Science Communication Consortium 

September 27th

Dr. Sheila Jasanoff
Pforzheimer Professor of Science and Technology Studies

"Democratic Citizenship in Science Communication"

Notes were recorded from Dr. Sheila Jasanoff's lecture for SCC, given on Thursday, September 27th, 2007 at Columbia University. As no audio recording of the lecture was made, these notes represent my paraphrased summary of Dr. Jasanoff's lecture. While I believe that my notes faithfully reflect her theoretical points, Dr. Jasanoff is in no way liable for any of the below phrasing or, most importantly, the representation of her ideas. Any and all mistakes in phrasing, semantics, and/or misconstrued theory are attributable to me. We at SCC intend only to convey the gist of the lecture for your thoughtful reflection and scholarly consideration, and therefore ask that these notes be referenced globally instead of quoted.

Dr. Sheila Jasanoff introduced the topic of science communication as one of intimidating breadth and scope, inviting her audience to “think with” her as she began an intellectual journey through some of the major components of science communication. She stated that the current “conventional American approach” to science communication isn’t effective and called for us to reorganize our lives in order to continue thinking deeply about the issues surrounding the current state of communication in science and technology.

First, Jasanoff stated that scientists aren’t doing most of the communicating about science, citing Colin Powell’s political discussion of nuclear technology and many instances of ineffective or dishonest representation of science under the current administration. However, Jasanoff argued, openness and communication about science is not the norm in our society. While the peer review process is heralded by both scientists and non-scientists alike as a transparent means of discussing, analyzing, and synthesizing science, it is not representative of how science is typically discussed, analyzed, or synthesized by the rest of the population. Jasanoff reminded her audience that communication does not occur within a vacuum but to an audience, and each audience is associated with a certain degree of openness or receptivity. Thus, the pertinent key issues encompass complexities related to: what is science communication, by whom is science being communicated, to whom is science being communicated, and for what purposes is science being communicated.

Jasanoff proposed that two cultures of science communication exist in modern democracies. The first culture, dubbed the public service model, focuses on the individual role of the scientist, who has a responsibility to communicate the larger impacts of his/her work (e.g. National Science Foundation’s requisite “Broader Impacts” statement in competitive grant applications); as the success of this model is highly dependent upon individual scientists’ integrity, virtues, and personal value system, Jasanoff referred to this model as promoting “boy scout ethics,” in which scientists serve as well-intentioned, active participants in society. Jasanoff cited the UK’s Ethical Code of Science (2006), proposed by Professor Sir David King, as an example of a formalized code promoting professional integrity, rigor, and social conscience amongst scientists and encouraging individual researchers to consider the larger impacts of their work.
The second culture, the public sphere model, focuses on the social purposes of science communication. As scientific debate is an essential component of a democratic society, both scientists and non-scientists (e.g. politicians) have a pressing responsibility to engage all members of a society in the discussion of scientific matters. Delegations composed of scientists and lay people should be accountable for ensuring the inclusiveness of discussion.

Jasanoff argued that reliance upon “boy scout ethics” in ensuring effective science communication is unrealistic due to the fundamental nature of how science is conducted. Competition between individual laboratories and between larger institutions, commercial confidentiality, patent races, and party politics (i.e. if science serves the public good, party politics often defines the nature of that public good) are all fostered by scientific discovery. So, despite Sir Richard Southwood’s warning that the “evasion of providing [well-reasoned scientific] guidance is a dereliction of one’s duty as a scientist to society,” the “boy scout” model proves insufficient for ensuring effective and timely communication regarding scientific matters.

Jasanoff also proposed that C.P. Snow’s distinction between sciences and humanities as separate ‘cultures’ in society may not fairly represent modern democracies. Instead, Jasanoff argued, the conventional wisdom that the non-scientific public is largely technically illiterate, poorly informed on scientific fact, and/or incapable of basic scientific thinking is inaccurate. Citing the National Science Foundation (NSF)’s Indicators in Science & Technology Public Attitudes and Public Understanding (detailed in the infamous “Chapter Seven” of NSF’s encompassing report on scientific research priorities, funding, competitiveness, societal roles, and public perception) as a highly visible example, Jasanoff argued that Americans have a persistent belief that the knowledge of an arbitrary set of scientific facts constitutes a sort of scientific intelligence and acts a point of comparison to scientific literacy and educational systems of other countries (and from which Americans glean a strange source of pride). However, this arbitrary knowledge does not meaningfully represent scientific literacy, which instead encompasses aspects of critical thinking, analysis and synthesis, and a capability and competency to deal with new knowledge.

