The transcript of the interview I did last week at NPR's On the Media is now available. In the interview, I restate exactly what we argued first at Science and then at the WPost. It's worth reading. I've bolded parts of key sentences.
First, I emphasize, as we do in our published commentaries, the problem with going beyond the science in framing messages to the public. I use the example of global warming and more intense hurricanes.
Then the host, Brook Gladstone, follows by asking whether we suggest scientists become advocates.
BROOK GLADSTONE:....Climate change, says Nisbet, is a perfect example. Once it was an issue of not enough coverage, but now, he says, we have a different problem.MATTHEW NISBET: The problem is, is that when you actually look at the opinion polls, you have what I describe as a two Americas of public perceptions on the issue. Seventy-five percent of college-educated Democrats accept that human activities are contributing to climate change. On the other hand, only roughly a quarter of college-educated Republicans accept that science.
And so, what's going on here? It's because several Democratic leaders, like Al Gore, and even some scientists are really adopting what I call the catastrophe frame or the Pandora's Box frame, really focusing in on specific climate impacts that might be scary or frightening, such as the possibility of more intense hurricanes.
When you move in that direction, where the science is still uncertain, you open yourself up to the counter argument that this is just simply alarmism. It's very easy for the public, then, to simply rely on their partisanship to make up their minds, and that's why you have this two Americas of public perception.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: So that's a political reality. But what is it that you're asking the scientists to do? How are they supposed to change the way they present it in order to confront this political reality?
MATTHEW NISBET: You start recasting the issue in ways that are still true to the science but, in fact, actually you're not talking about the science. You're engaging with business leaders and CEOs. They're talking about the promise for innovative technology, again, the market potential for that. They might activate that moderate Republican base that reads The Wall Street Journal and says, hey, suddenly I care about global warming 'cause there might be investment potential here.
You recast the issue as really a moral duty, not just in a religious sense but saying, look, this is like credit card debt. We're passing the buck on to future generations if you don't do something now. The science is there. This is an urgent problem. We need to take action.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: So you're actually calling on scientists to become advocates or even activists.
MATTHEW NISBET: Well, you know, I don't think it's politically controversial to say that the first thing is to activate interest, to activate concern, so that people can start paying attention to the science - to remain true to the science but recast it in a light that connects to their backgrounds.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: But it seems, you know, pretty easy to do it about climate change, where there is so much consensus, but what about issues where there isn't, nuclear energy, for instance, or cancer research? How can scientists effectively frame their findings when there's active disagreement among them over what the implications of the research are?
MATTHEW NISBET: Sure. Two other really good examples on that front would be plant biotechnology and nanotechnology. Scientists still have some lingering disagreements about both the human safety and also the environmental safety of nanotech and areas of plant biotechnology.
The real danger there, for example, like an emerging technology, like nanotechnology, is that one frame gets locked in. And the frame that can always be locked in is this idea of a Pandora's Box, that somehow this Frankenstein's monster, this technology's out of control and it's going to lead to catastrophe somewhere down the road.
So scientists have to think carefully, how do we offer alternative interpretations that are true to the science but don't lead to some type of rash reaction from the public, that might unlock greater interest or greater understanding or actually motivate people to inform themselves about the science.
- Log in to post comments
DUMBING DOWN vs. CONCISION: I want to point back to a little over a year ago to what I think is a lot of the central divide in this entire issue, in simple terms. I posted on Carl Zimmer's blog my list of ten suggestions for communicating evolution better. A lot of discussion followed, and what emerged out of the cloud of dust was one big split between P.Z. Myers and myself on my point about the need for concision.
He read concision as a call for "dumbing down." But I tried to point out there is a difference. Dumbing down involves lightening the information load without regard to content. Concision is more like solving a math problem in the fewest steps possible -- conveying the same basic information, just more concisely.
It's about storytelling. And I know a few things about this. I've sat through hours and hours of lectures and seminars on storytelling over the past twenty years in both film school and in workshops.
I also nearly killed myself taking my documentary "Flock of Dodos" from a three hour rambling collection of bits and pieces about a controversy into an 85 minute story that broad audiences can sit through without getting too bored. The key to powerful storytelling is simplicity. But it takes a lot of time and effort to find that simplicity.
Scientists don't invest a lot of effort into communication, and thus don't invest a lot of effort into storytelling, and thus ... tend to not be very concise. They could be, if they were willing to make the investment. But they're not. And I've mentioned this before -- I saw it, live and in person, last December at the AGU symposium on, "Communicating Science Broadly," which featured some of the very top climate scientists giving very poorly structured, dull, unimpassioned talks.
This entire issue isn't a matter of spin doctoring or lying to the public. It's about prioritization. Scientists have typically demanded the right to communicate however they feel. But the world has changed. And now they're pissed at the idea of having to work to be heard.
That's what this issue is mostly about.
You would think folks like PZ et al, who are professional educators, would know that "Framing" is what you do all the time in teaching, especially in teaching classes for non-science students. Why is it important for them to learn, what should they learn etc. out of the millions of facts one can present, why do you chose the ones you do when discussing a topic.
If we want to produce a more scientifically literate public we need to teach....not lecture.
I've been trained as a scientist.
I've worked as a journalist.
I've worked in theatre and been a produced playwright.
And I agree down the line.
But obviously, my expertise and experience is irrelevant in some folks' eyes...
You would think...so why is the 'framing' message precisely the opposite, that we don't know squat?Notice, though, what Nisbet says:
That is not my interest or my mission, and in a lot of ways I see that as the antithesis of my mission. I do not go into the classroom and say, "Genetics is really important! Here's why you need to learn it! There might be a job in it for you some day!", and on and on for a semester, without ever actually telling them what genetics is or how it works. What Nisbet is describing are cheerleaders, not players or participants in the process.He is not laying out an appropriate role for scientists.We do take into account the knowledge base of our audience. We do try to explain matters at an appropriate level, and we aspire to making it enjoyable. We do tell stories in the classroom. But one thing absolutely essential to who we are and what we do is explain how we know what we know, and why the evidence leads us in specific directions. Asking us to avoid doing that completely misses our strengths and our interests — it's like complaining that construction workers aren't good realtors, and for those of us with some pride in our discipline, it's an affront.
yes, PZ, is someways I understand what you are saying. But...we need to understand that the cacophony of science data does little to win the argument in the public sphere, lets face it it barely works among the professionals.
Nisbets 'cheerleaders' are not sideline extras but important players in the game. Not all have to be the cheerleader (obviously) but somebody better be.
I think you're being extremely selective in your description of the issue. There was a partisan battle over global warming long before Al Gore made "An Inconvenient Truth", and climate scientists were being accused of alarmism for decades by defenders of the oil and auto industries.
Al Gore is a knowledgeable politician who makes a political case for action - he's not a scientist. You can't tell him to stop talking about the potential consequences of climate change any more than you can tell James Inhofe or the scores of industry backed politicians to stop attacking scientists.
Avoiding topics where the science is still uncertain is the central strategy of those who want to roll back environmental and health regulations, challenge medical research, replace evolution classes with creation science, and politicize scientific research in general. Playing that game guarantees that nothing will be done.