined as a process of transmission, where technical facts, findings, and concepts are popularized and translated for audiences with the goal of improving "science literacy," a term I would argue respectfully is too often used as a slogan or a brand device rather than as a carefully defined concept that is translated and evaluated relative to specific outcomes. In this model, science was expected to be well understood and supported by the public, but free from public input or control.

The shift over the past decade has been away from a transmission and science literacy model to a view focused on public engagement, which means empowering, enabling, motivating, informing, and educating the public around not just the technical but also the political and social dimensions of science....but remembering what the public does with the acquired knowledge, motivation, skills, and resources and how they participate on the issue, is up to them.

In addition, unlike literacy which has a uni-directional connotation that blames a "knowledge deficient" public, engagement is as much about informing the public as it is about also informing experts, decision-makers, and as I will discuss more specific to science magazines, journalists. Communication is viewed as a two-way process where experts, decision-makers, and journalists seek input and learn from the public about preferences, needs, insights, ideas, policy options or in the case of journalism, what stories should be covered and what angles, dimensions, and voices emphasized.

From personal experience and many discussions that I have had, I know that these two trends introduce massive amounts of "control" anxiety for research institutions, scientists, and journalists alike. If citizens directly shaping the research agenda for biomedical or nanotechnology research is anxiety producing for scientists and administrators, journalists in the digital era face their own sources of concern.

When non-professionals are now active contributors of content, what role is there for professional news judgment and gathering? What issues are raised relative to journalism ethics, norms, standards of quality, accuracy, independence, and conflict of interest?

Read the rest of this post... | Read the comments on this post...

Re-Imagining the Future of University Research Magazines

Thu, 13 May 2010 10:23:25 -0500

Next week the Howard Hughes Medical Institute will be hosting the annual conference of the University Research Magazine Association (URMA). The association is comprised of editors and staffers at magazines that cover the research and scholarly activities of universities, nonprofit research centers, and institutes in the U.S., U.K., Canada, and Europe.

Depending on your field and professional background, you may or may not be familiar with publications such as Yale Medicine, UNC's Endeavors, the HHMI Bulletin, Florida State's Research in Review, and Arizona State's Research Stories and magazine for kids Chain Reaction.

The URMA conference this year takes a look at the future of these magazines, examining the transition to new online media tools and social media technologies, and strategies for engaging general audiences.

What do readers think? What should be the role and function of university research magazines in the new world of digital media? What are the stories that these magazines should tell and how can they expand their reach and value in a competitive media environment? How can the content of these magazines and their Web sites be integrated with other university-based communication, media, and community engagement efforts?

These are some of the issues I will be addressing in a presentation on the second day of the conference. In preparing that presentation, I am interested in what readers think.

Read the comments on this post...

Reconsidering the Image of Scientists in Film & Television

Wed, 05 May 2010 14:35:54 -0500

Chiwetel Ejiofor as geologist Adrian Helmsley in last year's blockbuster 2012 is one of the many emerging "hero" images of scientists in popular film and television.

In graduate school, I published with several colleagues a paper examining the portrayal of scientists in film and television and the relationship to audience perceptions. At last week's workshop on science and art in Alberta, I had the opportunity to return to this topic, one that remains much debated by commentators and scientists.

Contrary to conventional wisdom that entertainment media portray science and scientists in a negative light, research shows that across time, genre, and medium there is no single prevailing image and that both positive and negative images of scientists and science can be found. More recent research even suggests that in contemporary entertainment media, scientists are portrayed in an almost exclusively positive light and often as heroes.

Critics of the entertainment industry point as hard evidence of negative portrayals to a study from the early 1980s by former University of Pennsylvania communication researcher George Gerbner. The study showed that scientists in comparison to other occupations featured in primetime television suffer a higher ratio of negative stereotypes and are more likely to be victims of violence. Yet more recent research indicates a major shift in the image of scientists on the screen. In a 1998 unpublished report to the U.S. Department of Commerce, Gerbner and colleagues updated their analysis, concluding that based on data collected during the mid-1990s "there is no basis to claim that any kind of systematic negative portrayal of scientists exists. Changes have occurred in Hollywood since the time of our initial study, which found scientists to be typically evil, disturbed, sexually dysfunctional villains....this is no longer the case."

More recent analysis of TV content presented last year at a major communication conference confirms this trend towards an overwhelmingly positive image for scientists in prime-time television. Scientists--similar to their distribution as a profession among the population--still remain a rare character in the TV world, but when they are shown, they are almost exclusively shown in a positive light.

Over the past two decades, not only has the image of scientists in film and television shifted, so have the stereotypes held by audiences. A study published this month analyzing U.S. national survey data finds that in comparison to 1985, American adults in 2002 were far less likely to hold negative stereotypes about scientists and were much more likely to believe that a career in science was a desirable choice for their children or for themselves. (This is yet another study that challenges the "fall from grace" narrative about science in American society and the claims about a hostile public.)

Beyond these statistical indicators of the portrayal of scientists, what kinds of images have appeared over time and across genre? What image might be on the rise today? In the paper I published with colleagues in 2002, we highlighted several different clusters of images.

