tag:theconversation.com,2011:/fr/topics/science-literacy-14062/articles
Science literacy – The Conversation
2023-06-07T16:43:38Z
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/203941
2023-06-07T16:43:38Z
2023-06-07T16:43:38Z
COVID has highlighted the connection between spirituality and vaccine scepticism
<p>In the two and a half years since the first COVID vaccines were administered, anti-vaccination sentiment has grown exponentially. Scepticism about vaccines has been voiced, in particular, in <a href="https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/09/a-wildly-popular-app-for-churches-is-now-an-antivax-hotbed">religious communities</a> across the world, from <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/24/south-korea-cult-whose-leader-heals-by-poking-eyes-at-centre-of-covid-outbreak/">South Korea</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/spirit-of-resistance-why-destiny-church-and-other-new-zealand-pentecostalists-oppose-lockdowns-and-vaccination-170193">New Zealand</a> to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/nov/01/the-sects-hampering-southern-africa-covid-vaccine-rollout">South Africa</a>, the <a href="https://www.england.nhs.uk/south-east/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2021/05/Vaccination-and-race-religion-and-belief-A4.pdf">UK</a> and prominently among white evangelicals, in <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/ps_2021-09-15_covid19-restrictions_a-01/">the US</a>. </p>
<p>In my own church, people have expressed disbelief and denial. Some have claimed the pandemic is a lie and that the solutions proffered are proof of <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/6/593">governmental population control</a> and the formation of a <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3805612">“new world order”</a>.</p>
<p>This clearly isn’t the case for all religious people. But research confirms there is a strong correlation between spirituality and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, scepticism, and outright rejection. Among some religious and spiritual groups, the scepticism about vaccination is rooted in low faith in science. Among others, it overlaps with wider conspiracy theories.</p>
<h2>Low faith in science</h2>
<p>Between late 2020 and the summer of 2021, psychologists conducted a series of studies <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36446652/">online</a> in the UK. In the first two studies they surveyed 296 and 289 participants respectively, almost all of whom (456) then took part in a follow-up study. </p>
<p>This research found that people who were more spiritual were more hesitant or indecisive about getting the COVID vaccine. The researchers identified low science literacy and, particularly, low faith in science as causes. </p>
<p>To explore these issues in a different religious and non-Western context, the authors of that research conducted a subsequent study in Greece. There too, they <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34847810/">found</a> a similar relationship between low faith in science and vaccine scepticism. </p>
<p>Another study conducted in the Netherlands found also <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963662520908534?rfr_dat=cr_pub++0pubmed&url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org">a strong connection</a> between contemporary, non-religious forms of spirituality and distrust in science. The distrust, however, was not applied to all aspects of science. Participants voiced little doubt about climate change. But they did strongly question the COVID vaccine. </p>
<p>In some instances, this spiritually informed scepticism of vaccine efficacy has been rooted not only in low faith in science but wider <a href="https://theconversation.com/conspiracy-theories-why-are-they-thriving-in-the-pandemic-153657">conspiracy theories</a>. </p>
<p>In a 2011 paper entitled <a href="https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/research/publications/publication-520482">“The emergence of conspirituality”</a> conspiracy theory experts Charlotte Ward and David Voas detailed what they described as a new, hybrid system of belief. They called it “conspirituality”, a word borrowed from a Canadian <a href="https://ourstage.com/profile/conspirituality">hip-hop group</a> of that name, famous for their radical, politically conscious lyrics. </p>
<p>Ward and Voas defined conspirituality as marrying “the female-dominated New Age (with its positive focus on self) and the male-dominated realm of conspiracy theory (with its negative focus on global politics)”. They said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Proponents believe that the best strategy for dealing with the threat of a totalitarian ‘new world order’ is to act in accordance with an awakened ‘new paradigm’ worldview.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>As far as the COVID-19 vaccine is concerned, <a href="https://theconversation.com/vaccines-are-being-portrayed-as-limiting-personal-freedom-but-this-can-mask-the-true-reasons-for-hesitancy-176813">conspiratorial antivax campaigners</a> across the globe <a href="https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-and-conspiracies-how-the-far-right-is-exploiting-the-pandemic-145968">cite</a> government, ‘big pharma’ companies and western medicine as the objects of their mistrust. They posit that the body and its immune system is sacred. They see the supposedly toxic materials they claim are in vaccines as posing an existential threat. </p>
<h2>Disaster spirituality</h2>
<p>In May 2020, a journalist, a cult researcher and a yoga expert launched the <a href="https://www.conspirituality.net/">Conspirituality Podcast</a>, aiming to dissect where the wellness industry overlaps with new age cults and conspiracy theorists. Episodes have covered everything from <a href="https://theconversation.com/qanon-and-the-storm-of-the-u-s-capitol-the-offline-effect-of-online-conspiracy-theories-152815">QAnon</a> to Robert F. Kennedy Jr as the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-truther-playbook-tactics-that-explain-vaccine-conspiracy-theorist-rfk-jrs-presidential-momentum-205588">antivax candidate</a> of US presidential campaigns. </p>
<p>They provide listeners, as one reviewer <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/apr/16/a-riveting-tale-of-electoral-podcasts-of-the-week">has noted</a>, with updates on “disaster spirituality” and interviews with guests “who have either been part of, or are experts on, online cult-like communities where a desire to live more naturally has become a form of paranoia”.</p>
<p>Though people holding these conspiratorial views <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1367549419886045">generally criticise</a> scientific authority, they nonetheless cite supposedly “scientific” findings as supporting evidence for their claims. </p>
<p>They appeal for individual sovereignty and consciousness. They claim they are breaking away from mind control by the world’s elite. This dualistic outlook sets “us” (the entlightened) against “them” (the politicians and corporations). </p>
<p>Researchers at Deakin University in Australia <a href="https://journal.equinoxpub.com/JASR/article/view/22810/25609">have identified</a> 12 characteristics of what they term the “(con)spirituality of religious extremism”, including COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy or refusal. </p>
<p>The researchers say (con)spiritualists, in common with adherents of many other religious extremist movements, uphold “exclusive religious and spiritual narratives which frame them as being exceptional and privy to the real, hidden, one and only truth and as more enlightened than mainstream society”. They bracketed the word (con) in order to underline the complexity of the issue. </p>
<p>They explain that some people within spiritual and wellness circles actually question modernity in legitimate and informed ways. Others, though, are out to con their followers, spreading disinformation that “poses significant risks to society, sometimes for financial gain”. </p>
<p>Spirituality is a complex, multi-faceted thing. And people are sceptical of science for all kinds of reasons, not only spiritual ones. But in order to adequately prepare for the <a href="https://www.cgdev.org/blog/the-next-pandemic-could-come-soon-and-be-deadlier">next pandemic</a>, we need to be able to address diverse opinions <a href="https://theconversation.com/misinformation-why-it-may-not-necessarily-lead-to-bad-behaviour-199123">wisely</a>. We need to understand where people’s spirituality and science scepticism overlap – and why.</p>
<p><em>This article was amended on June 8 2023 to correctly caption the photograph of the London protest in 2020 as being anti-lockdown, and not antivax.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/203941/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tamas Lestar 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>
To adequately prepare for the next pandemic, we need to understand where people’s spirituality and science scepticism overlap – and why.
Tamas Lestar, Senior Lecturer in Responsible Management & Leadership, University of Winchester
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/190601
2022-09-19T18:01:33Z
2022-09-19T18:01:33Z
Canadian scientists made life-saving contributions during the COVID-19 pandemic
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/485134/original/file-20220916-9898-2fmj80.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=134%2C0%2C4857%2C2814&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Funding research is essential to meet future health challenges.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><iframe style="width: 100%; height: 100px; border: none; position: relative; z-index: 1;" allowtransparency="" allow="clipboard-read; clipboard-write" src="https://narrations.ad-auris.com/widget/the-conversation-canada/canadian-scientists-made-life-saving-contributions-during-the-covid-19-pandemic" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>This year, the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine will be awarded on Oct. 3. Canada will be in the spotlight again, thanks to Canadian scientists’ involvement with mRNA vaccine development. </p>
<p>The Canada Gairdner International Award, offered to five researchers who have excelled in the medical sciences, is often considered a predictor of the Nobel Prize.</p>
<p>Earlier this year, the Gairdner Foundation recognized <a href="https://biochem.ubc.ca/person/pieter-cullis/">molecular biologist Pieter Cullis</a>, <a href="https://www.pennmedicine.org/providers/profile/katalin-kariko">biochemist Katalin Karikó</a> and <a href="https://www.med.upenn.edu/apps/faculty/index.php/g275/p20322">physician-researcher Drew Weissman</a>. Cullis was recognized <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2022.03.026">for the lipid nanoparticle packaging of the mRNA designed by Karikó and Weissman</a> for the COVID-19 vaccine.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/22op-qa7xBc?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The 2022 Canada Gairdner International Awards.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>mRNA vaccine development</h2>
<p>Canada’s input into the development of functional mRNA vaccines also includes Nahum Sonenberg, <a href="https://www.mcgill.ca/gci/article/sante-gala-road-rna-therapies">a pioneer of mRNA research</a> who was consulted in the development of Moderna’s mRNA vaccine. Sonenberg received a <a href="https://gairdner.org/award_winners/nahum-sonenberg/">Gairdner International Award in 2008</a> for discovering how mRNA is constructed with a cap and tail to enable protein synthesis. </p>
<p>Moderna was itself co-founded by <a href="https://www.utoronto.ca/news/u-t-alumnus-derrick-rossi-proud-play-role-promising-covid-19-vaccine-toronto-star">Derrick Rossi, who attended the University of Toronto</a>, and <a href="https://mcgillnews.mcgill.ca/s/1762/news/interior.aspx?gid=2&pgid=2347">Noubar Afeyan, who attended McGill University</a>.</p>
<h2>Adenovirus vaccines</h2>
<p>In 2021, in addition to <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/drugs-vaccines-treatments/authorization/applications.html">approving the mRNA vaccines from BioNTech and Moderna</a>, Canada also approved the Oxford vaccine. This vaccine uses an adenovirus to insert the gene for the COVID-19 virus spike protein, which stimulates an immune response that protects against COVID-19.</p>
<p><a href="https://brighterworld.mcmaster.ca/articles/analysis-how-the-puzzle-of-viral-vector-vaccines-was-solved-leading-to-todays-covid-19-shots/">Molecular biologist Frank Graham</a> pioneered the use of adenovirus to generate vaccines.</p>
<p>Research has estimated that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00320-6">19.8 million lives were saved by the vaccines in 2021</a>, including over 310,000 lives in Canada alone.</p>
<h2>Undervaluing the importance of research</h2>
<p>The recognition of exceptional scientists by the Nobel Prize committee is sadly not a value shared by our federal government today. In 2017, then <a href="http://www.sciencereview.ca/eic/site/059.nsf/eng/home">Minister of Science Kirsty Duncan</a> highlighted the need for increased funding to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) to reverse the decline in Canadian research. </p>
<p>In 2017, CIHR funding was only 2.5 per cent of that of the corresponding National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the United States. By 2022, CIHR funding was proportionally less, at <a href="https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/52798.html">2.3 per cent</a> of that of the <a href="https://www.aip.org/fyi/2022/nih-budget-fy22-outcomes-and-fy23-request">NIH</a>.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1392118457861386241"}"></div></p>
<p>The U.S. recognizes the importance of research by investing five times more per capita than Canada in health research. As each federal budget is announced, Canadian scientists await eagerly for an increase in budgets to internationally competitive levels which never comes.</p>
<p>The discrepancy between Canada and our peer countries in the G7 and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development means that <a href="https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/large-surpluses-post-lockdown-blip-say-canadian-universities">our future scientists will look elsewhere for promising, unobstructed careers</a>. </p>
<p>Losing our scientists will have an effect on the health of Canadians and the economy.</p>
<h2>Science literacy</h2>
<p>During the pandemic, Canadians have been following updates and news regarding public health messaging that affects their everyday lives. We have observed and scrutinized how scientific research is conducted and communicated.</p>
<p>The pandemic seems to have sparked a thirst and curiosity for science. The more people inform themselves, the more they are protected from false information which could harm them and their loved ones.</p>
<p>Never has there been a greater need to promote the relevance of science to all across Canada and especially our federal and provincial decision-makers.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-cant-canada-win-another-nobel-prize-in-medicine-87910">Why can't Canada win another Nobel Prize in medicine?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The COVID-19 pandemic opened our eyes to the fact that Canada was unprepared. From the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2012-7">first sequencing of the SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA</a> to the <a href="https://www.england.nhs.uk/2020/12/landmark-moment-as-first-nhs-patient-receives-covid-19-vaccination/">first vaccination</a>, the rapid response from scientists demonstrated why scientific research is so relevant to all. With multiple health threats, investing in research should no longer be seen as a luxury.</p>
<h2>Global competition</h2>
<p>As seemingly uncontrollable inflation and the problems of the hard-hit economy take hold, <a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-student-scientists-demand-action-on-federal-scholarships/">Canada’s current and future scientists will be gravely affected by the lack of funding to support labs</a>. Without increased investment into scientific research, <a href="https://montrealgazette.com/opinion/opinion-montreal-aids-conference-steeped-in-legacy-and-hope">Canada will not be able to compete scientifically</a>. This plight is a threat to Canada’s health and its economy.</p>
<p>Canada needs to retain, recruit and support talent to meet future challenges. These will come from several sources, including future pandemics, <a href="https://theconversation.com/gutter-to-gut-how-antimicrobial-resistant-microbes-journey-from-environment-to-humans-189446">increased antibiotic resistance to bacterial infections</a>, the growing impact of cancer, age-related diseases and, of course diabetes. Indeed, it was the discovery of insulin that represented <a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1923/summary/">our first Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1923</a>.</p>
<p>Research saves lives.</p>
<p><em>John Bergeron gratefully acknowledges Kathleen Dickson as co-author.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/190601/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Bergeron 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>
Canadian scientists have made significant contributions during the pandemic response, including vital roles in developing COVID-19 vaccines. But underfunding puts the future of science in Canada at risk.
John Bergeron, Emeritus Robert Reford Professor and Professor of Medicine, McGill University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/178291
2022-07-12T12:35:15Z
2022-07-12T12:35:15Z
Improving science literacy means changing science education
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/466969/original/file-20220603-14-gpemep.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=34%2C34%2C5657%2C3754&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Introductory science classes typically require students to memorize facts, rather than teaching them the basis of scientific thinking.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/female-chemistry-teacher-explaining-to-young-multi-royalty-free-image/953955450?adppopup=true">Maskot via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>To graduate with a science major, college students must complete between 40 and 60 credit hours of science coursework. That means spending around 2,500 hours in the classroom throughout their undergraduate career.</p>
<p>However, research has shown that despite all that effort, most college science courses give students <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.2006.494034042628">only a fragmented understanding</a> of fundamental scientific concepts. The teaching method reinforces <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/ed500360g">memorization of isolated facts</a>, proceeding from one textbook chapter to the next without necessarily making connections between them, instead of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1039/C005349J">learning how to use the information</a> and connect those facts meaningfully. </p>
<p>The ability to make these connections is important beyond the classroom as well, because it’s the basis of <a href="https://doi.org/10.17226/23595">science literacy</a>: the ability to use scientific knowledge to accurately evaluate information and make decisions based on evidence.</p>
<p>As <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=6-nYCjUAAAAJ&hl=en&authuser=3">a chemistry education researcher</a>, I have been working since 2019 with my colleague <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=6-nYCjUAAAAJ&hl=en&authuser=3">Sonia Underwood</a> to learn more about how chemistry students integrate and apply their knowledge to other scientific disciplines. </p>
<p>In our most recent study, we investigated how well college students could use their chemistry knowledge to explain real-world biological phenomena. We did this by having them do activities designed to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21391">make those cross-disciplinary connections</a>.</p>
<p>We found that even though most of the students had not been given similar opportunities that would prepare them to make those links, activities like these can help – if they are made part of the curriculum.</p>
<h2>Three-dimensional learning</h2>
<p>A large body of research shows that traditional science education, for both science majors and non-majors, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab0933">doesn’t do a good job of teaching science</a> students <a href="https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/13165/a-framework-for-k-12-science-education-practices-crosscutting-concepts">how to apply their scientific knowledge</a> and explain things that they may not have learned about directly. </p>
<p>With that in mind, we developed a series of cross-disciplinary activities guided by a framework called “<a href="https://doi.org/10.17226/13165">three-dimensional learning</a>.”</p>
<p>In short, three-dimensional learning, known as 3DL, emphasizes that the teaching, learning and assessing of college students should involve the use of fundamental ideas within a discipline. It should also involve <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b01134">tools and rules</a> that support students in making connections within and between disciplines. Finally, it should engage students in the use of their knowledge. The framework was developed on the basis of <a href="https://doi.org/10.17226/9853">how people learn</a> as a way to help all students gain a deep understanding of science.</p>
<p>We did this in collaboration with <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=YbtpAakAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra">Rebecca L. Matz</a>, an expert in science, technology, engineering and math education. Then we took these activities to the classroom.</p>
<h2>Making scientific connections</h2>
<p>To begin, we interviewed 28 first-year college students majoring in the sciences or engineering. All were enrolled in both introductory chemistry and biology courses. We asked them to identify connections between the content of these courses and what they believed to be the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.21-10-0301">take-home messages</a> from each course. </p>
<p>The students responded with extensive lists of topics, concepts and skills that they’d learned in class. Some, but not all, correctly identified the core ideas of each science. They understood that their chemistry knowledge was essential to their understanding of biology, but not that the reverse might be true as well. </p>
<p>For example, students talked about how their knowledge gained in their chemistry course regarding interactions – that is, attractive and repulsive forces – was important to understand how and why the chemical species that make up DNA come together.</p>
<p>For their biology course, on the other hand, the core idea that the students spoke of most was the structure-function relationship – how the shape of the chemical and biological species determine their job. </p>
<p>Next, a set of cross-disciplinary activities were designed to guide students in the use of chemistry core ideas and knowledge to help explain real-world biological phenomena.</p>
<p>The students reviewed a core chemistry idea and used that knowledge to explain a familiar chemistry scenario. Next, they applied it to explaining a biological scenario.</p>
<p>One activity explored the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00981">the impacts of ocean acidification on sea shells</a>. Here, the students were asked to use basic chemistry ideas to explain how increasing levels of carbon dioxide in seawater are affecting shell-building marine animals such as corals, clams and oysters.</p>
<p>Other activities asked the students to apply chemistry knowledge to explaining osmosis – how water <a href="https://doi.org/10.1039/D0RP00353K">transfers in and out of cells</a> in the human body – or <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21391">how temperature can alter the stability of human DNA</a>. </p>
<p>Overall, the students felt confident in their chemistry knowledge and could easily explain the chemistry scenarios. They had a harder time applying the same chemistry knowledge to explaining the biological scenarios.</p>
<p>In the ocean acidification activity, the majority of the students were able to accurately predict how an increase in carbon dioxide affects the acidic levels of the ocean. However, they weren’t always able to explain how these changes affect marine life by hampering the formation of shells.</p>
<p>These findings highlight that a big gap remains between what students learn in their science courses and how well prepared they are to apply that information. This problem remains despite the fact that in 2012, the National Science Foundation put out a set of three-dimensional learning guidelines to help educators <a href="https://doi.org/10.17226/13165">make science education more effective</a>.</p>
<p>However, the students in our study also reported that these activities helped them see links between the two disciplines that they wouldn’t have perceived otherwise. </p>
<p>So we also came away with evidence that our chemistry students, at least, would like to have the ability to gain a deeper understanding of science, and how to apply it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/178291/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Zahilyn D. Roche Allred receives funding from the College of Arts, Sciences & Education at Florida International University. </span></em></p>
College science classes often fall short of helping students see connections across subjects. Can a new approach make a difference?
