tag:theconversation.com,2011:/ca/topics/public-awareness-of-science-172/articlesPublic awareness of science – The Conversation2019-04-16T10:46:25Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1111472019-04-16T10:46:25Z2019-04-16T10:46:25ZWhat it means to ‘know your audience’ when communicating about science<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267853/original/file-20190405-180036-19aamqc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=1625%2C745%2C4365%2C3206&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">You have a lot of work to do before you step up to the mic.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/microphone-voice-speaker-seminar-classroom-lecture-534042616">Chinnapong/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Communication experts love to tell people to know their audience, but it is not always clear what they’re meant to know.</p>
<p>Knowing someone’s age, education and gender is nice. So too is knowing context about economic, educational, cultural and ideological background. These are typically what the two of us hear when <a href="http://strategicsciencecommunication.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Landscape-Overview-Website-Discussion-Final.pdf">we’ve asked science communication trainers</a> what they think the expression means. </p>
<p>Knowing such things are helpful, but there’s a lot more a strategic communicator might want to know.</p>
<p><a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=0ssM57wAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">Our own</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=WHQF1CUAAAAJ&hl=en">ongoing research</a> on <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662517728478">strategic science communication objectives</a> suggests some more targeted pieces of information that could help communicators – whether scientists or anyone else – effectively share their message.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/266172/original/file-20190327-139356-a7cv19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/266172/original/file-20190327-139356-a7cv19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/266172/original/file-20190327-139356-a7cv19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266172/original/file-20190327-139356-a7cv19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266172/original/file-20190327-139356-a7cv19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266172/original/file-20190327-139356-a7cv19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=463&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266172/original/file-20190327-139356-a7cv19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=463&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266172/original/file-20190327-139356-a7cv19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=463&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Choosing to take part in a particular event suggests certain things about attendees.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/nrcs_south_dakota/8267472111">USDA NRCS South Dakota/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Know your audience by picking your audience</h2>
<p>To start, if you’re being strategic, you should know something about your audience because you should have picked who you’re communicating with based on your goals.</p>
<p>In general, the hope is that experts like the scientists we study would have shifted valuable time or resources from their regular work to communication because there’s some sort of behavior they want to see in some specific group or groups. The behavior could be individual – things such as drinking less, buying greener products, choosing a science career – or civic – behaviors such as supporting, opposing or disregarding an issue.</p>
<p>No communicator – including scientists – should spend limited time, money and opportunity on audiences that aren’t a priority given their goals. It will rarely make sense to spend resources trying to get an arch-liberal to donate to the National Rifle Association or a diehard lover of science to embrace science even more.</p>
<p>Once you know what you want to accomplish and who you want to accomplish it with, you’re a lot closer to figuring out what you need to know about your audience.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267855/original/file-20190405-180036-1xvklaf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267855/original/file-20190405-180036-1xvklaf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267855/original/file-20190405-180036-1xvklaf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267855/original/file-20190405-180036-1xvklaf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267855/original/file-20190405-180036-1xvklaf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267855/original/file-20190405-180036-1xvklaf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267855/original/file-20190405-180036-1xvklaf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267855/original/file-20190405-180036-1xvklaf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Audiences aren’t obligated to hang on your every word.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/microphone-voice-speaker-seminar-classroom-lecture-534042616">Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What does your audience think and feel?</h2>
<p>The next step is figuring something out about the target audience’s beliefs, feelings or way of framing a topic. It is these beliefs, feelings and frames that can change and it is these changes that will increase the odds an audience will meaningfully consider your hoped-for behavior.</p>
<p>The most common types of beliefs that the scientists we study like to share are those related to the knowledge they’re creating through their research. This might be something about new evidence connecting how rising greenhouse gases are changing the climate, a lack of connection between vaccines and risk, or any other new finding. This preference seems to stem from scientists’ belief that their audience has a crucial gap in its knowledge or way of thinking.</p>
<p>Increasing basic knowledge sometimes gets dismissed in science communication circles; there’s little evidence that <a href="https://www.nap.edu/read/23595/chapter/1">information-focused initiatives</a> work very well. More and more facts rarely produce substantial behavioral changes. Worse, although researchers haven’t carefully tested it, anyone who’s sat through a boring lecture can probably attest to the fact that sharing too much technical detail can turn an audience off.</p>
<p>On the other hand, most audiences probably expect to hear about experts’ work and so experts likely need to share some information about what they’re finding or they risk failing to meet people’s expectations.</p>
<p>Just as importantly, there are many other facts beyond those associated with technical knowledge that communicators could ethically want people to come to believe.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/266175/original/file-20190327-139349-p135i5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/266175/original/file-20190327-139349-p135i5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/266175/original/file-20190327-139349-p135i5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=687&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266175/original/file-20190327-139349-p135i5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=687&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266175/original/file-20190327-139349-p135i5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=687&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266175/original/file-20190327-139349-p135i5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=863&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266175/original/file-20190327-139349-p135i5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=863&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266175/original/file-20190327-139349-p135i5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=863&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Expressing shared values can help build trust and connection.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dvids/5447684077">DVIDSHUB/Spc. Tobey White/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For the topics we study, it might be helpful to really know, for example, if an audience believes the research team is <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119206422.ch21">competent, honest, caring</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2015.1118149">open</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.216173">similar to them</a> when it comes to values. If this is not how the scientists are perceived, it’s important to know so the communicator can make communication choices that give the audience a chance to learn a bit more about the team – assuming they do embody these characteristics.</p>
<p>This might mean sharing a bit about their credentials and the sophisticated effort that went into the pertinent research, the motives that drive the team or what they do to make sure they’re always listening to others’ views.</p>
<p>These trust-related communication objectives may be particularly important for making it more likely that someone <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1952-5_10">will pay attention and think about what you have to say</a>. For example, audience members may lack the motivation to truly listen to someone that they believe is dishonest or incompetent.</p>
<p>Similarly, if the goal is to promote behaviors, it helps to know what the audience thinks about those behaviors. Do they believe in the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2016.01.003">risks or benefits</a> of what the research suggests? Which do they think about most? And what do they <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.11.012">think their family and friends think and do</a> – what social psychologists call subjective and descriptive norms? Do they think they even have the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515595348">ability to do what’s being suggested</a> or believe that doing so will make a difference?</p>
<p>It may also be important to know <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.04.006">how the audience feels</a>, what <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13282">emotions are driving behavior</a> and how they <a href="https://doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.51.2.12-23">mentally frame the issue</a>.</p>
<h2>You can’t know everything about your audience</h2>
<p>Of course it’s impossible to know everything about your audience. You can make educated bets – and you can also ask for help from a communication expert or longtime leader in your organization or a group you belong to. In our area of study, these might be the public information officers at universities or scientific societies. They want to help and the good ones are constantly tracking stakeholder views on various issues you might want to address.</p>
<p>There are also many things you probably can’t change about your audience through communication – like an individual’s core values – although these can affect how what you communicate gets interpreted. And that’s why you have to prioritize by being clear on your goals and starting with an understanding of your audience. Communication theory and formative research are meant to <a href="https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/public-communication-campaigns/book234975">help with such strategizing</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/111147/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John C. Besley receives or has received funding from the National Science Foundation (AISL 1421214-1421723), the United States Department of Agriculture (MICL02468), the Albert and Mary Lasker Foundation, the John Templeton Foundation, the Rita Allen Foundation, the David & Lucile Packard Foundation, and the Kavli Foundation for research related to this article. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of these organizations.
</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anthony Dudo receives funding or has received funding from the National Science Foundation (AISL 1421214-1421723), the Albert and Mary Lasker Foundation, the John Templeton Foundation, the Rita Allen Foundation, the David & Lucile Packard Foundation, and the Kavli Foundation for research related to this article. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of these organizations. </span></em></p>Connecting with an audience in a productive way can mean first figuring out what they think, feel and believe before you start sharing your message.John C. Besley, Ellis N. Brandt Professor of Public Relations, Michigan State UniversityAnthony Dudo, Associate Professor of Advertising and Public Relations, The University of Texas at AustinLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1083022019-01-11T11:47:19Z2019-01-11T11:47:19ZCalling it a ‘war on science’ has consequences<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253345/original/file-20190111-43514-1bk1dyx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=825%2C288%2C4398%2C3252&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">How does the concept of science in the crosshairs affect opinions?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/rifle-target-view-on-natural-background-1213560445?src=wVuFWODDgQa43JDOMEBpzA-1-4">gan chaonan/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253327/original/file-20190110-43520-1g8i86f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253327/original/file-20190110-43520-1g8i86f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253327/original/file-20190110-43520-1g8i86f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=873&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253327/original/file-20190110-43520-1g8i86f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=873&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253327/original/file-20190110-43520-1g8i86f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=873&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253327/original/file-20190110-43520-1g8i86f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1096&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253327/original/file-20190110-43520-1g8i86f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1096&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253327/original/file-20190110-43520-1g8i86f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1096&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">What happens when a cover boils a measured article down to this provocative headline?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/content/dam/magazine/rights-exempt/2015/03/2015-03-cover.ngsversion.1498924841260.adapt.1900.1.jpg">National Geographic</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>National Geographic’s March 2015 cover story provided a thoughtful discussion around the question of “<a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2015/03/science-doubters-climate-change-vaccinations-gmos/">Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science</a>?” The actual cover, however, simply said “The War on Science.” </p>
<p>That article never actually uses the term “war on science” but claiming the existence of a such a conflict has become quite common.</p>
<p>There are <a href="https://milkweed.org/book/the-war-on-science">books</a> to tell readers “who’s waging it,” “why it matters,” and “what we can do about it” and many <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-trump-administration-rsquo-s-war-on-science-agencies-threatens-the-nation-rsquo-s-health-and-safety/">opinion articles</a> and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/09/opinion/sunday/trump-epa-pruitt-science.html">editorials</a> in reputable publications describing its battles. </p>
<p>While we may fully agree as individuals that current approaches to science policy seem deeply problematic, we also wonder as communication scholars whether it makes strategic sense to call the current situation a “war.” Communication experts have long <a href="https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.0900041">expressed concerns</a> that framing an issue as a conflict might make finding a reasonable path forward harder by suggesting that people need to choose sides and vanquish their opponents in order to succeed. </p>
<p>Building on such arguments, our <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018822081">new research suggests</a> that Americans may see scientists’ choice to accuse conservatives of waging a “war on science” as relatively aggressive compared to potential alternative ways of describing the current situation. In turn, this perceived aggressiveness may harm the credibility of scientists in conservative audiences that already have doubts about them.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253346/original/file-20190111-43529-myhcwz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253346/original/file-20190111-43529-myhcwz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253346/original/file-20190111-43529-myhcwz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253346/original/file-20190111-43529-myhcwz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253346/original/file-20190111-43529-myhcwz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253346/original/file-20190111-43529-myhcwz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253346/original/file-20190111-43529-myhcwz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253346/original/file-20190111-43529-myhcwz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Are these ground troops pushing back against a ‘war on science?’</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Science-March-Los-Angeles/82397ba7950640bea4a8a5f5effb20ce/1/0">AP Photo/Reed Saxon</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Investigating the effect of the frame</h2>
<p>Framing is how communicators put an issue in context – whether naively or on purpose. For years, communication scholars have criticized journalists for frequently framing issues as <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600500311394">conflicts or games</a> rather than trying to find <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900508200208">more meaningful ways</a> to understand disagreement. For example, researchers have argued that too much media coverage of climate change focuses on the <a href="https://doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.51.2.12-23">“fight” between conservatives and liberals</a>. This kind of framing problem isn’t exclusive to science-related coverage – but science communicators don’t need to contribute to the problem.</p>
<p>For our study, we surveyed 1,024 American adults who were part of an online panel, selected to be similar to the U.S. population in terms of age, gender, education and political ideology. We randomly assigned participants to read one of three different versions of a blog post about science or an article about baseball. Then we asked them a series of questions about their perception of scientists and other topics. </p>
<p>We adapted the science article from a 2017 <a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-war-for-science/">Scientific American blog</a> that framed the Trump administration’s approach to scientific evidence as a “war on science.” The article called the administration liars, talking about specific “attacks” and trying to rally scientists to fight back.</p>
<p>We trimmed this initial article for length and then changed some wording to make two alternate versions. Rather than a war, one framed the current situation as either a “challenge for science,” while the other used the frame of a “neglect of science.” </p>
<p>The “challenge for science” article kept some of same aggressive tone as the original article, calling out the White House for lying, but replacing war-related terms such the “attack on science” with the “challenge for science.” In contrast, the article that framed the administration as neglectful took a less aggressive tone, though still addressed the same ideas using the same structure. </p>
<p>What we ultimately found was that the level of perceived aggressiveness coupled with the “war on science” framing generally led conservatives, liberals and moderates to rate the credibility of scientists differently. </p>
<p>When liberals viewed the “war on science”-framed article as an aggressive message, their ratings of scientists’ credibility increased. On the other hand, when viewed as aggressive, the “war on science” framing pushed down conservatives’ perceptions of scientists’ credibility. While not everyone saw the same content as aggressive, when they did, it affected credibility perceptions.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253322/original/file-20190110-43529-53slh9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253322/original/file-20190110-43529-53slh9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253322/original/file-20190110-43529-53slh9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=385&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253322/original/file-20190110-43529-53slh9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=385&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253322/original/file-20190110-43529-53slh9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=385&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253322/original/file-20190110-43529-53slh9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=483&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253322/original/file-20190110-43529-53slh9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=483&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253322/original/file-20190110-43529-53slh9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=483&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">When respondents read the article with the ‘war on science’ frame, liberals and conservatives diverged in how much credibility they gave scientists based on how aggressive they perceived the writing to be. This pattern wasn’t as evident when respondents read similar articles with the ‘challenge for science’ or ‘neglect of science’ framing.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018822081">Hardy et al DOI: 10.1177/1075547018822081</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The differences are fairly small, but we only showed respondents a single article.</p>
<p>Researchers’ understanding is that communication effects like these work cumulatively. So continued exposure to something like war framing might be expected to gradually increase the ideological differences that we found and that seems to be <a href="https://gssdataexplorer.norc.org/trends/Politics?measure=consci&response=A+great+deal&breakdown=Political+affiliation%C2%B0">appearing in the available long-term data</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412438225">associated research</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253326/original/file-20190110-43510-eaz487.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253326/original/file-20190110-43510-eaz487.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253326/original/file-20190110-43510-eaz487.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253326/original/file-20190110-43510-eaz487.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253326/original/file-20190110-43510-eaz487.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253326/original/file-20190110-43510-eaz487.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=564&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253326/original/file-20190110-43510-eaz487.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=564&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253326/original/file-20190110-43510-eaz487.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=564&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Scientists can’t count on high confidence ratings continuing forever.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/departmentofenergy/10169162155">U.S. Department of Energy/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Aggressiveness won’t broaden the base of support</h2>
<p>The pattern is still faint, and average reported confidence in scientists – which seems conceptually similar to credibility – has remained stable over time since the late 1970s. Less than 1 in 10 Americans say they have “hardly any” confidence in the scientific community.</p>
<p>But no one should take this stability for granted. The medical community, for example, has seen its <a href="https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/report/sections/science-and-technology-public-attitudes-and-understanding/public-attitudes-about-s-t-in-general">confidence rating decline</a>. Less than 1 in 10 Americans said they had “hardly any” confidence in medicine during the 1970s and into the 1990s, but views have deteriorated in <a href="https://gssdataexplorer.norc.org/trends/Politics?measure=conmedic">recent decades</a>.</p>
<p>And the current results build on some of our own past work showing that aggressive attacks on those who oppose technologies such as <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2016.1223159">genetically engineered food</a> or <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2018.1471337">vaccines</a> may also push down perceptions of scientists. </p>
<p>There may be times when an aggressive tone and conflict-framing is helpful for getting one’s existing supporters to donate money or perform some other behavior. But we have not seen any evidence that it helps expand the scope of support. </p>
<p>Our hope is to encourage science communicators to make choices about things like framing purposefully and to encourage research into approaches that increase the number of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1457067">friends of science</a>.</p>
<p>In making this argument, we’re mindful of examples such as the LGBT community’s efforts to <a href="https://lgbtmap.org/file/talking-about-overall-approaches-for-lgbt-issues.pdf">stay away from conflict framing</a> in its efforts to build support and lessen opposition to same-sex marriage. Rather than asking people to pick a side, the LGBT community framed marriage as a simple issue of love being love, not a fight for rights. </p>
<p>Aggressive tactics can come into play when those running for political office <a href="http://mediaproject.wesleyan.edu/releases/103018/">use personal attacks and negative advertising</a> to gain advantage against their opponents. Although such an uncivil approach can damage the image of the candidate making the attacks, he or she has time to rebuild their image with supporters before the next election. </p>
<p>In order to have a positive impact, the science community cannot rely on aggressive communication tactics. Science needs continuous and broad support, across the ideological spectrum, to engage in research and discovery and to see that these discoveries are put to use.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/108302/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John C. Besley has received funding from the National Science Foundation, the United States Department of Agriculture, the John Templeton Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Rita Allen Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, and the Kavli Foundation for research related to science communication. However, the opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of these organizations.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bruce W. Hardy is a Distinguished Research Fellow at the Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania. The opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Meghnaa Tallapragada received funding from Clemson University's Support for Early Exploration and Development (CU SEED) Grant Programs. However, the opinions, findings, or recommendations expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Clemson University. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Shupei Yuan receives funding from Rita Allen Foundation to study research related to public engagement. However, the opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organization.</span></em></p>Researchers found that aggressive messaging and framing current events as a ‘war on science’ had different effects on how liberals and conservatives felt about scientists’ credibility.John C. Besley, Ellis N. Brandt Professor of Public Relations, Michigan State UniversityBruce W. Hardy, Assistant Professor of Communication and Social Influence, Temple UniversityMeghnaa Tallapragada, Assistant Professor of Strategic Communication, Clemson UniversityShupei Yuan, Assistant Professor of Public Relations, Northern Illinois UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1029072018-09-11T20:12:47Z2018-09-11T20:12:47ZGoogle searches reveal where people are most concerned about climate change<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/235707/original/file-20180910-123125-qqf4hc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A handy source of information about questions big and small.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://pixabay.com/en/mobile-phone-android-apps-phone-1572901/">TheDigitalWay/pixabay</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>What do you do if you have a question? You probably Google it.</p>
<p>According to <a href="https://trends.google.com/trends/yis/2017/AU/">Google Trends</a>, in 2017 Australians were keen to know about tennis, Sophie Monk, fidget spinners and Bitcoin. But besides these arguably trivial queries, our Google searches also revealed our concerns about extreme weather events such as Cyclone Debbie, Hurricane Irma, and the Bali volcano.</p>
<p>Our research, <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-018-2289-9">published in the journal Climatic Change</a>, suggests that Google search histories can be used as a “barometer of social awareness” to measure communities’ awareness of climate change, and their ability to adapt to it.</p>