Scientists as Dr. Frankenstein: This image is one that scientists most frequently single out, portraying their profession as sinister, socially irresponsible, evil and violent, and ultimately headed for failure and demise by the end of the plot. Examples of this image include Gregory Peck as Dr. Mengele in Boys from Brazil, Marlon Brando as Dr. Moreau in The Island of Dr. Moreau, and Jeff Goldblum as the scientist in The Fly.
Scientists as powerless pawns: In this image, scientists are shown as easily manipulated or dominated and as pawns doing dirty work for big business, the military or a master evil figure. Examples include Robert Duvall as Dr. Griffin Weir in the 6th Day and several of the scientists in Jurassic Park who work for Richard Attenborough's character John Hammond, CEO of InGen.

Scientists as eccentric and anti-social geeks: In this image, scientists are so dedicated that they spend most of day at work, they deviate from norm in dress and looks, and have few families, friends, or romantic interests, and are generally socially awkward. Examples of this image include Christopher Loyd as Doc in Back to the Future, the nerdy boys in John Hughes 1985 film Weird Science who use science to create the perfect woman, and Val Kilmer and his fellow grad students in the 1985 film Real Genius who serve as graduate students to a professor who is determined to master a Star Wars-like satellite technology.

Scientists as Hero: In this image, scientists take on the lead role as action hero and protagonist, often also serving as the voice and force for ethical decisions and virtue. Examples include Dr. Alan Grant as the main protagonist in Jurassic Park, Spock in the new version of Star Trek who takes on leading man and action hero qualities to rival Captain Kirk, Jody Foster's character in Contact, Sigourney Weaver's character in Avatar, Denis Quaid as the climate scientist hero in The Day After Tomorrow, Chiwetel Ejiofor as the geologist hero in 2012, Morgan Freeman in the Batman films as inventor Lucious Fox and CEO of Wayne Industries, and Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark in the Iron Man films.

What do readers think of this typology? Other examples or images to add?

Read the comments on this post...

Disciplines Exchange Ideas on Art, Controversy, & Science

Wed, 05 May 2010 13:28:15 -0500

Sculptor Marilene Oliver uses MRI, PET, and CT scanning to create her works.

Last week I traveled to the Canadian Rockies to participate in a unique workshop organized by the University at Alberta that focused on the shared perspectives and collaborations among artists, scientists, ethicists, and social scientists. The workshop was the second in a series organized by brothers Sean Caulfield and Timothy Caulfield, professors of Art and Law respectively at the University of Alberta.

In 2009, the first workshop resulted in the "Imagining Science" exhibit at the Art Gallery of Alberta and a book by the same title. The critically acclaimed initiative highlighted the emerging genre of "bio art," which Tim Caulfield in his contribution to the award-winning book describes as "a field of artistic inquiry that both utilizes the techniques of biotechnology and serves as a medium of reflection on the societal implications of the research."

As Catherine Crowston, Chief Curator of the Art Gallery of Alberta wrote in the preface to Imagining Science, artistic works "do not provide explanations of science itself. They do not provide explanations or justifications for sciences and its infinite areas of research and investigation. Instead they are reflections, critiques, musings and semblances. They are not about fact per se, but about experience, interpretation and contemplation. They engage us with the possibility of their ideas and images, and leave us to decide what we will learn from them.

Despite the important function of artists relative to science, there is an unfortunate tendency to think about this relationship in terms of "two cultures" divided. This metaphor has come to dominate discourse about science and society more generally. Yet at the workshop, between the artists and scientists gathered, I couldn't help but recognize the obvious parallels in outlook and professional practice.

Art and science as disciplines offer methods to understand and discover the world. Scientists and artists through their work are both challenged to communicate to others what they observe about nature or about society. To do so, each profession is trained in specific tools and methods, draw upon discipline-specific theory, engage in collaboration across professional networks, are publicly funded and supported, engage in both "basic" art or research or applied work (in the case of art, advertising or design), and are peer-reviewed or juried by other experts. Artists, like scientists, are also limited by natural laws particularly light and perspective, often deal with issues of privacy and the ethical use of subjects, and both groups are deeply concerned by the need for public understanding and appreciation for their profession.

In my own presentation last week at the workshop, I spotlighted the relationship between film and television portrayals of science and their influence on audiences. You can read some of my thoughts on the topic in this separate post.

The most recent workshop is intended to serve as the foundation for a forthcoming exhibit at the Glennbow Museum in Calgary, Alberta and a second book. I will blog details when they become available.

Read the comments on this post...

Earth Day's Untold Story: Climate Change & Human Health

Thu, 22 Apr 2010 11:32:18 -0500

A Federal inter-agency report released today reviews eleven key categories of diseases and other health consequences that are occurring or will occur due to climate change. The report, A Human Health Perspective on Climate Change, provides a starting point for coordination of federal research to better understand climate's impact on human health. The recommendations of the working group include research to identify who will be most vulnerable, and what efforts will be most beneficial.

Not only does this report call attention to objectively serious risks of climate change, but on Earth Day, it also represents an important re-framing of climate change away from being defined as an environmental problem to one that extends to human health. As I noted last year at the journal Environment, reframing climate change as a public health problem potentially makes the complex issue more personally relevant by drawing connections to already familiar problems such as asthma, allergies, and infectious disease, while shifting the visualization of the issue away from remote arctic regions, peoples, and animals to more socially proximate neighbors and places such as suburbs and cities. In the process, the new focus is inclusive of the need for not just mitigation but also adaptation actions, while also bringing additional trusted communication partners into the fold on climate change, notably public health officials and leaders from minority and low-income communities who are the most at risk and the most vulnerable.

