After a bit of a hiatus, I return with what’s going to be a bit shorter (from now on) ‘Record of the Week’ where I summarize some of the articles related to the issues of science, technology and society that caught my attention during the past week. I hope you too find them of interest and/or of use.
Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit – Embracing the elephant: the IPCC and fossil fuels
The Guardian – Poland rejects IPCC target of zero emissions by 2100
Open Culture – The Ebola Virus Explained with Animated Video
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers – The tactile topologies of Contagion
Brain Pickings – Bill Nye on Evolution and the Science of Creation: A Reading
Plainspoken Scientist (AGU blog) – Doodling in Science Class: Using Stick Figure Animations to Explain Complex Science
Making Science Public – Making synthetic biology public: Challenges and responsibilities
Other Round Ups
Not Exactly Rocket Science – I’ve Got Your Missing Links Right Here (08 November 2014)
I have a few posts in the works, but since it is a Friday, something a bit more light hearted is in order.
Here is a parody of Shit Girls Say that I came across on YouTube called ‘Shit Scientists Say’.
Enjoy the weekend!
On the first of July I got a newsletter in my inbox from the Centre for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University. The newsletter informed me about an Open Access article that was published by Myers, et al. (The et. al includes M.C. Nisbet who runs the outstanding Age of Engagement blog) the previous week in the journal Climatic Change. The article is entitled, ‘A Public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change.’
A look in history demonstrates that climate change has been primarily framed as environmental problem. Within social sciences, alternative frames emphasizing public health, natiaonl security, extreme weather events and/or the economy, have been previously suggested. They can potentially be more effective at engaging the audience.
The authors tested the assumption that the public health frame and/or national security frame may make climate change more personally relevant.
Specifically, the frames tested were
1) Environmental – emphasis is placed on the consequences of climate change to ecosystems;
2) National security – emphasis is placed on highlighting national security and benefits to national security;
3) Health frame – emphasis is placed on health risks that are associated with climate change and the corresponding potential beneftis of adaptation and mitigation actions.
– Health Frame was the most likely to produce feelings of hope (It was followed by the Environmental Frame and the National Security Frame
– The Health Message produced the least amount of anger (Just above it were the Environmental Message and the National Security Message)
This research demonstrates the potential of the public health frame to inspire hope in the context of climate change discussion, while simultaneously demonstrating the possibility that certain frames may be poorly perceived within some interpretive communities.
Myers, T.A., Nisbet, M.C., Maibach, E.W., Leiserowitz, A.L. (2012). ‘A Public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change,’ Climatic Change (online first). doi: 10.1007/s10584-012-0513-6
On 22 June 2012, The Guardian published a fascinating article about the race to develop fake meat, entitled “Fake meat: is science fiction on the verge of becoming fact?”
The article tells a story of two scientists on opposite sides of the world who are leading the race to create the so-called ‘fake meat’.
There is Professor Patrick Brown is a tenured Stanford University molecular biologist. He has been working for the past two years on the creation of meat and dairy products. The San Francisco based researcher is leading the way on an approach that uses plant-based material in order to create a meat reproduction.
The alternative approach is to actually grow animal muscle tissue in a factory without the animals. It is being developed in Europe. Building on a body of past research, Dr. Mark Post from the University of Maastricht is spearheading this initiative.
Without retelling the entire article, it will suffice to say that there is a potential for the science to succeed in achieving it’s aims thereby leading to what would be potentially described as a ‘revolution’ of one sorts or another.
As recently as February 2012, the two researchers gave a joint presentation at the AAAS conference in Vancouver. As is often the case with competing scientists at the forefront of their research in the same area of research, there is a tension between the pair. Nevertheless, Dr. Post concedes that Prof. Brown may win the race, but leaves a suggestion that he will have trouble selling the idea.
He is a genius, but he has a personality issue. He is very defensive. He is much smarter than I am, but he is not going to get this across to the public. He needs a PR adviser.
The foregoing quote caught my eye.
The relationship between science and society is in large part mediated by communication. It is often argued that scientists do not possess the greatest communication skills. Variable anecdotal and academic evidence suggests this to be true in a lot of cases. In the above quote Dr. Post paints Prof. Brown to be lacking the personality to be able to get his message to the public and would require PR assistance. Here one scientist (Dr. Post), whose communication skills we don’t know about, accuses another scientist (Prof. Brown) of lacking in them.