Based on this distinction, Jasanoff proposed the model of the Knowledge-Able Citizen. This Citizen has a right to citizenship in a knowledge-able and knowledge-seeking society, which includes freedom of the press and of information, transparent decision-making and advisory processes, right to knowledge (r.e. risk exposure, consumption of food/drug products, etc), right to demand justified reasons, right to offer expertise, and right to challenge irrational decisions. Jasanoff argued that these conditions are inherent to citizenship in American democracy and, while not adhered to perfectly, fosters citizens that differ drastically from the perceived citizen lacking the capacity for scientific thinking and lacking the ability to develop technical expertise. Perhaps, she proposed, American society has been erroneously infantilized and non-scientists are entirely capable of critical thinking and synthesis of science, much more than most of society (including but not limited to scientists) gives them credit for.

The outstanding problem, therefore, seems to be that scientific competence and literacy can be packaged for convenient or audience-specific communication but that the larger issues supporting science communication – including issues of by whom, to whom, and for what purposes is science communicated – are increasingly value-laden. Modern democracies must supply their citizens with the right to challenge, refute, and contextualize scientific data, and that right necessitates a deeper comprehension of science than society (including scientists, media, and policymakers) currently allows.

Society loses faith in scientific expertise if science is not communicated effectively, honestly, and thoroughly. Many people believe that, if you can “break through” to the non-scientific public, the public will regain its trust in science. But perhaps, Jasanoff proposed, trust in science can be promoted through skepticism: while distrust rooted in closemindedness is detrimental, informed distrust is necessary to promote true democracy and nurture the public’s faith in science.

Thus, perhaps the issue is not how we package science, but how we engage the public to think critically about the science. While packaging can be done carefully and with reference to specific audiences, Jasanoff maintained that packaging fails to energize the ideals of the public, which would represent the most forward-thinking approach, and thus may represent apathy or acquiescence. Only after conveying the deeper importance of science will the public lend its energy and support to the scientific enterprise, as, in Jasanoff’s words, “all human-created work is worth reflecting on.”

Only by thoroughly engaging a democratic public over scientific issues can science and technology play its most vital role in bettering the human condition. This engagement will require answerable innovation from scientists, accountable expertise from administrators and officials, and active engagement and knowledge-seeking from the public. Only with the combined support of these constituent components can scientific and technological issues be reflected on with the appropriate scope and with due reference to the multi-fold impacts of these fields in society.

October 18th

 

"How Various Media Outlets are Used to Popularize, Communicate, and Promote Science" 

 Thanks to our October panelists!

From left to right: Katie Abele, Kitta MacPherson, Ann Marie Cunningham, David Levine, Kate Seip, Liz Oswald, Christopher Mims

 

Four dynamic panelists discussed their past and current roles using various media outlets, including print and radio, to present scientific topics to a variety of lay audiences. Panelists included:

Christopher Mims is the special projects editor at Scientific American dot com. In his former role as online editor at Seed Magazine, he built scienceblogs dot com.

Ann Marie Cunningham is a science journalist who began in magazines and books, and has moved into broadcasting and Webcasting. She is now a contributing producer to NPR's Talk of the Nation: Science Friday and its Web features and acts as Executive Director to TalkingScience, Science Friday's nonprofit arm.

Kitta MacPherson has been The Star-Ledger's science writer since 1983. She strives daily to provide clear, concise prose about science for the intelligent "laypeople" who are her readers.

David Levine is Senior Director in the Office of Communications and Marketing for the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation. Prior to that, Mr. Levine was Director of Media Relations for the American Cancer Society. He also worked as a medical editor/writer for Pfizer Inc and has published a number of scientific articles for lay audiences.

A summary of this event will be posted soon. 

November 15th:

"How to Communicate Your Science to an Audience that Finds Your Research Controversial"

 

Many scientific issues, such as evolution, global warming, and embryonic stem cell research, are placed in political contexts or framed to support a specific ideology, and have been dubbed by the press as "hot topic" or contentious areas of research. Scientists, whether working in these or related fields, should be aware of how the way these issues are communicated can impact specific perceptions of these research topics, general public support for science, and subsequent policy decisions.

Panelists discussed their experiences communicating controversial research to the general public, including the challenges they have faced along the way and recommendations for scientists and journalists who are involved in similar processes.

Dr. Lee Silver: Professor at Princeton University in the Department of Molecular Biology and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Dr. Lee is the author of "Challenging Nature"and "Remaking Eden" and has appeared on many television programs including "Good Morning America", "Nightline", and the "Stephen Colbert Report".

Dr. Gavin Schmidt: Climatologist and climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and Adjunct Research Scientist at the Earth Institute at Columbia University. He is also a contributing editor to the website RealClimate.org.

 

Summary of Nov 15th Discussion 

Notes were recorded from the SCC event, given on Thursday, November 15th, 2007 at Rockefeller University. As no audio recording of the discussion was made, these notes represent a paraphrased summary of Dr. Silver's and Dr. Schmidt's comments and neither panelist are liable for any of the below phrasing or, most importantly, the representation of their ideas. Any and all mistakes in phrasing, semantics, and/or misconstrued theory are attributable to the SCC.  We at SCC intend only to convey the gist of the discussion for your thoughtful reflection and scholarly consideration, and therefore ask that these notes be referenced globally instead of quoted.