The report is also an important step in generating greater news attention to climate change-related health impacts. In talking with journalists at national outlets, I have been surprised when they have expressed skepticism about the seriousness and newsworthiness of climate change-related health risks. Curious about this reaction, in a recently completed paper (PDF), I joined with several colleagues in analyzing trends in news coverage of the public health risks of climate change.

Even with plans by government agencies to invest in direct engagement strategies around the health risks of climate change, without adequate news coverage of these risks, communities and society-at-large will lack a central part of the information infrastructure needed to adapt and to respond. Consider that according to our analysis of news coverage at the leading agenda-setting newspapers the New York Times and Washington Post, mention of public health risks appear in fewer than 5% of climate change-related articles. You can read the analysis here. Below is an abstract:

In this study, we analyze two decades of U.S. newspaper coverage of climate change-related health threats, tracking the relative amount of coverage and the apparent drivers of attention at two national and four regional newspapers. Health impacts such as extreme heat, disease, and respiratory problems, and more vivid threats such as hurricanes, are mentioned in fewer than 5% and 10% of the climate change-related articles in national and regional papers, respectively. Most stories that mentioned health threats were in reaction to naturally occurring events such as heat waves or storms; we found few examples of enterprise or explanatory reporting. However, we did find evidence that basic news agenda-building strategies, especially when localized, do generate substantive reporting. These strategies included the release of regionally tailored studies; the sponsorship of regional meetings; and news conferences on the part of a public health-related coalition. Systematic investment in these strategies along with other recommended initiatives is likely to increase substantive news attention to various health threats associated with climate change, and thereby increase the capacity of communities to pursue mitigation and adaptation actions.

Read the comments on this post...

Paul Kurtz on the "Strategic Blunder" of the New Atheists

Tue, 20 Apr 2010 14:36:18 -0500

In 2007, I called attention to a Point of Inquiry interview with philosopher Paul Kurtz in which he expressed concern over the direction of the New Atheist movement while asserting the commonly shared values between secular humanists and many world religions. Kurtz at the time was not the only prominent humanist to voice such concern, as Philip Kitcher in a POI interview expressed dismay over the "unremittingly negative" rhetoric of New Atheist authors.

The interview was one of the first volleys in an ever louder critique by Kurtz of the New Atheist movement, affirmed earlier this month in his release of a new statement on secular humanist principles and values. Yesterday, the Buffalo News ran a feature offering more insight on Kurtz's criticism of the New Atheist movement.

The full article should be read, but below I have pasted a few key excerpts. This summer, I am hoping to return to this subject, elaborating on a blueprint for how secular humanists and the non-religious can engage with their local communities on commonly shared values and goals, promoting mutual learning and dialogue while improving the image of non-believers.

From the Buffalo News:

Kurtz worries that, even worse, the momentum he helped build toward a less faith-bound world is now overly focused on attacking religion, at the expense of other goals.
"It's become fixated in recent years on atheism, the criticism of religion," he said. "And I think that's a strategic blunder. Not just a strategic blunder, but a philosophical and ethical one, as well."

Don't misunderstand Kurtz, who hasn't had a change of heart in his advanced years. He has always viewed religions skeptically. "They were spawned during an agricultural, rural time," he said. "They don't apply to the modern world."

He still doesn't believe in a god or an afterlife, because "there's no evidence for that."

At the same time, he sees a place for believers in the broad spectrum of secular humanism -- in large part because, without them, any movement toward societies based on principles of humanism, rather than faith, will go nowhere.

"Let's say the atheists are successful, and religion continues to decline, so what do you have, a vacuum?" he said. "That's really the burning issue in America today: How shall I live? What should I strive for?"

[Note: A native of Buffalo, I worked at the Center for Inquiry between 1997-1999 before heading to graduate school. Lee Nisbet, quoted in the Buffalo News article, is my uncle.]

Read the comments on this post...

At the Media For Science Blog, European Journalists Reconsider University PR Strategies

Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:59:58 -0500

Organizers of the upcoming Science for Media Forum in Madrid, Spain have launched a blog as part of the build up to the event. In the first posts, several European-based journalists raise concerns about the increased financial pressures on news organizations that have reduced the amount and quality of science coverage. At the same time, there is concern about the resources spent on journalism in comparison to those spent on public relations, including the contributions to "science hype" from university-based communication initiatives.

In articles published with colleagues last year and in posts at this blog, I have raised similar concerns.

In particular, relative to the responsibilities and practices of research universities, given the severe pressures to the news industry, to what extent should the resources traditionally spent on media relations--or for example the production of a university research magazine--be better spent in collaborating with journalism schools and faculty on launching digital news communities that would cover issues of science, health, the environment, and technology that are relevant to the university's state, region or community and that actively engage local citizens as users, contributors, and co-creators of the news site? Similar to the model for public media in the U.S., these efforts could also be underwritten, for example, by biomedical or technology companies, with content shared with other local or regional news outlets. They can also be the organizing hub and digital complement to many of the innovations being applied in the design and use of face-to-face public forums and other engagement initiatives.

