Scientists on ScienceShould researchers "frame" their work, or is that just spin?
Many years ago, when I was young and spirited, I held the view that the world would be a much better place if scientists ran relevant parts of the government. I foresaw cerebral debate, realistic assessment of risks, intelligent adjudication, long-term planning, clear explanations of policy, and an absence of PR spin: The most rational people making the best possible decisions. I've modified this. We do need logical people to be much more involved than they are at present, but most issues in public life are extremely complex and have to account for the irrational as well as the rational. Most of you will probably agree with this, but one blind spot persists: the public discussion of scientific issues. On this, scientists - or at least a vocal subpopulation - want to cling to the idea that clear logic is the right way to go. If only we beat people over the head long enough about the scientific method, the assessment of data, probability, statistics and so forth, then eventually the great unwashed will see the light and draw the obvious - that is, correct - conclusions. Matt Nisbet and Dietram Scheufele present an alternative scenario in this issue's The Future of Public Engagement. In their view, based on research in the social sciences, this approach will never work. Nonscientific audiences don't approach science (or anything else) with an open mind. Instead, their prevailing worldview dominates their outlook on everything, and a subtle invitation "to consider the evidence and draw your own conclusion" is doomed to failure. In its place, Nisbet and Scheufele propose that researchers frame their messages in terms relevant to the audience. Their article lays out the rationale and offers practical tips on how to go about framing. These ideas have been the subject of furious debate since April, when Nisbet and journalist Chris Mooney published articles in Science 1 and the Washington Post. 2 One of those debates took place on our Web site (www.the-scientist.com/news/display/53446). We posted questions and a poll about framing, as Nisbet and Scheufele were preparing their piece, to see what our readers thought. The posting generated 66 comments. Those opposed to framing, in addition to a wistful longing to have science truly understood, also hold a sincere concern. They fear that framing taints science, that it is spin, rhetoric, or propaganda, and that the discussion of science has to stand above such base activity. Science, they say, is not hustle. Fair enough, but such arguments ignore the clear distinction between spin and framing, laid out in one of the blog threads 3 by the poster Luna_the_cat:
"When you play fast and loose with facts, exaggerate some things and suppress, ignore or distort others, in order to lead your audience to believe a certain way - that's spin. "When you use accurate facts, not ignoring or suppressing any of them, but nevertheless approach them in such a way that you establish a common ground with the audience and present them in a way which does not provoke a defensive reaction against a perceived threat - that's framing." Scientists must be constantly aware of this distinction and act accordingly. Action is necessary because, as one of the more pragmatic and apposite comments from "Maria Taylor" puts it, "If you don't frame it, others will." That's absolutely true, and surely all researchers would rather provide the framing for their own work than have Fox News do it for them. We'd like to keep the discussion going now that we've published this important piece. If you have thoughts on the subject or experiences good or bad to relate, add your point of view to the discussion thread on the Nisbet and Scheufele article online. In other news, look for us on select newsstands from January onward. We're essentially a magazine for the life sciences community, but there's a real appetite for quality information about the life sciences in sections of the wider community. Our aim is to satisfy that, and in doing so to make a small contribution to the cause of rational debate. Appropriately framed, of course. 1. M. Nisbet, C. Mooney, "Framing science," Science, 316:56, 2007.
