In an upcoming paper (pdf), science communications experts Matthew Nisbet and Dietram Scheufele argue that scientists must learn to better explain their research in ways that are relevant to different communities’ lives. Much like Hansen in his early years, scientists are wont to believe that the “facts will speak for themselves,” Nisbet and Scheufele argue. Thus, “when the relationship between science and society breaks down,” scientists often rush to blame public ignorance of science. In doing so, they ignore the “far stronger influences on opinion … such as ideology, partisanship, and religious identity.”
Nisbet and Scheufele acknowledge their critics, who have “argued that scientists should stick to research and let media relations officers and science writers worry about translating the implications of that research.” That would be the ideal situation in an ideal world, Nisbet and Scheufele concede. In reality, however, politicians and the public often seek scientists’ opinions on matters of policy and government—so scientists should know how to explain the import of their work and their knowledge effectively. They cannot, as Slouka put it, “keep to their reservation.”
Still, scientists must eschew anything that smacks of a “top-down persuasion campaign,” Nisbet and Scheufele warn. To “democratize science,” they must engage the public during the formative stages of research, so that the public doesn’t feel like anything is being foisted upon society. Nisbet and Scheufele advise using a variety of media platforms—blogs, online video, social media, new documentary genres, and storytelling techniques such as satire—to accomplish that goal. New forms of collaboration will also be necessary.
“Government agencies and private foundation should fund public television and radio organizations as community science information hubs,” they write. “These initiatives would partner with universities, museums, public libraries, and other local media outlets to share digital content that is interactive and user-focused.”
That might worry Slouka, who is leery of the sciences’ “symbiotic relationship with government, with industry, with our increasingly corporate institutions of higher learning.” Indeed, there is already some worry within the journalism community about groups like the National Science Foundation “underwriting” a variety of current media projects. A recent paper in Nature Biotechnology, on which Nisbet was co-author, acknowledged “the danger … of this type of public engagement emphasis becoming too conflated with marketing and public relations.”
In the upcoming paper, Nisbet and Scheufele make a point of reiterating that framing scientific communications in terms of people’s cultural, ideological, or religious concerns should never attempt to “sell” science to the public—only explain its relevance, good or bad. In fact, their call for a “more empirical understanding of how modern societies make sense of and participate in debates over science and merging technologies” resembles Slouka’s plea to “humanize” the educational systems. Gathering the data Nisbet and Scheufele are looking for would mean more work in the social scientists and humanities.
If it can save Rajendra Pachauri or any other scientist from repeating the ridiculous bifurcation ritual, it’s certainly worth a shot. After all, if he has to humanize in order to state his mind, does he have de-humanize in order to lead the IPCC? That would be sad.
Important topic. May i suggest a direction for further exploration?
From the article on "Post-Normal Science" at the Encyclopedia of Earth:
"There are now many initiatives, increasing in number and significance all the time, for involving wider circles of people in decision-making and implementation on health and environmental issues. The contribution of all the stakeholders in cases of PNS is not merely a matter of broader democratic participation. For these new problems are in many ways different from those of research science, professional practice, or industrial development. Each of those has established its own means for quality-assurance (peer review, professional associations, or the market) for the products of the work. But for these new problems, the maintenance of quality depends on open dialogue between all those affected. This we call an ‘extended peer community’, consisting not merely of persons with some form or other of institutional accreditation, but rather of all those with a desire to participate in the resolution of the issue. ... Extended peer communities are already being created, in increasing numbers, either when the authorities cannot see a way forward, or when they know that without a broad base of consensus, no policy can succeed. They are called ‘citizens’ 'juries’, ‘focus groups’, ‘consensus conferences’, or any one of a great variety of other names."
#1 Posted by Howard Silverman, CJR on Mon 31 Aug 2009 at 12:06 PM
1. I'm going to go ahead and guess that Pachauri meant "as a private citizen," but I guess that wouldn't make for as juicy an article.
There's nothing really odd about people distinguishing between statements they make on behalf of an organization to which they belong and statements they make as private individuals. Especially if the individual is making claims about goals, and the organization in question is not in the habit of setting goals.
It's not up to the IPCC to decide how much hell and high water we should be willing to risk. Individuals and their elected representatives have to set these goals, based on the information provided to them by experts (we say what risk we are willing to assume, and the experts tell us how much more, or less, acidification and radiative forcing this is consistent with, to the best of their estimates). That's what Pachauri meant when he said the IPCC doesn't make recommendations.
Pacharui did NOT perform a "ridiculous bifurcation ritual." Someone else may have, though.
2. "The IPCC says that a higher concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide—450 parts per million—is safe." Source for this claim, please.