<p>We found that Fiji, the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu share the highest levels of climate change awareness, according to their Google searches – as might be expected of island nations where climate change is a pressing reality. Australia is close behind, with a high level of public knowledge about climate change, despite the current lack of political action.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/pacific-islands-are-not-passive-victims-of-climate-change-but-will-need-help-47207">Pacific islands are not passive victims of climate change, but will need help</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Google searches are like a window into the questions and concerns that are playing on society’s collective mind. Search histories have been used to alert epidemiologists to ‘flu outbreaks (albeit with <a href="https://www.nature.com/news/when-google-got-flu-wrong-1.12413">varying success</a>) and to gauge how communities may respond to <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-015-1590-0">extreme weather events like hurricanes</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/235706/original/file-20180910-123116-xy69jl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/235706/original/file-20180910-123116-xy69jl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/235706/original/file-20180910-123116-xy69jl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=474&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/235706/original/file-20180910-123116-xy69jl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=474&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/235706/original/file-20180910-123116-xy69jl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=474&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/235706/original/file-20180910-123116-xy69jl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=596&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/235706/original/file-20180910-123116-xy69jl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=596&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/235706/original/file-20180910-123116-xy69jl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=596&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Googling for the climate.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">search-engine-land/flickr</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Talk of climate change action like “adaptation” often centres on well-known and at-risk places such as the Pacific Islands. As sea level rises, communities are forced to adapt by building sea walls or, in extreme cases, relocate. </p>
<p>Understanding how conscious communities are of the impacts of climate change is crucial to determining how willing they may be to adapt. So finding a way to rapidly gauge public awareness of climate change could help deliver funding and resources to areas that not only need it the most, but are also willing to take the action required. </p>
<p>In our research, we used Google search histories to measure the climate change awareness in different communities, and to show how awareness maps (like the one below) can help better target funding and resources.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/googles-vast-library-reveals-the-rising-tide-of-climate-related-words-in-literature-45056">Google's vast library reveals the rising tide of climate-related words in literature</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>OK Google, do I need to worry about the climate?</h2>
<p>Google is asked more than 3.6 billion questions every day, some of which are about climate change. We looked at how many climate-related Google searches were made in 150 different countries, and ranked these countries from most to least aware of climate change. </p>
<p>Countries such as Fiji and Canada, which reported high rates of climate change Googling, were considered as having a high awareness of climate change.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/235594/original/file-20180910-123122-co4wmr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/235594/original/file-20180910-123122-co4wmr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/235594/original/file-20180910-123122-co4wmr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=233&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/235594/original/file-20180910-123122-co4wmr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=233&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/235594/original/file-20180910-123122-co4wmr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=233&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/235594/original/file-20180910-123122-co4wmr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=292&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/235594/original/file-20180910-123122-co4wmr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=292&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/235594/original/file-20180910-123122-co4wmr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=292&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">World map of climate change awareness based on the relative volume of climate change related searches, and climate change vulnerability. Colours show the relationship between awareness and vulnerability: yellow, ‘high awareness, high risk’; orange, ‘low awareness, high risk’; dark purple, ‘high awareness, low risk’; light purple, ‘low awareness, low risk’.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We then divided countries into categories based on their climate awareness, their wealth, and their risk of climate change impacts (based on factors such as temperature, rainfall, and population density). All of these variables can influence communities’ <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-017-0065-x">ability to adapt to climate change</a>.</p>
<p>This is a quick way to gauge how ready communities are to adapt to climate change, especially at a large global scale. For example, two countries in the “high awareness, high risk” category are Australia and the Solomon Islands, yet these two nations differ greatly in their financial resources. Australia has a large economy and should therefore be financing its own climate adaptation, whereas the Solomon Islands would be a candidate for international climate aid funding. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/235708/original/file-20180910-123104-1e98st4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/235708/original/file-20180910-123104-1e98st4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/235708/original/file-20180910-123104-1e98st4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/235708/original/file-20180910-123104-1e98st4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/235708/original/file-20180910-123104-1e98st4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/235708/original/file-20180910-123104-1e98st4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/235708/original/file-20180910-123104-1e98st4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/235708/original/file-20180910-123104-1e98st4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Destruction of Townsville, Australia after Tropical Cyclone Yasi.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Rob and Stephanie Levy/flickr</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>By looking at countries’ specific situations – not only in terms of their relative wealth but also their degree of public engagement with climate issues – we can not only improve the strategic delivery of climate change adaptation funding, but can also help to determine what type of approach may be best.</p>
<h2>Challenges and opportunities</h2>
<p>Of course, there are plenty of other ways to assess climate preparedness besides Google searches. What’s more, internet access is limited in many countries, which means Google search histories may be skewed towards the concerns of that country’s more affluent or urbanised citizens. </p>
<p>Climate change awareness has previously been measured <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2728">using surveys</a> and interviews. This approach provides plenty of detail, but is also painstaking and resource-intensive. Our big-data method may therefore be more helpful in making rapid, large-scale decisions about where and when to deliver climate adaptation funding. </p>
<p>Google search histories also don’t tell us about governments’ policy positions on climate issues. This is a notable concern in Australia, which has a high degree of public climate awareness, at least judging by Google searches, but also a <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-too-hard-basket-a-short-history-of-australias-aborted-climate-policies-101812">history of political decisions</a> that fail to deliver climate action.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/lack-of-climate-policy-threatens-to-trip-up-australian-diplomacy-this-summit-season-102845">Lack of climate policy threatens to trip up Australian diplomacy this summit season</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Amid the political impasse in much of the world, big data can help reveal how society feels about environmental issues at a grassroots level. This approach also provides an opportunity to link with other big data projects, such as Google’s new <a href="https://insights.sustainability.google/places/ChIJv_FYgkNd1moRpxLuRXZURFs">Environmental Insights Explorer</a> and <a href="https://toolbox.google.com/datasetsearch">Data Set Search</a>. </p>
<p>The untapped potential of big data to help shape policy in the future could provide hope for communities that are threatened by climate change.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/102907/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Google search histories can be used to reveal how much the public knows about climate change in countries all over the world - and how ready they are to take action to guard against its effects.Carla Archibald, PhD Candidate, Conservation Science, The University of QueenslandNathalie Butt, Postdoctoral Fellow, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/766302017-04-26T01:05:33Z2017-04-26T01:05:33ZCan Bill Nye – or any other science show – really save the world?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166714/original/file-20170425-13380-14ry8qb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Will Bill Nye's new show find a wider audience than Neil deGrasse Tyson's 'Cosmos' did?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/inVision-Vince-Bucci-Invision-AP-a-ENT-CPAENT-C-/513a1e21274242ed99d659d85630c48b/3/0">Vince Bucci/Invision for the Television Academy/AP Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Netflix’s new talk show, “<a href="https://www.netflix.com/title/80117748">Bill Nye Saves the World</a>,” debuted the night before people around the world joined together to demonstrate and March for Science. Many have lauded the timing and relevance of the show, featuring the famous “<a href="https://www.netflix.com/title/80046944">Science Guy</a>” as its host, because it aims to myth-bust and debunk anti-scientific claims in an <a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-isnt-lying-hes-bullshitting-and-its-far-more-dangerous-71932">alternative-fact era</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/what-does-research-say-about-how-to-effectively-communicate-about-science-70244">But are more facts</a> really the kryptonite that will rein in what some suggest is a rapidly spreading <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trumps-5-most-ldquo-anti-science-rdquo-moves/">“anti-science” sentiment in the U.S.</a>?</p>
<p>“With the right science and good writing,” Nye hopes, “we’ll do our best to enlighten and entertain our audience. And, <a href="https://media.netflix.com/en/press-releases/netflix-announces-new-talk-show-with-bill-nye">perhaps we’ll change the world a little</a>.” In an ideal world, a show like this might attract a broad and diverse audience with varying levels of science interest and background. By entertaining a wide range of viewers, the thinking goes, the show could effectively dismantle enduring beliefs that are at odds with scientific evidence. Significant parts of the public still aren’t on board with the <a href="https://theconversation.com/yes-we-can-do-sound-climate-science-even-though-its-projecting-the-future-75763">scientific consensus on climate change</a> and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/vaccines-back-in-the-headlines-heres-what-the-experts-say-47815">safety of vaccines</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-report-on-ge-crops-avoids-simple-answers-and-thats-the-point-study-members-say-59289">genetically modified foods</a>, for instance.</p>
<p>But what deserves to be successful isn’t always what ends up winning hearts and minds in the real world. In fact, <a href="https://aaas.confex.com/aaas/2016/webprogram/Paper18139.html">empirical data we collected suggest</a> that the viewership of such shows – even heavily publicized and celebrity-endorsed ones – is small and made up of people who are already highly educated, knowledgeable about science and receptive to scientific evidence.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166715/original/file-20170425-13414-qu005f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166715/original/file-20170425-13414-qu005f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166715/original/file-20170425-13414-qu005f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166715/original/file-20170425-13414-qu005f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166715/original/file-20170425-13414-qu005f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166715/original/file-20170425-13414-qu005f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=553&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166715/original/file-20170425-13414-qu005f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=553&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166715/original/file-20170425-13414-qu005f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=553&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">‘Cosmos’‘ pedigree and publicity seemed like they would translate to success….</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/inVision-Frank-Micelotta-Invision-AP-a-ENT-CPAE-/194092c8627d4ef3aa898b073e2f2c83/1/0">Frank Micelotta/Invision for FOX/AP Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>‘Cosmos’ illustrates the issue</h2>
<p>The 2014 reboot of <a href="http://www.carlsagan.com/">Carl Sagan</a>’s popular 1980 series “Cosmos,” starring astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, is just one recent example. Tyson’s show, “<a href="http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/cosmos-a-spacetime-odyssey/">Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey</a>,” aired prime time on Fox and the National Geographic channel, received several <a href="http://www.emmys.com/awards/nominees-winners/2014">Emmy nominations</a> and was considered a critical success in which “Tyson managed to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/02/26/neil-degrasse-tyson-to-receive-the-national-academy-of-sciences-most-prestigious-honor/?utm_term=.ae59385f7780">educate and excite viewers of all ages</a> across the globe.”</p>
<p>However, Tyson’s efforts to reach a broad audience and preach beyond the proverbial choir fell short. Nielsen ratings indicate the new version of “Cosmos” reached 1.3 percent of television households, which doesn’t compare well even to other science shows and educational programming. PBS’ “NOVA,” for instance, <a href="http://www.sgptv.org/media/pdfs/SGPTV_2016-17_Media_Kit_100416.pdf">typically reaches about 3 percent</a> of households (around <a href="http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2016/nielsen-estimates-118-4-million-tv-homes-in-the-us--for-the-2016-17-season.html">four million viewers</a> a week), and PBS’ other prime time programming usually gets higher Nielsen ratings than “Cosmos” had. “Cosmos” lagged even further behind science entertainment shows like “<a href="http://www.cbs.com/shows/ncis/">NCIS</a>,” which reached 11.2 percent of households, and “<a href="http://www.cbs.com/shows/big_bang_theory/">The Big Bang Theory</a>,” which reached 10.8 percent of households during the same week “Cosmos” aired its first episode.</p>
<p>In 2014, we conducted a <a href="https://aaas.confex.com/aaas/2016/webprogram/Paper18139.html">representative national survey</a> in a collaboration among the University of Wisconsin, the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center and Temple University. We found that 76.1 percent of Americans did not watch any episodes of “Cosmos,” 7.1 percent said they watched one episode, and only 2.4 percent said they watched all 13 episodes.</p>
<p>And there were really no surprises about who tuned in. Respondents who saw at least one episode were 40 percent more likely to be male, 35 percent more likely to claim interest in science, and significantly more knowledgeable about science than those who didn’t watch. Less affluent audiences were less likely to watch at least one episode, as were those who were highly religious. Even those who expressed above-average interest in science watched only 1.5 “Cosmos” episodes on average.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166716/original/file-20170425-13401-110os80.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166716/original/file-20170425-13401-110os80.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166716/original/file-20170425-13401-110os80.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=435&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166716/original/file-20170425-13401-110os80.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=435&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166716/original/file-20170425-13401-110os80.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=435&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166716/original/file-20170425-13401-110os80.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=547&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166716/original/file-20170425-13401-110os80.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=547&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166716/original/file-20170425-13401-110os80.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=547&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">What science programming will capture the imaginations of those who aren’t already into science?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/two-boys-brothers-watching-tv-attentively-56826280">Watching image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Success is out there?</h2>
<p>Engaging scientific programming could still be an antidote to waning public interest in science, especially where <a href="https://theconversation.com/science-achievement-gaps-start-early-in-kindergarten-65028">formal science education</a> <a href="https://theconversation.com/heres-why-kids-fall-behind-in-science-56785">is falling short</a>. But it is revealing that “Cosmos” – a heavily marketed, big-budget show backed by Fox Networks and “Family Guy” creator Seth McFarlane – did not reach the audience who need quality science information the most. “Bill Nye Saves the World” might not either. Its streaming numbers are not yet available.</p>
<p>Today’s <a href="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10935.html">fragmented and partisan media environment</a> fosters selective exposure and motivated reasoning – that is, viewers typically tune in to programming that <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015701">confirms their existing worldview</a>. There are few opportunities or incentives for audiences to <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320868111">engage with scientific evidence</a> in the media. All of this can propagate misleading claims and deter audiences from accepting the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317516111">conclusions of sound science</a>. And adoption of misinformation and alternative facts is <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-each-side-of-the-partisan-divide-thinks-the-other-is-living-in-an-alternate-reality-71458">not a partisan problem</a>. Policy debates questioning or ignoring scientific consensus on vaccines, climate change and GMOs have <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214554756">cut across different political camps</a>.</p>
<p>None of this is meant to downplay the huge potential of entertainment media to reach diverse audiences beyond the proverbial choir. We know from decades of research that our mental images of science and its impact on society are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210384988">shaped heavily</a> by (sometimes stereotypical) portrayals of science and scientists in shows like “The Big Bang Theory” or “<a href="http://www.bbcamerica.com/shows/orphan-black">Orphan Black</a>.”</p>
<p>But successful scientific entertainment programming needs to accomplish two goals: First, draw in a diverse audience well beyond those already interested in science; second, present scientific issues in a way that unites audiences around shared values rather than further polarizing by presenting science in ways that seems at odds with specific political or religious worldviews. </p>
<p>While “Cosmos” failed to attract a diverse audience eager to be introduced to the wonders of the universe (and science), there’s still value in the science community and entertainment industry collaboratively developing these kinds of television programs. In order to be successful, however, these collaborations must draw on insights from social science research to maximize the reach of novel diverse formats, communication strategies and media outlets. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine’s <a href="http://scienceandentertainmentexchange.org/">Science and Entertainment Exchange</a>, for instance, tries to connect the entertainment industry and the nation’s best scientists in order to combine the reach of entertainment media’s engaging storytelling with the most accurate portrayal of science.</p>
<p>And social science research suggests that complex information can reach audiences via the most unlikely of places, including the satirical fake news program “The Colbert Report.” In fact, a University of Pennsylvania study showed that a series of “Colbert Report” episodes <a href="http://www.cc.com/video-collections/8iug7x/the-colbert-report-colbert-super-pac/3yzu4u">about Super PACs and 501(c)(4) groups</a> during the 2012 presidential election <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2014.891138">did a better job educating viewers</a> than did mainstream programming in traditional news formats. </p>
<p>Social science can help us learn from our mistakes and better understand how to connect with hard-to-reach audiences via new formats and outlets. None of these shows by themselves will save the world. But if done right, they each might get us closer, one empirical step at a time.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>After publication, “Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey” host <a href="https://theconversation.com/go-76630#comment_1276757">Neil deGrasse Tyson responded to this article</a> in a comment.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/76630/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Popular programming that focuses on science tends to not actually be all that popular. Bringing in new audiences who aren’t already up to speed on science topics is a challenge.Heather Akin, Post-Doctoral Research Fellow at the Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of PennsylvaniaBruce W. Hardy, Assistant Professor of Strategic Communication, Temple UniversityDietram A. Scheufele, Professor of Life Sciences Communication, University of Wisconsin-MadisonDominique Brossard, Professor and Chair in the Department of Life Sciences Communication, University of Wisconsin-MadisonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/393612015-04-15T20:35:26Z2015-04-15T20:35:26ZMeasuring the value of science: it’s not always about the money<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77615/original/image-20150410-2072-eix65b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=40%2C0%2C1101%2C697&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Science can help explain the mysteries of the universe but how do you put a dollar value on that?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/jamiegilbert/8274404242">Flickr/James Gilbert</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Reports about the worthy contributions of science to national economies pop up regularly all around the world – from the <a href="http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_13-5-2014-12-8-8">UK</a> to the <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100609/full/465682a.html">US</a> and even the <a href="http://www.scidev.net/global/r-d/news/basic-science-linked-to-faster-economic-growth.html">developing world</a>.</p>
<p>In Australia, the Office of the Chief Scientist recently <a href="http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2015/03/report-the-importance-of-advanced-physical-and-mathematical-sciences-to-the-australian-economy-2/">released an analysis</a> of science and its contribution to the economy down under, finding it’s worth around A$145 billion a year.</p>
<p>It’s perfectly sensible and understandable that science (and related sectors) would feel the need to account for themselves in financial or economic terms. But in doing this we need to be wary of getting lulled into believing that this is the only – or worse, the best – way of attributing value to science.</p>
<p>When it comes to determining the value of science, we should <a href="http://www.iisd.org/pdf/s_ind_2.pdf">heed the words</a> of the American environmental scientist and thinker, <a href="http://www.donellameadows.org/donella-meadows-legacy/donella-dana-meadows/">Donella Meadows</a>, on how we think about indicators: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Indicators arise from values (we measure what we care about), and they create values (we care about what we measure). Indicators are often poorly chosen […] The choice of indicators is a critical determinant of the behaviour of a system.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Much public debate about the value of science has been hijacked by the assumption that direct, tangible economic impact is <em>the</em> way to measure scientific worth. </p>
<p>We seem now to be in a place where positing non-economic arguments for science benefits runs the risk of being branded quaintly naïve and out-of-touch at best, or worse: insensitive, irrelevant and self-serving. </p>
<p>But relegating science to the status of mere servant of the economy does science a dramatic disservice and leaves both science and society the poorer for it. </p>
<p>So here are five ways we can acknowledge and appreciate the societal influences and impacts of science that lie well beyond the dreary, soulless, cost-benefit equations of economics. </p>
<h2>Testing and presenting ideas and the great tools to do it</h2>
<p>The mechanisms of scientific enterprise have proven their worth time and again. The formulation of challengeable hypotheses, and the increasingly sophisticated methods we use to test them, have repeatedly been confirmed as the most potent tools for finding out things about our world. </p>
<p>The scientific method has helped us make sense of the world in a way that counters our natural tendencies to make connections and draw conclusions that simply aren’t true.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/clearing-up-confusion-between-correlation-and-causation-30761">For example</a>, the issue of correlation and causation, and how we regularly mess this up if we don’t apply rigorous scientific and statistical reasoning. </p>
<h2>Scientific reasoning protects us and saves us from ourselves</h2>
<p>Scientific thinking and reasoning – and the social and institutional capital that often comes with it – help free us from control by superstition, magical thinking and unscrupulous power-seekers. </p>
<p>Science has been our guide, our sword and our shield, when identifying all manner of evils. Think the connection between <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/effects_cig_smoking/">smoking and disease</a>, the damage of <a href="http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/">human-induced climate change</a>, or waking us up to the first rule of gambling: <a href="http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20120816-travelwise-casino-design-and-why-the-house-always-wins">that the house always wins</a>. </p>
<p>While there are benefits to the economy in saving lives or working to stem the effects of climate change, these are not the first, nor even the most, significant effects on us as individuals. </p>
<h2>Inspire, motivate and delight</h2>
<p>By pushing the boundaries of what is possible, science has repeatedly inspired and facilitated humanity’s ability to not just dream, but to turn our most ambitious dreams in to reality. </p>
<p>People now live into their <a href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/deaths/life-expectancy/">70s and 80s</a> as a matter of routine, we easily and instantly communicate with any part of the globe on a whim and we have even left the planet itself. </p>
<p>A quick search for the most <a href="http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/science-websites">popular science sites on the web</a> turns up an armful of space-related material, explainers on how things works and general science story aggregators. If economic benefits are even mentioned, they are frequently an afterthought at best.</p>
<p>At my own university, the most popular video on our YouTube channel is a physics lecture on <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n19HIHCpOVE">the great unsolved mysteries of the universe</a>. Yes, a lecture. An hour-long lecture, filmed in lo-fi nearly five years ago. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/n19HIHCpOVE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The inspirational effects of science are powerful, ubiquitous, and are by no means limited to contested contributions to the economy. And this is just the tangible, more obvious stuff. </p>
<h2>Challenging the status-quo and inspiring reflection</h2>
<p>Equipped with scientific methods and reasoning, no subject need be off the table for reasoned debate, discussion and dissent. In science, no subject is taboo as long as the methods for considering it are scientific. </p>
<p>This ethos allows us to challenge the assumptions upon which fundamental norms are based without worrying that rogue, opposing ideas might somehow infect us. </p>
<p>The application of scientific reasoning allowed us, for example, to discover that the <a href="http://www.wired.com/2014/04/how-do-we-know-the-earth-orbits-the-sun/">sun doesn’t revolve around the Earth</a> and to recognise there are more than two straight-forward biological representations of <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/barronlerner/2015/03/13/science-activism-and-truth-galileos-middle-finger-by-alice-dreger/">human sexes</a>. </p>
<p>Pushed further, respect for the appropriate application of scientific thinking accepts challenges to the very basis of our beliefs about ourselves as a species. Nowhere is this more powerfully confronted than in Australian-born philosopher <a href="http://www.princeton.edu/%7Epsinger/">Peter Singer</a>’s <a href="http://www.vuletic.com/hume/ph/singer.html">thought-provoking</a> dismemberment of our rationale for justifying experimentation on non-human animals that we would not conduct on ourselves.</p>