Communication of scientific research is especially important when research with societal implications of risk is in focus. It is therefore necessary to avoid the pitfalls (such as assuming that ‘the publics’ are ’empty vessels’ waiting to be filled with knowledge; conceptualising the communication process as a way to ‘sell’ science to the publics; attempting to persuade the publics to take one side or the other in scientific debate) in the communication process and openly communicate with the publics about the science, its potentially risks and uncertainties and societal implications without ‘dumbing it down’. Many people are willing to attempt to understand (and some do understand) complexity of the science and are open to multiple interpretations of societal implications. Consequently, if the approach with ‘fake meat’ will be one of straight up PR and marketing (if it gets to this stage), the public will potentially feel that they are simply being marketed to (For an alternative take on ‘science marketing’ see post here.), which will cement the existing polarization between science and society and reinforce the ‘perceptual gridlock’ (Nisbet & Scheufele, 2009).
Therefore, the future of ‘fake meat’ will be in large part contingent on effective communication by the scientists, who have a plethora of examples in history of good and bad practices, to inform the development and implementation of their communication strategies.
Hanlon, M. (2012). ‘Fake meat: is science fiction on the verge of becoming fact,’ The Guardian (online edition), 22 June 2012.
Nisbet, M.C., Scheufele, D.A. (2009). ‘What’s next for Science Communication? Promising Directions and Lingering Distractions,’ American Journal of Botany 96(10): 1-12. doi:10.3732/ajb.0900041
Research in science comunication, public understanding of science, and public communication of science and technology, has focused on the views of the publics. In contrast, the onus has been placed on the scientists to engage with the public and participate in various forms of public communication of science and technology (PCST) activities. Very few studies have addressed the issues from the point of view of scientists.
Nevertheless, there are studies out there, which contribute to the exploring the other side of the debate. One of the largest and most comprehensive sutdies was conducted by MORI on the behalf of the Wellcome Trust and was published in 2000; entitled ‘The Role of Scientists in Public Debate‘. The study aimed to contribute to the underexplored area of ‘how scientists perceive the public understanding of science and technology in general, and their own contribution in particular’ (p.6).
Interviews were conducted with a random sample of 1540 research scientists (657 were wholly or primarily funded by the Research Council) at 41 Higher Education Institutions in Great Britain. Furthermore, 112 scientists were interviewed at 42 Research Council-funded establishments (funded by Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BBSRC,] Medical Research Council [MRC] and Natural Environment Research Council [NERC]) in Great Britain. The fieldwork for the study took place from 13 December 1999 – 24March 2000.
- Benefits, Barriers
Scientists are very much aware of the benefits envisioned through better public understanding of science. However, they also see barriers such as a lack of public knolwedge, education and/or interest (this view was taken by 3 in 4 scientists).
Despite the fine balance between barriers and benefits, scientists, in their vast majority, consider it their duty to communicate their research as well as its social and ethical impliations to various non-specialist publics. However, many scientists do feel constrained by the daily requirements of the job, thereby leaving limited time to communicate research or even to carry out their own research.
- Participation in Communication Activities
Of the surveyed sample, slightly over fifty percent have participated in one or more of the fifteen provided forms of communication activity within the last year. Scientists’ participation is related to both skill and confidence. Scientistst that feel capable to communicate scientific facts and the implications of their research as well as those that have received training, were more likely to have participated. Moreover, those scientists that teach and conduct research are more likley to have communicated.
- Support and Training
Only one in five scientists felt very well equipped to communiate the scientific facts of their research, while three quarters felt equipped. However, the reported confidence declined when consideration was given to the communication of social and ethical implications of their research. Amonst the scientists, whose work does carry the social and ethical implications, only 62% felt equipped, while one in ten felt very well equipped. The vast majority of scientists surveyed did not received training to liaise with the media, or to communicate with non-specialist publics.
- Room for Improvement
In order to improve the communication, various options were mentioned by the scientists, including encouragement from institutions to participate in science communication activities, provision of media traning and allocation of finances from the funding bodies directed at encouraging scientists to spend time on science communication (mentioned most often).
MORI (2000). The Role of Scientists in Public Debate. London, England: The Wellcome Trust. pp. 50.