2. M. Nisbet, C. Mooney, "Thanks for the facts. Now sell them," Washington Post, April 15, 2007, page B3.
Rate this article
Return to Top comment: Ther?s something else: Part Second. by Sergio Stagnaro MD [Comment posted 2007-11-02 08:54:19] Possibly, I?dd like adding the following news to my first message, since it underscores the importance of my earlier comment. A few days ago I sent the following Rapid Response to BMC Immunity & Aging: Pathophysiology of ageing, longevity and age related diseases
Alexander Brkle, et al. Immunity & Ageing, October 31, 2007 h 22,35 . Role of newborn-pathological, type I, subtype b), Endoarteriolar Blocking Devices in Pathophysiology of Ageing, Longevity and Age related Diseases Sirs, In my opinion, a part from the international meeting, held in Palermo, Italy, on April 18, 2007 about Pathophysiology of Ageing, Longevity and Age-Related Diseases, such as relation it?s nowadays well known. As regards the relation between Cancer, Immunosenescence, Age-related inflammatory diseases and longevity, I?dd like to underscore the importance of recent discovery, illustrated also in my Lecture at V Virtual International Congress of Cardiology, as far as CAD is concerned (1). According to my Angiobiopathy theory, that completes Tischendorf?s Angiobiotopy (2), every parenchimal cell mitDNA and n-DNA mutation brings about microvascular related remodelling, based on congenital, newborn-pathological, type I, subtype a) ONCOLOGICAL, and b) aspecific Endoarteriolar Blocking Devices, typical of INHERITED Real Risk of all common and severe disorders (3,4), recognized bedside with a stethoscope in a quantitive manner (1-5). In all individuals with above referred disorders, I observed in immunological system (BALT, GALT, CALT, i.e., Cerebral Associated Lymphatic Tissue, I discovered formerly (5), mamma, urinary bladder, appendix, a.s.o., this inherited Real Risk, indicating congenital DNA (mit-DNA "and" n-DNA)abnormalities of immunological cell system. Refrences 1) Stagnaro Sergio. Role of Coronary Endoarterial Blocking Devices in Myocardial Preconditioning - c007i. Lecture, V Virtual International Congress of Cardiology. http://www.fac.org.ar/qcvc/llave/c007i/stagnaros.php 2) Stagnaro S., Stagnaro-Neri M., Single Patient Based Medicine.La Medicina Basata sul Singolo Paziente: Nuove Indicazioni della Melatonina. Ed. Travel Factory, Roma, 2005. http://www.travelfactory.it 3) Stagnaro Sergio. New bedside way in Reducing mortality in diabetic men and women. Ann. Int. Med. http://www.annals.org/cgi/eletters/0000605-200708070-00167v1 4) Stagnaro Sergio. Newborn-pathological Endoarteriolar Blocking Devices in Diabetic and Dislipidaemic Constitution and Diabetes Primary Prevention. The Lancet. March 06 2007. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607603316/comments?totalcomments=1 5) Stagnaro Sergio. Il Reale Rischio Semeiotico Biofisico. Dispositivi Endoarteriolari di Blocco, neoformati-patologici, tipo I, sottotipo a), oncologici, e b) aspecifici. Ed. Travel Factory, Roma, in press. After only three hours, my comment was rejected by the moderator ?as not being appropriate for inclusion on the site?. Here it?s Pathophysiology of ageing, longevity and age related diseases Alexander Brkle, et al. Immunity & Ageing, October 31, 2007 h 22,35 You wrote: comments@biomedcentral.com Your discussion posting "Role of newborn-pathological, type I, subtype b), Endoarteriolar Blocking Devices in Pathophysiology of Ageing, Longevity and Age related Diseases" has been rejected by the moderator as not being appropriate for inclusion on the site. Any queries about this decision should be sent to comments@biomedcentral.com Regards Immunity & Ageing. Immediately I wrote to the e-mail adress, they suggested me: comments@biomedcentral.com asking frankly to rejecting referees: What does it mean INHERITED Biophysical-Semeiotic Real Risk? I'm sure that such as no-updated typo ignores completely newborn-pathological, Type I, subtype a) oncological, and b) Endoarteriolar Blocking Devices (Stagnaro Sergio. New bedside way in Reducing mortality in diabetic men and women. Ann. Int. Med. http://www.annals.org/cgi/eletters/0000605-200708070-00167v1 AND Stagnaro Sergio. Newborn-pathological Endoarteriolar Blocking Devices in Diabetic and Dislipidaemic Constitution and Diabetes Primary Prevention. The Lancet. March 06 2007. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607603316/comments?totalcomments=1 Compliment! I'm awaiting your answer. Sergio Stagnaro www.semeioticabiofisica.it Who's Who in the World and in America since 1996 to 2008 Return to Top comment: Presuposition of Rationality is Flawed. by Thodi Andersson [Comment posted 2007-11-01 21:18:31] I say frame, what is there to lose?