<p>Yes, greasing the economic wheels of day-to-day subsistence is important, but reflecting upon, and challenging how we understand what makes us human? That’s something you’d be hard pressed to cost-out for your bank manager. </p>
<h2>Meaning, worth and expressing the best of ourselves</h2>
<p>We already know that science can free us from the tyranny of superstition, ignorance and devious influences.</p>
<p>At its finest, it provides a model for exploring and understanding anything in the tangible universe. But science and its products also offer a vehicle for considering what it is to be human, not just physically but esoterically.</p>
<p>Science can offer a sense of mystery and connectedness that doesn’t rely on faith or appeals to authority and dogma. It can provide a humbling, perspective-smashing sense of the scale of the stuff of the universe and our place in relation to it (from sub-atomic to galactic and beyond). </p>
<p>I say this not to usurp the place of religion for those to whom it is important. On this I agree with American physicist and writer <a href="http://cmsw.mit.edu/alan-lightman">Alan Lightman</a> <a href="http://www.brainpickings.org/2014/01/15/alan-lightman-accidental-universe-science-spirituality/">when he says</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Science does not reveal the meaning of our existence, but it does draw back some of the veils.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>For atheists like me though, I am more moved by sentiments like those expressed by Ann Druyan, the widow of the American astronomer Carl Sagan, who said Carl saw science as a kind of “<a href="http://www.brainpickings.org/2013/12/20/carl-sagan-varieties-of-scientific-experience/">informed worship</a>”. Science can provide a wonderful path to connecting with something bigger and more profound than ourselves, without requiring divine support. </p>
<h2>So anyway …</h2>
<p>I’m not so idealistic that I’d argue money doesn’t matter. It matters. It matters a lot. But to accept without contest that it is the most important, realistic or mature way to measure value in society is not only diminishing, it’s perverse. </p>
<p>Science helps us see that we are more than just the sum of our economic outputs and contributions (how often do you hear Einstein, Newton or Curie lauded for their contributions to the economy?).</p>
<p>Science helps us accept that idealism is okay, even beneficial. Science is as intrinsic to culture and cultural-identity as high-culture (think music, poetry, literature, painting and the like). </p>
<p>Science provides a refuge for those of us who know that knowledge for its own sake can be intrinsically valuable. It supports we who appreciate that there can be immeasurable value in judging human endeavours using indicators that stretch far beyond the mundanities of improving wages or boosting trade. </p>
<p>Yes there are benefits of science that can be measured by their contribution to GDP, but that doesn’t mean they should be.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39361/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rod Lamberts has previously received funding from the ARC Linkage program. </span></em></p>Why put a dollar value on science when the benefits to our lives and society are far more valuable?Rod Lamberts, Deputy Director, Australian National Centre for Public Awareness of Science, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/392482015-03-25T03:08:37Z2015-03-25T03:08:37ZAspiring to something magnificent with science in Australia<p><em>Australia’s Chief Scientist, Professor Ian Chubb, spoke at the National Press Club today about his vision for science in the future of Australia. Here he outlines what he imagines Australia could be.</em></p>
<p>Over the past four years, I have had a consistent message -– that science matters. And it is too important to leave to chance.</p>
<p>Whether it is our environment, our health, our ageing population, our food supply, our economy or our security, it will be scientific discovery and the use of scientific knowledge that will form the core of our ability to respond.</p>
<p>Without science we would have too little food to provide for the world, too little water for agriculture, too little potable water; without science our health would suffer; without science our lifestyle would be damaged beyond repair; our future would be bleak –- to say the very least.</p>
<p>As a nation, we have long presumed that good things will happen if we wait. That living in “the lucky country” will be enough to continue our good fortune.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, I have noticed an almost universal preoccupation among other nations of the world with science, technology, skills and innovation. The understanding that science will play its part at the core of future development is spreading.</p>
<p>We need this in Australia. But the evidence is mounting that we are paying the price for our unfocused approach and falling behind.</p>
<h2>We need science for the future</h2>
<p>It seems to me that the future is everyone’s business, and so the science that allows us to shape it –- for better or worse –- should be too. Science at a global level, science for our nation, science for all living systems. Science that will preserve and nurture the planet -– the only home we know.</p>
<p>That would give us something to pass on to the coming generations that they might appreciate just as much, or maybe more than, a balanced budget.</p>
<p>Imagine our Australia if we had the courage to build that kind of legacy.</p>
<p>Imagine if all secondary students received a thorough grounding in the history and philosophy of science, and in the scientific method, from teachers we supported and celebrated.</p>
<p>Imagine if we had an education system that so fired our curiosity that nearly all year 12 students would take a science subject, understanding it to be critical to their future.</p>
<p>Imagine if many of those students went on to study a science at university -– where lecturers engaged them in an interesting way, teaching science as it practised, with the intention not of creating more science lecturers, but of forming curious minds fit for all sorts of careers.</p>
<p>Imagine if employers could see the benefits of the skills –- critical thinking, creativity, analytical, logical and problem-solving skills – that are developed as part of an education in science, whether or not they needed the particular discipline knowledge of the student.</p>
<p>Imagine if there were few, if any, barriers in front of the people uncovering new knowledge and the people applying it in new ways to meet the needs of the market and the community.</p>
<p>Imagine if we no longer ranked at the bottom of the <a href="http://goo.gl/2jyATy">OECD table for industry and research collaboration</a>, but aspired to be at the top.</p>
<p>And imagine that because of all these inspired students, and inspiring teachers, and inspirational achievements, we were proud of the intellectual capital of this country, and nurtured curiosity and cherished talent wherever we found it.</p>
<h2>To be the best</h2>
<p>Then imagine that we thought of all these things not as ends in themselves, but as some of the means to the most important end of all -– building the best Australia that we can, and making the best possible contribution to the world.</p>
<p>A grand ambition, perhaps but if the Pope can have a science qualification, and the wealthiest people in the world can be IT tycoons, it seems to me that this country can be bold enough to say that every primary school ought to have science teacher with continually updated knowledge.</p>
<p>Get it right, and I believe we can build something magnificent.</p>
<p>I look forward to that future with cautious optimism. And I believe that one of my projects this year – developing national science and research priorities – will be an important step in the right direction.</p>
<p>This is not a revolutionary idea. If we look at the nations that are set apart by the strength of their science and the innovative capacity of their industries, priorities are a common part of their plans.</p>
<p>I continue to emphasise that this is not an applied research agenda. Priorities do not displace the sort of fundamental, curiosity-driven research that underpins all human progress.</p>
<p>The priorities simply recognise that some of our research funding should be spent identifying and conducting the science that is of particular and immediate important to our nation. The research that we need to do, or can do in a way that gives us a competitive edge. They help us ensure that our rationed resources and our own processes don’t leave gaps that we will come to regret.</p>
<p>If the science and research priorities remind us that we have something worth striving for, a common set of goals for our nation, they have served an important purpose. And if they help other nations to join us in the challenges we hold in common, then that is a good thing too.</p>
<p>Four years ago I was asked why I’d accepted the job as Chief Scientist. I said that science would matter when individuals were forgotten. It matters just as much today.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39248/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Chubb is the Chief Scientist of Australia.</span></em></p>Science matters and is important for Australia’s future but there is evidence mounting that we are falling behind the rest of the world.Ian Chubb, Chief Scientist for Australia, Office of the Chief ScientistLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/379422015-03-17T09:47:53Z2015-03-17T09:47:53ZScience celebrities are our de facto science laureates<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74934/original/image-20150316-9217-wv9lbh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Neil deGrasse Tyson is just one scientist celeb who already unofficially does the job of a science laureate.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/greyhawk68/375189520">John Roling</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A bill to create a US science laureate is <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4176">pending in Congress</a>. Climate skeptics reportedly <a href="http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2013/09/u.s.-science-laureate-bill-hits-roadblock">derailed a previous proposal</a> in 2013, fearing President Obama would appoint a scientist who shared his policy goal to curb greenhouse gases.</p>
<p>Akin to the poet laureate position, the honorary one-year laureate appointment would give a respected scientist an official national platform to enhance the public understanding of science and attract students to STEM fields.</p>
<p>When the bill was first introduced in 2013, <a href="http://www.wired.com/2013/05/the-science-laureate-of-the-united-states/">Wired</a> suggested astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, theoretical physicist Brian Greene and marine biologist Sylvia Earle among other candidates to fill this science ambassador role.</p>
<p>But if the bipartisan 2014 bill succumbs to another fight over the <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/got-science/2013/got-science-october-2013.html#.VQCknmTF-QO">politicization of science</a>, it’s worth considering that perhaps we don’t need a science laureate. We already have de facto spokespeople for science – celebrity scientists.</p>
<h2>Celebrity scientists/science ambassadors</h2>
<p>I profiled Tyson and Greene at length in my book, <a href="https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781442233430">The New Celebrity Scientists</a>, which examines how our media-driven celebrity culture produces popular scientific stars. Both have esteemed records in doing exactly the things the <a href="https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr4176/text">Science Laureates of the United States Act of 2014</a> hopes to achieve. Tyson and Greene are exemplars of what the Act calls for: someone who can “embody, demonstrate, and articulate the importance and excitement of scientific research and education.”</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74935/original/image-20150316-9176-16h6r5a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74935/original/image-20150316-9176-16h6r5a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74935/original/image-20150316-9176-16h6r5a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74935/original/image-20150316-9176-16h6r5a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74935/original/image-20150316-9176-16h6r5a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74935/original/image-20150316-9176-16h6r5a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74935/original/image-20150316-9176-16h6r5a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74935/original/image-20150316-9176-16h6r5a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Neil deGrasse Tyson engages the public about science in all kinds of arenas, even those more focused on the arts.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/clevrcat/13017165494">ClevrCat</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For example, in the past few weeks, Tyson stressed his passion and commitment to communication, telling <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/star-talker-neil-degrasse-tyson-on-fame-education-and-tweets/2015/02/24/5ec101fa-b854-11e4-a200-c008a01a6692_story.html">The Washington Post</a>’s Style section, “I’m a servant of the public’s appetite for science, for the universe, for science literacy.”</p>
<p>Tyson’s written several popular science titles, hosted a radio show and podcast StarTalk, as well as a reboot of the path-breaking 1980 TV show Cosmos. Next month he’ll host his own late-night talk show about science on National Geographic Channel. Tyson was named by <a href="http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/26-the-10-most-influential-people-in-science">Discover</a> in 2008 as one of the magazine’s ten most influential people in science. Next month he will be awarded the 2015 <a href="http://www.nasonline.org/news-and-multimedia/news/feb-26-2015-NASawards.html">Public Welfare Medal</a> by the National Academy of Sciences, for his promotion of science for the public good. </p>
<p>What more public communication could Tyson do even with the honorable distinction as science laureate?</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74944/original/image-20150316-9214-s4vtby.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74944/original/image-20150316-9214-s4vtby.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74944/original/image-20150316-9214-s4vtby.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=780&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74944/original/image-20150316-9214-s4vtby.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=780&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74944/original/image-20150316-9214-s4vtby.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=780&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74944/original/image-20150316-9214-s4vtby.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=980&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74944/original/image-20150316-9214-s4vtby.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=980&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74944/original/image-20150316-9214-s4vtby.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=980&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Brian Greene, scientist and science promoter.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/speakingoffaith/6962696265">On Being</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The same is true of Greene. His breakout 1999 popular book <a href="http://books.wwnorton.com/books/The-Elegant-Universe/">The Elegant Universe</a> brought to wide audiences the ideas of his specialist area of string theory. <a href="http://www.press.umich.edu/4999338/strung_together">Scholars consider</a> Greene’s book a watershed moment in the popularization and public understanding of this esoteric subject.</p>
<p>He embodied his work. <a href="http://discovermagazine.com/2010/extreme-universe/08-discover-interview-man-who-plucks-all-the-strings">Discover</a> called him “the public face of string theory.” <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/26/books/books-of-the-times-the-almost-inconceivable-but-don-t-be-intimidated.html">The New York Times</a> once called him “the cutest thing to happen to cosmology since the neutrino.”</p>
<p>After The Elegant Universe, Greene went on to write other well received popular science books. He also hosted two multi-part specials on PBS’s long-running science show, NOVA. With his wife, award-winning television journalist Tracy Day, he founded the <a href="http://www.worldsciencefestival.com/">World Science Festival</a>, which aims to weave science throughout the rest of our culture. He is also a prime mover behind <a href="http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/03/world-science-university-wants-to-teach-you-physics-for-free/">World science U</a>, an online learning platform for science education.</p>
<p>Could he do more for the public understanding of science as a science laureate?</p>
<h2>Deeper engagement via cultural celebs</h2>
<p>The fame of Tyson and Greene, I argue in my book, resulted in part from the confluence of two historical trends related to the public understanding of science.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74936/original/image-20150316-9211-1jntoi7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74936/original/image-20150316-9211-1jntoi7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74936/original/image-20150316-9211-1jntoi7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74936/original/image-20150316-9211-1jntoi7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74936/original/image-20150316-9211-1jntoi7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74936/original/image-20150316-9211-1jntoi7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74936/original/image-20150316-9211-1jntoi7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74936/original/image-20150316-9211-1jntoi7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Neil deGrasse Tyson signing an autograph, just like any other celeb.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/contusion/5074131955">Courtney </a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There has, first, been a trend towards scientists becoming cultural celebrities, a movement that had as a pivotal moment the 1980s broadcast of Cosmos presented by Carl Sagan. As the science historian Marcel Chotkowski LaFollette wrote in her book <a href="http://books.google.com/books/about/Science_on_American_Television.html?id=YvSg8WBHIS4C">Science on American Television</a>, “Sagan already had modest fame outside academe. Cosmos now propelled him to international stardom.”</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74945/original/image-20150316-9208-n733jq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74945/original/image-20150316-9208-n733jq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74945/original/image-20150316-9208-n733jq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=441&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74945/original/image-20150316-9208-n733jq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=441&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74945/original/image-20150316-9208-n733jq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=441&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74945/original/image-20150316-9208-n733jq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=554&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74945/original/image-20150316-9208-n733jq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=554&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74945/original/image-20150316-9208-n733jq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=554&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Carl Sagan, the proto-science celeb.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/trackrecord/327991674">Javier</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Since then, today’s celebrity culture refracts abstract issues through the prism of personality. As cultural historian Leo Braudy wrote in his <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=l9oQAQAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22plastered+on+every+idea+and+event%22">The Frenzy of Renown</a>, “human faces are plastered on every idea and event.”</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74938/original/image-20150316-9208-1rfysd8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74938/original/image-20150316-9208-1rfysd8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74938/original/image-20150316-9208-1rfysd8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74938/original/image-20150316-9208-1rfysd8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74938/original/image-20150316-9208-1rfysd8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74938/original/image-20150316-9208-1rfysd8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74938/original/image-20150316-9208-1rfysd8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74938/original/image-20150316-9208-1rfysd8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The crowds line up for a talk by Brian Greene at a venue that typically focuses on media, architecture and design.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/strelka/9894175525">Ivan Gushin</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The second historical trend has been towards a deeper engagement with citizens on the part of scientists. Crucially, this involves scientists not speaking from on high as voices of truth or reason. Instead, as science communication researchers Matthew Nisbet and Dietram Scheufele <a href="http://climateshiftproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/NisbetScheufele2009_WhatsNextforScienceCommunication_PromisingDirectionsLingeringDistractions_AmericanJournalBotany.pdf">noted</a>, it involves inviting citizens to participate in trust-based, two-way conversations about science and its role in society.</p>
<p>For examples of such conversations, listen to Tyson on his StarTalk podcast discussing science and politics with actress and activist <a href="http://www.startalkradio.net/show/when-science-crashes-the-party/">Janeane Garofalo</a>. Or discussing science, race and science fiction with Star Trek actress <a href="http://www.startalkradio.net/show/a-conversation-with-nichelle-nichols/">Nichelle Nichols</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74946/original/image-20150316-9221-130d1bt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74946/original/image-20150316-9221-130d1bt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74946/original/image-20150316-9221-130d1bt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74946/original/image-20150316-9221-130d1bt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74946/original/image-20150316-9221-130d1bt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74946/original/image-20150316-9221-130d1bt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74946/original/image-20150316-9221-130d1bt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74946/original/image-20150316-9221-130d1bt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">We live in an era of TED talks, when scientists including Brian Greene draw rapturous crowds.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/tedconference/13253386034">TED Conference</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>With his 2011 book <a href="http://www.randomhouse.com/book/71272/the-hidden-reality-by-brian-greene">The Hidden Reality</a>, Greene sparked valuable conversations about the nature of science. The book explained the multiverse, the idea that our universe might be just one of billions that exist, each with its own particular characteristics. A Nature <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v469/n7330/full/469294a.html?message-global=remove">review</a> criticized the book for presenting not reality but “unproven theoretical possibilities.” On this point, Greene emphasized the value for citizens to understand how scientific knowledge develops, “not just to learn about <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20927986.500-bestselling-string-theorist-betting-on-the-multiverse.html?page=2">science that’s all settled</a>, confirmed and in textbooks, but also to capture a picture of vital science in the making.”</p>
<h2>Is a celebrity superior to science laureate?</h2>
<p>Greene and Tyson are just two examples of prominent scientists doing exactly what a science laureate might do. Others include theoretical physicist <a href="http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/lisa-randalls-guide-to-the-galaxy-71799164/?no-ist">Lisa Randall</a> and cognitive scientist <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/magazine/11Genome-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0">Steven Pinker</a>. These figures are the public faces of science, who each communicate complex scientific ideas, illuminate the nature of science, and place science at the core of culture.</p>
<p>Their popular stardom sets them apart in another crucial way from a science laureate. The 2014 bill states that the laureate would be appointed by the elite National Academy of Sciences. The post therefore risks being a modern manifestation of a decades-old style of science communication: a talented, establishment scientist accurately transmitting facts to educate the public. But, for citizens, knowledge of science does not lead automatically to appreciation of science. </p>
<p>A scientific celebrity, by contrast, is more inclusive, more populist, and perhaps more democratic. Lasting fame cannot be solely manufactured. As cultural critic Louis Menand <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1997/03/24/the-iron-law-of-stardom">explained</a>, a celebrity’s personality must connect deeply with public and social concerns, as Sagan did at the height of the <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/03/why-em-cosmos-em-can-t-save-public-support-for-science/284355/">Cold War</a>. </p>
<p>Our popular culture – crucially – granted Tyson and Greene the legitimacy to speak in a sustained way on behalf of science. They cut through political partisanship to connect with the public. Citizens voted them stars.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37942/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Declan Fahy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A bill before congress would create a science laureate position akin to the poet laureate for poetry. But some science stars are already essentially doing the job now.Declan Fahy, Assistant Professor of Communication, American University School of CommunicationLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/366572015-02-25T03:37:02Z2015-02-25T03:37:02ZWhat makes a popular science video on YouTube<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72996/original/image-20150225-25664-sbvb6x.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A screenshot from one of the most popular science channels on YouTube -- but what makes these videos so popular? </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1a8pI65emDE">YouTube/AsapScience</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Hundreds of hours of video are <a href="http://www.youtube.com/yt/press/statistics.html">uploaded to YouTube every minute</a>, and hundreds of millions of hours are viewed daily, including many that cover areas of science. Despite this, if you want to use YouTube for science communication, reaching an audience is not always guaranteed.</p>
<p>We’ve analysed nearly <a href="http://pus.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/02/18/0963662515572068.abstract">400 science communication</a> videos to understand what the successful YouTube science communicators do – those with numerous subscribers – that less successful communicators do not.</p>
<p>So, here are seven things we found that can help you to communicate science on YouTube.</p>
<h2>1. Choose your audience</h2>
<p>This seems obvious, but it’s not enough to say: “I want to make science communication videos.” YouTube viewers watch videos for many reasons, and science communication is not a narrowly defined topic.</p>
<p>Take these four popular “science communication” videos from four very different channels. You only have to watch the first 10 seconds of each to realise these videos are aimed at different audiences.</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLNM8zI4Q_M">Khan Academy</a> is instructional</li>
</ul>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rLNM8zI4Q_M?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iuv6hY6zsd0">Veritasium</a> is a video version of a magazine article</li>
</ul>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Iuv6hY6zsd0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmNXKqeUtJM">MinutePhysics</a> is almost a science sound-bite</li>
</ul>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tmNXKqeUtJM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7e5-0t0pTF0">Melodysheep</a> is science porn.</li>
</ul>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7e5-0t0pTF0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>How much of each video did you watch?</p>
<p>Once you know your target audience, <em>stick with it</em>. Channels with lots of subscribers generally stick to one version of science communication.</p>
<h2>2. Deliver in style</h2>
<p>Delivering information on video can take many styles. Generally, these formats fall into:</p>
<ul>
<li>the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsF-tAf58Vg">Vlog</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guh7i7tHeZk">voice-over animation</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vCK0IZTgwc">recorded presentation</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcIUhHWsqlE">interview</a>.</li>
</ul>
<p>Each has its own advantages and disadvantages. For instance, vlogs can be done on a relatively low budget, but being in front of the camera may not appeal to you.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, the most important consideration for gaining subscribers is to connect with your audience.</p>
<p>Unless you plan on creating the next <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TEDtalksDirector/featured">TED</a> or <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/bigthink/featured">Big Think</a>, vlogging or voice-over animation is most effective.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/dsF-tAf58Vg?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>3. Stay focused</h2>