Below are a few highlights from the views posted so far at the blog for the Media for Science Forum. You can also check out the full agenda for the conference.

In one post, Finnish science journalist Vesa Niinikangas reflects on the economic pressures faced by science journalists in his country:

I asked recently some active members of the Finnish Association of Science Editors and Journalists (FASEJ) what they think about future of science journalism in Finland. They were rather optimistic. One said that there'll always be a need for good stories based on scientific facts. An ex-editor-in-chief of the largest popular science magazine said that science based stories are best entertainment. Another science journalist reminded me about shadows: in spite of good profits big media companies have fired about 100 experienced good journalists during last year - journalists specialized on science among them. Time schedules have become shorter and stories have to be published much more quickly than earlier. What follows is that there are more mistakes; texts and graphics are based on wrong or false data. Is it because of a lack of time to check the facts or is it because of a lack of good journalistic skills? Whatever the reason is columns of corrections grow longer. Finland has adapted US experiences in many ways after the World War II. Is the future of science journalism in Finland similar to the current situation in USA, too?

In another post, Elmar Veerman, a Danish journalist with VPRO, one of the public broadcast outlets in the Netherlands, considers the amount of money spent by universities and corporations on public relations, with each organization besieging journalists with attempts to boost their single study or product. Veerman wonders if the resources might be better spent as pooled money that would underwrite the efforts of independent science journalists:

That's no reason to complain, of course. I can choose what to do with all those offers. I mostly ignore them. But it seems such a waste of money. How much do universities, research foundations, medical centers and other producers of scientific results spend on science communication, all aimed at a small and diminishing group of science journalists? It seems harder and harder for them to get our attention. Surely they see the problem here too? Journalists are the bottleneck in the science communication chain, simply because there are so few of them. Or perhaps there are too many communicators. Wouldn't it be better if all those universities and institutions gave a small part of their communications budget to a fund that would pass it on to independent, skilled science journalists? That way, their press officers would have more people to sell their news to. And the public would get more science news, which would be more reliable too. What do you think?

In a third post, Vladmir de Semir, Director of the Science Communication Observatory at Pompeu Fabra University in Spain, offers similar concern about the resources spent on public relations efforts and in particular the embargo policy at scientific journals:

The constant stream of embargoed news releases distracts journalists from what they should be doing--namely, taking a more critical approach to their beat. The existence of this embargo-driven "pack journalism" should be antithetical to a group that usually resists any authority trying to influence what it does. It is strange that journalists acquiesce to the will of such powerful publishing organizations.[ii]
In the last World Conference of Science Journalists (WCSJ) held in London, June 2009, there was a panel turned to the embargo system. The conclusion for many was that embargoed science turns journalists into agents of propaganda and standardizes science news all over the world. Vincent Krienan advised to journalists: "It's time to walk away from the embargo. Just walk away."

Read the comments on this post...

Madrid Conference Examines Science and the Media in the Knowledge Society

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:22:40 -0500

For readers in Europe, on May 12 and 13, the Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology (FECYT) will be hosting in Madrid the Media For Science Forum 2010. The event is intended for science journalists, media officers, science communicators, and scientists and is co-organized by the European Union Science Journalists Association. Registration is free. Following the Forum, a report featuring conclusions about the state of science journalism and public engagement will be released with recommendations aimed at enhanced cooperation among journalists, science communicators, scientists, policymakers, and the public.

On the first day of the Forum, I will be participating as part of a round table discussion on "Public perception and participation in science." The full program for the Forum has been posted online. From the conference I also hope to be sharing a series of blog posts about the major themes discussed. The conference also plans an official blog as part of the event.

Read the comments on this post...

A Response to Science on the Decision to Not Include Evolution in the NSB Science Indicators Report

Thu, 08 Apr 2010 15:45:40 -0500

At Science today, contributing journalist Yudhijit Bhattacharjee reports on the decision by the National Science Board to drop discussion of survey questions about evolution from their 2010 Science Indicators report. As a reviewer of several previous versions of the report and as an expert who provided input and feedback on the design of the 2006 survey instrument, I have several thoughts on what I think Bhattacharjee in the article unfairly portrays as a "controversy."

The NSB is correct to be concerned about how these questions are interpreted by the public and by the scientific community, but by not including a discussion of these indicators in the report, the NSB missed an important opportunity to educate the science community about the nature of public opinion and the many social factors that shape public perceptions and understanding.

The NSB's decision was based on the accurate premise that the evolution question taps for the most part religious beliefs rather than factual knowledge. I've pointed to the validity issues surrounding this question in talks over the past few years including most recently in a lecture I gave last year at the National Academies (see discussion starting at 24 minute mark of video).

Consider what a split-ballot comparison in a 2004 University of Michigan survey revealed about the nature of responses to these long standing questions about evolution. In this survey experiment, one half of the sample was asked the following traditionally worded question:

True or false, human beings as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals.

When asked this way, 42% answered true, a result that has been incredibly consistent across surveys since 1985.

The other half of the sample, however, was asked a slightly different version of the question:

True or false, according to the theory of evolution, human beings as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals.

When asked this way, 74% answered true.

The implication is that context matters: Americans are not ignorant of what science says about human origins, in fact, as the second version of the question reveals, 3/4 of the public are familiar with the scientifically correct answer.

