Denialism.com

Friday, April 6, 2007

Framing science

I'm going to delay publishing my Unified Theory of Cranks in order to discuss Chris Mooney and Matthew Nisbet's article in Science Framing Science. It's an interesting article about how scientists need to do more than just harp on the technical aspects of a theory in order to encourage belief in the lay populace. Instead, scientists need to focus or "frame" the science in a way that is emotionally appealing or more likely to sway the populace through self-interest.

Issues at the intersection of science and politics, such as climate change, evolution, and embryonic stem cell research, receive considerable public attention, which is likely to grow, especially in the United States as the 2008 presidential election heats up. Without misrepresenting scientific information on highly contested issues, scientists must learn to actively "frame" information to make it relevant to different audiences. Some in the scientific community have been receptive to this message (1). However, many scientists retain the well-intentioned belief that, if laypeople better understood technical complexities from news coverage, their viewpoints would be more like scientists', and controversy would subside.

...

Frames organize central ideas, defining a controversy to resonate with core values and assumptions. Frames pare down complex issues by giving some aspects greater emphasis. They allow citizens to rapidly identify why an issue matters, who might be responsible, and what should be done (4, 5).
Consider global climate change. With its successive assessment reports summarizing the scientific literature, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has steadily increased its confidence that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming. So if science alone drove public responses, we would expect increasing public confidence in the validity of the science, and decreasing political gridlock.
...
Recently, a coalition of Evangelical leaders have adopted a different strategy, framing the problem of climate change as a matter of religious morality. The business pages tout the economic opportunities from developing innovative technologies for climate change. Complaints about the Bush Administration's interference with communication of climate science have led to a "public accountability" frame that has helped move the issue away from uncertainty to political wrongdoing.
As another example, the scientific theory of evolution has been accepted within the research community for decades. Yet as a debate over "intelligent design" was launched, antievolutionists promoted "scientific uncertainty" and "teach-the-controversy" frames, which scientists countered with science-intensive responses. However, much of the public likely tunes out these technical messages. Instead, frames of "public accountability" that focus on the misuse of tax dollars, "economic development" that highlight the negative repercussions for communities embroiled in evolution battles, and "social progress" that define evolution as a building block for medical advances, are likely to engage broader support.
...
On the embryonic stem cell issue, by comparison, patient advocates have delivered a focused message to the public, using "social progress" and "economic competitiveness" frames to argue that the research offers hope for millions of Americans. These messages have helped to drive up public support for funding between 2001 and 2005 (9, 10). However, opponents of increased government funding continue to frame the debate around the moral implications of research, arguing that scientists are "playing God" and destroying human life. Ideology and religion can screen out even dominant positive narratives about science, and reaching some segments of the public will remain a challenge (11).
Some readers may consider our proposals too Orwellian, preferring to safely stick to the facts. Yet scientists must realize that facts will be repeatedly misapplied and twisted in direct proportion to their relevance to the political debate and decision-making. In short, as unnatural as it might feel, in many cases, scientists should strategically avoid emphasizing the technical details of science when trying to defend it.

Mooney and Nisbet have an interesting point and I tend to agree with it. From my perspective, of identifying and defusing denialism, the technical aspects of the science under discussion are largely irrelevant. After all, your opponents are not interested in data, or legitimate debate, rather they are interested in sowing confusion and creating enough doubt that "controversy" may be used as an excuse to spread their bankrupt ideas. The science that denialists attack is settled, there is no controversy other than that they can falsely generate, and they don't come to the table as honest brokers with real data. Further, most people are not equipped to identify and dismiss denialist arguments, these arguments wouldn't be so widely used if they weren't effective, and there is a great deal of evidence that shows that the scientific content of an argument is largely irrelevant.

So, we are left with the question. Other than identifying and raising awareness of denialist tactics, how does one go about framing science in such a way that denialist arguments are less likely to sway the general population? In evolution I think the answer is clear, "by their fruits you shall know them." All that the DI and ID movements have accomplished for school boards trying to insert their neo-Paleyist creationism into their curricula is waste of taxpayer dollars, pointless acrimony, and ultimately fiscal ruin. With global warming I think Clinton was the real master of framing. Global warming isn't an economic crisis but an economic opportunity. Let the United States become an industrial and economic leader again by providing clean technologies to the world.

Mooney and Nisbet are talking about something that's existed for quite a while and has been used to great effect by (mostly) conservative and some liberal politicians. The reason this is so great is that finally, someone is taking this discussion directly to the scientists so they may start thinking this way.

Labels: general discussion

5 Comments:

Ted said...

That's actually quite interesting and dear to me: The intersection of science to public policy.

From what I read, Mooney seems to be on the right track in several aspects:

1. How to appeal to the public by bypassing established public policy workers that are owned by special interests, and

2. To use technology of reformist politics (Dean and Obama) to bypass the public policy establishment.

I didn't read the whole thing because it appears to be behind a paywall, but with regards to framing, it is very important to lead (as in The Art of Leadership) as opposed to pontificate and to arrogantly condescend as is the nature of self-absorbed academics with little in common to their perceived troglodytes (which hold the votes).