Author and biotechnology professor at Princeton University, Lee Silver, Ph.D., introduced the topic of controversial science by framing the traditional “Western” responses to modern science. Biological sciences, Dr. Silver stated, often challenge people’s preconceived notions of life, and it is this challenge to people’s notions that provides the basis for people’s resistance to the biology itself. He quoted Leon Kass, Ph.D., M.D., who was former chair of the President's Council on Bioethics (2002–2005), as saying that “life is inherently mysterious,” which feeds public misconceptions that science cannot seek to understand the biological reality of life. These misconceptions, Dr. Silver suggested, fuel the public’s struggle against some fundamental biological tenets.

Dr. Silver explained that a typical molecular biologist has a mechanistic view of the ways in which the world works, which is strongly bound to physical realities and holds few assumptions. Other molecular biologists, however, attempt to incorporate personal views, such as religious beliefs, into their scientific explanations. Dr. Silver pointed to Dr. Robert George, a professor of politics at Princeton University, as a prominent figure who “thinks that he accepts the science, but hides his religious beliefs by masking them with legitimate-sounding, value-laden rationale.” This value-laden basis of scientific-sounding explanations is unnecessary, yet appeals to wider audiences as an easily accessible way of rectifying seemingly divergent scientific findings and personal beliefs. Dr. Silver argued that this “rationale” is unnecessary and that the science provides sufficient explanation for most people.

Dr. Silver offered a few choices for how socially conscious scientists might interact with the public and prevent controversy. The first option that Dr. Silver presented was paternalistic obfuscation, or utilitarian ethics, in which science can be ‘renamed’ using euphemisms or audience-specific terminology for maximum resonance. As examples, Dr. Silver mentioned the replacement of “embryonic” stems cells to “pluripotent” stem cells and “therapeutic cloning” to “personalized cell therapy,” and the removal of the negatively laden term “nuclear” from the beginning of “magnetic resonance imaging” to emphasize the safety of MRIs to the general public. As a second option, Dr. Silver suggested appeasement in the audience-specific ways in which scientists talk about research deemed controversial (e.g. “scientists treating embryos with respect”). Finally, Dr. Silver suggested directly confronting hidden religious agendas (e.g. statements such as “intelligent design is creationism”). Dr. Silver urged scientists to encourage critical thinking amongst lay audiences about how their persevering, erroneous beliefs about ‘controversial’ scientific topics will eventually limit important scientific and technological advances, economic development, global competitiveness, and so forth. While he did not encourage ‘punting’ about science not directly in your specific line of research (and thus inadvertently misusing your scientific authority), Dr. Silver encouraged scientists and science-friendly community members to directly tackle value-laden misconceptions and religious beliefs that interfere with scientific fact.

Columbia University professor and renowned climate modeler Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D., then shared some thoughts. Dr. Schmidt introduced his role in the recent climate change ‘debates’ by stating that “human beings are now affecting Earth that is geological in scope and in a way that no other species has done.” This conclusion is drawn from his theoretical and empirical research, and is strongly supported by the scientific community and confirmed by the IPCC panels.  His research has recently become highly politicized because the scientific facts “impinged upon people’s beliefs,” such as deeply rooted economic and political ideologies. In other words, people typically aren’t arguing about whether greenhouse gases contribute to climate change (a fact) but instead are arguing on “proxy evidence” of policy-related, political, economic, or religious grounds but not the actual scientific grounds themselves. The controversy often stems from these issues and not the science, yet the public often unwittingly attributes the controversy to the science itself.

Dr. Schmidt then argued that there has been a recent “scientization” of politics, in which people intentionally use science as a “proxy argument” to convey their personal beliefs. This “scientization” can be particularly dangerous, Dr. Schmidt warned, as science gains unparalleled legitimacy through rigorous hypothesis-testing and consensus-building. The scientific consensus behind climate change, he stated, lends the issue a good deal of credibility. However, scientific consensus is not an adequate match for personal convictions and, when pitted against beliefs, ideology will almost always trump science by simply appealing to people’s emotions. On the issue of climate change, Dr. Schmidt offered an analogy of approaching a looming iceberg but focusing the argument over the quality of the binoculars (e.g. “better binoculars will be coming out,” “perhaps those binoculars produce a slightly fuzzy picture,” etc.) when in fact binoculars are no longer needed to see the impending danger of the iceberg. The binoculars, Dr. Schmidt explained, can take many forms, such as economic or religious convictions but are never the salient issue at hand, that of the actual scientific fact which they propose to address.