But when presented with the traditional version of the question, Americans are asked to choose between what they know to be the scientifically correct answer and their own religious beliefs. Therefore, as a direct measure of scientific knowledge, unlike the other items included in the scale measuring science literacy, the evolution item scores low in terms of validity.

As I wrote with my colleague Dietram Scheufele last year in a review article, the NSF Science Indicators reports have been used rhetorically by science advocates and pundits to reinforce a false deficit model about the public, one that decries widespread ignorance and that promotes a constant "science under siege" mentality. This outlook is distracting and harmful to public engagement.

It's also a myth. While Americans might score low on quiz like questions about technical areas of science, other questions reveal that Americans believe strongly in the promise of science and that scientists and their institutions hold almost unrivaled levels of public trust. Moreover, despite what many scientists and advocates might describe as an "enlightened" European public, the U.S. public scores as well if not better than many European publics when it comes to overall science literacy. The one indicator that falls below scores in other countries is the question about evolution. The NSB was therefore wise to be cautious about the reporting of this question.

Still, however, despite how the survey results have been misused and misinterpreted in the past, the NSB should have included a careful and detailed discussion of the evolution results in the chapter. I served as a reviewer on the 2006 and 2008 versions of the chapter but was not asked to review the 2010 version. My advice as a reviewer would have been to highlight in a call out box this problem with the survey question and in the process to emphasize that when it comes to public understanding of evolutionary science, the public is not ignorant, but instead divided in choosing an answer between what they know to be scientifically true and what they believe in terms of religious faith.

Including this type of context and explanation in the report would have gone a long way to improving the literacy of the science community, journalists, and policymakers about the complexities of science-society relations. This I hope will be a central goal of future chapters.

UPDATE: At the blog Thoughts from Kansas, Josh Rosenau, a staffer at the National Center for Science Education, and who is quoted in the Science article, links to a draft version of the chapter (PDF) that was uploaded at the Science web site.

Looking at the draft version, it does a very good job of explaining what I outlined above, adding to the Michigan survey by drawing on findings from Gallup. Why this section was deleted--given its value in shedding light on the complexity of survey response and public views on the issue--is not clear. Again, if I were a reviewer, I would have argued strongly for its inclusion, making it a highlight of the report. See specific text below:

Americans' responses to questions about evolution and the big bang appear to reflect factors beyond familiarity with basic elements of science. An experiment conducted in the 2004 Michigan Survey of Consumer Attitudes showed that respondents were more likely to answer these two questions correctly when the questions were prefaced by ―according to the theory of evolution or ―according to astronomers. These differences probably indicate that many Americans hold religious beliefs that cause them to be skeptical of established scientific ideas, even when they have some basic familiarity with those ideas (for additional details see NSB 2008).
Recent surveys conducted by the Gallup Organization provide similar evidence. A 2009 survey showed that more than half (55%) of Americans could correctly name evolution or another closely associated term, such as natural selection, when asked which scientific theory they associate with Charles Darwin. However, in a follow-up question, only 39% of Americans say they believe in the theory of evolution, 25% say they do not believe in this theory, and 36% do not have an opinion on this subject either way (Newport 2009).

Read the comments on this post...

Climate Scientists as Pastors and Skeptics as Peer-Reviewers?

Mon, 05 Apr 2010 11:08:30 -0500

Last week I called attention to the emerging "science audit" movement, a network of engaged citizens who combine their own professional expertise with online communication strategies to demand a greater level of transparency in scientific research and data.

Most prominent on climate change, this movement is likely to grow to include any issue where scientific evidence is claimed as the central criteria driving policy decision-making. Demands for a second-level of inclusive and participatory review of research in areas ranging from nanotechnology to biomedical research to vaccine safety are likely to be at the very center of future science debates.

On climate change, the shift towards greater transparency and public participation in the review of scientific findings is perhaps foreshadowed in last week's UK Parliamentary report on the CRU emails and also in an English-language version of a Der Spiegel feature article on the surrounding debate. That these arguments are appearing first in Europe and not the United States should be expected, given that Europe is ahead of the U.S. culturally in sponsoring active public participation in decision-making relative to science.

The UK Parliamentary report finds that CRU's response to requests for the release of raw data were in line with current practices in the climate science field. However, the report recommends that those practices should change to include full release of raw data and methodologies. Specifically, the report notes that "transparency and accountability are of increasing importance to the public, so we recommend that the Government reviews the rules for the accessibility of data sets collected and analysed with UK public money." The report also notes that the traditional process of peer-review is unlikely to be sufficient to satisfy growing public interest in transparency and accountability. As the report concludes:

...therefore consider that climate scientists should take steps to make available all the data used to generate their published work, including raw data; and it should also be made clear and referenced where data has been used but, because of commercial or national security reasons is not available. Scientists are also, under Freedom of Information laws and under the rules of normal scientific conduct, entitled to withhold data which is due to be published under the peer-review process. In addition, scientists should take steps to make available in full their methodological workings, including the computer codes. Data and methodological workings should be provided via the internet. There should be enough information published to allow\ verification.

The Der Spiegel article is wide-ranging and worth a full read. While organized around a conflict frame typical of political reporting, the article also provides substantive context on some of the disagreements among scientists over climate-related impacts such as those from hurricanes and sea level rise.