Zahilyn D. Roche Allred, Postdoctoral Scholar, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Florida International University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/184557
2022-06-13T04:41:56Z
2022-06-13T04:41:56Z
Every teacher needs to be a literacy teacher – but that’s not happening in most Australian schools
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/467665/original/file-20220608-24-7p0wfy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C4992%2C3295&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>We know literacy is important. Unfortunately, many Australian students <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/04250494.2019.1672502">move through the years of schooling</a> without achieving the literacy they need for essential daily activities. </p>
<p>When we think about building literacy, we most likely think about the English learning area. But think back to your time at school. You’ll probably remember you needed good literacy skills in learning areas beyond English.</p>
<p>Your knowledge and skills across most learning areas were gained and measured through your literacy skills. For example, your ability to write an essay in history, produce a report in science and explain your working out in mathematics contributed to your grade. Research shows how students’ literacy skills influence their achievement in <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883035519327636?casa_token=wQp1VeKxMOsAAAAA:yYn1GVdznCB9R6qctwnuwz1yeLiG6z2TUEVHgVDTT5U8FURuSIY1cRVTeTR3TWd9JDxxH6VJ">mathematics</a> and <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10212-019-00453-5">science</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/all-teachers-need-to-teach-language-and-literacy-not-just-english-teachers-180498">All teachers need to teach language and literacy, not just English teachers</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The Australian Curriculum positions literacy as a <a href="https://australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/general-capabilities/literacy/">general capability</a> to be taught in every learning area. Despite this, few Australian schools have whole-school literacy policies that include practical plans for building student literacy across learning areas. That’s the troubling conclusion from my analysis of Australian and UK school literacy policies for my <a href="https://www.hbe.com.au/hb6449.html">upcoming book</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1741143220905036">My earlier research</a> also shows that many Australian secondary teachers do not believe their schools have a whole-school approach to supporting struggling literacy learners. This is concerning, as students who struggle with literacy won’t only struggle in English. </p>
<p>It’s not that the push to make every teacher a teacher of language and literacy is new. It has been discussed <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/357438?casa_token=2Oo8oj8v2PIAAAAA%3AK1r82jb7WiFTWJVHXDb-u6cLmSZ6xr7TYZClftjDg4r9AaNSiXHuCBN25qN6TkcOdR4W0qlzn5lih0lTGXpWpwptGXzFnFkL3prw4MWKPgOwcHBPjQ&seq=1">since the 1960s</a>. However, there are questions about how closely Australian schools meet this expectation. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1533505179349241856"}"></div></p>
<h2>What kinds of literacies do we need?</h2>
<p>Many literacies are needed to boost achievement beyond English. When we talk about whole-school literacy, we often refer to content area literacy and disciplinary literacy. </p>
<p><a href="https://journals.lww.com/topicsinlanguagedisorders/FullText/2012/01000/Building_a_House_on_Sand__Why_Disciplinary.7.aspx?casa_token=sobD1yeiNIQAAAAA:mhXP-Mdm7cvb_TCFIitXOmALMTxHY0lR2kVCuPbLnBTQIDglo8np9JFA83jPQKYlpwsPGyDTaLZXcnvGARNLXTA">Content area literacy</a> refers to the literacy knowledge, strategies and skills we use across the learning areas. For example, we don’t only need reading comprehension in English. It’s needed in every learning area that requires students to read. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/where-we-stand/ila-content-area-disciplinary-literacy-strategies-frameworks.pdf?sfvrsn=e180a58e_6">Disciplinary literacy</a> relates to the literacy knowledge, strategies and skills that we use to achieve learning purposes that are unique to a learning area. For example, writing a <a href="https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/aeipt.215162">science report</a> requires the correct scientific language, formatting, referencing and diagrams. It calls for specific literacy skills unique to science.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/language-matters-in-science-and-mathematics-heres-why-68960">Language matters in science and mathematics - here’s why</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What’s missing from school literacy policies?</h2>
<p>Whole-school literacy policies plan for all learning areas to include a focus on literacy achievement. </p>
<p>However, analysis of Australian schools’ literacy policies reveals many gaps in these policies. Part of the problem is an <a href="https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/aeipt.222604">excessive focus on NAPLAN testing</a>. There is also limited attention to making the most of literacy resources such as <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09610006211022410?casa_token=l-NLgG5GXCQAAAAA%3AyFd3mbsR358Rq6AZwQA8qBiv1_XwmDh2GkLlAX1Cp-nFfHGr9o7UlDr3vqAt9d7epITiPb8LbWY">school libraries</a>, especially by comparison with policies in the UK.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1531703063580491776"}"></div></p>
<p>School literacy policies commonly fail to include:</p>
<p><strong>A definition of literacy</strong> that considers both content area literacy and disciplinary literacy, as well as the wide range of literacies that the school seeks to develop in its students. This should not be limited to the <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/lit.12166?casa_token=_8rBJ5locDoAAAAA:16YyZqaWexqOsv6fLB3qirVGiUfuwveL9DPMEkwg5lY4_xkQOQ1GIFjnRS4dgeuxRGFYvIQndEv5eg">narrow</a> framing of literacy tested in NAPLAN.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-year-without-naplan-has-given-us-a-chance-to-re-evaluate-how-we-gauge-school-quality-138603">A year without NAPLAN has given us a chance to re-evaluate how we gauge school quality</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p><strong><a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19404159909546595">Detailed and explicit literacy targets</a></strong> for building content area and disciplinary literacy, as well as meeting other goals such as increasing students’ information literacy. Targets are needed so the policy isn’t just aspirational; it actually drives change. There should also be detailed implementation planning that allocates literacy responsibilities across the school. </p>
<p><strong>An explanation of how improvement in literacy will be measured</strong> to determine the effectiveness of the policy. Don’t just assess changes in high-stakes literacy-testing scores. Look at building literacy <a href="https://www.abc-clio.com/products/a5940p/">engagement</a>. This relates to students’ attitudes toward and performance of practices such as <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1111/eie.12143?journalCode=reie20">reading for pleasure</a>. Research has found a relationship between <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883035518320147?casa_token=sHEgsX810FYAAAAA:wp0or99pYl0A9Gb3E3qaEgfxFsujqdA2_57lpyxcPZbF5-jMrunYNLfF0p4credmKAig_egt">reading for enjoyment and reading comprehension</a>, a key content area literacy skill.</p>
<p><strong>Plans for <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1741143220905036">identifying and supporting</a> students</strong> who are struggling with literacy. These plans should cover all schooling years and learning areas. Include plans for professional development of <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/04250494.2020.1775488">teachers who lack confidence</a> in supporting students’ complex literacy needs among the many competing demands of their role. </p>
<p><strong>Consideration of how to make the most of the literacy resources</strong> within the school. These resources include but are not limited to the <a href="https://www.facetpublishing.co.uk/page/detail/school-libraries-supporting-literacy-and-wellbeing/?K=9781783305841">school library and its staff</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/music-can-help-lift-our-kids-out-of-the-literacy-rut-but-schools-in-some-states-are-still-missing-out-173908">Music can help lift our kids out of the literacy rut, but schools in some states are still missing out</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Attention to writing</strong> – the majority of Australian schools’ policies did not mention <a href="https://theconversation.com/to-empower-students-with-effective-writing-skills-handwriting-matters-81949">handwriting</a>. Most of the UK policies did. Australian school policies also rarely mentioned typing. A whole-school literacy policy should include these skills, given their importance across the curriculum and the years of schooling. </p>
<p><strong>COVID-related literacy issues</strong> – school policies may also need to include strategies to overcome any negative impacts of pandemic-related <a href="https://www.iier.org.au/iier31/merga-abs.html">education interruption</a> on students’ literacy learning. </p>
<p>In general, Australian school literacy policies are <a href="https://journals-sagepub-com.ezproxy.newcastle.edu.au/doi/10.1177/09610006211022410">typically far shorter</a> and less detailed than their UK equivalents. Australian schools and their students will benefit from more effective whole-school literacy planning. </p>
<p>Literacy is not just the responsibility of the English teacher. Every teacher is a literacy teacher.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/184557/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Margaret Kristin Merga has received funding from the BUPA Health Foundation, the Ian Potter Foundation, the Copyright Agency Cultural Fund, Edith Cowan University and the Collier Foundation. She is the Patron of the Australian School Library Association and the Western Australian School Library Association. She also runs Merga Consulting, working with schools, Departments and professional associations to deliver parent seminars, staff professional development and planning advisory support.</span></em></p>
A whole-school approach to literacy is far more effective for students, but few Australian schools have practical plans for building literacy across all subject areas.
Margaret Kristin Merga, Honorary Senior Lecturer, School of Education, University of Newcastle
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/154628
2021-04-07T12:28:37Z
2021-04-07T12:28:37Z
Scientists need to become better communicators, but it’s hard to measure whether training works
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/393269/original/file-20210402-15-1a83tel.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C17%2C4000%2C2796&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">How can more scientists learn to communicate like Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/director-of-the-national-institute-of-allergy-and-news-photo/1231790513">Anna Moneymaker / POOL / AFP via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Science is essential to solving many of society’s biggest problems, but it doesn’t always find a receptive audience. Today, when curbing COVID-19 requires hundreds of millions of Americans to get vaccinated, it’s more urgent than ever for scientists to be able to communicate effectively with the public.</p>
<p>The challenge was clear long before the pandemic. Scientists began to realize they needed to do better at explaining their findings in the 1990s, after fossil fuel corporations and conservative politicians <a href="https://theconversation.com/30-years-ago-global-warming-became-front-page-news-and-both-republicans-and-democrats-took-it-seriously-97658">rejected evidence</a> that the globe was warming at an alarming rate. In response, a range of programs sprang up that were designed to teach everyone, from veteran scientists to young graduate students, how to better communicate their often arcane and confusing research. </p>
<p>Today there’s an expanding number of science communication training programs that last anywhere from a few hours to several months. Techniques range from <a href="https://www.storycollider.org/">storytelling</a> and <a href="https://www.aldacenter.org/">improvisation</a> to <a href="https://www.compassscicomm.org/">coaching through simulated interviews</a> with journalists and public relations specialists. Yet voices opposed to mainstream scientific views remain <a href="https://www.ehn.org/anti-science-in-america-2648226671.html">a powerful force in the U.S.</a>.</p>
<p>We have taught <a href="https://scicommtraining.uconn.edu/about-us/">science communication courses</a> for more than a decade at the <a href="https://uconn.edu/">University of Connecticut</a>. <a href="https://rubegalab.uconn.edu/">Margaret Rubega</a> talks regularly to the press as the Connecticut state ornithologist and has won a universitywide teaching award. <a href="https://capers.eeb.uconn.edu/">Robert Capers</a> is a Pulitzer Prize-winning former journalist and botanist. <a href="https://journalism.uconn.edu/bw-bob-wyss/">Robert Wyss</a> is a journalist who reported on environmental issues for decades and authored a book on environmental journalism. </p>
<p>All of us wanted to know more about what really helps scientists talk to the public. What we found in a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020971639">recent study</a> funded by the National Science Foundation surprised us, and convinced us that it’s time to rethink how we assess whether science communication training works.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hrUkPl0JqAU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Science communication methods and voices are evolving quickly in today’s complex media environment.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Practice makes … not much difference</h2>
<p>Our investigation began by recruiting graduate STEM students to semesterlong science communication courses that featured lectures, discussion, exercises and mock journalism interviews. Every student participated in repeated interviews that we video-recorded and then reviewed in class. We wanted to see how well they could talk clearly and engagingly about their work on topics in science, technology, engineering and medicine.</p>
<p>At the end of the semester our written surveys drew strong praise from the students. “The interviews forced us to put ourselves out there,” said one student, “to make mistakes, analyze them and then reflect on how to improve in the future.”</p>
<p>Such comments were not surprising. Most science communication training programs query participants and get positive responses. But more probing research has shown that students consistently <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2004.00018.x">overestimate how well they perform</a>.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1090380255032795137"}"></div></p>
<p>Our research was designed to go further. Over three years we video-recorded students explaining a scientific concept at the beginning of the course and then again at the end. Then we showed these videos, along with videos made by a control group of students who did not receive science communication training, to hundreds of undergraduate students.</p>
<p>We asked the undergraduates to rate the students they saw in the videos on various communication skills. The results showed that students who had taken the training courses did no better communicating with the undergrads than did the students who had had no training. </p>
<p>Furthermore, the trained students received only slightly higher scores after taking the course than they did at the beginning. And the untrained students in our control group showed an equal – minimal – improvement in scores. </p>
<p>In sum, students who took our communication training class received lots of instruction, active practice and direct analysis of what to do differently. However, the undergraduates who did the ratings did not appear to perceive any difference between students who took the training course and others who did not.</p>
<h2>Looking for a jump-start</h2>
<p>We were surprised by these findings. Were we the worst science communication teachers working?</p>
<p>Perhaps, but that would be surprising too, given the varied experiences we brought to this effort. An educational consultant oversaw our curriculum, and our research team included communications specialist <a href="https://anne-oeldorf-hirsch.uconn.edu/">Anne Oeldorf-Hirsch</a>; postdoctoral researcher <a href="http://hydrodictyon.eeb.uconn.edu/eebedia/images/1/16/Burgio_CV_1.0.pdf">Kevin Burgio</a>; and statistician A. Andrew MacDonald at Montreal University.</p>
<p>Our biggest question was what we could conclude from this study about the range of training approaches in science communication. If a 15-week, three-credit course doesn’t change communication behavior much, how much can scientists expect to gain from shorter trainings, such as the kind of singular sessions frequently offered at conferences? </p>
<p>We don’t believe our results show that science communication training is worthless. Students unquestionably leave our courses much more aware of the pitfalls of using jargon, speaking in complex sentences and talking more about the caveats than about the bottom line. It just appears that knowledge doesn’t translate to enough of a change in their use of jargon, complex sentences and ability to get to the point to change how audiences score them. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ck_JCZrnx4g?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">UC Davis plant biology graduate student Katie Murphy, winner of the University of California’s 2019 Grad Slam scholarly communication contest, gives a three-minute overview of her research.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We suspect that what students need is much, much more active practice than even a full-semester course gives them. As science writer Malcolm Gladwell has famously pointed out, it can require <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/sports/sporting-scene/complexity-and-the-ten-thousand-hour-rule">10,000 hours of practice</a> to become skilled at complex tasks. </p>
<p>The big challenge in assessing different kinds of science communication training is tracking how skills improve over the long term. Perhaps more importantly, we’d like to know whether there’s any way to help scientists improve more quickly. </p>
<p>The National Science Foundation currently requires every scientist who receives a federal grant to explain <a href="https://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/publications/Broader_Impacts.pdf">how that research will affect the public</a>, including plans for communicating the results. Perhaps the NSF and other funders of science communication training should require rigorous assessments of the training they are paying for.</p>
<p>At the very least, we hope our research generates discussion among scientists, journalists and those interested in public science literacy. Two European scholars recently issued a similar call for more rigorous research on what actually works in science communication, and for a serious dialog about how to use that evidence to <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00078">improve the practice of communication</a>. </p>
<p>Clearly, organizations that train scientists have to do more than just ask participants in a class whether they learned anything. Our study showed that there’s a need for rigorous methods to assess communication training programs. Without them, trainers can’t tell whether they are just wasting their time. </p>
<p>[<em>Understand new developments in science, health and technology, each week.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/science-editors-picks-71/?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=science-understand">Subscribe to The Conversation’s science newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/154628/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert Wyss receives funding from National Science Foundation. Their grant partly funded this science communication research.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Margaret Rubega received funding from the National Science Foundation; she was the Principal Investigator on NSF NRT-IGE award 1545458, which supported the research described in this article.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert Capers received funding from the National Science Foundation to support the research on communication by grad students in the sciences. We had a three-year grant to teach communication to science grad students and to analyze changes in their communication performance; the results of that work are summarized in the Science Communication paper that we refer to in this Conversation piece.</span></em></p>
Scicomm is a hashtag, and there are many programs that claim to teach scientists how to be better communicators. But it’s hard to show exactly what they’re accomplishing.
