Scientists on Science

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. Related Articles The future of public engagement Our reader's thoughts Results of our online survey 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 Science1 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 threads3 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. rgallagher@the-scientist.com References 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. 3. http://scienceblogs.com rgallagher@the-scientist.com">rgallagher@the-scientist.com

Scientists on Science

Should researchers "frame" their work, or is that just spin?

References

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of