An additional central theme is the focus on maintaining public trust and confidence in climate science. On this, climate scientist Hans von Storch proposes the need for a virtual revolution in how citizens--including skeptics--are included in the review of scientific findings:

German climatologist Hans von Storch now wants to see an independent institution recalculate the temperature curve, and he even suggests that the skeptics be involved in the project. He points out, however, that processing the data will take several years.
"There is no other way to regain the trust that has been lost," he says, "even if I'm certain that the new curve will not look significantly different from the old one."

And if it does? "That would definitely be the worst-case scenario for climatology. We would have to start all over again."

Other central predictions of climatologists, such as that involving a noticeable rise in sea levels, would also have to be reevaluated. How high sea levels will go in the future is already a matter of debate.

One of the reasons why such unprecedented transparency is needed is the way that some scientists have used the scientific evidence to argue narrowly in favor of specific policies, in the process potentially exaggerating the certainty and even the risks of climate change. As von Storch describes later in the article:

Critics say that the climate impact researchers have gone too far with their brand of political advice. "The two-degree target has little to do with serious science," says Hans von Storch. Many of his fellow scientists, he adds, now see themselves too much as political activists who want to get something done. This, in turn, harms the credibility of science as a whole, he adds, and it is also a more deep-seated cause of the Climategate affair and the sloppy work on the IPCC report.
"Unfortunately, some of my colleagues behave like pastors, who present their results in precisely such a way that they'll fit to their sermons," says Storch. "It's certainly no coincidence that all the mistakes that became public always tended in the direction of exaggeration and alarmism."

Read the comments on this post...

AU Hires New Faculty in Science Journalism and Risk Communication

Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:47:54 -0500

This year the School of Communication at American University has hired leading junior faculty in the areas of science journalism and risk communication. The two new faculty, scheduled to move to Washington, DC in August, will contribute significantly to SOC's research capacity, professional initiatives, and teaching portfolio. Below with their permission, I have posted brief bios.

DECLAN FAHY

Declan Fahy joins the journalism faculty as a tenure-track assistant professor. He has reported extensively on science, health, and environmental issues, as well as many other topics, for the Irish Times, Irish Daily Mirror and Longford Leader newspapers. During his doctoral work in Communication at Dublin City University, his research has examined media representations of scientists, and he has undertaken research projects that analyzed media coverage of health policy, opinion and commentary journalism, business reporting, and the reporting of transnational political institutions, such as the European Union. His peer-reviewed research appears in a number of outlets including Science Communication, Public Understanding of Science, Health Promotion Practice, Journalism Studies, and Irish Communications Review.

Fahy's dissertation, titled "The Celebrity Scientists: A collective case study," examines how a group of well-known contemporary British scientists and popularisers are represented as famous figures, drawing on the rapidly expanding field of celebrity studies, as well as historiography of science and history of ideas. As specific case studies, Fahy examines Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins, James Lovelock and Susan Greenfield, identifying their shared characteristics with other types of celebrities, including their representation as unique individuals whose public and private lives merge, their marketed and promoted images as public intellectuals, and their public personas which embody abstract values, ideas and ideologies, such as scientism. Fahy has plans to publish his dissertation as a book and to pursue a second study of U.S. celebrity scientists.

Future research planned by Fahy will also explore how international health and environmental topics, such as viral pandemics, climate change, and nuclear power, are critical case studies for an emerging global journalism that reports the complex connections between scientific, economic, political and social issues in different parts of the world. Power in this new global journalism has been represented as being a mixture of national, international and global factors with political identities represented as crossing national and continental borders. This approach has been used most productively in the study of business journalism, but it provides a framework for the study of science journalism as well, particularly the news media communication strategies of large international health and environmental organisations, such as the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Apart from his research specialization, Fahy brings a varied teaching portfolio to American University. As an instructor during his doctoral work, Fahy developed courses in news reporting, journalism skills, specialist reporting, multimedia writing and science in the media, among others, for students majoring in journalism, multimedia, science communication, and public communication, as well as contributing course elements on science and the media to students majoring in biotechnology and environmental science. At AU, Fahy will be teaching a newly launched course in science, environmental, and health reporting while also coordinating the MA degree program in International Media.

In his previous work, Fahy also participated in the creation of communication teaching materials as part of the European Network of Science Communication Teachers (ENSCOT) and European Science Communication Network (ESConet) projects, both of which were funded by the European Commission. This work with ESConet involved the coordination of 17 partner institutions in 12 European countries and the training of more than 170 natural scientists in theories, concepts, research, and skills related to public engagement and communication. [An evaluation of this program was recently published at the journal Science Communication.]

SOL HART

Sol Hart joins the public communication faculty as a tenure-track assistant professor. A doctoral candidate in the Department of Communication at Cornell University, Hart specializes in risk communication related to environmental, science, and health issues. He is also currently a visiting scholar at Decision Research, an Oregon-based think tank for the study of risk perception, judgment, and decision making, and serves as a consultant for Family Health International. Before beginning his doctoral studies at Cornell, Hart worked with a number of environmental organizations to design effective outreach messages and initiatives. This experience sharpened his interest in conducting research that not only develops theory but also enhances the communication efforts of government agencies, non-profit organizations, and businesses. In addition to his doctoral work at Cornell, Hart holds an M.S. in Environmental Studies from the University of Oregon and a B.S. in Environmental Policy Analysis and Planning from the University of California-Davis

Hart's research investigates the psychological processes underlying effective risk communication, with the aim of understanding the role of the media in motivating and engaging the public around a variety of issues and how to create effective messages that can cross ideological divides and that resonate with broad sections of the public. He has studied communication processes related to climate change, AIDS prevention, poverty, and clinical health communication.