Dr. Schmidt urged scientists and the science-friendly community to be patient when explaining their research or discussing scientific issues. He also urged scientists and the larger science-friendly community to engage the non-scientific public and inspire them to learn more about specific scientific topics on their own. Assuming some responsibility for educating themselves, people will enjoy feeling capable of understanding intriguing scientific issues and feel a sense of ownership and personal investment in the scientific process. It is thus the responsibility of scientists, science writers, journalists, and policy advisors to provide context by which people can understand that scientific information. Most importantly, scientists need to encourage people to understand how science works, what scientific inquiry is about, and how/why scientists do what they do. This, he argued, will promote a scientifically literate society, which will ultimate stymie public resistance to so-called ‘controversial’ science and pave the way for important advances in science/technology into the future.

January 31st:

"The Roles of Emerging Media in Communicating Science"

Blogs, podcasts, and other new media outlets have changed the way
people get their news, and shortened the shelf life of these stories. This immediacy of information presents new opportunities, as well as certain challenges, for science communication. Join us for a discussion of how scientists and journalists can reach a savvy audience by effectively using new media outlets, while avoiding their pitfalls.

Carl Zimmer, award-winning science writer and author of many books and his blog, The Loom.  He also contributes articles to the New York Times as well as magazines including National Geographic, Discover, Scientific American, Science, and Popular Science. 
Christie Nicholson, Community Editor at Scientific American, online and contributor to "60-Second Psych" online programming.  She also writes for the Association of Psychological Science’s Observer Magazine, Theme Magazine, and the technology blog Popgadget.net. With two fellow journalists, she recently created and produced the “Science of Sex”, an acclaimed Web publication.
Eliene Augenbraun, President/CEO of ScienCentral, Inc.
Eitan Glinert, former Project Coordinator of "Immune Attack", a science-based video game and current graduate student at MIT.
Karen A. Frenkel, award-winning science and technology journalist, documentarian and author. She freelances for Scientific American, Scientific American MIND, The Village Voice, and Womensenews.org.

Science journalist John Timmer from Ars Technica wrote up a superb summary of this event. 

Below are links to some of the websites previewed or mentioned by members of the panel:

INSTANT EGGHEAD:

Evo-Devo

http://www.60secondscience.com/archive/science-videos/what-is-evodevo.php

Moore's Law

http://www.60secondscience.com/archive/science-videos/video-explain-evolution-of-the.php

Synthetic Biology

http://www.60secondscience.com/archive/science-videos/video-how-to-make-manmade-dna.php

Dark Matter

http://www.60secondscience.com/archive/science-videos/what-is-dark-matter-60-second.php

Quantum Computing

http://www.60secondscience.com/archive/science-videos/video-how-to-explain-quantum-c.php

THE MONITOR (weekly news roundup, very Web 2.0):

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=facebook-sociology-and-dog-bark-translations

PODCASTS:

http://www.sciam.com/podcast/

 

Quotation Source

March 27th 

"Reaching Out to Lay Audiences: Communicating Science through Museums, Science Centers, and Community Programs"

Presented by Science Writers in New York 

People get news about science and technology in many ways, including TV, newspapers, magazines and web sites. However, science centers, museums, and community outreach projects are gaining momentum as vital ways to deliver up-to-date stories about the latest breakthroughs and discoveries in science and technology.

Laura Allen, senior writer and news producer of Science Bulletins at the American Museum of Natural History

Since 2004, Laura has managed the editorial and visual production of all biweekly news updates and writes the essays that supplement each semiannual Science Bulletin feature documentary online. Part of her job involves explaining how scientist collect and interpret scientific data, such as satellite imagery.

Karen de Seve, senior exhibit developer and project manager of Breakthroughs at the Liberty Science Center

Karen edits and manages current e-news stories displayed within the science center's exhibition galleries, and develops and writes Breakthroughs exhibitions of various topics and themes.

 
Susan Heilman, Current Science and Technology department at the Boston Museum of Science

Susan gives daily presentations at the Museum of Science and discusses the latest science news stories during a monthly cablecast on New England Cable News and in regularly produced podcasts. Susan will be on location in Boston and will participate via videoconference.

 

April 24th

Science and Congress: The Role of Think Tanks and Congressional Science Committees

Recent years have seen a rise in prominence of legislative issues that control how scientists work or that require scientific information for decision making.  How do legislators receive this information, and what are the potential effects of distortion or misunderstanding of it on science in the United States? 

Joanne Carney, Director of the American Association for the Advancement of Scientists (AAAS) Center for Science, Technology and Congress

David Goldston, former chief of staff for the House Committee on Science and author of Nature's "Party of One" column on Congress and science policy

Michael Stebbins, Director of Biology Policy for the Federation of American Scientists, President of the Scientists and Engineers for America Action Fund, and author of "Sex, Drugs & DNA"

Podcast of this event

Summary of this event