<p>Science is a broad topic area that is constantly being updated. Although you will not run out of material any time soon, don’t try to cover everything either.</p>
<p>Most of the successful science channels address a relatively narrow subset of science topics. For instance, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/numberphile">Numberphile</a> is principally about mathematics, and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/minutephysics">MinutePhysics</a> is about physics (though very few videos actually run for just a minute, they are short and to the point).</p>
<p>The tough decision for you is: do you cover topics you know well and risk jargonising your audience to death; or, do you cover topics you do not know well, requiring you to conduct more research to create each video?</p>
<h2>4. Get to the point</h2>
<p>Regardless of your feelings about the waning attention spans of internet users, the simple fact is the YouTube audience is not captive. If your video is not holding the viewer’s attention, there are plenty of other videos that will. So, get to the point.</p>
<p>First, ditch the flashy introduction. As a viewer, we don’t need you to introduce the video or the channel with some flashy logo or a 30 second preamble.</p>
<p>We know what the video is about, it’s right there in the title. Just start talking, it’s this simple.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/O9ak89FwYeI?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Ditching the introduction becomes especially important if your videos have pre-roll adverts.</p>
<p>Second, talk faster. Speaking 100 to 150 words per minute is fine for a live audience presentation but your YouTube audience is different. You want to aim for conversational paced speech, about 180 words per minute.</p>
<p>Provided you are speaking clearly, if the audience misses something they can simply replay the video.</p>
<p>Lastly, your videos should be as long as necessary. But, your videos do not need to be less than 5 minutes, as is sometimes <a href="http://wistia.com/blog/does-length-matter-it-does-for-video-2k12-edition">suggested</a>.</p>
<p>We found no relationship between video length and views. Your video should be short enough to make its point, but long enough to make the point clearly for the target audience.</p>
<h2>5. Be part of the community</h2>
<p>One of the biggest blunders you can make is to treat YouTube as merely a video hosting platform.</p>
<p>YouTube is a participatory culture, and you need to be part of the community if you want to grow your channel. This means interacting with both the consumers and <a href="https://theconversation.com/collaborations-are-key-to-kickstarting-your-youtube-career-33176">creators of content</a>.</p>
<p>As you will see in the following video, top science YouTubers appear in each others’ videos from time to time, and this benefits everyone involved.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vWVZ6APXM4w?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Watch out in this video for Henry (MinutePhysics), Destin (Smarter Every Day), Greg and Mitch (ASAP Science) and Elise Andrew (I F***ing Love Science).</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>6. Give the audience an anchor</h2>
<p>A major driver of a channel’s popularity is whether the channel has a consistent presenter from video to video.</p>
<p>Channels with regular communicators, such as <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/scishow/featured">SciShow</a>, are significantly more popular than channels with changing presenters, such as <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/riausvid/featured">RiAus</a>. Even though RiAus features science stars like <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rQzq5t44Q8">Brian Cox</a> or <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8k8dcmdznpI">Brian Schmidt</a>.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VWXCGtXqNqw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">More than 100,000 views after just one day on YouTube which is more than double the RiAus interview with celebrity physicist Brian Cox online or four months.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This is because having just one person appearing in your videos makes it is easier for your audience to connect with your channel. They know exactly what they will get each time they watch a video.</p>
<h2>7. Be a person not a company</h2>
<p>This point amalgamates many issues, and is hugely encouraging for individual creators.</p>
<p>YouTube channels that are extensions of existing brands, for instance <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/UNSWCanberra11/featured">universities</a> or <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/EarthUnpluggedTV/featured">TV broadcasters</a>, are significantly less popular than channels such as <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/destinws2">SmarterEveryDay</a> that are born and grown on YouTube.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kxLoycj4pJY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>There are numerous reasons for why YouTube grown channels are more popular – most reasons simply reduce to connecting with the audience. Channels created by an individual or small group have an authenticity that is difficult to recreate within corporate bureaucracy.</p>
<p>Successful science YouTubers keep their channels human and maintain authenticity by doing “Science Plus”. Science <em>plus</em> the video creator’s character. Science <em>plus</em> the quirky interest the creator brings to the topic.</p>
<p>Just check out this ViHart video on mathematics. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VIVIegSt81k?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>It’s science <em>plus</em> personality.</p>
<h2>And finally…</h2>
<p>YouTube will continue to be a valuable tool for communicating science. If you want to create science videos but think starting now is pointless because there are too many other channels, then you’d be wrong. </p>
<p>Re-read this article, especially point number 7, then find your science <em>plus</em> angle and give it a go.</p>
<p>Building an audience will take time, but stick with it.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/AsapSCIENCE">AsapSCIENCE</a>, one of the biggest science channels with 3.5 million subscribers, posted its <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kK-cIHnVg4">first video</a> only 2.5 years ago, while <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/braincraftvideo/featured">BrainCraft</a> has been going for just over a year and has already reached 65,000 subscribers, with one recent video looking at how the brain reacts to seeing movies.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KyQYYLsXhqc?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/36657/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Everyone’s looking for an audience for their videos on YouTube, and there are plenty of science videos out there. But not all are popular so what makes one more interesting than another?Dustin Welbourne, PhD Candidate in Biogeography + Science Communicator, UNSW SydneyWill J Grant, Researcher / Lecturer, Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/368702015-01-29T19:42:05Z2015-01-29T19:42:05ZScientists and public disagree, but let’s not get too excited<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/70521/original/image-20150129-22322-qx6s5u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Average Americans don't view science issues the same way scientists do.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-114524698/stock-photo-business-person-standing-against-the-blackboard-with-a-lot-of-data-written-on-it.html">Man image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A new <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/science2015/">set of surveys</a> of scientists and the public finds the two groups have widely different views about scientific issues. Conducted by the Pew Research Center in collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the survey found scientists tended to have a more positive opinion of many technologies than the general public.</p>
<p>Those involved in science may get frustrated by the survey’s findings, wondering why the public isn’t as enthused by their work as the researchers themselves. But the acceptance of new technologies is rarely straight-forward. The scientific community needs to remember that it continues to benefit from widespread, <a href="http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/index.cfm/chapter-7/c7s3.htm#s3">hard-won admiration</a>. </p>
<p>The survey might be a reminder to scientists that they can always do better at communicating their work and its motivations to the general public.</p>
<h2>Survey says:</h2>
<p>Some of the contrasts in the Pew Research Center data are stark. </p>
<p>Almost all of the scientists surveyed (88%) said they viewed genetically modified foods as safe, but only about a third (37%) of their fellow Americans said they shared this belief. Similarly, a majority of the scientists (68%) said they see pesticides as safe, but only about a quarter of the overall population said they felt that way (28%).</p>
<p>The only two issues where the scientists were more negative than the broader public were offshore drilling and hydraulic fracturing – fracking – to obtain fossil fuels. About half (52%) of Americans said they favor offshore drilling but only about a third of the scientists gave this response (32%). Similarly, 39% of Americans said they favor fracking in comparison to 31% of the surveyed scientists.</p>
<p>This difference may be linked to the fact that, whereas almost all scientists (87%) said they thought climate change was due to human activity, only half of Americans (50%) expressed this view.</p>
<h2>Warm feeling toward science itself</h2>
<p>In the face of all these differences, it’s worth remembering that overall perceptions of science are quite positive. More than three quarters of Americans (79%) told Pew they thought science was making life better and that the effects of science on health care (79%) were mostly positive.</p>
<p>Ultimately, 72% of Americans said that government funding for engineering and technology pays off in the long run and 71% said that funding for basic research pays off.</p>
<p>The main thing that seems potentially troubling about the research results is the small decline in positive views about science. Such results echo through the report’s comparisons of the 2014 figures against a similar study from 2009. For example, whereas 79% of Americans thought science made life better in 2014, 83% held this view in 2009.</p>
<p>However, it is difficult to know what to make of data based on only two data points and other research has not (yet) suggested we are in the midst of a substantial decline in support for science. Rather, other available data suggests that views about science have remained <a href="http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/index.cfm/chapter-7/c7s3.htm#s1">fairly</a> stable in recent years.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/70525/original/image-20150129-22314-8n12j1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/70525/original/image-20150129-22314-8n12j1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/70525/original/image-20150129-22314-8n12j1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70525/original/image-20150129-22314-8n12j1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70525/original/image-20150129-22314-8n12j1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70525/original/image-20150129-22314-8n12j1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=584&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70525/original/image-20150129-22314-8n12j1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=584&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70525/original/image-20150129-22314-8n12j1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=584&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Survey results can identify interesting points of difference.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/swamibu/3596922151">Farrukh</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What might be behind the gap?</h2>
<p>Although 84% of the scientists surveyed said they thought the public’s lack of scientific knowledge was a “major problem” for science, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662506070159">academic research</a> suggests that scientific knowledge is only a minor driver of attitudes about science.</p>
<p>The science views reported by Pew are instead likely driven by factors such as the degree to which respondents have faith in the expertise and good will of scientists (i.e., <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317505111">key factors that drive perceptions of trustworthiness</a>). <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.511246">Overall worldview</a> also likely influenced responses, since we all tend to unconsciously adjust our views so that we see things we like, for example, as more safe and things we dislike as less safe.</p>
<p>For scientists, most of whom are also unlikely to be experts in more than one topic raised by Pew, it is reasonable to expect that they tend to trust their fellow scientists. The American public might be expected to be more cautious.</p>
<h2>There’s value in views</h2>
<p>The fact that the <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org">Pew Research Center</a>, as well as the <a href="http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/index.cfm/chapter-7/c7s3.htm">National Science Board</a>, the <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_419_en.pdf">European Commission</a> and individual countries such as <a href="http://www.scienceadvice.ca/uploads/eng/assessments%20and%20publications%20and%20news%20releases/science-culture/ScienceCulture_fullreportEN.pdf">Canada</a>, are putting resources into these types of surveys speaks to the importance of tracking what citizens think about science.</p>
<p>We need these types of numbers to tell us whether science is losing support and where there might be room for improvement.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/70523/original/image-20150129-22322-1a9x3ot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/70523/original/image-20150129-22322-1a9x3ot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/70523/original/image-20150129-22322-1a9x3ot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70523/original/image-20150129-22322-1a9x3ot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70523/original/image-20150129-22322-1a9x3ot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70523/original/image-20150129-22322-1a9x3ot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=526&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70523/original/image-20150129-22322-1a9x3ot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=526&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70523/original/image-20150129-22322-1a9x3ot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=526&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Scientists need to engage with those outside their fields.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-38617798/stock-photo-conference-hall-full-of-people-participating-in-the-business-training.html">Meeting image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As is well known to <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa7477">science leaders</a>, there is a need to ensure that science maintains and builds its place in society by having scientists engage with their communities in ways that allow them to hear from fellow citizens. This allows them to share the expertise that goes into scientific research and the deep sense of caring about society that underlies many scientists’ work.</p>
<p>What seems less likely to be helpful – no matter how satisfying – are efforts to put down those who may currently disagree with scientists through aggressive tactics such as labeling people as <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/books/review/Sanghavi-t.html?_r=0">deniers or irrational</a>. </p>
<p>It’s especially important to learn what we can from reports such as Pew’s while avoiding any the-sky-is-falling commentary that <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/02/public-opinion-astrology-dumb">disparages</a> the survey respondents.</p>
<p>Such measures are apt to make scientists seem less trustworthy.</p>
<p>Finally, it’s worth noting that the scientists’ surveyed were randomly selected from the American membership of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Although the organization is very well respected and the world’s largest general purpose scientific society, it also tends to have an older membership base (35% of respondents were aged 65 or older) and its mission to “advance” science may also mean that the type of person who joins may be more outward facing than many scientists.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/36870/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John C. Besley is the Brandt Chair in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University. He studies public opinion about science and technology and science communication. He is also the lead writer of the National Science Board’s biennial chapter on public attitudes and understanding. He provided comments on a draft of the Pew research Center report.</span></em></p>A new set of surveys of scientists and the public finds the two groups have widely different views about scientific issues. Conducted by the Pew Research Center in collaboration with the American Association…John C. Besley, Associate Professor of Advertising and Public Relations, Michigan State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/250872014-04-10T08:02:34Z2014-04-10T08:02:34ZWhat science communicators can learn from listening to people<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/46086/original/nbp6rpkp-1397108730.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dotbenjamin/2843144877">Ben Smith/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>No matter how strong the scientific argument and consensus among scientists there will always be people who reject the evidence. It happens on so many scientific topics, from <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/climate-change">climate change</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/vaccination">vaccination</a> to <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/nuclear-energy">nuclear power</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/renewable-energy">renewable energy</a>.</p>
<p>You only have to look at some of the comment threads on online articles: where scientists might agree with one position, it seems the majority of comment thread ‘scientists’ will stridently beg to differ. Well-established science is taken by many as just one of a range of possible viewpoints, no matter how credible – or incredible - those other viewpoints may be.</p>
<p>We’ve written about this on <a href="https://theconversation.com/help-needed-can-you-fix-the-science-society-divide-8752">The Conversation</a> before. We noted then the countless articles on the significant social divides on key complex scientific issues. </p>
<p>There’s decades of research pointing to the causes of and potential solutions to this divide. But that information has not sufficiently wormed its way into scientific thinking and communication processes.</p>
<h2>What about the facts?</h2>
<p>Though we have many talented and skilled science communicators around Australia, <a href="https://theconversation.com/science-engagement-in-australia-is-a-20th-century-toy-12456">too often we treat communication as the final point of the scientific process</a>. We think that the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/climatecouncil/posts/10151956752276603?stream_ref=10">facts will speak for themselves</a>.</p>
<p>But as our ANU colleague Rod Lamberts <a href="https://theconversation.com/facts-wont-beat-the-climate-deniers-using-their-tactics-will-24074">noted recently on The Conversation</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[…] the “more facts” solution is not a solution at all. We have enough facts and none of them are good. Yet here we are […] watching the “bad guys” win.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The fact is people don’t act on facts – but we science communication researchers shouldn’t also delude ourselves into thinking this particular fact will somehow be different. We need to do better.</p>
<p>Two years ago, we commenced <a href="http://cpas.anu.edu.au/research/projects/long-conversations-climate-knowledge-exchange">a climate communication project</a> where we took leading climate researchers through rural and regional Australia, to listen to the concerns, opinions and questions of Australia’s rural and regional communities.</p>
<p>We encountered communities eager to hear and discuss – and plan for – their climate futures. In other places we encountered communities that didn’t want a bar of it; communities who saw us and our scientists as an intrusion. Their concerns weren’t with the climate projections, but with everything we stood for.</p>
<p>We didn’t heal any big divides - but this reception did point us towards new ways of thinking.</p>
<p>So we hit the campaign trail to <a href="http://www.pozible.com/project/7129">crowdfund</a> the making of a documentary on the communication of complex science. We wanted to bring some of the critical lessons of these decades of research on the communication of science to the scientists who might best be able to reframe the debate.</p>
<p>The end result is our documentary Up Stream, available now in four episodes for free and online.</p>
<h2>A complex problem</h2>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/K2yFY0a0x-I?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Chapter 1: A Complex Problem.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Does the denial of climate change find an echo in the rejection of vaccination? Does the belief in wind turbine syndrome find a parallel in homoeopathy?</p>
<p>These are, of course, vastly different issues. Many of those who agree with one of the positions noted above will be horrified to find themselves included in the same sentence with another group they might abhor. (Hello online commenters!)</p>
<p>Yet there is, we believe, a common thread, a common cynical connection in rejecting – even denying – well established evidence.</p>
<p>On each of the issues we’ve mentioned there exists a considerable body of evidence – yet they’ve seen rejection, denial and dangerously waning societal acceptance. This is the problem we wish to address.</p>
<h2>Complex causes</h2>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4yHO7UsTnsA?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Chapter 2: Complex Causes.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Why are people ignoring, or at worst rejecting well established science? In this chapter we present a snapshot of the factors, influences and causes of why scientific issues find themselves dragged into public fights.</p>
<p>We touch on ideas such as the inherent complexity of contemporary scientific problems, predispositions and peer influence on beliefs, the changing media landscape and the campaigns of strategic misinformation by vested interests.</p>
<h2>Looking back</h2>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rMa2ZJjy4oY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Chapter 3: Looking Back.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In making this documentary we’ve been driven by a singular ironic fact – that the facts alone will not bring about a change in attitude and behaviour. Yet those of us looking at the relationship between science and society still need to do more to communicate this fact. </p>
<p>We still see scientists who desperately want key policy and behavioural changes hoping that clearly stating the facts will win the day.</p>
<p>In this chapter we draw out how the lessons of the past few decades of science communication practice and research have shown this fallacy for what it is.</p>
<h2>Looking forward</h2>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/iyRKTqsXfjM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Chapter 4: Looking Forward.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There is – as we mentioned before – a huge volume of research on the interaction of science and politics, on how we actually make decisions, and what we might do about the problems associated with the denial of science. It can’t all be squeezed into a seven minute video.</p>
<p>In the final chapter we’ve not sought to provide definitive solutions or ways to get the science across to those who might dispute the scientific picture. Instead, we’ve sought to provide pointers to new ways working scientists might think about the communication of their science.</p>
<h2>Are we listening yet?</h2>
<p>It’s clear we need to do better.</p>
<p>We hope that by building greater cooperation between the social and physical sciences, between communicators and those planning their next decades of research, we can start to turn the tide on the rejection of science. We hope this documentary becomes a stepping stone in the right direction.</p>
<p>As Yale University’s law and psychology professor <a href="http://www.culturalcognition.net/kahan/">Dan Kahan</a> says in the documentary:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[…] our liberal democratic societies need to create professionals and create processes for communication that assure that that tremendous asset we have, our knowledge, isn’t wasted.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Agreed? If so, please pass this on to your friends.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/25087/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Will J Grant owns shares in a science communication consultancy. He received funding from the then Department of Innovation for research mentioned in this article. The film discussed in this article was largely funded by a Pozible crowdfunding campaign, the full details of which can be seen at <a href="http://www.pozible.com/project/7129">http://www.pozible.com/project/7129</a>.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Luke Menzies received funding from from The Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research Science Connections Program (SCOPE).</span></em></p>No matter how strong the scientific argument and consensus among scientists there will always be people who reject the evidence. It happens on so many scientific topics, from climate change and vaccination…Will J Grant, Researcher / Lecturer, Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science, Australian National UniversityLuke Menzies, PhD Researcher, Centre for the Public Awareness of Science, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/224732014-02-02T19:41:59Z2014-02-02T19:41:59ZWhy do some people not care about science?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40180/original/hrzqc2kp-1391058869.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Bored with science.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr/manwithbeard</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Surveys on public attitudes to science regularly tell us that there are swathes of the public that simply seem to <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_340_en.pdf">not care about science</a>, despite our best effort to engage them.</p>
<p>But perhaps the issue is not with the public — the issue is with the question.</p>
<p>Recent <a href="http://www.academia.edu/1047950/Issues_spark_a_public_into_being._A_key_but_often_forgotten_point_of_the_Lippmann-Dewey_debate_2005_">research</a> argues that there is no such thing as a public at large to engage (or leave disengaged), rather, individuals who cluster around issues to form multiple publics, and even <a href="http://www.davidjhess.org/ToTelltheTruth.pdf">counterpublics</a> who diverge from consensus opinion. </p>
<p>With the Australian Science Communicators <a href="http://2014conf.asc.asn.au/">national conference</a> kicking off in Brisbane yesterday, it’s a good time to reflect on what we know and don’t know from surveys and polls about science engagement. </p>
<h2>A survey says</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40277/original/pfyx5m57-1391143501.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40277/original/pfyx5m57-1391143501.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40277/original/pfyx5m57-1391143501.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40277/original/pfyx5m57-1391143501.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40277/original/pfyx5m57-1391143501.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40277/original/pfyx5m57-1391143501.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=635&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40277/original/pfyx5m57-1391143501.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=635&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40277/original/pfyx5m57-1391143501.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=635&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Another survey result.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr/Sean MacEntee</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So what do we know? Every few years, a new survey on public attitudes towards science comes out showing remarkably consistent results. One fairly reliable statistic that usually receives attention is the proportion of the public that is interested in or engages with the sciences, and more importantly, the proportion of disengaged.</p>
<p>Arguably, one of the better known is the <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/index_en.htm">Eurobarometer</a> which covers numerous aspects of public attitudes to science and technology in Europe (these have come out in 1977, 1990, 1992, 2001, 2005 and 2010).</p>
<p>Over the decades, the Eurobarometer has shown that about 15% of those surveyed have little interest in science. In a US study <a href="http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/c7/">people do show</a> a little more interest in environmental news and medical discoveries but a little less in generic scientific and technological discoveries.</p>