In his dissertation, Hart presents three studies that examine how message structures can significantly alter how the general public perceives and responds to climate change. The first study examines how the identity of potential victims of climate change as portrayed in news stories may affect the willingness of different segments of the public to address the issue. The second study looks at how the packaging of news portrayals of climate change around focusing events and personal stories versus a broader, more societal focus may affect individual behavior change and policy preferences. The final study examines how the presence or absence of statistics in a news story about climate change impacts public willingness to donate towards organizations working on the issue. The results of these studies are discussed with respect to future research directions and how science communicators may "nudge" individuals towards action to address climate change.

Hart's doctoral research is supported by the National Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Already, his research has been published in a number of peer reviewed journals, including Science Communication, Society and Natural Resources, Human Dimensions of Wildlife, Environmental Communication, and Communication Yearbook.

At American University, Hart will teach a range of undergraduate and graduate courses related to public communication including courses in campaign theory, research methods, communication and society, persuasion, and science and health communication.

Read the comments on this post...

The Climate Auditors: The End of Information Asymmetry?

Tue, 30 Mar 2010 11:15:30 -0500

Last month, Judith Curry had an important essay at Physics Today that deserves more attention than it has received.

Curry argues that unlike the industry-funded climate skeptic movement of the past, contemporary debate is driven by a new generation of blog-based "climate auditors" who merge their own professional expertise with online communication strategies to demand a greater level of transparency in climate science. Here's how Curry describes the movement:

So who are the climate auditors? They are technically educated people, mostly outside of academia. Several individuals have developed substantial expertise in aspects of climate science, although they mainly audit rather than produce original scientific research. They tend to be watchdogs rather than deniers; many of them classify themselves as "lukewarmers". They are independent of oil industry influence. They have found a collective voice in the blogosphere and their posts are often picked up by the mainstream media. They are demanding greater accountability and transparency of climate research and assessment reports.

In this sense, the blogosphere has reduced the information asymmetry of climate change communication.

In the past, scientists could expect strong deference and trust in the peer-review process and in the decisions of expert committee reports such as those from the IPCC. There were of course dismissive challenges from figures such as James Inhofe, but apart from the conservative base and elected officials, these objections to peer-reviewed science were never really taken seriously.

But in recent years, as advocates have argued that the peer-reviewed science is the principle reason to pass policies such as cap and trade legislation, climate auditors have responded by asking for a "second-level" of review, one that they would like to make open, accessible, and participatory to non-scientists via the Web.

Read the rest of this post... | Read the comments on this post...

Reactions to Slate Article on Climate War Diplomacy

Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:16:25 -0500

Not unexpectedly, the Slate article last week generated a range of reactions at blogs, on twitter, and in personal emails that I received. This topic is not going away and as I have more time over the coming weeks I will be returning to it.

Below is a brief run down of reactions.

Michael Zimmerman, Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Center on Humanities and the Arts at the University of Colorado, in an email posted with his permission:

The sharp Republican-Democrat polarization in climate and in much of the country in general demands efforts to "transcend the ideological divide," as you put it. To transcend the divide is possible only if one can fully understand, appreciate, and articulate why people of this or that political persuasion take the stands they do on climate change. The absolute necessity in successful negotiations is for people on both (or all three or whatever) sides to feel that--finally--someone on the other sides(s) has taken the time and made the effort to get why they are so concerned. Then, those people can begin to listen more carefully and thoughtfully to their opponents. Here grows the opportunity to include more than one perspective and set of concerns into policy formation. Those who rant against climate skeptics, on the one hand, or against elitist scientists, on the other, are not interested in understanding and transcending, but seek short term political gain that undermines problem solving. That some major climate scientists do not appreciate the need to transcend differences, by way of appreciating them, is behind the circling-the-wagon mentality that you describe. Of course, it's tough to be inclusive and statesmanlike when you feel under serious attack.

Journalist Bud Ward at the Yale Forum on Climate Change & the Media:

A voice of reason emerges in the ongoing and escalating "war rhetoric" over the past several months' leaked e-mails, IPCC Himalayan glaciers blunder, screaming headlines, blustery blogs, and enflamed cable TV rhetoric....Nisbet's brief column ought to be mandatory reading for all climate scientists concerned about the fraying around the edges of the body of work amassed over the past 20 years by IPCC.

Journalist Charlie Petit at the MIT Knight Science Journalism Tracker:

Chris Mooney and Matt Nisbet are easily linked in the mind, having for awhile joined forces in a touring two-man panel discussing public perception of science, scientific perception of the public, media sandwiched in between, and global warming politics. Both happen recently to have independently popped up with direct connection to the bloggy, angry public discussion over whether or not traditional academic climatology has somehow become so infected with arrogance, sloppiness, data distortion, or lefty hidden-agendaitis that therefore industrial society should happily burn all the coal it can without guilt, caps, taxes, or trade embargoes. Paying attention to their latest provides reporters on energy and climate beats a better idea how to report news in such an acid atmosphere.