Robert Wyss, Professor Emeritus of Journalism, University of Connecticut
Margaret Rubega, Associate Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut
Robert Capers, Researcher in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/141348
2020-07-24T12:22:49Z
2020-07-24T12:22:49Z
3 questions to ask yourself next time you see a graph, chart or map
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/349233/original/file-20200723-23-1c9tv31.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=167%2C5%2C3464%2C2454&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">White House Coronavirus Task Force members reference a misleading chart in a press briefing.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Virus-Outbreak-Trump/f2c5f8d116a24062b563a32cea88235e/1/0">AP Photo/Alex Brandon</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Since the days of painting on cave walls, people have been representing information through figures and images. Nowadays, data visualization experts know that <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/evamurray/2019/01/28/how-data-visualization-supports-communication">presenting information visually</a> <a href="https://ed.ted.com/lessons/david-mccandless-the-beauty-of-data-visualization">helps people better understand</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.12.006">complicated data</a>. The problem is that data visualizations can also leave you with the wrong idea – whether the images are sloppily made or intentionally misleading. </p>
<p>Take for example the bar graph presented at an <a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?470990-1/president-trump-coronavirus-task-force-briefing">April 6 press briefing</a> by members of the White House Coronavirus Task Force. It’s titled “COVID-19 testing in the U.S.” and illustrates almost 2 million coronavirus tests completed up to that point. President Trump used the graph to support his assertion that testing was “<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-vice-president-pence-members-coronavirus-task-force-press-briefing-21/">going up at a rapid rate</a>.” Based on this graphic many viewers likely took away the same conclusion – but it is incorrect.</p>
<p>The graph shows the total cumulative number of tests performed over months, not the number of new tests each day.</p>
<p><iframe id="pG025" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/pG025/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>When you graph the number of new tests by date, you can see the number of COVID-19 tests performed between March and April did increase through time, but not rapidly. This instance is one of many when important information was not properly understood or well communicated.</p>
<p>As a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=T7vRKkQAAAAJ&hl=en">researcher of hazard and risk communication</a>, I think a lot about how people interpret the charts, graphs <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101487">and maps</a> they encounter daily.</p>
<p>Whether they show COVID-19 cases, global warming trends, high-risk tsunami zones, or utility usage, being able to correctly assess and interpret figures allows you to make informed decisions. Unfortunately, not all figures are created equal.</p>
<p>If you can spot a figure’s pitfalls you can avoid the bad ones. Consider the following three key questions the next time you see a graph, map or other data visual so you can confidently decide what to do with that new nugget of information.</p>
<h2>What is this figure trying to tell me?</h2>
<p>Start by reading the title, looking at the labels and checking the caption. If these are not available – be very wary. Labels will be on the horizontal and vertical axes on graphs or in a legend on maps. People often overlook them, but this information is crucial for putting everything you see in the visualization into context.</p>
<p>Look at the units of measure – are they in days or years, Celsius or Fahrenheit, counts, age, or what? Are they evenly spaced along the axis? Many of the recent COVID-19 cumulative case graphs use a logarithmic scale, where the the intervals along the vertical axis are not equally spaced. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-3Mlj3MQ_Q">This creates confusion for people</a> unfamiliar with this format.</p>
<iframe width="100%" height="315" src="https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/embedded-video/mmvo80534597724" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figure><figcaption><span class="caption">A March 12 broadcast of ‘The Rachel Maddow Show’ included a graph with unlabeled numbers and a tricky horizontal axis.</span></figcaption></figure>
<p>For instance, a graph from “<a href="https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/u-s-unprepared-for-expected-explosion-in-coronavirus-cases-80534597724?cid=sm_fb_maddow">The Rachel Maddow Show” on MSNBC</a>, showed coronavirus cases in the United States between Jan. 21 and March 11. The x-axis units on the horizontal are time (in a month-day format) and the y-axis units on the vertical are presumably cumulative case counts, though it does not specify.</p>
<p>The main issue with this graph is that the time periods between consecutive dates are uneven.</p>
<p><iframe id="yzUp1" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/yzUp1/5/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>In a revised graph, with dates properly spaced through time, and coronavirus diagnoses plotted as a line graph, you can see more clearly what <a href="https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-cases-are-growing-exponentially-heres-what-that-means-135181">exponential growth</a> in the rate of infection really looks like. It took the first 30 days to add 33 cases, but only the last four to add 584 cases.</p>
<p>What may seem like a slight difference could help people understand how quickly exponential growth can go sky high and maybe change how they perceive the importance of curbing it.</p>
<h2>How are color, shape, size and perspective used?</h2>
<p><a href="https://eos.org/features/visualizing-science-how-color-determines-what-we-see">Color plays an important role</a> in how people interpret information. Color choices can make you notice particular patterns or draw your eye to certain aspects of a graphic.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/349252/original/file-20200723-23-wgpj48.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/349252/original/file-20200723-23-wgpj48.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=196&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349252/original/file-20200723-23-wgpj48.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=196&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349252/original/file-20200723-23-wgpj48.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=196&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349252/original/file-20200723-23-wgpj48.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=246&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349252/original/file-20200723-23-wgpj48.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=246&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349252/original/file-20200723-23-wgpj48.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=246&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Oregon landslide susceptibility.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Consider two maps depicting landslide susceptibility, which are exactly the same except for reversed color schemes. Your eye may be be drawn to darker shades, intuitively seeing those areas as at higher risk. After looking at the legend, which color order do you think best represents the information? By paying attention to <a href="https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/hass-storytelling/storytelling-pixar-in-a-box/ah-piab-visual-language/v/color-visual">how color is used</a>, you can better understand how it influences what stands out to you and what you perceive.</p>
<p>Shape, size and orientation of features can also influence <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2011.01150.x">how you interpret a figure</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/348978/original/file-20200722-32-o99maq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="confusing pie chart of employment data" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/348978/original/file-20200722-32-o99maq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/348978/original/file-20200722-32-o99maq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=608&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/348978/original/file-20200722-32-o99maq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=608&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/348978/original/file-20200722-32-o99maq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=608&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/348978/original/file-20200722-32-o99maq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=764&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/348978/original/file-20200722-32-o99maq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=764&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/348978/original/file-20200722-32-o99maq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=764&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 industries employ Coloradans?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://dossier.ink-live.com/html5/reader/production/default.aspx?pubname=&edid=5f3a495a-fdef-463f-b826-6b92609f04c5">Hemispheres</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Pie charts, like this one showing employment breakdown for a region, are notoriously difficult to parse. Notice how hard it is to pull out which employment category is highest or how they rank. The pie chart’s wedges are not organized by size, there are too many categories (11!), the 3D perspective distorts the wedge sizes, and some wedges are separate from others making size comparisons almost impossible.</p>
<p><iframe id="yCDTo" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/yCDTo/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>A bar chart is a better option for an informative display and helps show which industries people are employed in.</p>
<h2>Where do the data come from?</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/345601/original/file-20200703-33935-elrvg1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="screen shot of Twitter poll about Trump's performance" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/345601/original/file-20200703-33935-elrvg1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/345601/original/file-20200703-33935-elrvg1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/345601/original/file-20200703-33935-elrvg1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/345601/original/file-20200703-33935-elrvg1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/345601/original/file-20200703-33935-elrvg1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/345601/original/file-20200703-33935-elrvg1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/345601/original/file-20200703-33935-elrvg1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=453&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 posted on ‘Lou Dobbs Tonight,’ requesting viewers vote on Twitter about Trump’s performance.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.mediaite.com/tv/lou-dobbs-invites-viewers-to-vote-on-trumps-coronavirus-leadership-superb-great-or-very-good/">Fox Business Network</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The source of data matters in terms of quality and reliability. This is especially true for partisan or politicized data. If the data are collected from a group that isn’t a good approximation of the population as a whole, then it may be biased.</p>
<p>For example, on March 18, Fox Business Network host Lou Dobbs polled his audience with the question “How would you grade President Trump’s leadership in the nation’s fight against the Wuhan Virus?” </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1240421216692961284"}"></div></p>
<p>Imagine if only Republicans were asked this question and how the results would compare if only Democrats were asked. In this case, respondents were part of a self-selecting group who already chose to watch Dobbs’ show. The poll can only tell you about that group’s opinions, not people in the U.S. generally, for instance.</p>
<p>[<em>Get facts about coronavirus and the latest research.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=coronavirus-facts">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter.</a>]</p>
<p>Then consider that Dobbs provided only positive responses in his multiple choice options – “superb, great or very good” – and it is clear that this data has a bias.</p>
<p>Spotting bias and improper data collection methods allows you to decide which information is trustworthy. </p>
<h2>Think through what you see</h2>
<p>During this pandemic, information is emerging hour by hour. Media consumers are inundated with facts, charts, graphs and maps every day. If you can take a moment to ask yourself a few questions about what you see in these data visualizations, you may walk away with a completely different conclusion than you might have had at first glance.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/141348/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Carson MacPherson-Krutsky receives funding from The National Science Foundation. She is the co-owner of HazardReady, LLC. </span></em></p>
Visualizations can help you understand data better – but they can also confuse or mislead. Here, some tips on what to watch out for.
Carson MacPherson-Krutsky, PhD Candidate in Geosciences, Boise State University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/110956
2019-09-09T19:45:55Z
2019-09-09T19:45:55Z
The profound perspective of geoscience can unite students
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/289528/original/file-20190826-8893-1bfb52y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Prof. Stephen Meyers and his Geoscience 100 class at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Photo by Ethan Parrish</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Author provided</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s 1 p.m. and students gather in long lines as they wait to enter the lecture hall, a spacious wood-adorned auditorium at the top of Henry Mall at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. It’s a charismatic octagonal space that is 116 years old and the largest lecture hall on campus. </p>
<p>The course is Geoscience 100: Introductory Geology, and on this particular day, music spills out through the closed doors as the students await playbills for a lecture called “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUG0ZI7uzsw">Beginnings</a>.” The lecture is a musical-video-poetic performance in four acts that communicates scientific concepts from the big bang, to the origin of our solar system and our planet.</p>
<p>As the doors to the lecture hall open, the students stream in to a live band performing at the front of the auditorium. Students will be treated to a newly commissioned instrumental piece from the band (Mr. Chair) on the formation of the Solar System, called “Nebulebula,” which subsequently became the title track of a <a href="https://mrchairmusic.com">Mr. Chair album.</a> </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1Z3AiEoqueA?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Approximately 300 students attend the class. Most are non-science majors taking the course to fulfil a graduation requirement. </p>
<p>As a science educator, I believe that every one of them is a scientist.</p>
<p>The feeling I had as I took in this scene is in stark contrast to how I felt just one year earlier as I faced a disappointing moment in my scientific career. </p>
<p>The distortion and misreporting of my <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21402">scientific research</a> by a conservative <a href="https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/scientists-we-know-what-really-causes-climate-james-barrett-the-daily-wire">media site</a> led to a digital cascade of misinformation about the role that humans play in climate change. I was frustrated about this misrepresentation of my work, which was circulated and amplified through the internet. </p>
<p>My initial confusion about how to deal with this misuse of my research, ultimately gave way to <a href="https://news.wisc.edu/geoscience-beginnings">new creative ideas</a> for how to cultivate a scientifically receptive and engaged public. </p>
<p>I decided to go back to the foundations: the human dimension of science and what it is to be a scientist. One central question loomed large. How can we foster a world where decision-making is based on sound science, sound logic and reason and also empathy for our fellow travellers on this planet?</p>
<p>My new creative line of thinking culminated in an experimental collaboration between science education and communication called the “tadada Scientific Lab.” </p>
<h2>Connection events</h2>
<p>The objective of tadada is to inspire scientific literacy, nurture emotional connections to science and cultivate a scientific identity within each student. </p>
<p>With these objectives came a re-envisioning of the parameters that define a science classroom. I believe one way to inspire scientific literacy and cultivate a scientific identity is through experiences that emphasize a personal-emotional connection to science. I call these moments “connection events.”</p>
<p>While developing the idea, I joined forces with the Madison, Wis.-based photojournalist and social documentary photographer, Gigi Cohen. Cohen helped develop deeper artistic, psychological and emotional perspectives for the project. Cohen said: “Science can be a great unifier of people, it captures a truth about the vast history of life and humanity that connects us all.”</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/mixing-science-and-art-to-make-the-truth-more-interesting-than-lies-100221">Mixing science and art to make the truth more interesting than lies</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>“Beginnings” was a connection event. Another successful event was “The Deep Groove: A Sonic Journey into the Earth’s Interior,” a performance in five acts that explores the science of seismology, earthquakes and how (sound) waves tell us about the Earth’s interior. It debuted in the Geoscience 100 classroom in April 2019, a hallmark of the second year of tadada.</p>
<p>The Deep Groove includes another commissioned musical piece by Mr. Chair called “Ground Underground.” The musical composition interprets a journey through the Earth. This connection event also showcases numerous film segments, such as an exploration of <a href="https://youtu.be/1Z3AiEoqueA">how echos reveal Earth’s interior</a>, and a seismic experiment with percussionist Mike Koszewski on a frozen Lake Mendota.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/290974/original/file-20190904-175663-qvp79s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/290974/original/file-20190904-175663-qvp79s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/290974/original/file-20190904-175663-qvp79s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/290974/original/file-20190904-175663-qvp79s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/290974/original/file-20190904-175663-qvp79s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=559&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/290974/original/file-20190904-175663-qvp79s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=559&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/290974/original/file-20190904-175663-qvp79s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=559&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">‘Grace in Space’ is a comic book exam. Cover illustrated by Pan Jun Rader.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In a third connection event, “The Print of Time,” artist and master printer <a href="https://crownoverart.com/bruces-art">Bruce Crownover</a> joined me in teaching students how the creation of a reductive woodcut — one of the oldest forms of printmaking — relates to geologic processes. We explored how the masterpiece of Earth’s geological history is revealed through the accumulation of layers and the concept of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_time">deep time</a> and how geoscience inspires his art.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/new-ways-scientists-can-help-put-science-back-into-popular-culture-84955">New ways scientists can help put science back into popular culture</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The tadada Scientific Lab also became a place to workshop a final exam for my intro to geoscience course. The result was, “Grace in Space: The Comic Book Exam.” “Grace in Space,” follows Gracie, a fictional Geoscience 100 student on a transformative journey to discover her connection to this planet, its vast history, its changing climate and her role in deciding the planet’s future. The comic book exam emphasizes the key course concepts and their interconnections.</p>
<h2>Bringing a science identity to the classroom</h2>
<p>Research in <a href="https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23674/communicating-science-effectively-a-research-agenda">science communication</a> suggests that scientific data and facts more effectively reach and influence people when they are presented in a way that speaks to their values. </p>
<p>In other words, it is not enough to simply provide scientific information with the hope of filling a deficit in knowledge.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/291179/original/file-20190905-175663-1jrn03e.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/291179/original/file-20190905-175663-1jrn03e.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/291179/original/file-20190905-175663-1jrn03e.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/291179/original/file-20190905-175663-1jrn03e.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/291179/original/file-20190905-175663-1jrn03e.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/291179/original/file-20190905-175663-1jrn03e.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/291179/original/file-20190905-175663-1jrn03e.jpeg?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">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Percussionist Mike Koszewski on Lake Mendota, filming for the tadada Scientific Lab production ‘The Deep Groove: A Sonic Journey into the Earth’s Interior.’ Photo by Gigi Cohen.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Instead we need to ask questions. How can we speak to individuals’ values or cultivate an identity that is receptive to sound science? How can educators cultivate a scientific identity in students? </p>
<p>Rather than focusing exclusively on scientific literacy in our classrooms, let’s also consider how we can inspire scientific literacy that will continue to inform students in their lives outside of the classroom. Let’s facilitate their exploration and curiosity for the deep emotional connection — wonderment — that drives many scientists.</p>
<p>Climate change, clean water and social justice are just a few of the daunting challenges that face our world, our students, our families. They require us to think anew about how we can be effective educators that help both present and future generations thrive. </p>
<p>Solutions are within our reach, within our classrooms and within our communities. The tadada Scientific Lab is working to re-envision the science classroom, while also cultivating a new generation of scientific communicators and educators (musicians, artists, filmmakers, photographers, poets) that cross the traditional disciplinary boundaries.</p>
<p>Imagine if every person could see all the possibilities that exist for them, while understanding how interconnected our collective well-being is. How amazing it is that we get to share a bit of the 4.54 billion year history of this lovely planet we call home. This is a profound perspective that geoscience brings, and it is a powerful message to share.</p>
<p><em>Gigi Cohen, co-founder of tadada Scientific Lab, contributed to this article</em></p>
<p>[ <em>Like what you’ve read? Want more?</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/ca/newsletters?utm_source=TCCA&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=likethis">Sign up for The Conversation’s daily newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/110956/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen R. Meyers and Gigi Cohen live with their son in Madison, Wisconsin.</span></em></p>
A science researcher’s work gets twisted by a conservative news site; he considers this his wake-up call to educate as many students as possible about the importance of science to our world.