<p>Australia has not had a comparable long running survey, but a <a href="http://www.anu.edu.au/anupoll/images/uploads/ANUpoll_on_science.pdf">2010 ANU poll</a> on public opinion about science showed Australia fared better, with disinterest rates varying from 5%-10%.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40246/original/mqh2786m-1391117326.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40246/original/mqh2786m-1391117326.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40246/original/mqh2786m-1391117326.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=300&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40246/original/mqh2786m-1391117326.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=300&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40246/original/mqh2786m-1391117326.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=300&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40246/original/mqh2786m-1391117326.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40246/original/mqh2786m-1391117326.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40246/original/mqh2786m-1391117326.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">What topics engaged people.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">ANU Poll, Public opinion about science</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Better result, but it still leaves a feeling that a proportion of the population is disengaged with what is one of the cornerstones of our society.</p>
<p>Similar results were revealed in New Zealand in a commissioned Nielsen poll on Public attitudes to science (2010), where 9% of the population were assessed as disengaged.</p>
<h2>Why disengaged?</h2>
<p>The vexing question here is: why does the proportion of people disengaged with science, those seemingly uninterested in science, not change despite our continuing effort to bring them into the engaged fold?</p>
<p>This might be cause for a bit of soul-searching among those promoting science engagement.</p>
<p>Both Mathew Kearns and Rod Lambert recently suggested we should reconsider <a href="http://theconversation.com/we-need-to-talk-about-science-just-more-thoughtfully-21336">how we talk about science</a> if we really <a href="http://theconversation.com/to-change-anti-science-activists-minds-go-beyond-science-18519">want an engaged public</a>. They also separately argue it is time to embrace debate and disagreement, and accept the inherently social and cultural aspects of science.</p>
<h2>Clusters of concern</h2>
<p>The answer, as we suggested earlier, is largely borne out of recent research in Science Communication and Science and Technology Studies (STS). It’s the idea that there is no such thing as a single public to engage (or leave disengaged), but rather, individuals who cluster around issues to form a number of smaller publics.</p>
<p>These created publics might well be engaged, but they are engaged with a particular issue or controversy such as <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-coal-seam-gas-shale-gas-and-fracking-in-australia-2585">coal seam gas</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/six-myths-about-vaccination-and-why-theyre-wrong-13556">vaccines</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-we-know-and-dont-know-about-climate-change-1934">climate change</a> or <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-cancer-1673">cancer</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40283/original/96bx5dny-1391145267.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40283/original/96bx5dny-1391145267.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40283/original/96bx5dny-1391145267.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40283/original/96bx5dny-1391145267.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40283/original/96bx5dny-1391145267.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40283/original/96bx5dny-1391145267.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=567&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40283/original/96bx5dny-1391145267.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=567&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40283/original/96bx5dny-1391145267.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=567&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A public engaged in science but do they know it?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr/Beyond Coal and Gas</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Members of this particular publics don’t consider themselves engaged with the topic of science, technology or medicine. They might well care about the science related to the issue, but only because they care about the issue. To that extent they are engaged with science but they may not think of this as an interest in science generally.</p>
<p>Sophisticated pollsters are aware of this problem, but being aware of this intellectual fact doesn’t stop headlines like <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/chief-scientist-ian-chubb-says-young-people-disengaged-from-subjects/story-e6frg8y6-1226364598897">“Chief scientist Ian Chubb says young people ‘disengaged’ from subjects”</a>. Actually, the chief scientist recognised the problem well in <a href="http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2012/05/chief-scientists-address-to-the-national-press-club/">his address</a> to the National Press Club. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Our younger generations appear to be disinterested - even disengaged from science – even though they use its applications every day: from their food, to their pens, to shoes, to clothes, to smart phones, iPods, televisions and laptops.” Professor Chubb said.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So what do we make of all this? Should we stop polling and surveying and acting as if ready-made publics exist and have attitudes? Not necessarily. But taking some suggestions from conversations happening in politics on the role of polling could be useful. We’ve come up with a few suggestions:</p>
<h3><strong>1 - Stop poll-gazing</strong></h3>
<p>While long-term trends in general attitudes to science are usefully compared (if Australia can support a continuing survey it will yield some interesting trends over time), polling on attitudes to particular areas of science probably shouldn’t be driving policy. We need to dig deeper into the social contexts where there is disagreement about how science and technology functions.</p>
<h3><strong>2 - Consider the “donkey vote” in polling for what it could mean</strong></h3>
<p>What does it really mean when someone claims they are “disinterested” in science? An interesting comparison is to the “blank”, “<a href="http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/events/election_04/default2.htm#donkey">donkey</a>” or “informal” vote in national elections.</p>
<p>In 2012 the French government decided to officially <a href="http://politique.lefigaro.fr/assemblee-nationale-vote-blanc-politiciens-peuple.html">count blank votes as protest votes</a>. Given voting is not compulsory in France, blank votes represent serious dissatisfaction with the election in general as opposed to not turning up.</p>
<p>By contrast, in Australia, the informal vote bundles both discontent and disinterest (as well as possible ignorance of the ballot process or bona fide mistakes) and is not counted. The donkey vote is counted, but as a vote, not as a protest. The challenge for the pollster is to distinguish just what sort of disengagement is at play here: is it disinterest or discontent? </p>
<p>We think this is an analog of discussions about disinterest in science. </p>
<h3><strong>3 - What is the goal of the poll?</strong></h3>
<p>One trend is to think in maximising terms; to get as many people as possible to tick the “very interested” or “moderately interested” boxes next to the “What is your level of interest in new scientific discoveries” question.</p>
<p>If more people tick those boxes, what does that really mean? Does it suggest better general education or a laissez faire attitude to controversial science, or even general approval?</p>
<p>Let’s talk further about what “attitudes to science” are considered good and what approaches to maximising those attitudes would be. </p>
<h2>The conference</h2>
<p>It is a heartening indication of the state of the field of research in science communication that we can tolerate a bit more soul-searching about why it is we want everyone to be interested in science. </p>
<p>As the science communicators meet for their 2014 conference this week, the very diversity amongst the participants shows that there is significant commitment to re-examining engagement.</p>
<p>We need to find better tools to do it with, but we also need better ideas with which to guide thinking about science in public. </p>
<p><em>Joan Leach is President of the Australian Science Communicators whose <a href="http://2014conf.asc.asn.au/">2014 national conference</a> is in Brisbane this week</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/22473/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joan Leach receives funding from The Australian Research Council and from the Commonwealth Government "Inspiring Australia" funding scheme. She is also President, Australian Science Communicators. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fabien Medvecky does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Surveys on public attitudes to science regularly tell us that there are swathes of the public that simply seem to not care about science, despite our best effort to engage them. But perhaps the issue is…Joan Leach, Associate Professor in Rhetoric and Science Communication, The University of QueenslandFabien Medvecky, Research Fellow, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/197542013-11-03T19:28:35Z2013-11-03T19:28:35ZWhat do young people really know about climate change?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/34194/original/9txrdvtw-1383263369.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Young people are harbouring misconceptions about climate change. But what can be done about it?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Thinking image www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The next generation will be the ones to feel the increasing effects of climate change. But how much do they really know about it? </p>
<p>After all, it’s one thing to say: yes, I believe in climate change. But another to say: yes, I understand it and how it works. </p>
<p>There is a <a href="http://www.stockholmresilience.org/21/publications/artiklar/1-29-2013-climate-change-and-costs-investigating-students-reasoning-on-nature-and-economic-development.html">lot of research</a> which supports the idea that until a person understands the science behind climate change, they may not support political regulation or make personal decisions to help reduce greenhouse gas production.</p>
<p>Our new study, published in the latest edition of <a href="http://asta.edu.au/resources/teachingscience">Teaching Science</a>, has investigated the scientific understanding of 438 Western Australian Year 10 students in relation to the greenhouse effect and climate change. </p>
<p>The results are startling.</p>
<h2>What we know they know</h2>
<p>When asked for a written response to the question “what is climate change?” only half of the students gave an answer which showed some understanding of the science behind climate change. Furthermore, one-third of the students included some type of alternative conception in their answer. </p>
<p>When answering the question “what is the greenhouse effect?” the results were even more disappointing with only one third of students able to provide an answer showing some understanding of the science behind the greenhouse effect. Over 40% of the answers included at least one alternative conception. </p>
<p>So what does this mean? Well, on the surface, the results obviously show that the majority of Year 10 students do not understand the science behind the greenhouse effect and climate change. However if you look deeper, it is their alternative conceptions that reveal how misunderstanding climate change science can affect the decisions students make.</p>
<h2>Mysteries and misconceptions</h2>
<p>The most common misunderstanding we found was confusing the ozone layer with the greenhouse effect. This is also common in the general population and is completely understandable, given that the purpose of both is to protect the Earth from ultraviolet rays in one case, and infrared rays in the other. </p>
<p>The problem is that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are associated with the degradation of the ozone layer, whereas greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, are involved in the enhanced greenhouse effect which contributes to global warming. </p>
<p>This is an important distinction because the moderating behaviour is different for each. To protect the ozone layer we need to decrease the escape of CFCs, still found in air conditioners and refrigerators. The release of one chlorine atom can destroy over 100,000 ozone molecules. </p>
<p>But to mitigate the consequences of the enhanced greenhouse effect, we need to reduce our energy usage in all its varied forms or invest in low emissions technology.</p>
<p>Our study also found up to 15% of students thought carbon dioxide was the only greenhouse gas. This really isn’t surprising given the focus carbon receives in our debate on climate change. After all, the media talks mostly about “carbon taxes” and “carbon footprints”. </p>
<p>It’s good there is some knowledge there, but this study shows it remains incomplete. And without the basic scientific understanding, students and the public in general do not fully understand the consequences of their decisions. </p>
<p>Water (the most abundant greenhouse gas), methane and nitrous oxide are all important contributors to the enhanced greenhouse gas and are affected by human activity. Methane in particular contributes to the enhanced greenhouse effect and is 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide. </p>
<p>It is important then for meat and dairy eaters to recognise that livestock (mostly cattle) are responsible for up to 20% of the world’s methane production. Farmers and scientists are currently investigating steps which can be taken to try and reduce this percentage.</p>
<h2>What can be done?</h2>
<p>So where do these misunderstandings spring from? And what can we do to improve young people’s information on climate change? </p>
<p>There are several problems with the way science is taught in Australian schools that makes improving young people’s understanding difficult.</p>
<p>To start with, climate change is not explicitly mentioned in the <a href="http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Science/Rationale">Australian Curriculum in Science</a> until year 10, despite young people’s exposure to the topic in the media much earlier. In fact, the results of our survey showed that TV was the most frequent source of information about climate change, with school science coming second (although school science was seen as the most trustworthy). </p>
<p>Then there’s the fact that climate change science is multidisciplinary, drawing from chemistry, physics, biology and earth sciences. Even the recent Australian curriculum divides science into four discrete sections, which means young people are not able to make the links between the scientific aspects of climate change.</p>
<p>The fact that climate science is sometimes seen as a socio-scientific issue is also problematic. It means that some don’t see it as a legitimate topic for school.</p>
<p>And finally, young people are failing to select science in the final two years of secondary school thus depriving them of the opportunity to examine these types of issues in depth. </p>
<p>If we want to improve this situation, it needs to begin in school with a curriculum which promotes understanding of climate science as well as pro-environmental behaviour. Teachers need to be aware of common alternative conceptions (<a href="http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol35/iss1/9/">often held by teachers themselves</a>) and be given the resources and skills to overcome them. </p>
<p>But without addressing this, through better education, we may see the current apathy around climate change, continue into the next generation.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/19754/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Vaille Dawson receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Katherine Carson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The next generation will be the ones to feel the increasing effects of climate change. But how much do they really know about it? After all, it’s one thing to say: yes, I believe in climate change. But…Vaille Dawson, Professor, Science & Mathematics Education Centre, Curtin UniversityKatherine Carson, Research Associate at Science and Mathematics Education Centre, Curtin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/91112012-09-04T20:43:18Z2012-09-04T20:43:18ZCitizen scientists are nothing new, and their value will only grow<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/14868/original/vxty52b4-1346384207.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A renewed interest in citizen science could help engage the wider public in research projects.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mount Rainier NPS</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Academic discussions of citizen science are all the rage right now (see <a href="http://anthrophysis.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/using-citizen-science-to-educate.html">here</a>, and <a href="http://anthrophysis.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/ebird-model-for-other-citizen-science.html">here</a>, and <a href="http://anthrophysis.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/sunday-stuff-citizen-science.html">here</a>). While most describe the successes of individual projects, none (to my knowledge) have taken the long view and examined where this genre of research fits in to the history of science … until now.</p>
<p>The August issue of <a href="http://www.esajournals.org/toc/fron/10/6">Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment</a> (FEAE) is dedicated to the topic of citizen science, and one of its papers examines the birth of this pursuit (particularly with respect to the field of ecology) and its sometimes touchy relationship with professional research.</p>
<p>According to the <a href="http://www.esajournals.org/doi/full/10.1890/110278">authors of one article</a> in the special issue – a trio of researchers from the US National Park Service, Boston University and Cornell University – citizen science is not a modern invention, but rather something that has been occurring “for most of recorded history”.</p>
<p>Indeed, since science-minded individuals could not really pursue their passion as a full-time career until the late 19th century, the authors argue nearly all “scientists” before this time were actually citizen scientists – people who made a living in other ways but, “because [they had] an innate interest in particular topics or questions,” spent their free time performing research.</p>
<h2>Pooling resources</h2>
<p>Even as early as the 17th century, citizen scientists were developing the sort of sophisticated collaborations and networks that professional researchers use today – and all without the aid of social media. </p>
<p>The authors mentioned above describe a Norwegian bishop who assembled an army of clergymen who could increase his sample sizes by sending him observations and collected specimens.</p>
<p>Those sorts of relationships allowed researchers to obtain organisms in far-flung locations they could never hope to visit themselves. <a href="http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/science-of-natural-history/biographies/linnaeus/index.html">Carl Linnaeus</a> was another early ecologist who benefited from such collaborations. </p>
<p>The development of his <a href="http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/science-of-natural-history/biographies/linnaeus/index.html#theory">classification system</a> in the 18th century was greatly advanced by his ability to examine countless specimens provided by other amateur researchers.</p>
<h2>Data gatherers</h2>
<p>While it’s easy to focus on “armchair scientists” who pursued science just for fun, there were also a number of individuals whose interest in data was much more practical.</p>
<p>According to the FEAE paper, these include French winemakers, who have been recording grape harvest days for more than six and a half centuries, and Japanese court diarists, who have been noting the dates of cherry blossom festivals for more than a millennium. </p>
<p>Data have been provided not just by the botanically-minded, but also those who work with animals: hunters and fishermen have also kept remarkable records detailing which species were captured, where it happened, and how large the individuals are.</p>
<p>Cumulatively, all of these numbers are incredibly useful to modern researchers who are interested in investigating changes in species’ <a href="http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/392797/morphology">morphology</a>, population distributions, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenology">phenology</a> (the timing of events) over time.</p>
<h2>New roles</h2>
<p>The FEAE authors note with some sadness that amateurs have, in many cases, become marginalised over the past 150 years, during which time scientific research has emerged as a full-time profession. While many people still conduct scientific research in their own time, it is much harder for them to report their findings in respected journals, and therefore to advance their fields.</p>
<p>But the authors report there are two major roles of citizen science in modern research:</p>
<p>1) To facilitate large-scale and/or geographically diverse projects, such as the <a href="https://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/index.cfm?CFID=9694313&CFTOKEN=80058461">North American Breeding Bird Survey</a> (BBS), which provides ornithologists with a huge dataset on nesting activities in both Canada and the US. </p>
<p>Without the help of volunteers across the continent, professionals would be hard-pressed to come up with the finances and manpower to collect the amount of data generated by the BBS.</p>
<p>2) To undertake projects that professionals would not (or could not) ordinarily do on their own, such as Maryland’s <a href="http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CC8QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rockvillemd.gov%2Fenvironment%2Fvolunteer%2Fsos.html&ei=MC9AUKrjO6iuiQfB_YCQCg&usg=AFQjCNE3iGLOqM5QTHYahwPhJT4qOzlKKA">Save Our Streams</a> program, a locally founded effort to “monitor, protect, and restore” the state’s streams. </p>
<p>Such projects, sometimes also referred to as “community science” or “participatory action research,” may be too locally focused to be interesting to professional researchers. That said, the success of the Save Our Streams project has led it to be used nationally as a model for similar community science programs.</p>
<h2>For what it’s worth</h2>
<p>For anyone wondering whether they’ve collected some useful observations over the years, the article’s authors point out that datasets come in all shapes and sizes, including specimens, photographs, point counts, and size measurements. Even if the topic seems pretty specialised, it might still be useful in a greater ecological context.</p>
<p>The 19th century writer <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thoreau/">Henry David Thoreau</a>, for instance, collected a list of first flowering dates, first leaf-out dates, and first arrival dates of migratory birds in Concord, Massachusetts. </p>
<p>His observations have been continued over the years by an unbroken line of other citizen scientists. Analysis of the data has revealed that the timing of these events has changed over time, and also that plants are changing more quickly than birds.</p>
<p>One particularly appealing characteristic of Thoreau’s dataset is the fact it was collected in a well-documented, systematic way – something professional researchers would like to see for other citizen science data, as well. (If you do have a dataset, it’s a good idea to jot down some notes on how it was collected, when, and where.)</p>
<p>Overall, the FEAE authors see a promising future for citizen science. When coupled with modern advances in communications and transportation, our renewed interest in this pursuit could help engage the public in research projects, improve scientific literacy and interest in science, and educate participants on the species, processes, and habitats that they are studying.</p>
<p>Academics should also benefit, since an increased awareness of the scientific process will likely increase support and improve public opinion towards scientists, as well as providing data that could lead to valuable new insights.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/9111/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Caitlin R Kight does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Academic discussions of citizen science are all the rage right now (see here, and here, and here). While most describe the successes of individual projects, none (to my knowledge) have taken the long view…Caitlin R Kight, Researcher of Behavioral Ecology, University of ExeterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/83142012-07-26T04:02:28Z2012-07-26T04:02:28ZScience in crisis? Go on then, prove it<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/13447/original/kzcm88pt-1343266462.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Many pro-science arguments rest on the belief science is simply a "very good thing".</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Raul Lazaro</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Litanies about how poorly science and the science “brand” are doing have become a little too common for my liking.</p>
<p>The most recent notable example came courtesy of the EU’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/science-its-a-girl-thing-but-ill-keep-my-adjustable-spanner-7910">Science, it’s a girl thing</a> campaign. </p>
<p>But it’s not my intention here to rip into this campaign. Rather, it inspired me to re-visit the alleged problems facing science, and to challenge some of the big assumptions that underlie them. I’m talking about assumptions such as:</p>
<ul>
<li>science needs to be sold (better)</li>
<li>people are becoming less interested in science/ becoming anti-science</li>
<li>not enough people like/ do science</li>
<li>brand science is in trouble</li>
</ul>
<p>As best as I can tell, most of these concerns are poorly (if ever) contextualised and rarely based on good evidence. Actually, even when evidence <em>is</em> presented, the realities are never as straightforward as they are made to appear, and contradictions and unexpressed assumptions are always lurking.</p>
<p>In fact, as has been <a href="https://theconversation.com/brand-science-is-dead-and-its-time-to-break-up-the-company-991">said before</a>, most of these arguments seem to rest on the implicit belief that science is simply a “very good thing”. And like all very good things, more simply must mean better.</p>
<h2>People just don’t like science</h2>
<p>One of the big fears I often hear is that not enough people are “into” science. But what does “into” mean here? Studying science? Donating money to science enterprises? Reading New Scientist magazine? Voting for science-based policies?</p>
<p>But let’s nudge these complexities aside for a moment, and paint some positive pictures of science engagement in Australia. In <a href="http://lyceum.anu.edu.au/wp-content/blogs/3/uploads//ANUpoll%20on%20science1.pdf">a poll</a> I conducted with two colleagues in 2010, our sample of adult Australians reported being more interested in science than films and sport.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/13409/original/tgfwm2mp-1343203465.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/13409/original/tgfwm2mp-1343203465.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=591&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13409/original/tgfwm2mp-1343203465.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=591&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13409/original/tgfwm2mp-1343203465.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=591&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13409/original/tgfwm2mp-1343203465.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=743&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13409/original/tgfwm2mp-1343203465.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=743&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13409/original/tgfwm2mp-1343203465.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=743&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Belis@rio</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Furthermore, Australia’s <a href="http://www.facebook.com/ScienceAlert">ScienceAlert</a> has more than 1.5m “likes” on Facebook: <em>more than one point five million</em>. By that measure, that makes it literally one of the largest Facebook news sites on the planet.</p>
<p>Clearly quite a few people <em>do</em> like science.</p>
<h2>Science enrolments are falling</h2>
<p>This <a href="http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2012/04/the-state-of-science-enrolments/">report from the Office of the Chief Scientist</a> says science enrolments increased by 30% between 2002 and 2010. Surely this is a very good thing?</p>
<p>Apparently not. Yes it’s growth, but it was the “fourth-lowest growth rate for 2002-2010”. So other disciplines are growing faster than science, and apparently this just isn’t good.</p>
<p>How about this <a href="http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/16/30/36645825.pdf">OECD report</a> on people studying science and technology subjects internationally? It suggests overall numbers of enrolments increased up to 2006, but again science and technology as a proportion of all higher education enrolments dropped. </p>
<p>Once more, apparently this is bad. It’s just not really clear why. </p>
<h2>We’re running out of scientists</h2>
<p>There are regular suggestions in many of the reports I refer to here that we are running out of scientists and/or <a href="http://scienceandtechnologyaustralia.org.au/news-and-events/a-strong-science-workforce-starts-at-school/">losing our sci-tech capability</a>. Are we?</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/13417/original/b8kdttnm-1343204607.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/13417/original/b8kdttnm-1343204607.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=899&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13417/original/b8kdttnm-1343204607.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=899&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13417/original/b8kdttnm-1343204607.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=899&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13417/original/b8kdttnm-1343204607.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13417/original/b8kdttnm-1343204607.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13417/original/b8kdttnm-1343204607.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mark Ramsay</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Surely one of the best indicators of a failure of supply would be an increase in demand, and with that, an increase in salaries and conditions for our scarce scientists. Thing is, I’ve not seen evidence of this (but please let me know if you have).</p>
