Special feature: How should scientists sell science?

For the last few months arguably the most contentious life sciences debate online has concerned how scientists should communicate important or controversial issues to the media and public.

The debate was sparked by an article in Science entitled "Framing science", which argued that stating the facts is not enough if scientists want to communicate technical complexities in the news. The authors, Matthew Nisbet and Chris Mooney, proposed in this article and elsewhere that scientists should pare down complex technical issues and learn to actively "frame" the information to make it relevant to different audiences.

Almost immediately the science blogosphere was filled with heated discussions on the topic. (You can find an exhaustive list of the blog posts and discussions here.) Critics said that "framing science" is just another way of saying spin, and that scientists should never sacrifice the facts or the message no matter who their audience is. But what do you think? Are you concerned about the way that scientists discuss hot-button issues like stem cell research and climate change in the public domain? How do you think scientists should explain these messages to an often-wary general public? To inform a future feature in the magazine that will be co-written by one of the authors of the Science article that started the debate, we want to know your thoughts. You can have your say in two ways: Post a comment here how you think scientists should communicate about issues that set the public agenda, and also take part in a special online survey, devised by the feature authors and the editors of The Scientist, which explores many of the issues around scientists and the media. With your help we can gauge how the life science community and people who have an interest in life sciences feel about the issue of framing science, and add to the growing debate that could help shape the future of science communication in the media.Editor's note (posted July 30): When originally posted, the article incorrectly spelled Matthew Nisbet's name. We regret the error, which has been corrected.Links within this article:M.C. Nisbet and C. Mooney. Framing science. Science, April 6, 2007. https://www.the-scientist.com/pubmed/17412941M.C. Nisbet and C. Mooney. Thanks for the facts, now sell them. Washington Post April 15, 2007. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041302064_pf.htmlOne-stop shopping for the framing science debate. Science & Politics April 20, 2007. https://sciencepolitics.blogspot.com/2007_04_01_archive.html