Stephen R. Meyers, Professor of Geoscience, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/91801
2018-04-11T10:44:27Z
2018-04-11T10:44:27Z
Stand up for science: More researchers now see engagement as a crucial part of their job
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213991/original/file-20180410-114076-1vlrt7b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C97%2C715%2C573&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">One of the authors speaking at the 2017 March for Science.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Emily Darling</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>As the first anniversary of the March for Science approaches, researchers continue to reflect on the relationship between science and society. A recent survey of 2017 marchers indicated that nearly all were also actively <a href="https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/all/march-for-science-2017/">participating in other types of science advocacy</a>. In the past year, inspired by the call to stand up for science, scientists have <a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/why-women-drop-out-of-science-careers/">written editorials</a>, contacted members of Congress, <a href="https://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-and-march-science-partner-uphold-science">attended public protests</a>, <a href="http://time.com/5134417/scientists-running-for-office/">initiated runs for political office</a>, and <a href="https://500womenscientists.org/">organized new groups</a> to support diversity, inclusion and justice.</em></p>
<p><em>How are today’s scientists rethinking public engagement? Here, four scientists spanning multiple academic career stages – entering Ph.D. student (<a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=qlaybZcAAAAJ&hl=en">Shukla</a>), early career (<a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=3PgkPboAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">Rochman</a>), midcareer (<a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ZgoB98kAAAAJ&hl=en">Hill</a>), and senior scientist (<a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=h7Na1OoAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">Williams</a>) – discuss whether society is witnessing a fundamental change in how scientific researchers perceive their interaction with the public and policymakers.</em></p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213950/original/file-20180409-114128-1fgud9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=471%2C0%2C4341%2C2559&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213950/original/file-20180409-114128-1fgud9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=471%2C0%2C4341%2C2559&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213950/original/file-20180409-114128-1fgud9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=308&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213950/original/file-20180409-114128-1fgud9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=308&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213950/original/file-20180409-114128-1fgud9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=308&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213950/original/file-20180409-114128-1fgud9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=387&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213950/original/file-20180409-114128-1fgud9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=387&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213950/original/file-20180409-114128-1fgud9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=387&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Author Priya Shukla presents her work to a general audience at a science festival.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Taste of Science San Francisco Festival</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Why should scientists engage?</h2>
<p>Williams: The public deserves to know about our science. Scientific discoveries help people understand our world and <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/nasa-tess-satellite-launch-habitable-planets-kepler-space-galaxy-cape-canaveral-a8276061.html">galaxies beyond</a>, <a href="https://www.space.com/40066-landslide-prediction-nasa-satellite-model.html">predict the future</a>, <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-science-is-important/">fuel economic growth</a> and reconnect all of us back to our childlike wonder. </p>
<p><a href="http://hillbiogeochemistry.squarespace.com">Hill</a>: I’ll add that the majority of science in the U.S. is <a href="https://www.aaas.org/page/federal-rd-budget-dashboard">paid for by taxpayers</a>, thus we work on behalf of the public. Personally, I want to encourage decision-making supported by evidence, both for individuals in their daily lives and for politicians setting official policy. If we don’t provide the evidence, how can people make decisions based upon it?</p>
<p>Rochman: <a href="http://scienceliteracy.ca/">Public engagement also improves science literacy</a>. I was inspired by a scientist. Because of him, I am a scientist. </p>
<h2>How have your perceptions of public engagement changed over time?</h2>
<p>Williams: If scientists had engaged more before now, we as a society might not be in the situation where “alternative facts” exist. Today, I’m more strategic about engagement. I engage when my expertise is core to the issue at hand, and also when I think I can reach a diverse audience. </p>
<p>Rochman: I also prioritize reaching more diverse audiences. More than ever before, I try to connect with people where they are – based upon shared values – to make headway in this time of political differences. I also engage with both sides of the political aisle.</p>
<p>Shukla: As a young scientist, I feel obligated to stand up for the integrity of science in civic decision-making. I also think it’s important to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.08.288">communicate the benefits of research to non-scientists</a>, so that people can understand, and feel part of, the whole enterprise. For me, public engagement is about embedding ourselves in our communities and helping inform a path forward.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/214094/original/file-20180410-566-8qr18z.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/214094/original/file-20180410-566-8qr18z.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/214094/original/file-20180410-566-8qr18z.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/214094/original/file-20180410-566-8qr18z.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/214094/original/file-20180410-566-8qr18z.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/214094/original/file-20180410-566-8qr18z.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/214094/original/file-20180410-566-8qr18z.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/214094/original/file-20180410-566-8qr18z.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">Author Tessa Hill presents research findings to legislators and policymakers at the House Committee on Natural Resources’ Forum on Ocean Change, 2017.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Tessa Hill</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Hill: Important progress comes sometimes comes from being in uncomfortable situations. In that sense, the current political climate and concerns for the future of science are an opportunity – we shouldn’t let this pass us by! What worries me is that many scientists are doing engagement work on their own time because academic institutions <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2015/02/public-engagement-balancing-altruism-and-self-interest">primarily value and reward</a> time devoted to research, teaching and institutional service. </p>
<p>Rochman: I am optimistic! I think <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-academics-are-losing-relevance-in-society-and-how-to-stop-it-64579">academic culture</a> is shifting to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-03925-8">embrace public engagement</a>. Some departments and universities now encourage these activities and the <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2010/04/transitioning-researcher-outreacher">next generation is hungry for it</a>. </p>
<p>Williams: When I was a student, engagement was discouraged because it reputedly detracted from scholarship and was perceived to sully the ivory tower objectiveness. We’ve begun to move on from that point of view.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213952/original/file-20180409-114124-1ky7m6w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213952/original/file-20180409-114124-1ky7m6w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213952/original/file-20180409-114124-1ky7m6w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=456&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213952/original/file-20180409-114124-1ky7m6w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=456&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213952/original/file-20180409-114124-1ky7m6w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=456&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213952/original/file-20180409-114124-1ky7m6w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=574&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213952/original/file-20180409-114124-1ky7m6w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=574&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213952/original/file-20180409-114124-1ky7m6w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=574&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Author Chelsea Rochman presents her research at the United Nations.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">United Nations</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What type of engagement do you think has the most impact?</h2>
<p>Rochman: Putting scientific evidence in the hands of policymakers in a way they can digest. During my postdoc, <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB888">bills</a> to ban plastic microbeads were being introduced. In some cases, they were stalled because of a perceived lack of scientific information. I led the development of a policy brief and sent it to state legislators. We also wrote open-access communications in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b03909">Environmental Science & Technology</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/tiny-beads-big-problem-easy-fix-why-scientific-evidence-supports-a-ban-on-microbeads-42511">The Conversation</a>. This engagement led to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/microbeads-soon-will-be-banned-from-toothpaste-soaps-shampoos/2016/01/07/254166a8-b4c1-11e5-a842-0feb51d1d124_story.html">media interviews</a>, phone calls with legislators and opportunities to testify. This experience taught me that engagement is valued and without it, scientific evidence may be left out of the policy process. </p>
<p>Williams: My own testimony before U.S. congressional committees provided the background for an expansion of <a href="https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/news/june15/expansion.html">two national marine sanctuaries</a>. Although the process lasted about a decade, the result was tangible. Lines actually changed on maps because of this work.</p>
<p>Shukla: I think about two kinds of “impact”: via a medium that influences many people, and via a mode that reinvigorates me. For example, I can <a href="https://medium.com/the-prosaic-mosaic">write a blog</a> that is viewed by more than 1,000 people. But, public talks, where I can engage one-on-one, remind me why I became a scientist and have taught me that sharing our stories with individuals can be just as important as sharing the ultimate findings of our research.</p>
<p>Hill: Sometimes it is easy to forget how important <em>listening</em> is in advocating for science. Some of the most important engagement opportunities I’ve had were actually conversations with people about their values, and how science fits in. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213990/original/file-20180410-114112-17giy8d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213990/original/file-20180410-114112-17giy8d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213990/original/file-20180410-114112-17giy8d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=352&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213990/original/file-20180410-114112-17giy8d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=352&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213990/original/file-20180410-114112-17giy8d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=352&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213990/original/file-20180410-114112-17giy8d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=443&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213990/original/file-20180410-114112-17giy8d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=443&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213990/original/file-20180410-114112-17giy8d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=443&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Author Susan Williams on a dive. In order to engage with authority, the research must be solid.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Susan Williams</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Williams: I would add that our credibility is ultimately based on establishing our scientific credentials by doing good work. First and foremost, we need to focus on our scientific output. Change does not come overnight – it requires vision and perseverance. Over our careers, there are plenty of opportunities to engage meaningfully. </p>
<p>Shukla: So we’ve come up with these themes around effective engagement:</p>
<ol>
<li>Start with the highest-quality science.</li>
<li>Communicate to diverse audiences to increase scientific literacy, inspire awe and inform evidence-based decision-making.</li>
<li>Be strategic and have fun, trusting that true impact takes time.</li>
</ol><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/91801/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Susan Williams has received funding from the National Science Foundation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Environmental Protection Agency.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tessa M Hill receives funding from the National Science Foundation, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Park Service, and the California Ocean Protection Council for her research.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Chelsea Rochman and Priya Shukla 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>
Four scientists talk through the ways they now build outreach into their work as a way to spread their research’s impact – something that wasn’t the norm for past generations of academics.
Chelsea Rochman, Assistant Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto
Priya Shukla, Ocean Acidification Technician, University of California, Davis
Susan Williams, Distinguished Professor of Evolution and Ecology, University of California, Davis
Tessa M. Hill, Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of California, Davis
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/84955
2018-01-18T11:24:45Z
2018-01-18T11:24:45Z
New ways scientists can help put science back into popular culture
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202197/original/file-20180116-53324-11262fb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Science is one thread of culture – and entertainment, including graphic books, can reflect that.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://thedialoguesbook.com/samples/">'The Dialogues,' by Clifford V. Johnson (MIT Press 2017)</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>How often do you, outside the requirements of an assignment, ponder things like the workings of a distant star, the innards of your phone camera, or the number and layout of petals on a flower? Maybe a little bit, maybe never. Too often, people regard science as sitting outside the general culture: A specialized, difficult topic carried out by somewhat strange people with arcane talents. It’s somehow not for them. </p>
<p>But really science is part of the wonderful tapestry of human culture, intertwined with things like art, music, theater, film and even religion. These elements of our culture help us understand and celebrate our place in the universe, navigate it and be in dialogue with it and each other. Everyone should be able to engage freely in whichever parts of the general culture they choose, from going to a show or humming a tune to talking about a new movie over dinner.</p>
<p>Science, though, gets portrayed as opposite to art, intuition and mystery, as though knowing in detail how that flower works somehow undermines its beauty. As a practicing physicist, I disagree. Science can enhance our appreciation of the world around us. It should be part of our general culture, accessible to all. Those “special talents” required in order to engage with and even contribute to science are present in all of us.</p>
<p>So how do we bring about a change? I think using the tools of the general culture to integrate science with everything else in our lives can be a big part of the solution.</p>
<h2>Science in popular entertainment</h2>
<p>For example, in addition to being a professor, I work as a science advisor for various forms of entertainment, from blockbuster movies like the recent “<a href="http://marvel.com/movies/movie/222/thor_ragnarok">Thor: Ragnarok</a>,” or last spring’s 10-hour TV dramatization of the life and work of Albert Einstein (“<a href="http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/genius/">Genius</a>,” on National Geographic), to the bestselling novel “<a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/253400/dark-matter-by-blake-crouch/">Dark Matter</a>,” by Blake Crouch. People spend a lot of time consuming entertainment simply because they love stories like these, so it makes sense to put some science in there.</p>
<p>Science can actually help make storytelling more entertaining, engaging and fun – as I explain to entertainment professionals every chance I get. From their perspective, they get potentially bigger audiences. But good stories, enhanced by science, also spark valuable conversations about the subject that continue beyond the movie theater.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202144/original/file-20180116-53295-f65cgu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202144/original/file-20180116-53295-f65cgu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202144/original/file-20180116-53295-f65cgu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202144/original/file-20180116-53295-f65cgu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202144/original/file-20180116-53295-f65cgu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202144/original/file-20180116-53295-f65cgu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202144/original/file-20180116-53295-f65cgu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202144/original/file-20180116-53295-f65cgu.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">Science can be one of the topics woven into the entertainment we consume – via stories, settings and characters.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://gossipandgab.com/94624/agent-carter-season-2-recap-2-3-better-angels">ABC Television</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Nonprofit organizations have been working hard on this mission. The <a href="https://sloan.org">Alfred P. Sloan Foundation</a> helps fund and develop films with science content – “<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0787524/">The Man Who Knew Infinity</a>” (2015) and “<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1990314/">Robot & Frank</a>” (2012) are two examples. (The Sloan Foundation is also a <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/partners/alfred-p-sloan-foundation">funding partner of The Conversation US</a>.)</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.nasonline.org">National Academy of Sciences</a> set up the <a href="http://scienceandentertainmentexchange.org">Science & Entertainment Exchange</a> to help connect people from the entertainment industry to scientists. The idea is that such experts can provide Hollywood with engaging details and help with more accurate portrayals of scientists that can enhance the narratives they tell. Many of the popular Marvel movies – including “<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0800369/">Thor</a>” (2011), “<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478970/">Ant-Man</a>” (2015) and the upcoming <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4154756/">“Avengers: Infinity War</a>” – have had their content strengthened in this way.</p>
<p>Encouragingly, a recent <a href="http://www.journalism.org/2017/09/20/most-americans-see-science-related-entertainment-shows-and-movies-in-either-a-neutral-or-positive-light/">Pew Research Center survey</a> in the U.S. showed that entertainment with science or related content is watched by people across “all demographic, educational and political groups,” and that overall they report positive impressions of the science ideas and scenarios contained in them.</p>
<h2>Science in nonfiction books</h2>
<p>This kind of work is not to every scientist’s taste. Some may instead prefer engagement projects that allow them more control of the scientific content than can be had when working on such large projects in the entertainment industry. Often, they instead work on nonfiction science books for the general reader. Here, I think we also need a change.</p>
<p>The typical expert-voiced monologues that scientists write are a wonderful component of the engagement effort, but the form is limited. Such books are largely read by people already predisposed to pick up a science book, or who are open to the authoritative academic’s voice telling them how to think. There are plenty of people who can engage with science but who find those kinds of books a sometimes unwelcome reminder of the classroom.</p>
<p>Following from my belief that science is for everyone, I suggest that publishers need to work with scientists to expand the kinds of books on offer, assured that there is an audience for them. This is currently difficult because publishing companies are risk averse: Something truly original in form likely will have trouble getting past the book proposal stage.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202151/original/file-20180116-53320-b8jb62.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202151/original/file-20180116-53320-b8jb62.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202151/original/file-20180116-53320-b8jb62.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=770&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202151/original/file-20180116-53320-b8jb62.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=770&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202151/original/file-20180116-53320-b8jb62.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=770&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202151/original/file-20180116-53320-b8jb62.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=968&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202151/original/file-20180116-53320-b8jb62.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=968&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202151/original/file-20180116-53320-b8jb62.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=968&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Like an overheard conversation, the author’s graphic novel explores big scientific questions about life and death.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.brainpickings.org/2017/12/07/the-dialogues-clifford-johnson/">'The Dialogues,' by Clifford V. Johnson</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Progress is possible, however. Many years ago I realized it is hard to find books on the nonfiction science shelf that let readers see themselves as part of the conversation about science. So I envisioned an entire book of conversations about science taking place between ordinary people. While “eavesdropping” on those conversations, readers learn some science ideas, and are implicitly invited to have conversations of their own. It’s a resurrection of the dialogue form, known to the ancient Greeks, and to Galileo, as a device for exchanging ideas, but with contemporary settings: cafes, restaurants, trains and so on.</p>
<p>I decided it would be engaging for the reader to actually see who’s having those conversations, and where, instead of describing them in words. This led me to realize that I was contemplating a powerful form of visual storytelling: Graphic novels for adults have matured and exploded in popularity in recent years. Spiegelman’s “<a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/171065/the-complete-maus-by-art-spiegelman/">Maus: A Survivor’s Tale</a>,” Satrapi’s “<a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/160890/persepolis-by-marjane-satrapi/">Persepolis</a>” and Bechdel’s “<a href="http://www.turtleback.com/Products/Fun-Home--A-Family-Tragicomic__9781417823147.aspx">Fun Home</a>” are just three well-known examples.</p>
<p>But the storytelling tools of the graphic book have been little used in the quest to convey nonfiction science ideas to a general adult audience. The vast majority of contemporary graphic books with a science focus are presented instead as “explainer/adventure comics” for younger audiences. This is an important genre, but graphic books about science should not be limited to that.</p>
<p>And while there are several excellent graphic books for adults that include science, they typically focus instead on the lives of famous scientists, with discussion of the science itself as a secondary goal. Some excellent recent examples that balance the two aspects well include Ottaviani and Myrick’s “<a href="https://us.macmillan.com/feynman/jimottaviani/9781596438279/">Feynman</a>,” Padua’s “<a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/223672/the-thrilling-adventures-of-lovelace-and-babbage-by-sydney-padua/">The Thrilling Adventures of Lovelace and Babbage</a>,” and Doxiadis and Papadimitriou’s “<a href="https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/logicomix-9781596914520/">Logicomix</a>.” The scarcity of science-focused non-biographical graphic books for adults is especially true in my field of physics. So I decided that here was an opportunity to broaden the kinds of nonfiction science book available to engage the public.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202168/original/file-20180116-53320-hh02t6.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202168/original/file-20180116-53320-hh02t6.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202168/original/file-20180116-53320-hh02t6.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202168/original/file-20180116-53320-hh02t6.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202168/original/file-20180116-53320-hh02t6.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202168/original/file-20180116-53320-hh02t6.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202168/original/file-20180116-53320-hh02t6.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202168/original/file-20180116-53320-hh02t6.jpeg?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">Clifford Johnson at his drafting table.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Clifford V. Johnson</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So over six years I taught myself the requisite artistic and other production techniques, and studied the language and craft of graphic narratives. I wrote and drew “<a href="https://thedialoguesbook.com">The Dialogues: Conversations About the Nature of the Universe</a>” as proof of concept: A new kind of nonfiction science book that can inspire more people to engage in their own conversations about science, and celebrate a spirit of plurality in everyday science participation.</p>
<h2>What’s at stake</h2>
<p>Science increasingly pervades many aspects of our lives. If people succumb to the typical view that science is difficult and should be left to experts and nerds, the most important decisions about all of our lives will be made by just a few people: from the quality of the water we drink, our medical treatments, energy sources, through to action on climate change. That is not a democratic situation. Moreover, it makes it easier for a powerful few to sideline or misrepresent important ideas and lessons about our world that come through scientific research. </p>
<p>To push back against that scenario, it’s important for scientists to try to engage the public with science. In a changing world, it’s important to keep looking for new ways to do that.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/84955/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Clifford Johnson 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>
You might not think much about science topics as part of your everyday life. But science – like art, music, religion – is part of our culture, and scientists can help it reclaim its rightful place.