<p>Our own Chief Scientist <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ian-chubb-5153">Ian Chubb</a> was quoted in the <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/time-to-think-about-the-forgotten-60-per-cent/story-e6frgcjx-1226430130025">The Australian</a> just last week saying that PhD graduate scientists these days are lucky to get a (science) job at all, even after two or three post doctorates. </p>
<p>He also notes how their opportunities are further diminished because people don’t have to retire any more, so fewer science jobs become available.</p>
<p>What if we look at government funding via the Australian Research Council (<a href="http://www.arc.gov.au/">ARC</a>) and National Health and Medical Research Council (<a href="http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/">NHMRC</a>)? If there is a need for more scientists, this must mean they have unallocated funds each grant round?</p>
<p>Actually, they are currently cannot fund around 75-80% of the research grant applications from our existing crop of scientists according to the <a href="http://www.arc.gov.au/ncgp/dp/DP12_selrpt.htm">ARC</a> and <a href="http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/grants/research-funding-statistics-and-data/summary-funding-data/nhmrc-project-grants-success-rate-b">NHMRC</a>. </p>
<p>So by these measures, scientists ain’t so scarce after all.</p>
<h2>International competitiveness</h2>
<p>Another recurring assertion is that we need to be competitive internationally. But competitive on what? And more importantly, to what end?</p>
<p>Last year’s Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (<a href="http://www.oecd.org/home/0,3675,en_2649_201185_1_1_1_1_1,00.html">OECD</a>) Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2011 <a href="http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/OPS2-OECD-for-web-FINAL.pdf">shows us to be doing well</a> on many indicators.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/13422/original/j4t9z3zr-1343205418.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/13422/original/j4t9z3zr-1343205418.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/13422/original/j4t9z3zr-1343205418.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13422/original/j4t9z3zr-1343205418.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13422/original/j4t9z3zr-1343205418.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13422/original/j4t9z3zr-1343205418.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=535&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13422/original/j4t9z3zr-1343205418.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=535&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13422/original/j4t9z3zr-1343205418.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=535&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">2009 publications per 1000 population, by journal quality according to results from the OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2011.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Alan G. Pettigrew</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>To begin, it would be negligent to not question the utility of the performance measures themselves and why, exactly, we are using them (as a recent <a href="https://theconversation.com/australian-randd-measures-up-globally-but-what-does-that-really-mean-7085">piece Will Grant and I wrote</a> discusses). There are many issues there.</p>
<p>But even assuming we accept the current crop of measures as valid and/or useful, we inevitably find some which don’t see us at, or even near, the top. So what?</p>
<p>The author of the OECD summary above suggests among other things that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Australia may also need to consider whether its current level of R&D investment in universities and government agencies such as CSIRO is adequate when compared to other small nations, particularly in Scandinavia.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Why is it useful, valid or meaningful to compare us to the Scandinavian countries on science and technology performance? </p>
<p>Simply because they represent “other small nations” like us, it seems. But why is this relevant to our competitiveness on science and technology? And what exactly are we competing for in the first place?</p>
<p>While a sense of competition has some benefits, does a failure to be beating the Danes really suggest a crises in our science and technology capability? </p>
<p>I smell competition for its own sake.</p>
<h2>Democracy and social participation</h2>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/13418/original/zxq39yhq-1343204848.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/13418/original/zxq39yhq-1343204848.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13418/original/zxq39yhq-1343204848.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13418/original/zxq39yhq-1343204848.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13418/original/zxq39yhq-1343204848.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13418/original/zxq39yhq-1343204848.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13418/original/zxq39yhq-1343204848.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mark Ramsay</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>OK, what about participation in society? A common argument here begins: “science and technology are important to everyone because they regularly affect many facets of our daily lives”. </p>
<p>So far, so good. But then this gets taken further: “therefore we need to know more (and more) about science in order to properly/better participate in our democracy”. Getting a bit wobblier now.</p>
<p>You could as easily argue that we should know more about the Australian political system to properly participate in our democracy. Or that laws have a powerful daily influence on us so we should be more law-literate. </p>
<p>Or that we should be much more IT-savvy because computers are ubiquitous. Then there’s medicine, economics, motor maintenance, etc.</p>
<p>How do you argue convincingly for prioritising science above all these?</p>
<h2>Are climate sceptics against science?</h2>
<p>People aren’t necessarily anti-science if they don’t “believe” in climate change, as some notable meme-busting research by Yale Professor of Psychology <a href="http://www.culturalcognition.net/kahan/">Dan Kahan</a> and colleagues <a href="http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1547.html">attests</a>.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/d5fBkivqa78?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Dan Kahan speaking on: Science Communication as the “New Political Science” for Democracy.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Also, people aren’t usually rejecting the science in climate change debates; they are rejecting positions that don’t align with <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-do-people-reject-science-heres-why-4050">their own world views</a>. Science itself is rarely the issue.</p>
<p>There is in fact <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F_4kk_hLrU">evidence</a> showing that when climate sceptics are presented with science-based solutions to mitigate the effects of climate change, they can be extremely pro-science. As long they don’t involve having to make changes that are personally unpalatable, science solutions are absolutely on the table. </p>
<h2>So where are we then?</h2>
<p>To be clear, I think science is bloody awesome and I am most certainly “into” it (just look at <a href="http://cpas.anu.edu.au/">where I work</a>). What I’m not into are arguments that make we who are into science look self-interested, irrelevant, or just plain silly. </p>
<p>And this is most likely to happen when we make claims about its importance that aren’t well thought through, or well contextualised.</p>
<p>Too often I see people decrying public rejection of science, a lack of science involvement, or failures in our science capacity using arguments that just don’t wash. What they are usually saying underneath it all is: “I like science, science is just a very good thing, everyone should like it too”.</p>
<p>But intrinsic good arguments such as these only appeal to those who already agree.</p>
<p>To reach the unreached, engage the unengaged, and (what the hell), be appreciated and supported, we need to be relevant, useful and interesting to people. You need to be clear about what you’re trying to do, and contextualise it as unambiguously as possible.</p>
<p>You don’t do this by proclamation – you do it by demonstration.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/8314/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rod Lamberts has received funding from the ARC. He is also affiliated with The Angstrom Group.</span></em></p>Litanies about how poorly science and the science “brand” are doing have become a little too common for my liking. The most recent notable example came courtesy of the EU’s Science, it’s a girl thing campaign…Rod Lamberts, Deputy Director, Australian National Centre for Public Awareness of Science, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/72782012-05-28T04:10:27Z2012-05-28T04:10:27ZTeaching the nature of science (and keeping students engaged)<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/11095/original/9fmnvhxh-1338169616.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">There's knowing science, then knowing how to teach it.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">B Rosen</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Last week’s <a href="http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2012/05/health-of-australian-science-report-2/">Health of Australian Science</a> report, by the Chief Scientist of Australia <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ian-chubb-5153">Ian Chubb</a>, has again highlighted the issue of declining student engagement in science in primary and secondary schools.</p>
<p>Why are we in this position? One factor is a fundamental misunderstanding, at all levels, of the “nature of science” – no small thing! We’ll get to the nature of science shortly, but first … </p>
<p>Declining student engagement has been a source of angst for scientists and educators for some time, and has resulted in no end of solutions being offered by no end of well-meaning individuals – solutions that include streamlining the entry of practising scientists into schools, <a href="http://www.educationreview.com.au/pages/section/article.php?s=Breaking+News&idArticle=23744">paying science teachers more</a> than those of other subjects and improving pre-service <a href="http://www.iop.org/news/10/sep10/file_44832.pdf">teacher education</a>. </p>
<h2>Teaching teaching</h2>
<p>It’s important to understand at least two things are essential for effective teaching. The first is knowledge of your subject content and processes; the second is general pedagogical knowledge, which is to say an understanding of teaching. </p>
<p>Knowledge of a subject is what you might get out of a degree in a particular discipline; pedagogical knowledge might come from teacher training in the form of postgraduate qualifications or an education degree. </p>
<p>Anyone familiar with <a href="https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/proflearn/docs/pdf/qt_hattie.pdf">the work</a> of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hattie">John Hattie</a> – director of the <a href="http://www.edfac.unimelb.edu.au/research/meri.html">Melbourne Education Research Institute</a> – knows how critical, and quantifiably so, a teacher’s pedagogical knowledge is to student success.</p>
<p>The overlap of subject knowledge and teaching knowledge is where we find what is known as <a href="http://www.leeshulman.net/domains-pedagogical-content-knowledge.html">pedagogical content knowledge</a> (PCK) – knowledge unique to, or at least characteristic of, a particular subject area. </p>
<p>Obviously it’s a different thing to teach chemistry than music, history than biology, and indeed physics than mathematics. PCK is something that begins in teacher training and is developed by experience in the classroom and discussion with colleagues.</p>
<p>Knowing which teaching techniques work well within your field, how students work with subject-specific concepts in terms of misconceptions and misunderstandings, and how to link and develop ideas as you guide students through a course of study, are part of what defines excellence in teaching.</p>
<p>But there’s something missing here – and it’s a biggie. What’s particularly disturbing about current science education at the primary, secondary and tertiary level is the almost complete lack of explicit consideration of what I’ve referred to as the “nature of science”. </p>
<p>Not only are many teachers unaware of the nature of science, they would have little idea how to teach it in detail even if their knowledge was developed.</p>
<p>This is a contentious claim, but it is <a href="http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/59177/">supported by research</a> and certainly matches my experience of teaching science in state and private schools over many years.</p>
<h2>Nature of science</h2>
<p>I mean something very specific by the term “nature of science”, as the following points will hopefully illustrate:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>it’s about the philosophical and practical understanding of the processes and reasoning of science, including its nature as a very human endeavour</p></li>
<li><p>it’s knowing what the difference is between <a href="https://theconversation.com/forget-what-youve-read-science-cant-prove-a-thing-578">hypotheses, laws and theories</a> (and how most science textbooks get this wrong) and what the characteristics of a good hypothesis are</p></li>
<li><p>it’s about how the structures and processes of science are the way they are, in large part, to account for our <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/l/list_of_cognitive_biases.htm">cognitive biases</a>, and that unique subjective experience is not foundational in science as it is in other areas of knowledge</p></li>
<li><p>it’s about knowing that there is no one scientific method, but that there are many scientific methodologies and that what makes an idea scientific is the goal of maximum explanatory and predictive power combined with exquisite falsifiability</p></li>
<li><p>it’s understanding that solid scientific ideas have many defined parameters – the more the better - and that this is what separates them from pseudoscience, where goalposts are constantly shifted (ever seen a psychic renege on a promise to read minds because the presence of a sceptic is “disrupting the energy”?)</p></li>
<li><p>it’s being able to explain the difference between <a href="http://www.ssr.org/Induction.shtml">induction and deduction</a>, to characterise and instantiate the types of inferential reasoning that are acceptable in science and what problems and opportunities this presents in public understanding</p></li>
<li><p>it’s realising that the search for certainty in much of science is <a href="https://theconversation.com/science-is-imperfect-you-can-be-certain-of-that-4140">a fool’s game</a>, but to ignore levels of confidence makes you a bigger fool.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Thinking critically in science means, in large part, to be able to do such things.</p>
<h2>Moving forwards</h2>
<p>All the above and much more can be articulated and taught alongside traditional science content but hardly ever is. The pressure of content-driven standards, in which factual content is pegged out to signpost progress and the learning of which is the key indicator of success, is overwhelming and simply crowds out what are seen as less quantifiable aspects of science.</p>
<p>Even experimental work is all too often prescribed via worksheets that lay out methods to follow and hypotheses for testing that leave little room for serious reflection, imagination or understanding.</p>
<p>Some (many) even contain phrases such as “has the hypothesis been proved?”, which shows a miserable understanding of the nature of experimentation.</p>
<p>So discussion in classrooms about the nature of science is scarce because:</p>
<p>1) the nature of science is not well understood by science teachers or even scientists</p>
<p>2) the clear implication that without content knowledge in the nature of science there can be no pedagogical content knowledge </p>
<p>3) science curricula rarely articulate exactly what skills or knowledge are constituent of an understanding of the nature of science.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/">The Australian Curriculum</a> has developed what it calls General Capabilities (GCs) in <a href="http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/GeneralCapabilities/Critical-and-creative-thinking/Introduction/Introduction">Critical and Creative Thinking</a>, which are quite well presented but in very general terms. </p>
<p>How they link to what is a very ordinary content-based structure is indicated by an icon – and that’s it. There is no detail given and no guidance for developing PCK outlined, and no sense of how these GCs are to be understood or delivered.</p>
<p>Teachers need assistance to ask and answer pointed questions. How do you teach about the nature of science? What are the techniques, strategies, opportunities, unique mental processes to be aware of and best examples to do this within a curriculum that does not acknowledge its importance, as many do not? </p>
<p>This is a difficult challenge, and an important one, as it is very often these themes that students find engaging and which provide a narrative to their experience of science. It is almost farcical that these are seldom explicitly outlined in programs of work.</p>
<p>Knowledge of the nature of science is as least as important in creating scientifically literate citizens as factual content knowledge – perhaps more so. </p>
<p>Few of us can claim a deep knowledge of all the scientific knowledge relevant, indeed critical, to our lives. But at least through knowing something of the nature of science we can appreciate the epistemic credibility of what comes out of scientific inquiry.</p>
<p>The Health of Australian Science report laments that students are bored with, and do not see the relevance of, science. Conversation revolves around availability of teachers and delivery of standard courses, and curriculum design remains driven by factual content.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, the potential to create more engaged, scientifically literate students who themselves might be more inclined to teach and communicate science sits relatively untapped.</p>
<p>We should change that – and soon.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/7278/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Ellerton consults for the International Baccalaureate Organisation in science course design.</span></em></p>Last week’s Health of Australian Science report, by the Chief Scientist of Australia Ian Chubb, has again highlighted the issue of declining student engagement in science in primary and secondary schools…Peter Ellerton, Lecturer in Critical Thinking, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/60032012-03-30T03:38:24Z2012-03-30T03:38:24ZScientists and policy-makers: it’s time to bridge the gap<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/9031/original/qk6ctyht-1332812691.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=2%2C55%2C683%2C519&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Scientists and politicians rely on each other – so how best to develop that relationship?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">mayhem</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>“Our lack of ability to position our argument in the public means science has not influenced public debate as it should.” So said Australian National University’s Vice-Chancellor Professor Ian Young at the <a href="http://scienceandtechnologyaustralia.org.au/news-and-events/science-meets-policymakers-2/">Science meets Policymakers</a> forum last month in Canberra. </p>
<p>This, of course, is a problem. Scientists are these days expected to provide practical solutions to a host of major challenges (such as energy security, transport, climate change, food security and so on).</p>
<p>At the same time, policymakers are expected to efficiently assess the vast array of knowledge available at their disposal to design practical and robust policies.</p>
<p>As Gary Banks, chairman of the <a href="http://www.pc.gov.au/">Productivity Commission</a>, said at the same event: “What makes good policy? Policy objectives must be sound. It needs to achievable, cost-effective, sustainable and durable”. </p>
<p>The left hand, it would seem, needs to talk to the right. How can one meet the above standards on science-related issues without the help of the science community? A gap (not to say “gaping chasm”) currently exists. </p>
<h2>At the intersection of science and policy-making</h2>
<p>People at organisations such as <a href="http://scienceandtechnologyaustralia.org.au/">Science and Technology Australia (STA)</a> are attempting to bridge the current gap. </p>
<p>The Science meets Policymakers forum, organised by STA in partnership with the ANU, brought together academics from a range of disciplines and policy makers from various government departments. </p>
<p>The disconnect between policy maker and scientist is best represented by the role of Australia’s Chief Scientist, whose proper place within the country’s political landscape is still being debated. During her term, former Chief Scientist <a href="http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/scientist-penny-sackett-gives-julia-gillard-a-rocket/story-fn6ck4a4-1226011653079">Penny Sackett</a> did not get a chance to meet with Prime Minister Gillard and only met once with Kevin Rudd. </p>
<p>But we may be at a turning point after last year’s appointment of Professor Ian Chubb as Chief Scientist. </p>
<p>Following Chubb’s appointment, Julia Gillard announced new arrangements for the <a href="http://www.innovation.gov.au/science/pmseic/Pages/default.aspx">Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council</a> (PMSEIC) – a group that will meet three times a year to provide independent scientific policy advice to the government. </p>
<p>Chubb is also due to release the <a href="http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2011/10/health-of-australian-science-report/">Health of Australian Science review</a>, profiling the strengths and vulnerabilities of Australia’s current science capabilities. </p>
<p>Professor Chubb believes academics need to improve their communication skills, <a href="http://2012conf.asc.asn.au/">remarking recently</a> that “the media will do science better when scientists do media better”.</p>
<p>Others have a slightly different point of view. Nobel-Prize winner Brian Schmidt <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/science-politics-make-bad-bedfellows/story-e6frg6zo-1226167040617">stated last year</a> that “science is science, and policy is policy”.</p>
<p>In other words, each side should focus on their strengths, to prevent political manipulation of scientific research, and potentially inadequate policies led by scientists.</p>
<p>There’s also the problem of people at the extremes. At one end of the spectrum are researchers who are not interested in sharing their ideas with the public at large, and who prefer to spend most of their time in the lab, focusing mainly on publishing articles in peer-reviewed academic journals. </p>
<p>At the other end are policymakers (or politicians, rather) who choose to over-simplify and reduce very complex issues to slogans in line with a populist agenda.</p>
<h2>Bringing science and policy-makers together</h2>
<p>Work is currently underway to develop programs that bring academics and public servants together. Certain academics at the ANU spend one day a week at parliament providing advice - but they are part of a minority within the academic body. </p>
<p>Currently, the academic system does not put great emphasis on publications in non-academic journals. Contribution to the public debate - on The Conversation for instance - is presently only a small part of the overall assessment of a researcher. </p>
<p>Earlier this year, 100 academics at the University of Sydney were dismissed, <a href="http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/02/university-of-sydney-sackings-trigger-academic-backlash.html">it was argued</a>, because they did not “publish frequently enough”. The saying “publish or perish” is true, it would appear, especially for early-career academics trying to find a foothold in the world of academia.</p>
<p>Efforts are being made overseas. The <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/post">UK’s Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST)</a> offers independent analysis of public policy issues related to science and technology from distinguished scientists and engineers. In the US, the <a href="http://www.aaas.org/">American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)</a> is pushing for a greater role of science in the public debate.</p>
<p>In Australia, a number of institutions have also taken up the fight, such as the <a href="http://publicpolicy.anu.edu.au/">Australian National Institute of Public Policy (ANIPP)</a>. This organisation is a strategic collaboration between the Australian Government and the ANU focusing on encouraging academics to present their research findings in ways suitable for use by the public sector. </p>
<p>Public service organisations are also showing initiative such as the <a href="http://www.innovation.gov.au/Science/Pages/APS200ProjectScienceinPolicy.aspx">APS200 project</a> which aims to review the ways in which scientific research is used to inform the development of policy in the Australian public service.</p>
<p>As Dr Megan Clark, CSIRO Chief Executive pointed out in an <a href="http://afr.com/p/taking_on_science_new_role_tpK4hN3VdHivExxuY9jwgI">article</a> for the Australian Financial Review: “Science is no longer sitting on the side, it is now absolutely at the centre of nearly all major debates facing governments”. </p>
<p>There is still plenty of work to be done, but has the message finally got through that scientists and policy-makers should be collaborating much more effectively for mutual benefit?</p>
<p>I believe, at long last, it has.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/6003/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hamza Bendemra does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>“Our lack of ability to position our argument in the public means science has not influenced public debate as it should.” So said Australian National University’s Vice-Chancellor Professor Ian Young at…Hamza Bendemra, Doctoral Candidate, Engineering, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/40132011-11-08T00:24:10Z2011-11-08T00:24:10ZScience can seem like madness, but there’s always method<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5146/original/4511196265_d2bd5eb473_z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">You may be home late if the entire universe is your test tube.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">morgantj</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong><em>THE STATE OF SCIENCE: How does science work? And how can we experiment on things that don’t fit in a lab? Dr Will Howard examines the many faces of the scientific method.</em></strong></p>
<p>As adults, our understanding of science often comes from secondary-school chemistry or physics classes, in which an important form of instruction is lab-bench experimentation. </p>
<p>These were exercises in which the system being studied could be manipulated and altered in a test tube, and the experiment always finished before the bell rang. </p>
<p>But many scientific insights are drawn from observing systems too large in scale (<a href="http://theconversation.com/nobel-prize-win-tells-us-the-universe-is-accelerating-what-does-that-mean-3753">the universe</a>) or processes too slow (<a href="http://theconversation.com/explainer-theory-of-evolution-2276">evolution</a>) for us to “experiment” in the same way our high-school selves remember.</p>
<p>“How can you test hypotheses,” a criticism might go, “when you can’t run, much less replicate, the experiment?”</p>
<h2>Taking science out of the lab</h2>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5243/original/Horia_Varlan.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5243/original/Horia_Varlan.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=899&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5243/original/Horia_Varlan.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=899&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5243/original/Horia_Varlan.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=899&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5243/original/Horia_Varlan.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5243/original/Horia_Varlan.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5243/original/Horia_Varlan.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Horia Varlan</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A feature of many sciences is that we cannot manipulate the system we’re trying to study in the same way laboratory chemists can. </p>
<p>We can’t go back to put dinosaurs on Earth and hit the planet with a big asteroid to see what happens. Nor can we then repeat this with a smaller asteroid to see the difference …</p>
<p>Instead, we have to accept and make use of the fact the “experiment” has already been run. And the results are often hidden in the strangest of places – such as ice cores, tree trunks or peat marshes. </p>
<p>In earth sciences, understanding the history of how our planet has changed is vital to understanding many long-term processes such as climate change, evolution and plate tectonics. </p>
<p>We use these histories to help us understand and anticipate many aspects of our planet’s future, from earthquake prediction to climate change. </p>
<h2>Knowing our history</h2>
<p>Scientists use available information about the past – the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_record">geologic record</a>, say – to come up with models, theories or hypotheses that explain given processes, then see if these explanations are consistent with the results of the “experiment”. </p>
<p>In earth sciences, understanding the history of how our planet has changed is vital to understanding many dynamic processes. </p>