Albuquerque Journal science reporter John Fleck at his blog:

Matthew Nisbet, in Slate today, gives thoughtful voice to my growing frustration with the way my friends in the science community have been approaching the climate politics and policy discussion of late...My frustration is that some of the smartest and most talented people in this discussion seem obsessed with the warfare right now, with smacking down every thing said on the Internet that they view as wrong, as if a) they could somehow succeed in ending bunk, and b) if all bunk ended, then their preferred political/policy solutions would follow.

Roger Pielke, Jr., Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado, at his blog:

I differ a bit from Nisbet in his prescription -- he thinks scientists should work to engage the public and opinion leaders. In contrast, I think scientists need to demonstrate leadership by helping to open up space for a wide-ranging discussion of policy options among specialists, rather than enabling a small clique of activists to try to shut down any such discussion in the name of science. These views are not mutually exclusive, of course. However, any public engagement is futile from a policy perspective without viable policy options on the table. And tight now climate policy lacks viable options.

Read the comments on this post...

Grist: Connecting Climate Change and Health Care Reform

Mon, 22 Mar 2010 10:07:32 -0500

Last week I did an extended Q & A interview with Grist magazine about strategies for connecting climate change to the ongoing health care debate. Below is just one of several exchanges likely of interest to readers. My views are informed in part by research I am currently doing in collaboration with Edward Maibach at George Mason University and funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Health Policy Investigators' program.

The one thing that I would add to the transcript featured is that any communication about the health impacts of climate change needs to be consistent with the scientific research in the area. To claim direct connections between climate change and cancer, for example, goes beyond the existing literature that I am familiar with and risks public trust.

Q. You write about "framing" the scientific discussion, putting scientific findings in a more understandable and personally relevant context. If you were a paid media consultant advising the climate science community, how would you suggest they take advantage of the current attention on healthcare reform to re-frame the debate and advance their cause for action on climate change? Who should they be talking to? What should they be saying? And how should they be saying it?

A. Right now there isn't an easy answer. There hasn't been enough specific work done on connecting climate change to public health or healthcare reform. The first recommendation is that accomplishing that goal will take a lot of resources, because there's so much competing noise around the healthcare debate and around climate change generally. Resources first need to be spent on careful audience research and message development around climate change and public health. [Nisbet is studying just that.]

Some of the general principles would be to first understand the segment of the public who are very concerned about healthcare reform but also ambivalent about climate change. That could be a number of different groups: it could be non-college educated suburban mothers who are concerned about health insurance for their families; it could be minority mothers living in urban areas, who are concerned about health access for their kids and also asthma, allergies and respiratory problems that their kids face; it could be people primarily concerned about the long-term cost of health insurance -- male independents, who have more of a fiscal conservative orientation, who haven't dismissed climate change but don't see it as a leading priority.

Then the strategy would be to come up with a message design that connects the dots for those groups who are already sensitive to the healthcare debate, but not necessarily concerned about climate change. [You'd want] to push this group of people into the coalition of groups around climate change by way of the health insurance debate. The key there is to identify the information sources they use (news outlets, entertainment media, etc.), and design a message that isn't too focused on climate change as a problem, but rather the actions on climate change need to be talked about in terms of their clear, tangible benefits to health and healthcare cost.

Read the comments on this post...

At Slate, A Need for Diplomacy in the Climate Wars

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:28:43 -0500

I have an article at Slate magazine today that ties together and elaborates on some of the themes explored at this blog over the past several weeks. Below is the lede to the full article. No doubt, the article will generate a good amount of discussion which I will highlight in follow up posts. I will also highlight specific comments made over at Slate.

Chill Out: Climate scientists are getting a little too angry for their own good.

By Matthew C. Nisbet

As Congress continues to struggle its way toward new energy legislation, climate scientists are getting a little hot. A series of major attacks from the global-warming skeptics--including last year's Climategate affair and unfair accusations stemming from the subsequent discovery of errors in the latest IPCC report--have left those in the research community understandably angry. Having spent eight years calling attention to the politicization of climate science by the Bush administration, they now find themselves on the other end of the same allegations. Whatever raw emotions this reversal might produce were on display a couple of weeks ago in yet another series of leaked e-mails: This time, members of the prestigious National Academies complained to one another about the "neo-McCarthyism" of the climate skeptics and lamented that "science is getting creamed with no effective response." One researcher called for "a relentless rain of science and scientific dialog on the incredible, destructive demagoguery." Another participant urged an "aggressively partisan approach."

The latest batch of e-mails reflects a bunker mentality among climate scientists, forged during the Bush administration and reinforced by the recent attacks on their credibility. Despite the promise of an Obama presidency, many now see themselves losing a "war" against "anti-science" forces allied with energy companies and the Republican Party. Meanwhile, scientists have been urged by liberal strategists and commentators to "fight back"--by forming their own political action committees and openly supporting "pro-science" candidates, among other things.

But urgent calls to escalate the war against climate skeptics may lead scientists and their organizations into a dangerous trap, fueling further political disagreement while risking public trust in science. A major transformation is needed in how scientists and their organizations engage the public and policymakers. The new direction is not to become more political and confrontational on the national stage, but to seek opportunities for greater public interaction, dialogue, and partnerships in communities across the country.

Read the comments on this post...