Clifford Johnson, Professor of Physics and Astronomy, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/82663
2017-09-20T03:13:50Z
2017-09-20T03:13:50Z
Science communicators must consider short-term objectives while keeping their eyes on the prize
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/186679/original/file-20170919-22701-1ay2gj7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Planning a communication strategy isn't unethical.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/female-manager-putting-his-ideas-writing-466269749">Have a nice day Photo/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Most scientists say they got into science to <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-6-scientists-and-their-careers/">make the world a better place</a> and recognize this means sharing what they learn with a range of other people. But deciding to engage also means deciding what to communicate, and it’s at this stage that things get complicated.</p>
<p>Scientists’ most important communication decision may be figuring out their goals. Do they want to help shape local, state or national policy discussions? Do they want to influence individual behavior, such as diet choices, medical decisions or career paths?</p>
<p>Big-picture goal choice is, however, relatively simple, as it likely originates from scientists’ research, resources and personal preferences. </p>
<p>As public engagement researchers, we suggest the quality of science communication actually hinges on a second set of decisions. Scientists need to figure out what specific, immediate objectives they want to achieve through their communication efforts. </p>
<p>In our view, objectives are a bit tricky because they’re often left unstated and defy easy metaphors. In planning a dinner, they’re not the specific dishes you choose (we’d call those “tactics” or “activities”) and they’re not the goal of a satisfying meal. Instead, you set objectives in the planning phase when decisions are made to start with something savory and light, move on to something satisfying, and finish with something sweet and fun. </p>
<p>The importance of objectives emerges from the fact that communication doesn’t, for example, directly affect whether someone supports genetically modified food. Instead, increased support might be predicted to come from communication that changes individual and collective beliefs and feelings about things such as <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.02.006">risks, benefits and decision-makers</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662517728478">Our new study in the journal Public Understanding of Science</a> sought to understand what might lead a scientist to prioritize different objectives, particularly those associated with policy views.</p>
<h2>Focusing on objectives</h2>
<p>For a science communicator, prioritizing specific objectives means deciding where to put effort. </p>
<p>Objectives often include increasing an audience’s knowledge and excitement about science. It could also mean wanting people to recognize a shared identity, or scientists’ competence or desire to make the world a better place. Reframing how someone thinks about a topic might also be a communication objective. </p>
<p>Effectively achieving these types of objectives appears to influence an audience’s <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.380">support of particular policy measures</a> that are informed by science.</p>
<p>Someone interested in <a href="https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=9BQWCgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA95&ots=edH57kwRb0&sig=S_qgQgtpp6JISAHSLMM5JUgnHW8#v=onepage&q&f=false">changing behavior</a>, on the other hand, might focus on other objectives. A scientist might want to change someone’s beliefs about what others think or do, or a person’s ability to behave a particular way. Maybe the scientist would like to change how an audience thinks about the likelihood some behavior will have an impact, or their perceived risks or benefits around an activity. </p>
<p>In the case of trying to garner support for GMOs, a focus on objectives might mean prioritizing messages or behaviors that communicate that scientists respect and listen to public concerns alongside messages related to risks and benefits.</p>
<p>But when do actual scientists value these various objectives? <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662517728478">In our survey of scientists</a> from across multiple disciplines, we found the best predictors of how much scientists prioritized an objective are the degree to which they’d previously thought about it and the degree to which they see it as ethical. </p>
<p>The degree to which scientists feel an objective can make a difference also seems to be important, along with beliefs about what colleagues think.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/186618/original/file-20170919-22604-dfrj54.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/186618/original/file-20170919-22604-dfrj54.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/186618/original/file-20170919-22604-dfrj54.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/186618/original/file-20170919-22604-dfrj54.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/186618/original/file-20170919-22604-dfrj54.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/186618/original/file-20170919-22604-dfrj54.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/186618/original/file-20170919-22604-dfrj54.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/186618/original/file-20170919-22604-dfrj54.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">There’s more to effective communication than just downloading information in one direction.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/nicmcphee/2229714614">Nic McPhee</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Why focus on objectives?</h2>
<p>While sharing knowledge will always be a primary role of science communicators, <a href="https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23595/science-literacy-concepts-contexts-and-consequences">the social scientific consensus</a> is that increasing scientific knowledge is unlikely to substantially increase support for science-related policies or change individual behavior.</p>
<p>On <a href="http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/pgasite/documents/webpage/pga_176867.pdf">politicized issues such as climate change</a>, those with the most scientific knowledge are sometimes the least likely to support science-based policy.</p>
<p>In a study from a few years ago, however, <a href="https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23595/science-literacy-concepts-contexts-and-consequences">we interviewed science communication trainers</a> and found that most training rarely broached the topic of objectives. Instead it focused almost exclusively on helping scientists transmit knowledge clearly and in way that was appealing.</p>
<p>Our current study suggests that training might specifically highlight the range of objectives that communication can achieve and how they might be pursued ethically.</p>
<p>And an interesting thing about prioritizing objectives is that doing so can help guide the third step of science communication: the tactical choice of what to actually say and do while sharing knowledge.</p>
<p>For example, <a href="https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=LG-NAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA68&dq=info:ucqpJHmTEeQJ:scholar.google.com&ots=Nqs973GfRV&sig=xQfW2SLqlQfguaWwpls7rNVPXg8#v=onepage&q&f=false">the social psychology literature on fairness</a> shows that people value having a voice in decision-making, even when they don’t get what they want. Science communicators might therefore prioritize ensuring that people with whom they engage believe they have the potential to be heard. </p>
<p>Our sense is that one of the most important roles of <a href="https://www.nap.edu/read/12434/chapter/1">dialogue-based public engagement</a> – a key element of any <a href="https://www.nap.edu/read/23674/chapter/4?term=%22public+engagement%22#25">contemporary science communication plan</a> – is that they it can facilitate both actual and perceived listening. Much of the improvisation training pioneered by the <a href="http://www.aldakavlilearningcenter.org">Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science</a> emphasizes the importance of listening to one’s audience with empathy. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/186669/original/file-20170919-22701-18ci7dc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/186669/original/file-20170919-22701-18ci7dc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/186669/original/file-20170919-22701-18ci7dc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/186669/original/file-20170919-22701-18ci7dc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/186669/original/file-20170919-22701-18ci7dc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/186669/original/file-20170919-22701-18ci7dc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/186669/original/file-20170919-22701-18ci7dc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/186669/original/file-20170919-22701-18ci7dc.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">Actor and author Alan Alda advocates training researchers to engage in mutually respectful conversations as they communicate about their work.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Conor Harrigan, Stony Brook University, Courtesy of the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Similarly, we know from <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/111/Supplement_4/13593.full">research on trust</a> that it’s helpful for those seeking support to have a reputation for caring about the needs of others. So if scientists have pursued a topic out of a desire to improve the world, it may help to prioritize communication that conveys that message.</p>
<p>One of the positive things about an emphasis on storytelling in science communication (as in <a href="http://www.randyolsonproductions.com/writing/writing_index.html">the work of Randy Olson</a>) is likely that including a narrative lets scientists talk about their motivation.</p>
<p>Even little choices such as dress and the effort put into designing an attractive and appropriate talk may help shape beliefs about warmth, competence, identity and other potential objectives.</p>
<p>The difficulty is that prioritizing discussion or personal stories means less time for sharing facts. And well-designed, carefully planned communication takes resources. Not everything can be a priority.</p>
<h2>Being strategic isn’t unethical</h2>
<p>In the past, when we’ve written about <a href="https://theconversation.com/science-communication-training-should-be-about-more-than-just-how-to-transmit-knowledge-59643">strategy in science communication</a>, some people have argued that what we suggest amounts to <a href="https://theconversation.com/science-communication-training-should-be-about-more-than-just-how-to-transmit-knowledge-59643#comment_992037">unethical advertising or public relations</a>. Indeed, we teach in those areas so some readers may use this as prima facie evidence of nefarious intent. </p>
<p>But the fact that strategic communication professionals pay attention to the potential effects of their communication choices doesn’t mean the science community should ignore such effects. </p>
<p>It seems obvious that no one should talk about motivations he doesn’t really have, say she is listening when she is not or frame issues in ways that defy logic.</p>
<p>The point is simply that better-quality communication seems likely to occur when communicators make careful choices about objectives that are honest and for which there is <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/110/Supplement_3">social science evidence</a> <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/111/Supplement_4">of effectiveness</a>.</p>
<p>Put differently, our expectation is that scientists are more likely to achieve their goals if they think more deeply about the choices they make along the way and avoid ad hoc communication that isn’t grounded in a careful consideration of the short- and long-term impact of their words and activities.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82663/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF, Grant AISL 1421214-1421723. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.
</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF, Grant AISL 1421214-1421723. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.</span></em></p>
Scientists who engage with the public may have goals about influencing policy or behavior. But they also need to think about the short-term objectives that will help get them there.
John C. Besley, Associate Professor of Advertising and Public Relations/Ellis N. Brandt Endowed Chair, Michigan State University
Anthony Dudo, Assistant Professor of Advertising and Public Relations, The University of Texas at Austin
Shupei Yuan, Assistant Professor of Public Relations, Northern Illinois University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/80255
2017-07-05T22:54:18Z
2017-07-05T22:54:18Z
Facts versus feelings isn’t the way to think about communicating science
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176990/original/file-20170705-3057-4s5j0t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=449%2C368%2C5550%2C3440&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The message might not come through if you put all your communication eggs in one theoretical basket.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/many-eggs-one-basket-bubble-on-336910895">buydeephoto/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In a world where <a href="https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/press/news/2016/12/11/WOTY-16">“post-truth” was 2016’s word of the year</a>, many people are starting to doubt the efficacy of facts. Can science make sense of anti-science and post-truthism? More generally, how can we understand what drives people’s beliefs, decisions and behaviors?</p>
<p>Scientists have developed many theories to describe <a href="https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629">how people process and think about information</a>. Unfortunately, there’s an increasing tendency to see people as creatures whose reasoning mechanisms are largely dependent on a narrow set of processes. For example, one popular theory suggests that if we just communicate more accurate information to people, their behavior will change accordingly. Another suggests that people will reject evidence if it threatens their deeply held cultural worldviews and associated feelings. </p>
<p>It’s more important than ever that our approach to communication is evidence-based and built on a strong, theoretical foundation. Many of these models contribute valuable insights and can help us design better communication, but each on its own is incomplete. And science communicators have a tendency to oversimplify, focusing on a single model and disregarding other theories.</p>
<p>We suggest that this is a dangerous practice and less effective than <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3323">a more nuanced and holistic view</a>. The apparent choice between “fact” and “feeling,” or between “cognition” and “culture,” is a false dilemma. In reality, both are related and address different pieces of the decision-making puzzle. </p>
<h2>Thinking versus feeling</h2>
<p>One well-known theory about how people absorb new facts is the “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662504042690">information deficit model</a>.” The main idea here is straightforward: If you throw more facts at people, they’ll eventually come around on an issue.</p>
<p>Most behavioral science scholars agree that this model of human thinking and behavior <a href="https://doi.org/10.17226/23674">is clearly incomplete</a> – people rely on a range of other cues besides facts in guiding their attitudes and behavior. For example, sometimes we simply act based on how we feel about an issue. Unfortunately, the facts don’t always convince.</p>
<p>But the term “information deficit” is problematic, too. People tend to have limited information in most areas of life. For example, we often don’t know the thoughts and feelings of other people we trust and value. Similarly, we might have limited knowledge about appropriate cultural norms when traveling to a new country, and so on. Information deficit isn’t a very meaningful term to use to theorize about human thinking.</p>
<p>Another theory about human thinking is called “cultural cognition.” In brief, it suggests that our cultural values and worldviews shape <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1123807">how we think about science and society</a>.</p>
<p>It’s easy to be duped into thinking of the human brain as a sponge that soaks up only the information it wants to believe. For example, the theory suggests that people’s position on divisive issues such as climate change is not informed by scientific evidence but rather by the strong commitment people have to their political groups and ideologies. The idea is that to protect our cultural worldviews, we actively reject evidence that threatens them – think of someone who fears that government action on climate change undermines the free market.</p>
<p>In short, this narrative sounds appealing on the surface, as humans organize themselves in groups, and much psychological research has shown that we derive part of our <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1990-98968-000">social identities from the group affiliations</a> we maintain. </p>
<p>Yet, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547015614970">its focus is overly narrow</a>, and there’s a logical fallacy in this conception of human thinking. We belong to many groups at any given time and we juggle many different public and private identities. The real question is about nuance; when and under what conditions is someone motivated to reject scientific facts in favor of their cultural worldview? </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176996/original/file-20170705-9733-1olaqr7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176996/original/file-20170705-9733-1olaqr7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176996/original/file-20170705-9733-1olaqr7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=334&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176996/original/file-20170705-9733-1olaqr7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=334&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176996/original/file-20170705-9733-1olaqr7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=334&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176996/original/file-20170705-9733-1olaqr7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176996/original/file-20170705-9733-1olaqr7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176996/original/file-20170705-9733-1olaqr7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">It’s not a zero sum contest between feelings and facts.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/brain-heart-on-balance-scale3d-rendering-542556157">haryigit/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Either/or misses the point</h2>
<p>To throw all our fact-disseminating eggs into one or the other theoretical basket is oversimplistic and deprives us of important insights. </p>
<p>A more nuanced perspective recognizes that facts and information are embedded in social and cultural contexts. For example, people’s perception of expert consensus matters a great deal, especially on contested issues, and is often described as a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118489">gateway belief that influences a range of other attitudes</a> about an issue. The near-unanimous consensus that vaccines do not cause autism or that climate change is human-caused are all scientific facts. At the same time, consensus information is also inherently social: It describes the extent of agreement within an influential group of experts.</p>
<p>People often want to be <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=lsF8zLomQOoC&oi=fnd&pg=PA195&dq=chaiken+accuracy+motivation+1980&ots=30E-57CZyN&sig=zsV8X1SjojZd-_7dyNel5wCPj54#v=onepage&q=chaiken%20accuracy%20motivation%201980&f=false">accurate</a> in their views, and, in an uncertain world bounded by limited time and effort, we make strategic bets on what information to take into account. Consensus acts as a natural heuristic, or mental shortcut, for complicated scientific issues. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118489">Numerous</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1720">studies</a> have found that highlighting scientific agreement on human-caused global warming can help neutralize and reduce conflicting views about climate change.</p>
<p>Similarly, while some studies have found a limited effect of knowledge on judgment, when you dig deeper into the data, a more nuanced and insightful picture emerges. For example, some studies claim that a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1547">deficit in scientific “knowledge” does not explain</a> why people are divided on contested issues such as climate change. But what’s being measured in these experiments matters. Indeed, indicators such as how well people understand numbers or their scientific literacy – which is what some of these studies actually quantify – are categorically different from measuring specific knowledge people have about a topic such as climate change. In fact, a survey across six countries found that when people <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2997">understand the causes of climate change</a>, their concern increases accordingly, irrespective of their values. Similarly, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12187">other</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.04.008">studies</a> show that explanations about the mechanisms of climate change can reduce biased evaluations of evidence as well as political polarization. </p>
<p>In short, facts do matter.</p>
<h2>How people think is complex and nuanced</h2>
<p>Indeed, there is no need to throw out <a href="https://bppblog.com/2017/06/01/save-the-baby-in-the-bath-water/">the baby with the bathwater</a>. Instead, we need to dispel false dichotomies and folk psychology about human thinking that currently dominate the media. Repeating the story that people don’t care about facts runs the risk of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. A holistic view acknowledges that people rely on cognitive shortcuts and emotions, care about social norms and group identities and are sometimes motivated in their reasoning, but it also recognizes the research showing that most people want to fundamentally hold accurate perceptions about the world. </p>
<p>This is particularly important as the public is currently hampered by misinformation and fake news. In two <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201600008">separate</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175799">studies</a>, we each found that misinformation about climate change has a disproportionate influence on public attitudes and opinion. However, we also found that inoculating people against the false arguments neutralized misinformation’s influence, across the political spectrum. In essence, teaching people what false arguments might be deployed helped them overcome their cultural biases. Other work similarly <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcom.12171/abstract">shows</a> that the politicization of science can be counteracted with inoculation.</p>
<p>People are complex, social and affected by a diverse range of influences depending on the situation. We want to hold accurate views, but emotion, group identities and conflicting goals can get in the way. Incorporating these different insights into human thinking enriches our understanding of how people form opinions and make decisions.</p>
<p>Effective science communication requires an inclusive, holistic approach that integrates different social science perspectives. To simplistically focus on a single perspective paints a limited and increasingly inaccurate view of how humans form judgments about social and scientific issues.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/80255/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>
Reports of facts’ death have been greatly exaggerated. Effective communication jettisons the false dilemma in favor of a more holistic view of how people take in new information on contentious topics.