<p>The past record of climate, ecology, and the carbon cycle change is a key resource available for science to evaluate models that attempt to forecast global changes of the future. </p>
<p>If the models can “<a href="http://www.wordnik.com/words/hindcast">hindcast</a>” history, we have some confidence in what they tell us about the future. </p>
<p>Human beings are changing Earth, with consequences that are difficult to predict. Climate scientists such as myself take advantage of the fact that natural changes have occurred in the past to gain insight into the sensitivity of climate, ecosystems and the carbon cycle to human impact. </p>
<p>Because some of these processes have time-scales from thousands to millions of years, we must use long-term histories to build our ability to understand and anticipate many aspects of our planet’s future.</p>
<h2>The world in a test tube</h2>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5242/original/4622833575_2c55d9c58d_b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5242/original/4622833575_2c55d9c58d_b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=805&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5242/original/4622833575_2c55d9c58d_b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=805&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5242/original/4622833575_2c55d9c58d_b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=805&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5242/original/4622833575_2c55d9c58d_b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1012&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5242/original/4622833575_2c55d9c58d_b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1012&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5242/original/4622833575_2c55d9c58d_b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1012&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">truthout.org</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A similar issue arises when we consider the question of global warming and the impact of the human addition of greenhouse gases (GHGs) to the atmosphere. </p>
<p>We don’t have a duplicate “control” planet we can use to see what happens if we don’t add GHGs, nor yet another where we add half the GHGs we’re adding, and so on. </p>
<p>One problem, of course, is that the “outcome” is imperfectly recorded, and we cannot (as yet!) travel back in time to watch the experiment unfold. </p>
<p>We can do some virtual experimentation: we can simulate the system with mathematical models, and test the simulated outcome against the record to see if the idea fits. </p>
<p>When evidence is found that doesn’t fit, we go back to the drawing board to modify (or abandon) the models. </p>
<p>In this sense, these scientific exercises are like any other. The rules of the game of science are the same if we’re manipulating a solution in a test tube or if that “test tube” is the whole universe.</p>
<p>In other words, science can, and must, be approached in several different ways and contexts, but the game always remains the same. </p>
<p><strong>This is the third part of <em>The State of Science</em>. To read the other instalments, follow the links below:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><p><strong>Part One: <a href="http://theconversation.com/does-australia-care-about-science-4011">Does Australia care about science?</a></strong><br></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Two: <a href="http://theconversation.com/whats-a-scientist-a-poker-or-a-puffin-4048">What’s a scientist – a poker or a puffin?</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Four: <a href="http://theconversation.com/express-yourself-scientists-speaking-plainly-isnt-beneath-you-4047">Express yourself, scientists – speaking plainly isn’t beneath you</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Five: <a href="http://theconversation.com/science-is-imperfect-you-can-be-certain-of-that-4140">Science is imperfect – you can be certain of that</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Six: <a href="http://theconversation.com/why-do-people-reject-science-heres-why-4050">Why do people reject science? Here’s why …</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Seven: <a href="http://theconversation.com/when-things-dont-add-up-statistics-maths-and-scientific-fraud-4185">When things don’t add up: statistics, maths and scientific fraud</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Eight: <a href="http://theconversation.com/get-real-taking-science-to-the-next-generation-of-einsteins-4139">Get real: taking science to the next generation of Einsteins </a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Nine: <a href="http://theconversation.com/critically-important-the-need-for-self-criticism-in-science-4160">Critically important: the need for self-criticism in science</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Ten: <a href="http://theconversation.com/please-sirs-can-we-have-some-more-aussie-scientists-need-fuel-not-gruel-4257">Please, sirs, can we have some more? Aussie scientists need fuel, not gruel</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Eleven: <a href="http://theconversation.com/scientists-and-politicians-the-same-but-different-4051">Scientists and politicians – the same but different?</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Twelve: <a href="http://theconversation.com/tweed-or-speed-a-day-in-the-life-of-a-modern-scientist-4349">Tweed or speed … a day in the life of a modern scientist</a></strong></p></li>
</ul><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/4013/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Will Howard does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>THE STATE OF SCIENCE: How does science work? And how can we experiment on things that don’t fit in a lab? Dr Will Howard examines the many faces of the scientific method. As adults, our understanding of…Will Howard, Research scientist, Office of the Chief ScientistLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/38652011-10-17T19:35:09Z2011-10-17T19:35:09ZThe future of Australian science – a Nobel Prize winner’s view<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/4571/original/ASKAP_sun_up_antennas.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">ASKAP sun up antennas</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Swinburne Astronomy Productions/CSIRO</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Newly-minted Nobel Laureate Professor Brian Schmidt reflects on the state of Australian science. The feted astronomer is optimistic about the future and the contribution science can make to improving lives in this country and across the world.</em></p>
<p>Despite my American accent, I have lived in Canberra longer than anywhere else in my life. And a lot has changed in the past 17 years. </p>
<p>When I arrived in Australia in 1994, it was a well-off country separated by vast oceans from the rest of the world. Today, Australia is one of the world’s wealthiest countries, gateway to the <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/australia-in-asia">fastest growing part of the world economically, Asia</a>.</p>
<p>We have come of age. The world is rapidly changing, and Australia is in a unique position to shape its future for the century ahead.</p>
<p>11 years ago I received the first <a href="http://theconversation.com/back-to-where-we-started-tracing-the-origins-of-galaxies-3776">Malcolm McIntosh Prize for Physical Scientist of the Year</a>. I was struck with complete wonderment. </p>
<p>When I came to this country, Australia didn’t have science awards dedicated to its own researchers. Now, we celebrate our nation’s best scientists and educators on our own terms.</p>
<p>The Malcolm McIntosh Prize was, in fact, the first award I received for <a href="http://theconversation.com/nobel-prize-win-tells-us-the-universe-is-accelerating-what-does-that-mean-3753">my work on the accelerating Universe</a>, setting off a progression which culminated in last week’s Nobel Prize announcement. </p>
<p>It is a sign of our nation’s confidence that my home country was able to recognise my part in this discovery first.</p>
<h2>Investing in education</h2>
<p>I often hear it said that science and education policy never won an election. But nations rise and fall on the outcomes of science and education. </p>
<p>Improvements in our lives are largely due to technology powered by these endeavours. The lack of political acknowledgement of this may be because science and education do not run on a three-year cycle. It takes decades for such policies to run their course, but they provide a similarly long legacy.</p>
<p>The policy makers of this generation have a unique opportunity to shape the long-term prosperity of this country. Using the opportunities that arise from a prosperous, agile economy, Australia can ensure its future in a rapidly changing world through a strategic vision of, and investment in, education, science and technology.</p>
<p>The education part of this triumvirate is straightforward. Australia needs a workforce educated commensurate with its wealth. To put it simply, we need the world’s best educated workforce. This is the engine of future prosperity.</p>
<p>It should not be surprising that my high school education was sensational. I grew up in Alaska during the oil boom. Alaska paid teachers based on their ability, and paid them exceedingly well, relatively speaking. Among my teachers was a man with a PhD in chemistry from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. </p>
<p>We should be smart and learn from tonight’s award recipients, but ultimately, as in Alaska, it will cost money, and it will take time. </p>
<p>This, however, has to be at the top of our agenda. And, in relative terms, it really isn’t that expensive — 12 years of good education provides a 50-year legacy. I applaud the beginning of the education revolution, but we must let the revolution continue.</p>
<h2>How science makes money</h2>
<p>Science is the building block of future technological breakthroughs. Basic science research creates revolutionary new ideas. It’s a messy process, but it is the process that has taken our world from the Dark Ages to where we are today. </p>
<p>2009 Prime Minister’s Prize for Science recipient <a href="http://www.csiro.au/people/John.Osullivan.html">John O’Sullivan</a> started out by trying to discover evaporating black holes. </p>
<p>He never found any, but he did end up helping invent the Wi-Fi system we all now use. And the royalties flowing back to Australia from his work are just the beginning. His achievement has increased productivity not in just Australia, but around the world.</p>
<p>This year, we honoured <a href="http://theconversation.com/smart-plastic-inventors-win-pms-science-prize-3825">Professors Ezio Rizzardo and David Solomon</a> who have used their basic research in polymers to open a whole new way of making innovative products. Again, significant royalties will flow from their inventions back to CSIRO. </p>
<p>Professor Solomon was also largely responsible for Australia’s plastic banknotes. So science really does make money — directly!</p>
<h2>Taking Australia to the world</h2>
<p>Scientific research thrives in world-class institutions. Australia should strive to strengthen its universities, and also ensure CSIRO remains the unique research institution it is. </p>
<p>We must work towards having at least one university in the top ten <a href="http://theconversation.com/times-higher-education-ranks-university-of-melbourne-australias-best-but-experts-urge-caution-3761">internationally</a>, and three in the top 50.</p>
<p>Then there is the process of taking science and technology to market. This has traditionally been hard. Australian companies have found it difficult to capitalise in our small domestic market — in both senses of the word. </p>
<p>But this is an area in which the world order is changing. If Australia works with partners on a more international basis, it will be better able to transform its good ideas into goods and services in the global marketplace.</p>
<p>Working internationally is challenging for governments — a posture here, a step there. Progress is painfully slow. But for scientists, it comes naturally. We routinely work together in the pursuit of knowledge. So science can be a conduit to take Australian industry to the world.</p>
<p>Over the past five years, with the support of CSIRO and the Commonwealth Government, Australia has pulled out all the stops in putting in a superb bid to host the <a href="http://theconversation.com/hip-hip-hooray-for-the-aussie-square-kilometre-array-514">Square Kilometre Array Telescope</a> in Western Australia. </p>
<p>This next-generation radio telescope will enable astronomers around the world to make fundamental discoveries about our universe. But it will also facilitate opportunities for Australian companies to work with their European, Asian and North American counterparts, creating linkages everywhere.</p>
<p>But the Square Kilometre Array is only one of many such international projects. Not all, of course, will be based in Australia, and not all have equal merit. But involvement in a portfolio of such projects can provide a wealth of scientific and industrial opportunities within the international landscape.</p>
<h2>A new generation of science stars</h2>
<p>The future for Australia is indeed bright — but it is not guaranteed. Capitalising on Australia’s opportunities will not just happen by itself, it requires strategic science and education policies that adapt to a changing world. And Australians will have to be willing to make significant changes in how they go about their business.</p>
<p>But we have the ingredients for success:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>great teachers, such as Prime Minister’s science teaching prize winners <a href="http://www.scienceinpublic.com.au/prime-ministers-prize/pmprimary11">Brooke Topelberg</a> and <a href="http://www.scienceinpublic.com.au/prime-ministers-prize/pmsecondary11">Jane Wright</a>, to whom we can look for guidance on future education policy; and</p></li>
<li><p>great scientists, such as winners <a href="http://www.scienceinpublic.com.au/prime-ministers-prize/pmlifescience11">Min Chen</a>, <a href="http://www.scienceinpublic.com.au/prime-ministers-prize/pmphysical11">Stuart Wyithe</a>, <a href="http://www.scienceinpublic.com.au/prime-ministers-prize/jointpmscience">Ezio Rizzardo and David Solomon</a>, who enrich our world with new ideas.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>While I cannot predict whether this year’s Prime Minister’s Science Award recipients are future Nobel Prize winners in the making, it matters not. Their work requires no further validation. </p>
<p><em>This is an edited version of a speech given at the presentation of the 2011 Prime Minister’s Awards for Science at Parliament House in Canberra on Wednesday October 12.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/3865/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brian Schmidt is an Australian Research Council Laureate Fellow.</span></em></p>Newly-minted Nobel Laureate Professor Brian Schmidt reflects on the state of Australian science. The feted astronomer is optimistic about the future and the contribution science can make to improving lives…Brian Schmidt, Distinguished Professor, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/35992011-10-03T03:19:14Z2011-10-03T03:19:14ZNobel Prize means more for media than for science – a personal account<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/4013/original/aapone-19961210000010920802-sweden-nobel-original.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C302%2C580%2C480&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Peter C. Doherty picks up his Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1996.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AFP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>By the time someone gets to the stage of being considered seriously for a Nobel Prize in the sciences, it’s likely they will be very well known in their own research field; their particular discovery, or technological breakthrough, will have attracted prestigious awards of one type or another. </p>
<p>That was certainly the case for us in 1996.</p>
<p>My colleague <a href="http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1996/zinkernagel-autobio.html">Rolf Zinkernagel</a> and I had, over the years, been recognised by what are effectively the national biomedical science prizes of Germany (<a href="http://www.paul-ehrlich-stiftung.de/">Paul Ehrlich Prize</a>), Canada (<a href="http://www.gairdner.org/tonominate/wightman">Gairdner International Award</a>) and the USA (<a href="http://www.laskerfoundation.org/">Lasker Award</a>). </p>
<p>These ceremonies generally involve the provision of business-class airfares, a night or two in a prestigious hotel, and an elaborate dinner or lunch. Press interest is usually minimal and, if it’s a light media day, the organisers may be lucky enough to get something on page two or three of the local “quality” newspaper. </p>
<p>About half the people who pick up a Lasker Basic Science Award go on to win a Nobel Prize: receiving the Lasker in 1995, though, in no way prepared us for the media frenzy that followed the Nobel announcement a year later.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/4011/original/4208910041_013c9f5606_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/4011/original/4208910041_013c9f5606_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=477&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/4011/original/4208910041_013c9f5606_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=477&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/4011/original/4208910041_013c9f5606_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=477&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/4011/original/4208910041_013c9f5606_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=599&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/4011/original/4208910041_013c9f5606_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=599&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/4011/original/4208910041_013c9f5606_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=599&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">cstnweb</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Perhaps as a consequence of being the first and most comprehensive of the major awards in the sciences, for peace and for literature, the Swedish Prize (The Nobel) is both part of the general public consciousness and a recognised event on the annual media calendar. </p>
<p>About as rare as the proverbial hen’s teeth, a total of 813 individuals and 23 organisations have been awarded a Nobel Prize since they were instituted in 1901. </p>
<p>That number includes the recipients of the <a href="http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/">Sveriges Riksbank Banks Prize in Economic Sciences</a> in memory of Alfred Nobel, a later addition known colloquially as the Nobel Prize for Economics. </p>
<p>Contrast that with the 302 gold medals given out at the 2008 Beijing summer Olympics. </p>
<p>Apart from the obvious difference in physical ability, Olympic gold medalists are likely to be much younger and much better known in the community than any Nobel Prize winner in the sciences. </p>
<p>Also, Olympic athletes sometimes win several gold medals, whereas only four scientists – <a href="http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1956/bardeen.html">John Bardeen</a>, <a href="http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1903/marie-curie-bio.html">Marie Curie</a>, <a href="http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1954/pauling.html">Linus Pauling</a> and <a href="http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1958/sanger.html">Frederick Sanger</a> – have been recognised more than once by one or other Nobel committee, and even then at very long intervals.</p>
<p>What the award of a Nobel Prize does, then, is thrust someone who is likely to have been a relatively private person on to the public stage. </p>
<p>The recipients are generally in their fifties or sixties, with the youngest ever being 25 (<a href="http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1915/wl-bragg.html">Lawrence Bragg, Physics 1915</a>) and the oldest being 90 (<a href="http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2007/hurwicz.html">Leonid Hurwicz, Economics 2007</a>). </p>
<p>At least for Medicine, the famous call is made around 9:30am Stockholm time on the first Monday in October.</p>
<p>A US resident (I was living in Memphis in 1996) has the experience of being woken by the telephone in the early hours of the morning. In Perth, West Australians <a href="http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2005/">Barry Marshall and Robin Warren</a> (Medicine 2005) were evidently at the pub. Each October the two scientists had been meeting at a pub in Perth to <a href="http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/mar1bio-1">joke about winning the Nobel Prize</a>. In 2005, it happened.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/4015/original/aapone-20051210000013236710-sweden_nobel_prizes-original.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/4015/original/aapone-20051210000013236710-sweden_nobel_prizes-original.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/4015/original/aapone-20051210000013236710-sweden_nobel_prizes-original.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/4015/original/aapone-20051210000013236710-sweden_nobel_prizes-original.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/4015/original/aapone-20051210000013236710-sweden_nobel_prizes-original.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/4015/original/aapone-20051210000013236710-sweden_nobel_prizes-original.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/4015/original/aapone-20051210000013236710-sweden_nobel_prizes-original.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Barry Marshall and Robin Warren.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AFP/ Pressens Bild /Jonas Ekstromer</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Though the individual may be aware at some level that a Nobel Prize is a possibility, they will not even know they have been nominated if the rules have been followed correctly. My guess is that everyone is very surprised when that telephone rings. They certainly have no idea what they’re in for.</p>
<p>I’d always wondered how, if the call did come, I’d know that it wasn’t a hoax. But it was obvious: the voice on the line was clearly Swedish and the tone of the message was sincere. </p>
<p>I was told we had ten minutes to notify family and friends before the official announcement was made to the press and warned that, once that happened, our telephone would ring off the hook. </p>
<p>That removed any lingering doubt as the calls came in from Reuters, talkback radio in Bogota, the Sydney Morning Herald and so forth. </p>
<p>Though we have it recorded somewhere, the next few days are a blur of press interviews, television cameras and photographers. That continued through the Nobel Year, and beyond.</p>
<p>A further big surprise was receiving a call just before Christmas telling me that I was to be the <a href="http://www.australianoftheyear.org.au/pages/page68.asp">1997 Australian of the Year</a>. That led to several trips back and forth through the subsequent 12 months providing, among other things, an in-depth experience of interacting with the Australian media. </p>
<p>The learning curve with this was acute, and I learned quickly the only safe means of public communication is direct-to-air TV or radio, or something that you write yourself and is not subject to editorial alteration. </p>
<p>But it’s more important to make a statement than to be safe, and you soon get used to the idea of “win a few, lose a few”, especially when it comes to Australian newspapers. </p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/4014/original/aapone-19961209000010920905-sweden-nobel-original.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/4014/original/aapone-19961209000010920905-sweden-nobel-original.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/4014/original/aapone-19961209000010920905-sweden-nobel-original.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/4014/original/aapone-19961209000010920905-sweden-nobel-original.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/4014/original/aapone-19961209000010920905-sweden-nobel-original.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=613&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/4014/original/aapone-19961209000010920905-sweden-nobel-original.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=613&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/4014/original/aapone-19961209000010920905-sweden-nobel-original.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=613&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Nobel Class of 1996.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AFP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Over the years, “Nobel Prize winner” has become an additional job description, providing some access to the media that I’ve used to push the importance of evidence-based enquiry. </p>
<p>Whenever possible, I take the opportunity to speak to broader audiences about what’s happening in science and the value of science in the community, and have also written two “lay” books – <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Beginners-Guide-Winning-Nobel-Prize/dp/0231138962">The Beginner’s Guide to Winning the Nobel Prize</a> and <a href="http://catalogue.mup.com.au/978-0-522-85407-7.html">A Light History of Hot Air</a> – dealing with such issues. Two more should come out in 2012. </p>
<p>Another passion has been to promote the importance of quality public education in both schools and universities. That’s what gave me my break, and I am convinced that we lose out badly if those opportunities are <a href="http://theconversation.com/science-maths-and-the-future-of-australia-3577">not available to every young Australian</a>, no matter what their family situation. </p>
<p>To quote the motto of the <a href="http://www.uncf.org/">UNCF</a>, “A mind is a terrible thing to waste”, and we can’t afford to waste a single good mind in this country. </p>
<p>So far as my own science has been concerned, apart from taking time, the Nobel connection has made no obvious difference either to our access to research funding or to publication in leading journals. </p>
<p>And it shouldn’t. </p>
<p>Real status in science is based on current performance, not on past achievement. That’s much of my quarrel with these old geologists and meteorologists who <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/clearing-up-the-climate-debate">denigrate the active climate science community</a>. </p>
<p>Once you stop doing science, a good maxim is: “If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all”. As the German physics <a href="http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1918/planck-bio.html">Nobelist Max Planck</a> said, “Science advances one funeral at a time”. </p>
<p>If retired scientists can’t support the current consensus in science, they do everyone a favor by keeping silent.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/3599/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter C. Doherty is on the board of The Conversation.</span></em></p>By the time someone gets to the stage of being considered seriously for a Nobel Prize in the sciences, it’s likely they will be very well known in their own research field; their particular discovery…Peter C. Doherty, Laureate Professor, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/29662011-08-22T03:16:03Z2011-08-22T03:16:03ZChopping forest research: does NSW Government care about science?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/3037/original/frogs_same_indifference.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Shutting down research during National Science Week is a little jarring.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">same indifference/Flickr</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>You really have to wonder what kind of message the New South Wales Government is trying to send about its attitude to science.</p>
<p>Was the announcement of funding cuts to research during Science Week just a case of really unfortunate timing? Or is science so far off the radar in politics that the irony wasn’t even apparent? </p>
<p>Deputy Premier Andrew Stoner opened <a href="http://www.chiefscientist.nsw.gov.au/Current-Activities/National-Science-Week.aspx">National Science Week</a> by praising the wide-reaching economic and social benefits of research and innovation. Then only days later, in the middle of Science Week, his government <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/scientists-first-out-as-ofarrell-axes-jobs-20110818-1j06z.html">announced significant cuts</a> to the <a href="http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/research/centres/fsc">NSW Forest Science Centre</a>.</p>
<p>Imagine the government announcing the closure of a third of the Institute of Sport during the Olympic Games.</p>
<p>Scientists at the Forest Science Centre, part of the Department of Primary Industries, perform world-class research into biodiversity, response to climate change, biosecurity, carbon sequestration and salinity. I don’t need to point out the importance and relevance of these topics. It remains to be seen which of these research programs will survive the budget cuts.</p>
<p>The work these researchers are doing directly supports the growth and sustainability of the timber industry in NSW. It has flow-on benefits to other agricultural sectors. </p>
<p>There are less tangible, but just as important benefits of the research done at the centre, like understanding the effects of fire and forestry <a href="http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/research/staff/rod-kavanagh">on threatened species</a>.</p>
<p>Primary Industries Minister Katrina Hodgkinson said the decision was made by benchmarking Forests NSW against similar forestry companies. But there is no immediate commercial drive for private companies to perform research into things like biodiversity and biosecurity. These areas deserve, and rely on, government support.</p>
<p>Successive state governments in NSW have slowly eroded the once significant research base of former departments like Agriculture and Fisheries. Both of these have now joined Forests NSW in a merged entity with Primary Industries.</p>
<p>The coalition specifically <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-19/nsw-govt-accused-of-ringbarking-forest-research/2847324">ruled out cutting research staff</a> in the <a href="http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/research">Department of Primary Industries</a> before the election. But scientists working on food security, disease control, and fisheries management in other research centres around the state must now be looking over their shoulders.</p>