Mind you, I like scientists, but they are insufferable in their approach to the average person -- usually preferring well-established fisk or the condescending takedown to leadership.

As I read it, Mooney has it right -- there is a difference between spin and framing; when framing, the lexicon needs to flow smoothly and naturally. Will that be possible? Well, we'll see.

April 7, 2007 8:21 AM,

Mark said...

Who shall our fearless leaders be though ted?

Science also tends to be very decentralized and non-confrontational. Is the NAS going to start attacking the Bush administrations? The UCS does an ok job, but isn't highly listened to either because people rapidly dismiss them as being politically motivated. It's a bit of catch-22. Show leadership by entering the political arena, and you are dismissed because science isn't political. Try to stay above the fray and you lose all control of the debate.

I don't think leadership is really possible in such a context. We're too fragmented and we don't seem able to enter a debate without being chastized. What we really need are good communicators like Sagan, but our current communicators talk to much about atheism to lead on science. I don't think Sagan and such represent leadership so much as they represented popularizers of science, and saying "billions and billions" was far more effective than any technical detail in getting astrophysics across (even if he never really said it like that)

April 9, 2007 11:37 AM,

Ted said...

Who shall our fearless leaders be though ted?

Gee guys, I thought that in a sense, you were...

I'm not speaking of a specific leader, but of the spirit of leadership -- that is selfless and giving, despite odds that it will be unappreciated. Results take time, and many futile attempts.

Let's just for a moment assume military leadership (as I'm led to believe exists -- in theory).

A situation where one turns to less educated subordinates and imbues in them a willingness to die so that subprime lenders back home will have the continued freedom to make money off the poor and uneducated. That type of leadership might actually get you the desired results. Unfortunately, it's part and parcel of shared suffering and shared experience. The framing of that message starts waaay before.

Reminds me of officers that say, "Make them respect me!". Uhh, ok. Sure. The rank ought to be enough for them to respect you, right?

WRT science leadership, I think that currently, Gore stands out. Scientific enough to appeal to the science nerds, yet plainspoken enough to appeal to the interested lay person. Not a scientist, but certainly a public policy person that retains some of the science education that was received (unlike Inhofe or Stevens for example). And certainly someone capable of intersecting science to public policy.

You say science NOT confrontational? I must have PZ, et al. confused with some passive peaceniks.

...but our current communicators talk to much about atheism to lead on science....

Like I said, it's easier -- and from what I observe, preferred -- to fisk and to takedown. It gives the immediate rush, but when accumulated exposes the tasteless pablum for what it is. Mental junk food with empty calories.

Many of these fiskers par-excellence are addicted to having their peanut gallery stuck permanently up their ass and pander to their audience with the requisite daily fiskings. Counterproductive, because time waits for no-one. And ultimately, not very amusing.

***

Is that freaking article available in toto anywhere except behind a paywall? Is it only ironic to me that an article on communication is inaccessible outside of a closed group? And hence we communicate about communicating effectively.

April 9, 2007 9:47 PM,

Mark said...

I think PZ is pretty rare.

You've got a point about Al Gore, he's a pretty damn good science communicator. And just taking apart BS isn't a good enough strategy. Not many of us have much of a loudspeaker though.

The article is not available anywhere I've found. So, when putting it up I only left a bit out as a nod to copyright. I'm irritated Science won't open any of their stuff to the public. They're so stodgy.

April 10, 2007 7:31 AM,

inel said...

To get access to the full Science article, go to Framing Science and look in the left-hand column for:

Framing Science Article

Full Text

That's the only way I managed to access it. If I paste the link here, it will not work: you have to go to the blog, click on 'Full Text' and voilà! access is permitted.

The irony is striking. (Political professional communicators telling scientists to get their communications act together while failing to reach a valid audience, i.e. non-Science subscribers, themselves does not inspire confidence.)

Of all the science topics under discussion, I am only interested in climate change as an issue that needs to be understood well enough to allow ambitious programs to be implemented as extensively and as rapidly as possible.

In this case, I disagree that scientists need to know how to frame science to further the cause, at least to the extent denialists do. Scientists have enough to do working on science!

A much better understanding of how denialists operate, would certainly help some scientists. Other members of society, such as technically capable communications professionals and anyone with a talent for touching a nerve with the public on matters of great import, need to be involved.

Scientists continue to do science, and need to focus on that as much as possible. They have provided far more than sufficient information for policymakers and others to evaluate and make tough decisions.

Now it is up to the rest of us to communicate the truth of the matter far and wide to our own audiences. As long as scientists support that activity, we are fine.

June 12, 2007 7:46 AM,

Links to this post:

<$BlogBacklinkTitle$>: <$BlogBacklinkSnippet$>
posted by <$BlogBacklinkAuthor$> @ <$BlogBacklinkDateTime$>

Create a Link

<< Home