John Cook, Research Assistant Professor, Center for Climate Change Communication, George Mason University
Sander van der Linden, Director, Cambridge Social Decision-Making Lab, University of Cambridge
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/80178
2017-06-29T01:05:58Z
2017-06-29T01:05:58Z
Take that chocolate milk survey with a grain of salt
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175921/original/file-20170627-24760-mrp8tm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=1310%2C0%2C3784%2C2383&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">And don't expect chocolate ice cream, either.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/barneymoss/15207454576">Barney Moss</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s been all over the news lately: a survey by <a href="http://www.usdairy.com/">the Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy</a> suggests that <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/15/seven-percent-of-americans-think-chocolate-milk-comes-from-brown-cows-and-thats-not-even-the-scary-part/">7 percent of American adults</a> believe <a href="http://www.foodandwine.com/news/survey-finds-too-many-people-still-think-chocolate-milk-comes-brown-cows">chocolate milk comes from brown cows</a>.</p>
<p>The takeaway of much of this reporting is that Americans are science illiterate as well as <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/how-is-chocolate-milk-made-survey-brown-cows-2017-6">uninformed about how their food is produced</a>. This interpretation is intuitive: research has suggested that <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/09/10/what-the-public-knows-and-does-not-know-about-science/">Americans lack understanding of many scientific concepts</a> and the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/01/29/americans-are-still-scientifically-illiterate-and-scientists-still-need-a-pr-team/">story line of Americans as woefully ignorant of science</a> is perennial. As a society, we are also urbanizing and <a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-labor/">fewer people work in agriculture</a>, so it’s unsurprising that many don’t know how food is made. These survey results line up with this prevailing wisdom.</p>
<p>But is this what the survey is actually telling us? To us as researchers studying science communication and public understanding of science, factors in the survey itself and in the way the media report on it raise questions about how much to read into these findings.</p>
<h2>Survey’s results aren’t publicly available</h2>
<p>Researchers are trained to look for the original methods whenever they read a new study, especially if the results are surprising. Learning how the study was done provides information that helps determine whether the science is sound and what to make of it.</p>
<p>The chocolate milk survey is described as a nationally representative survey of 1,000 American adults, but this is impossible to verify without seeing how respondents were selected. Likewise, how the survey was conducted – whether it was a phone or online survey, for instance – can have significant impacts on its accuracy. Research suggests that <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/2015/05/13/from-telephone-to-the-web-the-challenge-of-mode-of-interview-effects-in-public-opinion-polls/">phone surveys may be less accurate than online surveys</a> because they require people to give their responses out loud to another person instead of quietly clicking away in privacy.</p>
<p>For instance, someone who holds racist views may feel comfortable checking a box about it but might avoid openly professing those opinions on the phone to a stranger. It’s unlikely the chocolate milk survey ran into such problems, but depending on the questions asked, other challenges may have presented themselves.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175922/original/file-20170627-7455-1fqesmw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175922/original/file-20170627-7455-1fqesmw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175922/original/file-20170627-7455-1fqesmw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175922/original/file-20170627-7455-1fqesmw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175922/original/file-20170627-7455-1fqesmw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175922/original/file-20170627-7455-1fqesmw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175922/original/file-20170627-7455-1fqesmw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175922/original/file-20170627-7455-1fqesmw.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">Just to clarify, the recipe includes chocolate and milk.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/shutterbean/6757209625">tracy benjamin</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Likewise, it’s difficult to interpret the results of the chocolate milk question without seeing how it was worded. Poorly phrased or confusing questions abound in survey research and complicate the process of interpreting findings.</p>
<p>An NPR interview with Jean Ragalie-Carr, president of the National Dairy Council, is the closest we can get to the actual wording of potential responses: “<a href="http://www.npr.org/2017/06/16/533255590/alarming-number-of-americans-believe-chocolate-milk-comes-from-brown-cows">there was brown cows, or black-and-white cows, or they didn’t know</a>.” But as Glendora Meikle of the Columbia Journalism Review points out, we don’t know <a href="https://www.cjr.org/analysis/brown-milk-study-cows.php">if those were the only options presented</a> to respondents.</p>
<p>This matters. For instance, if respondents associate <a href="http://www.dairyspot.com/dairy-farming/dairy-farming-facts/types-of-cows/">some color cows with dairy production</a> and other color cows with beef production, it’s easy to see how <a href="http://www.cattlenetwork.com/cattle-news/Differences-between-beef-and-dairy-are-not-always-black-and-white-212016371.html">people could become confused</a>. If this is the case, they’re not confused about where chocolate milk comes from, but about the difference between dairy cows and beef cows.</p>
<p>Social scientists call this a <a href="http://psc.dss.ucdavis.edu/sommerb/sommerdemo/intro/validity.htm">problem with validity</a>: the question doesn’t really measure what it’s supposed to measure. Of course, without seeing how the question was worded, we can’t know whether the chocolate milk question had validity.</p>
<p>Indeed, early media coverage focused on the 7 percent statistic but left out the fact that 48 percent of respondents said they don’t know where chocolate milk comes from. This gives context to the 7 percent number. While it’s conceivable that 7 percent of the population doesn’t know that chocolate milk is just milk with chocolate, the idea that a full 55 percent — over half of adults — don’t know or gave an incorrect response begins to strain credulity. This points toward a confusing survey question.</p>
<p>We reached out to Lisa McComb, the senior vice president of communications for Dairy Management, Inc., about the survey. She confirmed that it’s not publicly available. “The purpose of the survey was to gauge some interesting and fun facts about consumers’ perceptions of dairy, not a scientific or academic study intended to be published,” she told us.</p>
<h2>Story feeds a popular narrative — and media missed it</h2>
<p>Questions about the original findings aside, there’s reason to explore how the media covered the chocolate milk survey.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175925/original/file-20170627-24798-gp73ez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175925/original/file-20170627-24798-gp73ez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175925/original/file-20170627-24798-gp73ez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=903&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175925/original/file-20170627-24798-gp73ez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=903&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175925/original/file-20170627-24798-gp73ez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=903&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175925/original/file-20170627-24798-gp73ez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1135&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175925/original/file-20170627-24798-gp73ez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1135&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175925/original/file-20170627-24798-gp73ez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1135&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">At least they knew cows produce milk?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/usdagov/9733479421">USDA Photo by Bob Nichols</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The results were instantly shared and republished by a mind-boggling number of outlets (<a href="https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%201-m&q=%22chocolate%20milk%22%20%22brown%20cows%22">a Google Trends search</a> for “chocolate milk” and “brown cows” shows a spike beginning June 15th). This factoid likely garnered such massive attention because it feeds into a popular narrative about American ignorance and science illiteracy.</p>
<p>Our research suggests that people who are often accused of being <a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/who-are-you-calling-anti-science/">“anti-science” are not necessarily as unscientific</a> as one might think. The rapid spread of this story is likely related to the desire, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-burnett/the-birth-of-the-stupid-p_b_10127988.html">unfortunately prominent among many liberals</a>, to see and label other people as ignorant.</p>
<p>Studies suggest we are <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28557511">more likely to accept new information when it confirms</a> what we already want to believe. In this case, the chocolate milk statistic fits well with the notion that Americans are fools, so it’s accepted and republished widely despite the numerous red flags that should give scientifically minded people pause.</p>
<p>But the fact remains that many reporters and news outlets decided to run the story without having seen the original results, instead citing one another’s reporting. This led to some interesting challenges when trying to fact-check the survey: <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/15/seven-percent-of-americans-think-chocolate-milk-comes-from-brown-cows-and-thats-not-even-the-scary-part/">The Washington Post</a> links to <a href="http://www.foodandwine.com/news/survey-finds-too-many-people-still-think-chocolate-milk-comes-brown-cows">Food & Wine’s</a> coverage, which linked to the <a href="https://dairygood.org/undeniably-dairy">Innovation Center’s website</a>, which originally publicized the survey results. The Innovation Center, in turn, links to a story on <a href="http://www.today.com/food/does-chocolate-milk-comes-brown-cows-t112772">Today.com</a>, which linked right back to the Food & Wine article. This type of circular reporting without seeking out the original source can lead to the spread of misinformation. Unfortunately, as news stories quickly pop up and go viral online, it’s all too likely that we will continue to see such problems in the future. </p>
<p>Importantly, none of this disproves the notion that some adults believe chocolate milk comes from brown cows. It certainly does nothing to undermine the need for increased science education in the United States or suggests that a better understanding of our food production system wouldn’t be beneficial to society. All of these points are still valid. Likewise, this isn’t necessarily evidence that the survey itself is flawed. As McComb notes, the survey is not a scientific one and isn’t meant to be taken as evidence of Americans’ knowledge (or lack thereof) of dairy products. The problem is that it’s being reported on as though it is.</p>
<p>So this survey did point out a lack of science understanding. Ironically, rather than showing Americans’ ignorance of chocolate milk’s origins, the fact that media coverage of this survey was reported so widely and with so few caveats instead showed that many people are not skeptical of the science they read.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/80178/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>
Millions of Americans believe brown cows produce chocolate milk? The way the media reported this factoid raises questions about science literacy – but different ones than you may think.
Lauren Griffin, Director of External Research for frank, College of Journalism and Communications, University of Florida
Troy Campbell, Assistant Professor of Marketing, University of Oregon
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/77545
2017-05-15T00:05:01Z
2017-05-15T00:05:01Z
Inoculation theory: Using misinformation to fight misinformation
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169163/original/file-20170512-3682-1g3a9fh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A shot of fake news now and your defenses are raised in the future?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/syringe-medical-injection-hand-palm-fingers-345038330">funnyangel/Shutterstock.com.</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>As a psychologist researching misinformation, I focus on reducing its influence. Essentially, my goal is to put myself out of a job.</p>
<p>Recent developments indicate that I haven’t been doing a very good job of it. Misinformation, fake news and “alternative facts” are more prominent than ever. The <a href="https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/word-of-the-year/word-of-the-year-2016">Oxford Dictionary named “post-truth”</a> as the 2016 word of the year. Science and scientific evidence have been under assault.</p>
<p>Fortunately, science does have a means to protect itself, and it comes from a branch of psychological research known as <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0042026">inoculation theory</a>. This borrows from the logic of vaccines: A little bit of something bad helps you resist a full-blown case. In my <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175799">newly published research</a>, I’ve tried exposing people to a weak form of misinformation in order to inoculate them against the real thing – with promising results.</p>
<h2>Two ways misinformation damages</h2>
<p>Misinformation is being generated and disseminated at prolific rates. A recent study comparing arguments against climate science versus policy arguments against action on climate found that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.12.001">science denial is on the relative increase</a>. And recent research indicates these types of effort have an impact on people’s perceptions and science literacy.</p>
<p>A recent study led by psychology researcher Sander van der Linden found that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201600008">misinformation about climate change</a> has a significant impact on public perceptions about climate change. </p>
<p>The misinformation they used in their experiment was the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2016/11/29/revealed-most-popular-climate-story-social-media-told-half-million-people-science-was-hoax">most shared climate article in 2016</a>. It’s a petition, known as the Global Warming Petition Project, featuring 31,000 people with a bachelor of science or higher, who signed a statement saying humans aren’t disrupting climate. This single article lowered readers’ perception of scientific consensus. The extent that people accept there’s a scientific consensus about climate change is what researchers refer to as a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118489">“gateway belief,”</a> influencing attitudes about climate change such as support for climate action.</p>
<p>At the same time that van der Linden was conducting his experiment in the U.S., I was on the other side of the planet in Australia conducting my own research into the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175799">impact of misinformation</a>. By coincidence, I used the same myth, taking verbatim text from the Global Warming Petition Project. After showing the misinformation, I asked people to estimate the scientific consensus on human-caused global warming, in order to measure any effect.</p>
<p>I found similar results, with misinformation reducing people’s perception of the scientific consensus. Moreover, the misinformation affected some more than others. The more politically conservative a person was, the greater the influence of the misinformation. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169203/original/file-20170514-3692-mlnqwj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169203/original/file-20170514-3692-mlnqwj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169203/original/file-20170514-3692-mlnqwj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169203/original/file-20170514-3692-mlnqwj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169203/original/file-20170514-3692-mlnqwj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169203/original/file-20170514-3692-mlnqwj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169203/original/file-20170514-3692-mlnqwj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169203/original/file-20170514-3692-mlnqwj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Response to misinformation about climate change.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Cook et al. (2017)</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This gels with other research finding that people interpret messages, whether they be information or misinformation, according to their preexisting beliefs. When we see something we like, we’re more likely to think that it’s true and strengthen our beliefs accordingly. Conversely, when we encounter information that conflicts with our beliefs, we’re <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.511246">more likely to discredit the source</a>.</p>
<p>However, there is more to this story. Beyond misinforming people, misinformation has a more insidious and dangerous influence. In the van der Linden study, when people were presented with both the facts and misinformation about climate change, there was no net change in belief. The two conflicting pieces of information canceled each other out.</p>
<p>Fact and “alternative fact” are like matter and antimatter. When they collide, there’s a burst of heat followed by nothing. This reveals the subtle way that misinformation does damage. It doesn’t just misinform. It stops people believing in facts. Or as Garry Kasporov eloquently puts it, <a href="https://twitter.com/kasparov63/status/808750564284702720">misinformation “annihilates truth</a>.”</p>
<h2>Science’s answer to science denial</h2>
<p>The assault on science is formidable and, as this research indicates, can be all too effective. Fittingly, science holds the answer to science denial.</p>
<p><a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0042026">Inoculation theory</a> takes the concept of vaccination, where we are exposed to a weak form of a virus in order to build immunity to the real virus, and applies it to knowledge. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2005.11679045">Half a century of research</a> has found that when we are exposed to a “weak form of misinformation,” this helps us build resistance so that we are not influenced by actual misinformation.</p>
<p>Inoculating text requires two elements. First, it includes an explicit warning about the danger of being misled by misinformation. Second, you need to provide counterarguments explaining the flaws in that misinformation.</p>
<p>In van der Linden’s inoculation, he pointed out that many of the signatories were fake (for instance, a <a href="https://youtu.be/T6Et5aenOLg">Spice Girl was falsely listed as a signatory</a>), that 31,000 represents a <a href="https://skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm">tiny fraction</a> (less than 0.3 percent) of all U.S. science graduates since 1970 and that less than 1 percent of the signatories had expertise in climate science.</p>
<p>In my <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175799">recently published research</a>, I also tested inoculation but with a different approach. While I inoculated participants against the Petition Project, I didn’t mention it at all. Instead, I talked about the <a href="https://youtu.be/WAqR9mLJrcE">misinformation technique of using “fake experts”</a> – people who convey the impression of expertise to the general public but having no actual relevant expertise.</p>
<p>I found that explaining the misinformation technique completely neutralized the misinformation’s influence, without even mentioning the misinformation specifically. For instance, after I explained how fake experts have been utilized in past misinformation campaigns, participants weren’t swayed when confronted by the fake experts of the Petition Project. Moreover, the misinformation was neutralized across the political spectrum. Whether you’re conservative or liberal, no one wants to be deceived by misleading techniques.</p>
<h2>Putting inoculation into practice</h2>
<p>Inoculation is a powerful and versatile form of science communication that can be used in a number of ways. My approach has been to mesh together the findings of inoculation with the cognitive psychology of debunking, developing the Fact-Myth-Fallacy framework. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wfq0Xrgsn_4?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Denial101x lecture on debunking myths.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This strategy involves explaining the facts, followed by introducing a myth related to those facts. At this point, people are presented with two conflicting pieces of information. You reconcile the conflict by explaining the technique that the myth uses to distort the fact.</p>
<p>We used this approach on a large scale in a free online course about climate misinformation, <a href="http://sks.to/denial101x">Making Sense of Climate Science Denial</a>. Each lecture adopted the Fact-Myth-Fallacy structure. We started by explaining a single climate fact, then introduced a related myth, followed by an explanation of the fallacy employed by the myth. This way, while explaining the key facts of climate change, we also inoculated students against <a href="https://skepticalscience.com/docs/Fact_Myth_Fallacy.pdf">50 of the most common climate myths</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169022/original/file-20170511-32624-m2rtfe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169022/original/file-20170511-32624-m2rtfe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169022/original/file-20170511-32624-m2rtfe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=779&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169022/original/file-20170511-32624-m2rtfe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=779&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169022/original/file-20170511-32624-m2rtfe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=779&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169022/original/file-20170511-32624-m2rtfe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=979&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169022/original/file-20170511-32624-m2rtfe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=979&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169022/original/file-20170511-32624-m2rtfe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=979&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Denial101x lectures adhering to Fact-Myth-Fallacy structure.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Denial101x</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For example, we know we are causing global warming because we observe many patterns in climate change unique to greenhouse warming. In other words, human fingerprints are observed all over our climate. However, one myth argues that climate has changed naturally in the past before humans; therefore, what’s happening now must be natural also. This myth commits the fallacy of jumping to conclusions (or non sequitur), where the premise does not lead to the conclusion. It’s like finding a dead body with a knife poking out of its back and arguing that people have died of natural causes in the past, so this death must have been of natural causes also.</p>
<p>Science has, in a moment of frankness, <a href="https://theconversation.com/communicating-climate-change-focus-on-the-framing-not-just-the-facts-73028">informed us that</a> <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-does-research-say-about-how-to-effectively-communicate-about-science-70244">throwing more science at people</a> <a href="https://theconversation.com/science-communication-training-should-be-about-more-than-just-how-to-transmit-knowledge-59643">isn’t the full answer to science denial</a>. Misinformation is a reality that we can’t afford to ignore – we can’t be in denial about science denial. Rather, we should see it as an educational opportunity. Addressing misconceptions in the classroom is one of the <a href="https://apps.weber.edu/wsuimages/geography/Cook,%20Bedford%20and%20Mandia%20Case%20studies%20in%20ABL%20JGE%202014.pdf">most powerful ways to teach science</a>.</p>
<p>It turns out the key to stopping science denial is to expose people to just a little bit of science denial.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77545/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Cook 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>
Does science have an answer to science denial? Just as being vaccinated protects you from a later full-blown infection, a bit of misinformation explained could help ward off other cases down the road.