<p>As others have <a href="http://theconversation.com/the-governments-war-on-science-deliberate-attack-or-abuse-by-neglect-208">pointed out</a>, science has long had an uncomfortable relationship with Australian politicians.</p>
<p>The relatively new coalition government in New South Wales has already made quite an impression on the state’s scientists. Upper house whip, Peter Phelps, raised the hackles of many with a wide-ranging attack, likening <a href="http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LC20110530042?open&refNavID=HA8_1">scientists to Nazis</a>. Premier Barry O’Farrell refused to comment.</p>
<p>Further changes to the scientific landscape in New South Wales are on the horizon.</p>
<p>The government earlier announced an <a href="http://www.marineparksaudit.nsw.gov.au/">independent scientific audit</a> of NSW marine parks, following transfer of their management to Primary Industries. The chair of the review, Professor Robert Beeton, has vowed to <a href="http://theconversation.com/nsw-marine-park-audit-chief-vows-to-put-science-before-politics-1747">stick to the science</a> and ignore politics. But with the government relying on the Shooters and Fishers Party to pass bills in the upper house it’s a politically charged issue.</p>
<p>Recently, the government announced the appointment of Peter Wills to lead a <a href="http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/omr/review/">strategic review</a> into health and medical research in NSW. This is a welcome development and was met with optimism from the sector. NSW has long been the poor cousin of Victoria and more recently Queensland in the chase for research funding.</p>
<p>So why it is that the government can get away with cutting a chunk of the state’s research capacity during Science week, barely rating a mention?</p>
<p>The scientists we are about to lose do high quality, important research with wide-ranging impact. It does not reflect well that most people don’t even know this work is being done. </p>
<p>Part of the responsibility has to lie with the scientists themselves. All of us receiving public research funding have a <a href="http://theconversation.com/gentlemens-rules-are-out-scientists-its-time-to-unleash-the-beast-729">responsibility</a> to engage the public and educate them about our research.</p>
<p>Otherwise, we risk sliding down the road of policy being made in the absence of science. If we vacate the space, the lowest common denominator forum of squawking shock jocks and vested corporate interests will gain even greater influence.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/2966/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Darren Saunders receives salary and research support funding from the Cancer Institute NSW and NSW Government Office of Science and Medical Research.</span></em></p>You really have to wonder what kind of message the New South Wales Government is trying to send about its attitude to science. Was the announcement of funding cuts to research during Science Week just…Darren Saunders, Laboratory Head, Garvan InstituteLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/15962011-08-17T04:01:47Z2011-08-17T04:01:47ZThe courage to lead: Gillard, Abbott and the climate change conundrum<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/2951/original/aapone-20110610000324199407-soldier_marcus_case_funeral_melbourne-original.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Spoilt for choice: neither Tony Abbott nor Julia Gillard are inspiring climate leaders.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Both Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott have staked their political futures on their climate policies. So perhaps they should also be asking what the hallmarks are of a climate leader? </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/638565/Max-Weber">German political scientist Max Weber</a> once asked what kind of leaders should be allowed to put their hands on the wheel of history. </p>
<p>For Weber, political leaders must be able to unite an ethic of conviction with an ethic of responsibility. </p>
<p>Power for power’s sake without a passionate commitment to a broader purpose is vulgar and vain, while acting with a right intention cannot suffice if the practical consequences of policies are at odds with political convictions. </p>
<p>Put simply, both Abbott and Gillard fail the Weber test. </p>
<p>Abbott now concedes the climate science and the need for a policy response, but his conviction is weak. </p>
<p>And while his “direct action” policies are in keeping with his convictions, they are unlikely to achieve even the modest policy targets that he nominally shares with the government. </p>
<p>The Prime Minister is also in trouble. </p>
<p>She has struggled to convince the electorate of her climate conviction or her policies, having previously ruled out a carbon tax in her election campaign. </p>
<p>Under Gillard, “the greatest moral challenge of our generation” has shrivelled in response to the fear campaign mounted by the opposition. Instead, Julia has announced that Australia does not wish to be a leader, but nor does it wish to be left behind. </p>
<p>Her government accepts the climate science, and acknowledges the narrow window available for effective action, yet its targets bear little relationship to what is required to reduce the risks of climate dangerous change. Its primary message is one of reassurance and appeasement. </p>
<p>No wonder, then, that “a great big tax on everything” seems like an adequate counterargument. And if the government is talking up a compensation package, the public has reason to believe that this big tax on everything must be going to bite. </p>
<p>Weber also argued that political leadership is not a vocation for saints, dreamers, the faint-hearted, or those who are primarily preoccupied with their “impression” on the public. </p>
<p>He recognised that political leaders of consequence must be courageous, honest and cool-headed but that these virtues will not get the leader very far without good communication skills. </p>
<p>Leaders (even perverse ones) are nothing without followers, and it is here that Tony Abbott has excelled. </p>
<p>Climate leaders need three aptitudes if they are to prevail over this opposition.</p>
<p>First, a climate leader must be able to communicate the risks of failing to take timely action. If citizens cannot understand the seriousness of the problem, they cannot be mobilised to support early, concerted action. But the tone should be measured, rather than shrill. </p>
<p>Constant reference to ever more spectacular climate disasters has been criticised as a form of “climate porn” – it is secretly thrilling but ultimately distancing and debilitating because it reduces the audience to a passive spectator overwhelmed by the scale of the problem. </p>
<p>Talking up climate catastrophe is similarly unproductive when it is linked with small-action repertoires such as planting a tree or changing light bulbs. The point is not to play on people’s fear or sense of guilt but rather explain how individual actions are collectively useful if supported by public policies and infrastructural investments that make sustainable behaviour easy rather than heroic. </p>
<p>Second, scientific and technical language doesn’t inspire people to action. Martin Luther King did not preach that he had a series of targets for reducing the percentage of racism over the next 50 years. He inspired others with a vision of the future. </p>
<p>Science and politics are quite distinct realms. A political leader must construct a bridge from the former to the latter. Laypeople are more interested in grasping the meaning of such knowledge for social action, including how it measures up against their own beliefs, values, identities and everyday lives. </p>
<p>Third, a political fixation with technological solutions carries with it certain moral hazards. It avoids questions of distributive justice (who gets what, when and how?) as well as communicative justice (who decides?).</p>
<p>Technology is a means, not an end, so the push for technological innovation must be woven into a broader narrative about human flourishing.</p>
<p>So what kind of narrative should climate leaders be giving us? </p>
<p>The dominant political ideology of our age – neoliberalism – understands strong mitigation targets as a constraint on economic and political autonomy. </p>
<p>This constraint frame contains a deep-seated anti-ecological and anti-social bias because it privileges those among our existing generations who benefit from, yet deny, the unelected risks they impose on others. </p>
<p>A new narrative must be able to show that increasingly ambitious mitigation commitments are a necessary condition for freedom and mutual flourishing. </p>
<p>The answer to the meaning of life is not “less carbon”. </p>
<p>Rather, reducing carbon emissions is something that is necessary so we can all achieve other and better ends. </p>
<p>The sooner we start hearing that from our leaders, the better our grip will be on the wheel of history.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/1596/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robyn Eckersley receives funding from the Australian Research Council </span></em></p>Both Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott have staked their political futures on their climate policies. So perhaps they should also be asking what the hallmarks are of a climate leader? The German political…Robyn Eckersley, Director, Master of International Relations, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/24742011-08-10T05:34:23Z2011-08-10T05:34:23ZScience education the key to a better public debate<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/2809/original/science_education_travelskerricks.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Australians want to learn more about science - it's more interesting than sport.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">travelskerricks/Flickr</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Late last year, the media reported the surprising results of an <a href="http://news.anu.edu.au/?p=5931">ANU poll</a>. Apparently Australians are “more interested in science than sport”!</p>
<p>But the really interesting news was a small clarification in the rest of the report that was glossed over. </p>
<p>Although Australians are interested in science, the vast majority of them feel they are not very well informed about it. And being informed requires education.</p>
<p>Similar opinions surfaced in a May 2011 <a href="http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/2764/Public-attitudes-to-science-2011.aspx">UK survey</a>. The majority of respondents agreed that science is “such a big part of our lives that we should all take an interest”, but just over half of them admitted that they weren’t well informed about science.</p>
<p>By contrast, a 2010 <a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/767&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en">European Union survey</a> also found that people were more interested in science than sport; however, a big difference was that a majority of respondents (61% of 31,000 people) thought they <em>were</em> well informed about science. </p>
<p>Evidently, there’s room for improvement in Australia. </p>
<p>There are clearly weak links between science, policy and people, but it’s not always obvious where the black hole for information is. </p>
<p>Humans are an intelligent species and have an unfathomable capacity to learn (although we choose not to sometimes). But to learn, one needs access to information and education. </p>
<p>Education systems have the capacity to address this black hole, but often fall short. The recent government attempt at a new National Science Curriculum was met with concern from educators. Some groups, like the <a href="http://www.staq.qld.edu.au/item.asp?pid=1205">Science Teachers Association of Queensland</a> and the <a href="http://www.australasianscience.com.au/article/issue-december-2010/national-science-curriculum-not-yet.html">Australian Council of Deans of Science</a> thought it placed too much emphasis on teaching methods and social outcomes of science, rather than scientific concepts themselves, and even contained glaring errors of basic concepts. </p>
<p>Whatever shortcomings the curriculum has, science is still only compulsory until year 10 in Australian schools. Yet it is as important as English and maths to provide a foundation for life. Why don’t we make these subjects the trinity of compulsory education? </p>
<p>We also need to accept that nature, or the environment, is part of science. It is not separate, and it is not a meaningless pseudo-science. </p>
<p>Science is nature and nature is science. All of the laws of nature relate to scientific concepts and all of the branches of science are governed by the laws of nature. </p>
<p>If science was more widely understood, we might not be having such a “heated” climate change debate. Conservation of species or ecosystems might not have to be “sold” to a bribed public, and ecology might be considered a <em>bona fide</em> Science. </p>
<p>Science is fundamental to everything. </p>
<p>If you study the fine arts, science can help explain colour, paint mixing and consistencies, fabric weights and properties or craft material compatibilities. </p>
<p>Science is invaluable to home economics and physical education courses – cooking itself <em>is</em> a science, and knowledge of nutrition and human biology are indispensable for a career in food, fitness or recreation. </p>
<p>Science is an integral part of the manual subjects like agriculture, carpentry or graphic design. Even sociology-based courses can be comprehended in more depth with knowledge of science. People are an animal species; hence, understanding how we function as a species and in relation to the Earth, is essential to understanding psychology, criminal behaviour, history, or demographics.</p>
<p>Perhaps if more politicians understood basic scientific concepts they wouldn’t risk putting voters offside with illogical, unreasonable policies about environmental or scientific issues, and they wouldn’t create education curricula that failed to educate. </p>
<p>If more journalists understood basic science, they might not disseminate science or environment “news” that misinformed or missed the point. </p>
<p>If the general public had more grasp of basic scientific concepts, there might be less conflict and misunderstanding in the public domain over critical environmental issues such as climate change, water resources, renewable energy or conservation plans. </p>
<p>Public understanding of science is imperative to a progressive society. </p>
<p>If we are serious about changing our lifestyles, we need to change how we educate.</p>
<p><em>This is an edited version of a <a href="http://manuelinor.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/whats-science-mummy/">post</a> at the author’s blog.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/2474/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Manu Saunders does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Late last year, the media reported the surprising results of an ANU poll. Apparently Australians are “more interested in science than sport”! But the really interesting news was a small clarification in…Manu Saunders, PhD Candidate, Charles Sturt UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/26502011-08-03T02:03:51Z2011-08-03T02:03:51ZPolar bear scientist on thin ice in Arctic imbroglio<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/2619/original/aapone-20110325000307648402-germany-animal-polar_bears-original.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Polar bears are at the centre of a scientific fracas in the US.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Something does not add up.</p>
<p>About two weeks ago, a scientist working for the US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Enforcement and Regulation (BOEMRE), Dr Charles Monnett, was <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/8669678/Polar-bear-climate-scientist-investigated-over-misconduct.html">placed on administrative leave</a>.</p>
<p>In effect, he was banned from his place of work and formally placed under investigation.</p>
<p>For what?</p>
<p>This is where things get murky, especially because Dr Monnett apparently has not been informed of the charges against him.</p>
<p>What is known, however, is that Dr Monnett published a paper in 2006 that reported the discovery of several floating bodies of polar bears, presumed drowned while trying to swim across long ice-free distances in the Arctic ocean. This article attracted a lot of attention at the time and helped put the fate of Arctic animals, and the effects of climate change in the Arctic, onto the political agenda.</p>
<p>It is not entirely surprising, therefore, that Dr Monnett’s suspension was <a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/data-pours-more-cold-water-on-the-warmists-claims/story-e6frfifx-1226104514843">greeted with glee and delight</a> by those who deny the fact that the Earth is warming due to human greenhouse gas emissions. Their conclusion, as obvious to them as it was unwarranted by the available information, was that Dr Monnett’s scientific work was under investigation and hence should not be trusted. </p>
<p>The polar bear, the Arctic, and the planet are just fine now, and CO₂ emissions nothing to worry about, because one biologist has been placed on administrative leave.</p>
<p>BOEMRE later issued a statement that Dr Monnett’s suspension had nothing to do with his scientific work in general or the polar-bear study in particular. BOEMRE said that Dr Monnett was being investigated for administrative matters, involving “<a href="http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=w7670415">collateral duties involving contracts</a>.” The investigation, <a href="http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/08/details-monnett-polar-bear-boemre">it was said</a>, had “nothing to do with scientific integrity, [nor] his 2006 journal article.”</p>
<p>But why, then, did the same internal investigator who is about to interview Dr Monnett again on August 9 about those contractual matters, <a href="http://www.peer.org/docs/doi/7_28_11_Monnett-IG_interview_transcript.pdf">quiz him about his polar bear work</a> at great length in February 2011?</p>
<p>And why did this same investigator, a certain Eric May who very evidently has no scientific training or knowledge, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/29/transcript-jeffrey-gleason">interview another scientist on the same issue</a> of polar bear research in January 2011?</p>
<p>(The two transcripts linked in the preceding paragraphs are worthy of study, especially if you are a fan of Franz Kafka.)</p>
<p><a href="http://www.boemre.gov/aboutBOEMRE/">BOEMRE’s website</a> clarifies it “is the federal agency responsible for overseeing the safe and environmentally responsible development of energy and mineral resources on the outer continental shelf.” </p>
<p>Accordingly, “BOEMRE is leading the most aggressive and comprehensive reforms to offshore oil and gas regulation and oversight in U.S. history.”</p>
<p>Last month, President Obama issued an order to <a href="http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFN1E76L1M420110722">speed up Arctic drilling permits</a>.</p>
<p>Something does not add up.</p>
<p>Or does it?</p>
<p><em>This piece originally appeared at <a href="http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lewandowskyPolar.html">Shaping Tomorrow’s World</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/2650/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephan Lewandowsky does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Something does not add up. About two weeks ago, a scientist working for the US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Enforcement and Regulation (BOEMRE), Dr Charles Monnett, was placed on administrative leave…Stephan Lewandowsky, Chair of Cognitive Psychology, University of BristolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/25122011-07-27T03:54:09Z2011-07-27T03:54:09ZThe Faustian bargain – while we debate the numbers, the planet suffers<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/2498/original/Satoru_Kikuchi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Our weather systems are changing as the world warms.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Satoru Kikuchi/flickr</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Speaking on the ABC, Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, chief climate science advisor of the German Government, <a href="http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/australia-plus-4-c-not-so-hot">made a point</a> even the least-informed should be able to understand. </p>
<p>“Our body temperature is about 37 degrees. If you increase it by two degrees, 39, you have fever. If you add four degrees, it is 41 – you are dead, more or less.”</p>
<p>When in the early 80s “economic rationalism” assumed an overarching value in western societies, a rhetoric question arose: what is the price of the Earth?</p>
<p>The question is no longer rhetoric. The spectacle of people haggling over dollars vis-à-vis the future of the Earth’s atmosphere-ocean system is a Faustian bargain not dreamt by science fiction writers. It hardly conceals the increasing extraction of every available carbon source from the ground, including coal, oil, oil shale, tar sand, gas and coal seam gas.</p>
<p>Global emission reduction targets, ranging from 40% relative to 1990 by Germany, to 5% relative to 2000 in Australia, would still allow mean global temperatures to rise by three or four degrees Celsius later in the century.</p>
<p>This will drive a major shift in climate zones, disrupt river flow, raise sea levels on the scale of meters and lead to heat waves, fires and storms. </p>
<p>Climate science focuses on the non-linear nature of climate change where, once critical temperature thresholds are crossed, warming is amplified by feedbacks from melting ice, opening water surfaces, release of methane from permafrost and from polar sediments, <a href="http://www.slideshare.net/Stepscentre/tim-lenton-early-warning-of-climate-tipping-points">leading to tipping points</a>.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/mailings/2011/20110118_MilankovicPaper.pdf">According to NASA’s projections</a>, “Goals to limit human-made warming to two degrees Celsius and CO₂ to 450 parts per million are not sufficient – they are prescriptions for disaster” </p>
<p>“Rapid reduction of fossil fuel emissions is required for humanity to succeed in preserving a planet resembling the one on which civilization developed.”</p>
<p>The disruption of the carbon and oxygen cycles, which act as the “lungs of the biosphere” is raising CO₂ and other greenhouse gases to levels close to that of 16 million years ago and is increasing at a rate unprecedented in geological history (with the exception of global volcanic and asteroid impact events which led to mass extinction of species).</p>
<p>This extreme rate <a href="http://www.peopleandplanet.net/?lid=29889&section=35&topic=23">retards the ability of species to adapt</a> to fast changing environments, threatening a mass extinction of species, not least in the oceans.</p>
<p>A fundamental change in the global climate regime ensues in a permanent state of El-Niño, such as existed before three million years ago. At that stage the decline of polar-sourced cold currents resulted in a stable equatorial warm pool and the demise of the La-Niña phase. An intensification of the hydrological cycle leads to extreme weather events, increasing around the world.</p>
<p>An acceleration in the rate of sea level rise is projected by an <a href="http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL046583.shtml">increase in the melt rate</a> of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/01/28/0812721106.abstract">According to lead IPCC authors</a>, the “climate change that takes place due to increases in carbon dioxide concentration is largely irreversible for 1000 years after emissions stop.”</p>
<p>A dumbing down of the political and media discussion to the dollar price of carbon reflects years of cover-up on the scientific measurements and direct observations of climate change around the world. </p>
<p>An irrelevant discourse ensues between those willing to undertake symbolic action and those who deny the science altogether. </p>
<p>Had the science been afforded a correct publicity in the Australian media, the current political and economic fury would be seen in their true perspective and the real meaning of a world three to four degrees warmer would be understood. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2003/aug/06/environment.climatechange">According to Schellnhuber</a>, “We are simply talking about the very life support system of this planet.” </p>
<p>What is required is what has never been done before in human history – a plan for the future. </p>
<p>The window of opportunity to turn the climate trend around will close unless a coordinated global effort is made to reduce emissions and a technological breakthrough is made to draw down atmospheric CO₂.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/2512/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dr Glikson receives no financial support in connection with paleoclimate studies, with the exception of travel support related to lectures and conferences and remuneration of expenses related to publication of papers.</span></em></p>Speaking on the ABC, Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, chief climate science advisor of the German Government, made a point even the least-informed should be able to understand. “Our body temperature…Andrew Glikson, Earth and paleo-climate scientist, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/24622011-07-24T21:13:49Z2011-07-24T21:13:49ZAustralian media take note: the BBC understands balance in climate change coverage<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/2447/original/Screen_shot_2011-07-22_at_4.17.57_PM.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The BBC is finally at one with science on climate change.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">BBC One Wales</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>On Wednesday the BBC Trust released their report <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/other/science_impartiality.shtml">“Review of impartiality and accuracy of the BBC’s coverage of science”</a>. The report has resulted in the BBC deciding to reflect scientific consensus about climate change in their coverage of the issue.</p>
<p>As a science communicator I applaud this decision. I understand and support the necessity to provide equal voice to political parties during an election campaign (indeed, I have done this, as an election occurred during my two years writing science for the ABC). </p>
<p>But science is not politics. And scientists are not politicians. </p>
<p>Much of the confusion about the climate change debate stems from a deep ignorance among the general population about how science works. And believe me this really is something “science” as an entity needs to address. </p>
<p>But this is where we get stuck. </p>
<p>It is far from accurate to refer to “science” as a single entity (as I just have). Many arguments that dispute the consensus about climate change being the result of man made activity talk about “scientists” as though they are “all in it together” and “supporting each other”. </p>
<p>This implies some grand conspiracy. But science is a competition, not a collusion. If anything they are all <em>against</em> each other. </p>
<p>No given person or research team has the whole picture of climate science. The range of scientific disciplines that work in this area is vast. Indeed there are few areas of science which do not potentially have something to contribute to the area. </p>
<p>But put a geologist and a geneticist in a room together and they can barely speak the same language. Far from some great conspiracy, the fact that the <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch">Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change</a> has come to a consensus about climate change is truly extraordinary. </p>
<p>The one uniting aspect of all scientists is that they use the same verification system for work – ensuring other researchers who are experts in that particular field have checked the work. </p>
<p>If work is poorly done, presents false results or does not add significantly to the body of knowledge it simply does not get published. The rejection rate of biomedical papers submitted to <em>Nature</em> for publication is more than 95%. This process is called peer review.</p>
<p>So why when reporting a scientific finding relating to climate change would we equally value the opinion of another person who may be an expert in economics (as they often seem to be), or a politician with no scientific background? </p>
<p>The BBC Trust report did not say the voice of scientific institutions should be taken at face value – far from it. It stated that the BBC had “an over-reliance on a narrow range of external information sources”. </p>
<p>The analysis of two years of reports found three quarters of the broadcast news items about scientific research related to stories where the institution was the source. </p>
<p>So the report is recommending that journalists do what they should always have done – investigate and verify. </p>
<p>By all means ask another expert’s point of view, determine whether the latest finding is in fact good science or what its implications are. </p>
<p>But we need to move away from the idea of “balance” between those who believe it is all a big conspiracy and those who have done some work and looked at the actual evidence. </p>
<p>The report concludes that in particular the BBC must take special care to continue efforts to ensure viewers are able to distinguish well-established fact from opinion on scientific issues, and to communicate this distinction clearly to the audience. In other words, to remember that the plural of anecdote is not data. </p>
<p>Australian media, are you listening?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/2462/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Danny has worked for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation as a journalist in the past. She has no current affiliations with media outlets or coal exploration companies.</span></em></p>On Wednesday the BBC Trust released their report “Review of impartiality and accuracy of the BBC’s coverage of science”. The report has resulted in the BBC deciding to reflect scientific consensus about…Danny Kingsley, Executive Officer for the Australian Open Access Support Group, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.