Kahneman, Tversky and Thaler etc have shown that rationality is an illusive item and Douglas and Wildavsky ('Risk and Culture') and Thompson et al ('Cultural Theory') have shown cultural interpretation plays a bigger part in decisions and ontological comprehension than any agreed facts! Return to Top comment: What is not within the frame, is discriminated against by Dr. Andras J. Pellionisz [Comment posted 2007-10-29 13:37:00] One would hope that Editor-in-Chief Richard Gallagher learnt his lessons from his July Editorial in which he openly admitted that 98.7% of the human DNA was unfortunately very successfully ?framed? by Dr. Ohno (1972) such that only a mere 1.3% (the ?genes?) got attention (and resources).
The catastrophe of ?framing? stems from its dictatorial black-or-white feature: that whatever falls outside the frame, is denied consideration. Discrimination aside (science papers on 98.7% of the DNA rejected, resources denied, career of pioneer scientists assassinated), in the case of ?Junk DNA? its overlooking (?the biggest mistake in the history of molecular biology? ? Mattick) literally contributed to millions, if not hundreds of millions of people dying of ?Junk DNA diseases?. Because of this crushing liability (that IMHO nobody should take very lightly), I was happy to see that once I raised this objection, The Scientist published in its October issue a masterfully done triplet of articles (where the science-core part was provided by Dr. Mattick himself), pointing out that ?The correct functioning of ncRNAs is also important for human health: Changes in ncRNAs have been implicated in heart attacks and diseases such as cancer. Many ncRNAs are expressed in the brain, and at least one is involved in behavioral responses.? The Scientist thus indemnified itself from a needless liability on the issue of ?Junk DNA? implied in ?Junk Worth Keeping? (sticking with Ohno;s framing) in July by turning around 180 degrees on the issue of Junk DNA. Best of all, The Scientist did its elegant turn-around by letting Dr. Mattick?s clear scientific rationale from Australia voiced which will prevail on its own, without the often heavily doped ?spins?, ?framing? and other forms of ?PR? that science reporting in the USA is rather infamous about. It may be for similar reasons that Newsweek (Oct. 15) appears to bypass the distorted (spin- and frame-full)circles of US media in the same ?Junk DNA? issue. An excellent and crystal-clear article by Princeton professor Lee Silver listed over thirty ?Junk DNA diseases? (see junkdna.com) that is the single most important challenge for the PostModern Genomics. Newsweek published this landmark article in its International Edition (Europe, Asia, Latin-America ? but NOT in the North-American Edition) apparently to trigger genuine worldwide public interest before the central issue (a revolution needed in Medicine) would get ?framed? in the US. pellionisz_at_junkdna.com Return to Top comment: Neither spin nor frame as regards my work. by Sergio Stagnaro [Comment posted 2007-10-09 05:30:15] There is a third way, as my long clinical experience allows me to state, beside spin and frame, i.e., overlooking no politically correct work. For instance:I have discovered and described Oncological Terrain "and" Inherited Oncological Real Risk (Stagnaro-Neri M., Stagnaro S. Introduzione alla Semeiotica Biofisica. Il Terreno Oncologico. Ed. Travel Factory, Roma, 2004. http://www.travelfactory.it),illustrated also in www.semeioticabiofisica.it. Such as theory has been accepted by a large number of famous review farsighted Editors (See Bibliography in above-cited website). Well! If all around the world Health Autorithies, and Oncologists would accept Oncological Terrain AND Inherited Oncological Real Risk since they cannot falsify the theory (sic!), catastrophe will surely occur in the Medicine, of course, in the interest of people but not of drugs lobbies. What do you think about?
Many Thanks |