John Cook, Research Assistant Professor, Center for Climate Change Communication, George Mason University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/76630
2017-04-26T01:05:33Z
2017-04-26T01:05:33Z
Can 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 Pennsylvania
Bruce W. Hardy, Assistant Professor of Strategic Communication, Temple University
Dietram A. Scheufele, Professor of Life Sciences Communication, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Dominique Brossard, Professor and Chair in the Department of Life Sciences Communication, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/74523
2017-03-14T19:14:49Z
2017-03-14T19:14:49Z
Science curriculum needs to do more to engage primary school students
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/160655/original/image-20170314-10759-1wm9vxx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">How can we get students more engaged in science?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">from www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>A <a href="http://www.nap.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/20170309-nap_sl_final.pdf?sfvrsn=2">new report</a> around science literacy in primary school shows that while most students appear to be interested in learning new things in science – which includes learning about science and doing science-based activities – many students do not relate science to their own lives.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.nap.edu.au/nap-sample-assessments/science-literacy">2015 NAP science literacy</a> report is based on sample assessments of Year 6 students. The test happens every three years, and in 2015 the test went from paper-based to online. </p>
<p>The results show that the understandings and inquiry skills of students have not changed since 2006, revealing a stagnation consistent with our performance history in the large international <a href="https://theconversation.com/pisa-results-dont-look-good-but-before-we-panic-lets-look-at-what-we-can-learn-from-the-latest-test-69470">Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/australian-schools-continue-to-fall-behind-other-countries-in-maths-and-science-69341">Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)</a> tests.</p>
<p>Just over half of Australian students reached the “proficient” standard, which refers to what is expected by students at that year level.</p>
<p>Despite rhetoric from governments at all levels about their commitment to science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) education, this stagnation could reflect the <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-australia-below-the-international-average-when-it-comes-to-school-funding-72189">relatively low levels of funding</a> for education in Australia.</p>
<h2>Redefining science literacy</h2>
<p>To improve the teaching and learning of science in primary schools, we need to re-consider what we mean by “science literacy”.</p>
<p>The idea of <a href="http://www.pisa.tum.de/en/domains/scientific-literacy/">“science literacy”</a> has pervaded thinking about the purposes of school science since the 1990s. It reflects concerns that school science should prepare citizens generally to engage with science as well as prepare them for science-related careers. </p>
<p>According to the latest NAP report, science literacy refers to a student’s capacity to master the literacy practices of science, which enable them to conduct investigations, collect and interpret data, critique claims, and make informed decisions.</p>
<p>This focus on students learning to understand and interpret science was a significant departure from <a href="http://research.acer.edu.au/aer/3/">previous thinking</a> about the purposes of science, which focused much more on recall and interpretation of science concepts.</p>
<p>However, this version of science literacy still focuses on the knowledge and processes of science, rather than its human side or wider context.</p>
<h2>Teaching students to think critically</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.sensepublishers.com/media/1149-the-re-emergence-of-values-in-science-educationa.pdf">Research</a> over the last two decades tells us we need for us to go beyond a focus on knowledge and skills and attend to values and attitudes/dispositions in teaching science. This includes focusing on building students’ identity in relation to thinking scientifically.</p>
<p>Students are not engaged with their learning unless it matters to them, and they need to be active generators rather than absorbers of science questions, processes and ideas. </p>
<h2>Ways to make science more engaging</h2>
<p>What is the use of science knowledge if you are never inclined to use it once you leave the reward systems of schooling? </p>
<p>For example, we have worked with primary teachers on an approach that asks students to actively generate drawings, models, or digital animations to respond to questions. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.sensepublishers.com/media/1564-constructing-representation-to-learn-in-science.pdf">Teachers report</a> that this leads to more engaged students and longer, higher-level class discussion of ideas and deeper understandings.</p>
<p>The NAP reports that students are interested in science. We need to build on this interest to create science programs that engage our students in scientific thinking and working in ways that build their capacity to critically and creatively reason. </p>
<p>This is the challenge for 21st century schooling – to create agile and flexible <a href="http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/STEM_AustraliasFuture_Sept2014_Web.pdf">problem solvers</a> prepared to engage with a world that demands high level skills and innovative thinking. </p>
<p>We need an expanded version of thinking scientifically to include the active engagement of students in using the tools of science to reason and understand.</p>
<h2>Some primary schools are already doing this</h2>
<p>This sense of the wider context of science is apparent in many primary schools we have worked with. </p>
<p>Some schools are involved with major investigative projects, for instance into the local environment. Many are involved with <a href="https://theconversation.com/partnering-with-scientists-boosts-school-students-and-teachers-confidence-in-science-58416">scientists as partners</a>, who provide role models and insight into what it is to think and work scientifically.</p>
<p><a href="http://remstep.org.au/">REMSTEP</a> is a major program investigating how to represent scientists’ and mathematicians’ practices in school curricula.</p>
<p>Much of the impetus for the current advocacy of STEM as an interdisciplinary approach comes from a push to <a href="http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1277&context=research_conference">engage students in problem solving</a> in authentic contexts, including engineering design and digital technology.</p>
<p>These approaches are also evident in the <a href="http://littlescientists.org.au/">“Little scientists”</a> initiative.</p>
<p>The Australian Academy of Science initiative “Primary Connections” is now pervasive in primary schools, and we suspect it has been influential in increasing the amount of science taught in schools. </p>
<p>However, research into schools’ use of the program has indicated that while teachers are committed to the explore part of its inquiry model, they often truncate the central literacy aspects of <a href="https://primaryconnections.org.au/about/history/research-and-evaluation/teaching-primary-science.pdf">explaining science</a>.</p>
<p>There is a need in primary schools for a cadre of enthusiastic teachers of science who can support teachers to engage with students’ critical and creative thinking. <a href="http://www.education.vic.gov.au/about/educationstate/Pages/specialist.aspx">This is the rationale</a> for the Victorian Department of Education Primary Mathematics and Science Specialist initiative.</p>
<h2>Assessment tools need to catch up</h2>
<p>Can this expanded version of science literacy we are advocating be reliably assessed? </p>
<p>With current advances in online assessment there exists the possibility of much more interactive forms of assessment activity that go beyond what the NAP was able to put in place for 2015. </p>
<p>For instance, the latest PISA assessment included many items where students could <a href="http://www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA2015Questions/platform/index.html?user=&domain=SCI&unit=S623-RunningInHotWeather&lang=eng-ZZZ">interactively build and interpret investigation</a>.</p>
<p>PISA has also developed assessment in <a href="https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collaborative%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf">collaborative reasoning</a> to support collaborative skills for problem solving. </p>
<p>If we are to ensure the longer-term success of science education in schools, we need to find ways of harnessing it to engage students’ critical and creative reasoning in ways that go beyond current conceptions of science literacy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/74523/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>
What is the point of science knowledge if you are not likely to use it once you leave school?
Russell Tytler, Professor of science education, Deakin University
Vaughan Prain, Professor in Science Interdisciplinary Education Research, Deakin University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/73028
2017-03-06T02:14:58Z
2017-03-06T02:14:58Z
Communicating climate change: Focus on the framing, not just the facts
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159340/original/image-20170303-29002-1h47na1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">How you package the information matters.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/picture-frame-desert-386830909">Frame image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Humans are currently in a war against global warming. Or is it a race against global warming? Or maybe it’s just a problem we have to deal with?</p>
<p>If you already consider climate change a pressing issue, you might not think carefully about the way you talk about it – regardless of how you discuss it, you already think of global warming as a problem. But the way we talk about climate change affects the way people think about it.</p>
<p>For scientific evidence to shape people’s actions – both personal behaviors like recycling and choices on policies to vote for – it’s crucial that science be communicated to the public effectively. Social scientists have been increasingly studying the science of science communication, to better understand what does and does not work for discussing different scientific topics. It turns out the language you use and how you frame the discussion can make a big difference.</p>
<h2>The paradox of science communication</h2>
<p>“Never have human societies known so much about mitigating the dangers they faced <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2562025">but agreed so little</a> about what they collectively know,” writes Yale law professor <a href="http://www.culturalcognition.net/kahan/">Dan Kahan</a>, a leading researcher in the science of science communication.</p>
<p><a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/pops.12244">Kahan’s work</a> shows that just because someone has scientific knowledge, he or she won’t necessarily hold science-supported beliefs about controversial topics like global warming, private gun possession or fracking.</p>
<p>Instead, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/488255a">beliefs are shaped by the social groups</a> people consider themselves to be a part of. We’re all simultaneously members of many social groups – based, for example, on political or religious affiliation, occupation or sexuality. If people are confronted with scientific evidence that seems to attack their group’s values, they’re likely to become defensive. They may consider the evidence they’ve encountered to be flawed, and strengthen their conviction in their prior beliefs.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, scientific evidence does sometimes contradict some groups’ values. For example, some religious people trust a strict reading of the Bible: God said there would be four seasons, and hot and cold, so they don’t worry about the patterns in climate that alarm scientists. In cases like this one, how can communicators get their message across? </p>
<p>A growing body of research suggests that instead of bombarding people with piles of evidence, science communicators can focus more on how they present it. The problem isn’t that people haven’t been given enough facts. It’s that they haven’t been given facts in the right ways. Researchers often refer to this packaging as framing. Just as picture frames enhance and draw attention to parts of an image inside, linguistic frames can do the same with ideas.</p>
<p>One framing technique Kahan encourages is <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/why-we-are-poles-apart-on-climate-change-1.11166">disentangling facts from people’s identities</a>. Biologist Andrew Thaler describes one way of doing so in a post called <a href="http://www.southernfriedscience.com/when-i-talk-about-climate-change-i-dont-talk-about-science/">“When I talk about climate change, I don’t talk about science</a>.” Instead, he talks about things that are important to his audiences, such as fishing, flooding, farming, faith and the future. These issues that matter to the people with whom he’s communicating become an entry into discussing global warming. Now they can see scientific evidence as important to their social group identity, not contradictory to it.</p>
<h2>Let me rephrase that</h2>
<p>Metaphors also provide frames for talking about climate change. Recent work by psychologists <a href="http://www.stephenflusberg.com/">Stephen Flusberg</a>, <a href="https://sites.google.com/a/oberlin.edu/thibodeau/home">Paul Thibodeau</a> and <a href="http://teeniematlock.com/">Teenie Matlock</a> suggests that the metaphors we use to describe global warming can influence people’s beliefs and actions.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159332/original/image-20170303-29032-144rzey.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159332/original/image-20170303-29032-144rzey.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159332/original/image-20170303-29032-144rzey.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=961&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159332/original/image-20170303-29032-144rzey.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=961&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159332/original/image-20170303-29032-144rzey.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=961&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159332/original/image-20170303-29032-144rzey.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1207&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159332/original/image-20170303-29032-144rzey.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1207&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159332/original/image-20170303-29032-144rzey.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1207&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Ready for combat?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/2346593616">Thomas Hawk</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The researchers asked 3,000 Americans on an online platform to read a short fictional news article about climate change. The articles were exactly the same, but they used different metaphors: One referred to the “war against” and another to the “race against” climate change. For example, each article included phrases about the U.S. seeking to either “combat” (war) or “go after” (race) excessive energy use.</p>
<p>After reading just one of these passages, participants answered questions about their global warming beliefs, like how serious global warming is and whether they would be willing to engage in more pro-environmental behaviors.</p>
<p>Metaphors mattered. Reading about the “war” against global warming led to greater agreement with scientific evidence showing it is real and human-caused. This group of participants indicated more urgency for reducing emissions, believed global warming poses a greater risk and responded that they were more willing to change their behaviors to reduce their carbon footprint than people who read about the “race” against global warming.</p>
<p>The only difference between the articles that participants read was the metaphors they included. Why would reading about a war rather than a race affect people’s beliefs about climate change in such important ways?</p>
<p>The researchers suggest that when we encounter war metaphors, we are reminded (though not always consciously) of other war-related concepts like death, destruction, opposition and struggle. These concepts affect our emotions and remind us of the negative feelings and consequences of defeat. With those war-related thoughts in mind, we may be motivated to avoid losing. If we have these war thoughts swimming around in our minds when we think about global warming, we’re more likely to believe it’s important to defeat the opponent, which, in this case, is global warming. </p>
<p>There are other analogies that are good at conveying the causes and consequences for global warming. Work by psychologists <a href="http://www-personal.umich.edu/%7Ekraimi/">Kaitlin Raimi</a>, <a href="https://www.wilsoncenter.org/person/paul-c-stern">Paul Stern</a> and <a href="http://www.vanderbilt.edu/viee/profiles/Alex-Maki.php">Alexander Maki</a> suggests it helps to point out how global warming is <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171130">similar to many medical diseases</a>. For both, risks are often caused or aggravated by human behaviors, the processes are often progressive, they produce symptoms outside the normal range of past experiences, there are uncertainties in the prognosis of future events, treatment often involves trade-offs or side effects, it’s usually most effective to treat the underlying problem instead of just alleviating symptoms and they’re hard to reverse.</p>
<p>People who read the medical disease analogy for climate change were more likely to agree with the science-backed explanations for global warming causes and consequences than those who read a different analogy or no analogy at all.</p>
<h2>Golden past or rosy future?</h2>
<p>Climate change messages can also be framed by focusing on different time periods. Social psychologists <a href="http://soccco.uni-koeln.de/matthew-baldwin.html">Matthew Baldwin</a> and <a href="https://lammers.socialpsychology.org/">Joris Lammers</a> asked people to <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1610834113">read either a past-focused climate change message</a> (like “Looking back to our nation’s past… there was less traffic on the road”) or a similar future-focused message (“Looking forward to our nation’s future… there is increasing traffic on the road”).</p>
<p>The researchers found that self-identified conservatives, who <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/the-politics-of-climate/">tend to resist climate change messages more than liberals</a>, agreed that we should change how we interact with the planet more after reading the past-focused passage. Liberals, on the other hand, reported liking the future-focused frame better, but the frames had no influence on their environmental attitudes.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159338/original/image-20170303-29034-1fqougm.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159338/original/image-20170303-29034-1fqougm.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159338/original/image-20170303-29034-1fqougm.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=825&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159338/original/image-20170303-29034-1fqougm.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=825&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159338/original/image-20170303-29034-1fqougm.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=825&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159338/original/image-20170303-29034-1fqougm.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1037&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159338/original/image-20170303-29034-1fqougm.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1037&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159338/original/image-20170303-29034-1fqougm.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1037&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Example of a past-focused image (top) and a future-focused image (bottom) of a reservoir.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.pnas.org/content/113/52/14953/F3.expansion.html">Image courtesy of NASA. Used in Baldwin and Lammers, PNAS December 27, 2016 vol. 113 no. 52 14953-14957.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>And the frames didn’t have to be words. Conservatives also shifted their beliefs to be more pro-environmental after seeing past-focused images (<a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/113/52/14953/F3.expansion.html">satellite images</a> that progressed from the past to today) more than after seeing future-focused ones (satellite images that progressed from today into the future). Liberals showed no differences in their attitudes after seeing the two frames.</p>
<p>Many climate change messages focus on the potential future consequences of not addressing climate change now. This research on time-framing suggests that such a forward-looking message may in fact be unproductive for those who already tend to resist the idea. </p>
<p>There’s no one-size-fits-all frame for motivating people to care about climate change. Communicators need to <a href="http://collabra.org/articles/10.1525/collabra.68/">know their audience and anticipate their reactions</a> to different messages. When in doubt, though, these studies suggest science communicators might want to bring out the big guns and encourage people to fire away in this war on climate change, while reminding them how wonderful the Earth used to be before our universal opponent began attacking full force.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/73028/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rose Hendricks receives funding from the NSF GRFP. </span></em></p>
Are we in a race against climate change? Or is it a war? How does thinking of the past or the future affect your support for the science? Researchers are learning how metaphors and context matter.
Rose Hendricks, Ph.D. Candidate in Cognitive Science, University of California, San Diego
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/70244
2016-12-13T17:28:10Z
2016-12-13T17:28:10Z
What does research say about how to effectively communicate about science?