#2 Posted by Paulina, CJR on Mon 31 Aug 2009 at 11:24 PM
That might worry Slouka, who is leery of the sciences’ “symbiotic relationship with government, with industry, with our increasingly corporate institutions of higher learning.”
Everybody is beholden to whoever writes their paychecks in this sense. The arts and humanities are often beholden to a smaller range of funding sources with a heavy emphasis on goverment grants, which is more dangerous than the broad mix of private and public funding sources that go into science. Just recently, the NEA started an initiative to encourage artists engaging issues that are part of the administration's policy priorities.
If you're getting paid, you're conciously or not serving somebody's objectives, since if not they wouldn't be paying you. And if you're not, you're just serving your own. Science is if anything more resistant to these pressures due to it's emphasis on empirically verifiable facts.
#3 Posted by MattXIV, CJR on Tue 1 Sep 2009 at 03:49 PM
Science and math rule the school? Really? Then why are the students in my math class so incompetent and unmotivated?
#4 Posted by surlybastard, CJR on Wed 2 Sep 2009 at 09:46 AM
I'm a science and medical writer and the father of a fifth grader in a public elementary school. I see two problems. First, because of NCLB testing, there is far too much emphasis in schools on reading and math at the expense of everything else, including science. My daughter gets all of two science periods a week, and that's an upgrade from last year.
Second, given all the major, critical issues facing the U.S. and the rest of the world that are connected to science (from climate change to health care reform to energy policy), you'd think a better understanding of the subject matter might improve the quality of what is laughably called "debate" in this country.
We don't need less science. We need more science and, while we're at it, more history and more geography and more foreign language and more literature to help make sense of it all.
#5 Posted by Aaron, CJR on Wed 2 Sep 2009 at 03:18 PM
The world desperately needs more English professors, such as Skouka, applying their literary & humanistic genius to politics & global heating.
Slouka knows about all the perils of democracy without lit crit, social science w/o denouement, & fiction writing without mandatory Freudian reflection.
Slouka studied at Columbia & toiled long & hard to learn all about the literature of merrie England, including Chaucer's farting Wife of Bath, Gamma Gerton's needle, metaphor, metawhatevers, & aporias.
It follows as the night the day then that Slouka has style & is qualified & credentialed to pass judgment on everything & anything - including the science that he never learned as he developed his literary style.
#6 Posted by gerald spezio, CJR on Sat 5 Sep 2009 at 08:53 AM
I agree with Paulina: Pachauri played down his personal opinion not because it conflicted with Science but because it conflicted with his official IPCC job, where his role is to study and report on climate, not to figure out how to respond to climatic changes. Many climatologists who don't serve in official functions like his feel entirely free to make policy prescriptions, while many non-scientists in official capacities (judges, teachers, regulators, etc) would also avoid making certain judgments because it would conflict with their roles.
#7 Posted by Amos Zeeberg, CJR on Thu 10 Sep 2009 at 06:15 PM
There is another approach to all this. An emerging movement sees science, itself - at least evolutionary science - as sacred and instructive. In its view of evolution, it encompasses cosmology, astrophysics, geology, physics, chemistry, biology, ecology, archaeology, anthropology, and even history, politics, sociology, and economics -- all of which cover different levels of evolving complexity in our 13.7 billion year journey to the point where we now are. It celebrates discoveries of this "deep time" evolutionary vista, its theories, its practices, the stories it paints of the world and who we are in it -- as sacred and instructive. See, for a paradigmatic example, Michael Dowd's THANK GOD FOR EVOLUTION http://thankgodforevolution.com which is endorsed by a number of Nobel scientists, among many others. Evolution is, after all, about energy and matter, about chaos and complex order, about survival and thrival, about self-interest and future generations, about change and sustainability. The dynamics through which evolution unfolds -- and it turns out there is at least as much cooperation as competition at work -- have much to tell us about our own survival and thrival, our own efforts to integrate the self-interest of individuals, groups, and corporate bodies with the common good. This is the core of ethics. Consider, too, the scientific fact that we are children of first-generation stars whose potent lives and explosive deaths produced every atom that built us and our world ("we are made of stardust") -- except for hydrogen, which precipitated out of the Big Bang, the most fundamental creative act of all time. There are ways to teach and do science that are deeply meaningful and morally useful without endangering in any way its precious objectivity, only its alienation. We need more science that is humanized and more humanities that are congruent with science. Prior to the 20th century we did not know enough to do this. Now we do. This is a marriage that could make all the difference in the world, quite literally.
#8 Posted by Tom Atlee, CJR on Fri 18 Sep 2009 at 09:28 AM
I strictly recommend not to wait until you get enough amount of cash to buy goods! You should take the loans or just consolidation loans and feel yourself comfortable
#9 Posted by HeatherGILLIAM, CJR on Thu 22 Jul 2010 at 09:36 PM