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149954/original/image-20161213-1594-1dl3zpm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=1383%2C287%2C4616%2C3260&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Taking stock of what we know works... or not.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=299110817">TV head image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Truth seems to be an increasingly flexible concept in politics. At least that’s the impression the Oxford English Dictionary gave recently, as it declared “post-truth” the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/16/post-truth-named-2016-word-of-the-year-by-oxford-dictionaries/">2016 Word of the Year</a>. What happens when decisions are based on misleading or blatantly wrong information? The answer is quite simple – our airplanes would be less safe, our medical treatments less effective, our economy less competitive globally, and on and on.</p>
<p>Many scientists and science communicators have grappled with disregard for, or inappropriate use of, scientific evidence for years – especially around contentious issues like the causes of global warming, or the benefits of vaccinating children. A <a href="https://theconversation.com/six-myths-about-vaccination-and-why-theyre-wrong-13556">long debunked study</a> on links between vaccinations and autism, for instance, cost the researcher his medical license but continues to keep vaccination rates lower than they should be.</p>
<p>Only recently, however, have people begun to think systematically about what actually works to promote better public discourse and decision-making around what is sometimes controversial science. Of course scientists would like to rely on evidence, generated by research, to gain insights into how to most effectively convey to others what they know and do. </p>
<p>As it turns out, the science on how to best communicate science across different issues, social settings and audiences has not led to easy-to-follow, concrete recommendations.</p>
<p>About a year ago, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine <a href="http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/CurrentProjects/DBASSE_168731">brought together a diverse group of experts and practitioners</a> to address this gap between research and practice. The goal was to apply scientific thinking to the process of how we go about communicating science effectively. Both of us were a part of this group (with Dietram as the vice chair). </p>
<p>The public draft of the group’s findings – “<a href="https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23674/communicating-science-effectively-a-research-agenda">Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda</a>” – has just been published. In it, we take a hard look at what effective science communication means and why it’s important; what makes it so challenging – especially where the science is uncertain or contested; and how researchers and science communicators can increase our knowledge of what works, and under what conditions.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149935/original/image-20161213-1610-1emkkfm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149935/original/image-20161213-1610-1emkkfm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149935/original/image-20161213-1610-1emkkfm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149935/original/image-20161213-1610-1emkkfm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149935/original/image-20161213-1610-1emkkfm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149935/original/image-20161213-1610-1emkkfm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149935/original/image-20161213-1610-1emkkfm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149935/original/image-20161213-1610-1emkkfm.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">Bacteriologists engage with kids at the Wisconsin Science Festival, one way of communicating science to the public.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://photos.uc.wisc.edu/photos/21060/view">Bryce Richter / UW-Madison</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Evidence for effective approaches</h2>
<p>As we discovered, effective science communication – including listening to and engaging with audiences – is particularly complex, and far from simple to study. It’s highly dependent on what is being communicated, its relevance to who’s participating in the conversation and the social and media dynamic around the issues being addressed (especially if those issues or their policy implications are contentious). But it also depends on what people feel and believe is right and the societal or political contexts within which communication and engagement occur. And this makes getting it right and deriving lessons that can be applied across issues and contexts particularly challenging.</p>
<p>Because of this complexity, the practice of science communication (and there are many great practitioners) is currently more of an art than a science. Good communicators – whether reporters, bloggers, scientists or people active on social media and platforms like YouTube – typically learn from others, or through professional training, and often through trial and error. Unfortunately, the social sciences haven’t provided science communicators with concrete, evidence-based guidance on how to communicate more effectively. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/110/Supplement_3">Two</a> <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/111/Supplement_4">earlier</a> NAS meetings identified how diverse the areas of expertise are when it comes to research on science communication. Research spans behavioral economics and sociology along with media and communication studies. They also began to map out what we do and don’t know about what works.</p>
<p>For instance, it’s becoming increasingly clear that the “deficit model” of science communication – the assumption that if we just “fill people up” with science knowledge and understanding, they’ll become increasingly rational decision-makers – <a href="http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1213275110">simply does not work</a>. This is not because people are irrational; rather, we all have our own built-in psychologies of how we make sense of information, and how we weigh different factors when making decisions.</p>
<p>We also know all of us are predisposed to accept, reject or interpret information based on a plethora of mental shortcuts, including a tendency to take on face value information that <a href="https://theconversation.com/confirmation-bias-a-psychological-phenomenon-that-helps-explain-why-pundits-got-it-wrong-68781">seems to confirm our worldview</a>.</p>
<p>And we know how information is presented, or framed, can have a profound impact on how it is interpreted and used. The power of the “<a href="https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/02/10/the-original-frankenfoods/">Frankenfood</a>” frame, for example, used with genetically modified foods, has nothing to do with providing new information. Instead, the term subconsciously connects genetically modified organisms to mental concepts we all share – worrisome ideas about scientists creating unnatural organisms with unintended consequences – and raises moral questions about science going too far.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149956/original/image-20161213-1600-vqcdqw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149956/original/image-20161213-1600-vqcdqw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149956/original/image-20161213-1600-vqcdqw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149956/original/image-20161213-1600-vqcdqw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149956/original/image-20161213-1600-vqcdqw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149956/original/image-20161213-1600-vqcdqw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149956/original/image-20161213-1600-vqcdqw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149956/original/image-20161213-1600-vqcdqw.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">Grasping scientific evidence has important real-world implications, as when making medical decisions.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=284499956">Waiting room image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Decisions factor in more than facts</h2>
<p>Science communication may involve communicating scientific consensus about, for instance, the benefits and risks of vaccines to patients. Or it may encompass much broader societal debates about the ethical, moral or political questions raised by science.</p>
<p>For example, our ability to edit the genetic code of organisms is developing at breakneck speed. Over the next decade, <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/crispr-15704">CRISPR</a> and similar technologies will have a profound impact on our lives, from how we modify plants and animals and control disease, to how we produce our food, and even how we change our own genetic code as human beings.</p>
<p>But it will also present all of us with questions that cannot be answered with science alone. What does it mean to be human, for instance? Is it ethical to edit the genome of unborn embryos? If people involved in those decisions don’t have the opportunity to grasp the evidence-informed implications of the technology and make informed choices about its development and use, the future becomes little more than a lottery.</p>
<p>For those communicating the science, then, the endeavor comes with some degree of responsibility. Even deciding what information to share, and how to share it, involves personal values, beliefs and perspectives, and can potentially have far-reaching consequences. </p>
<p>There’s an especially high level of ethical responsibility associated with communication designed to influence opinions, behavior and actions. Scientists are well equipped to document the public health risks of lowered <a href="https://theconversation.com/vaccines-back-in-the-headlines-heres-what-the-experts-say-47815">vaccination rates</a>, for example. The question of whether we should mandate vaccinations or <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-mississippi-hasnt-had-measles-in-over-two-decades-37075">remove belief-based exemptions</a>, however, is an inherently political one that scientists alone cannot answer. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ECic_pHHJIc?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>Mapping out a better way</h2>
<p>At some level, all science communication has embedded values. Information always comes wrapped in a complex skein of purpose and intent – even when presented as impartial scientific facts. Despite, or maybe because of, this complexity, there remains a need to develop a stronger empirical foundation for effective communication of and about science.</p>
<p>Addressing this, the National Academies draft report makes an extensive number of recommendations. A few in particular stand out:</p>
<ul>
<li>Use a systems approach to guide science communication. In other words, recognize that science communication is part of a larger network of information and influences that affect what people and organizations think and do.</li>
<li>Assess the effectiveness of science communication. Yes, researchers try, but often we still engage in communication first and evaluate later. Better to design the best approach to communication based on empirical insights about both audiences and contexts. Very often, the technical risk that scientists think must be communicated have nothing to do with the hopes or concerns public audiences have. </li>
<li>Get better at meaningful engagement between scientists and others to enable that “<a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/299/5609/977">honest, bidirectional dialogue</a>” about the promises and pitfalls of science that our committee chair <a href="https://www.aaas.org/person/alan-i-leshner">Alan Leshner</a> and others have called for.</li>
<li>Consider social media’s impact – positive and negative.</li>
<li>Work toward better understanding when and how to communicate science around issues that are contentious, or potentially so.</li>
</ul>
<p>Addressing these and other areas is going to take focused research efforts that draw on expertise across many different areas. It’s going to need strategic and serious investment in the “science” of science communication. It will also demand much greater engagement and collaboration between those who study science communication and those who actually do it. And it’ll require serious thinking about why we communicate science, and how we can work respectfully with audiences to ensure that the science we do communicate about is of value to society.</p>
<p>This will not be easy. But the alternative – slipping further into a post-truth world where disdain for evidence creates risks that could be avoided – gives us little option but to dig deeper into the science of science communication, so that science and evidence are more effectively incorporated into the decisions people make.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/70244/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Maynard is a member of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on The Science of Science Communication, and is a co-author on the report "Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda."
</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dietram Scheufele is vice-chair of the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine's Committee on The Science of Science Communication, and is a co-author on the report "Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda."</span></em></p>
Now that we’re in a post-truth world, a timely report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine highlights evidence for what works and what doesn’t when talking about science.
Andrew Maynard, Director, Risk Innovation Lab, Arizona State University
Dietram A. Scheufele, Professor of Life Sciences Communication, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/59643
2016-05-31T01:04:28Z
2016-05-31T01:04:28Z
Science communication training should be about more than just how to transmit knowledge
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124492/original/image-20160530-7687-9f3jwh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Scientists need to learn how to hit other communication goals.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=313119476">Talking image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>For some scientists, communicating effectively with the public seems to come naturally. Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson currently has more than <a href="https://twitter.com/neiltyson">five million Twitter followers</a>. Astronomer <a href="http://www.carlsagan.com/">Carl Sagan</a> enraptured audiences for decades as a ubiquitous cosmic sage on American televisions. And Stephen Jay Gould’s public visibility was such that he voiced an animated version of himself on “The Simpsons.” But, for most scientists, outward-facing communication is not something they’ve typically thought about much… let alone sought to cultivate. </p>
<p>But times change. Leaders in the scientific community are increasingly calling on their scientist colleagues to <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa7477">meaningfully engage with their fellow citizens</a>. The hope is that such interactions can improve the science-society relationship at a time when we are confronting a growing list of high-stakes, high-controversy issues including climate change, synthetic biology and epigenetics. </p>
<p>The gauntlet has been issued, but can scientists meet it?</p>
<p>The answer to that question largely depends on one key group: professional science communication trainers who offer formalized guidance designed to improve scientists’ public communication efforts. There’s a wellspring of science communication programs, among them the <a href="http://www.centerforcommunicatingscience.org/">Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science</a>, the <a href="http://www.aaas.org/pes/">Center for Public Engagement with Science & Technology</a> at the <a href="http://www.aaas.org/">American Association for the Advancement of Science</a> and the <a href="http://www.compassonline.org/">COMPASS Science Communication</a>. Programs like these typically provide communication courses of a half-day up to a week or more. Some organizations also employ in-house personnel to train their scientists to communicate.</p>
<p>Given the important role these training programs now play in the public communication of science, we sought to examine their work. Broadly, we were looking for commonalities in their efforts and experiences, and we wanted to spot possible opportunities for their growth. We were especially interested in something we view as being critical to effective public engagement: helping scientists identify and try to achieve specific communication goals. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124388/original/image-20160529-859-a4ir0j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124388/original/image-20160529-859-a4ir0j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124388/original/image-20160529-859-a4ir0j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124388/original/image-20160529-859-a4ir0j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124388/original/image-20160529-859-a4ir0j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124388/original/image-20160529-859-a4ir0j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124388/original/image-20160529-859-a4ir0j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124388/original/image-20160529-859-a4ir0j.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">Communication trainers do valuable work, helping scientists figure out how to engage about their research.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/ugacommunications/26132960546">UGA College of Ag & Environmental Sciences - OCCS</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What trainers focus on</h2>
<p>In late 2014, we conducted a <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547016645640">set of 24 interviews</a> with science communication trainers from across the United States. Ours is the first published study examining this important community. We found that much of the training they provided focused on helping scientists share their research in clear ways that would increase knowledge.</p>
<p>This is consistent with what scientists have told us in surveys: their main objective in communicating their work is to <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148867">inform the public about science and correct misinformation</a>.</p>
<p>Sharing knowledge will always be a central component of science communication – knowledge generation is, after all, the main enterprise of science. And relaying knowledge makes up the bulk of the science journalism the public encounters through the media – stories about new discoveries and the latest research. </p>
<p>But there are other reasons scientists might want to communicate with the general public. We call these “nonknowledge objectives” – things like fostering excitement about science, building trust in the scientific community, or reframing how people think about certain issues. These objectives are different from a biologist wanting to share with a listener the details on her research on bird migration, for instance. They’re more about people, and forging relationships.</p>
<p>We’ve found that these sorts of nonknowledge goals have a <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148867">relatively lower priority</a> for scientists compared to the desire to get information across about their direct scientific work. Not surprisingly, only a few of the trainers we interviewed indicated that, at that time, they were explicitly trying to help scientists achieve these other kinds of nonknowledge objectives.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, the trainers told us they believed many of the scientists they train want to communicate to help raise public support for science in general and because they think their research will help people see the value in specific policy options.</p>
<p>Our work suggests that scientists and the trainers they work with often focus primarily on the successful transmission of science information, leaving those other objectives to fall into place. But there’s a problem with that logic. Decades of science communication research – a research area now commonly referred to as <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1414635111">the science of science communication</a> – show that fostering positive views about science requires more than just trying to <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662506070159">correct deficits in public knowledge</a>. </p>
<h2>Matching the training to the ultimate goal</h2>
<p>It may be useful to consider alternatives (or additions) to the character of the current training landscape. The emphasis now is on teaching scientists key journalism skills to help them share information more effectively – by, for instance, distilling jargon-free messages. Training typically places limited emphasis on whether sharing that information will have the desired effect. </p>
<p>Instead, given scientists’ goals, training could help scientists avoid doing things that have little potential for impact or, worse, actually diminish people’s views of science.</p>
<p>Extensive research shows that we tend to <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317505111">trust people we judge to be warm and caring</a> because they seem less likely to want to do us harm. With that in mind, more training could explicitly help scientists avoid doing the types of things that might convey a cold demeanor. For example, no matter how accurate a scientist’s argument may be, if communicated rudely it will likely miss its mark. Worse still, it may generate negative feelings that a recipient could then generalize more broadly to the scientific community.</p>
<p>Related research on what people <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547009358624">perceive to be fair or not</a> when it comes to making important decisions could also inform communication training. Studies emphasize the potential strategic value of making sure people feel like they’re being listened to and treated with respect. Imagine, for example, how you’d feel if a doctor didn’t give you a genuine chance to share your personal experiences with an ailment. </p>
<p>Similarly, given what we know about the value of <a href="http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/25447/title/The-Future-of-Public-Engagement/">framing</a>, perhaps more training should help scientists find ways to talk about issues that are consistent with the scientists’ work but that are also consistent with the priorities or worldviews of the people with whom they are speaking. For example, given the value that people put on their families’ health, it may make sense to <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0513-6">frame climate change in terms of health issues</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124390/original/image-20160529-883-1tmmfr3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124390/original/image-20160529-883-1tmmfr3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124390/original/image-20160529-883-1tmmfr3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124390/original/image-20160529-883-1tmmfr3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124390/original/image-20160529-883-1tmmfr3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124390/original/image-20160529-883-1tmmfr3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124390/original/image-20160529-883-1tmmfr3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124390/original/image-20160529-883-1tmmfr3.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">Communication is about more than just transferring information.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/chipgriffin/2207585271">Chip Griffin</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Challenges to getting more strategic</h2>
<p>There are at least two challenges associated with suggesting a more strategic approach to science communication.</p>
<p>First, it is easier to communicate in ways that come naturally and simply hope for the best.</p>
<p>Second, there is a danger that some people will misconstrue being strategic as being dishonest. On the contrary, effective strategic communication rests on authenticity, just like science. Science communicators should never do things like pretend to be warm, fake listening or frame things in ways they don’t think are appropriate.</p>
<p>The point is that by thinking strategically, we can begin to recognize that our communication choices – whether it’s leaving time after a talk for real discussion, calling those with whom we disagree ugly names or framing every disagreement as a war – have consequences. </p>
<p>It also seems clear that science communicators and communication trainers – who, in our experience, provide outstanding training in key skills – are already focusing on certain tactics that affect things like trust without making the explicit connection. For example, just using accessible language and speaking without jargon might communicate that scientists care enough about those with whom they are speaking to accommodate them. The power of telling stories isn’t just a better way to convey information; it’s a social act with social consequences.</p>
<p>Effective public engagement involves high-quality interactions between people. This means that many of the actual effects are likely to be due to the quality of the relationships between participants, including scientists and nonscientists. Content matters, of course, but not unless a healthy dynamic for information exchange is established. </p>
<p>The science communication training community is already doing great work. Ultimately, as trainers and scientists get more strategic in their science communication, it will help justify the time and resources it takes to communicate effectively. And they can forgo activities that seem unlikely to have an impact.</p>
<p><em>This article has been updated on July 15, 2016 with a corrected name for COMPASS Science Communication.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/59643/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF, Grant AISL 14241214-421723. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.</span></em></p>
Broader goals like building trust, fostering excitement about science and influencing policy decisions don’t necessarily just fall into place when researchers focus only on describing their work.
John C. Besley, Associate Professor of Advertising and Public Relations, Michigan State University
Anthony Dudo, Assistant Professor of Advertising and Public Relations, The University of Texas at Austin
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/48722
2015-10-07T19:08:45Z
2015-10-07T19:08:45Z
They won a Nobel for what? Why good science communication counts
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97653/original/image-20151007-7352-14yyfu7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Um, you figured out what by doing which?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-145597057/stock-photo-middle-aged-woman-reading-newspaper.html">Woman image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>When I was a newspaper science editor, I approached Nobel Prize season with mixed glee and anxiety. Glee, because I knew that, without even an argument, I would get space in the paper for stories about research too arcane to <a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/remember-newspaper-science-sections-theyre-almost-all-gone-1005680">make it into print</a> the other 51 weeks of the year. Like the Academy Awards, the Nobels always get covered, and obscure topics like <a href="http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2015/popular-physicsprize2015.pdf">neutrino metamorphosis</a> and <a href="http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2015/popular-chemistryprize2015.pdf">DNA excision repair</a> get their moment to shine, like the folks who win Oscars for sound mixing.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97631/original/image-20151007-7349-1xcy73t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97631/original/image-20151007-7349-1xcy73t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97631/original/image-20151007-7349-1xcy73t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97631/original/image-20151007-7349-1xcy73t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97631/original/image-20151007-7349-1xcy73t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97631/original/image-20151007-7349-1xcy73t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97631/original/image-20151007-7349-1xcy73t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97631/original/image-20151007-7349-1xcy73t.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">Academy Award winner or 2014 Nobel Laureate in Medicine?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.nobelprize.org/press/">© Nobel Media AB/Alexander Mahmoud</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But I felt anxious, too, because my job – as a journalist with no science background – was to make sure those stories would be clear and comprehensible to any reader, and fascinating to more than a few. I wanted them to be stories that would make someone pick up the phone – this was back in the day when people did that – and say, “You’ve got to hear about this.” But journalists are just one leg of the sometimes shaky triangle of science communication, with scientists and the public carrying the other two sides. </p>
<h2>Training scientists in the art of communication</h2>
<p>These days, Nobel season is pure pleasure for me. I’m still a professional nonscientist, but now I work helping scientists learn to communicate better about their research and why it matters with people outside their field. Here at the <a href="http://www.centerforcommunicatingscience.org/">Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science</a>, we teach graduate students and give workshops for hundreds of scientists around the US (including at least a couple of Nobel Prize winners, so far).</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97651/original/image-20151007-7333-1i5hpfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97651/original/image-20151007-7333-1i5hpfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97651/original/image-20151007-7333-1i5hpfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97651/original/image-20151007-7333-1i5hpfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97651/original/image-20151007-7333-1i5hpfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97651/original/image-20151007-7333-1i5hpfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97651/original/image-20151007-7333-1i5hpfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97651/original/image-20151007-7333-1i5hpfi.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">Young scientists at Stony Brook University are including communication courses in their training.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dan Levitan</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>And I know that in Nobel season, I will find plenty of examples of how hard it is to explain complicated science to people like me – and also how well it can be done. Some will tell us that neutrinos have mass long before they tell us what neutrinos are, or why we should care if they have mass or not. Others will paint a vivid picture of these mysterious elementary particles, which exist everywhere yet are almost impossible to detect. Some will fall back on dehydrated jargon. Others will tell us juicy stories about real human people, engaged in difficult, idiosyncratic quests to learn something important about the world we all share.</p>
<p>Why is communicating science a challenge for many scientists? Blame “the curse of knowledge,” as described in the book <a href="http://www.randomhousebooks.com/books/77687/">Made to Stick</a> by Chip Heath and Dan Heath. The idea is that when you know something very well it becomes hard to remember what it was like not to know it. You no longer recognize what is amazing or mysterious or funny or confusing about your work. You no longer can tell jargon – the specialized language of your field – from everyday talk.</p>
<p>At the Alda Center, we’ve come up with tools to fight the curse of knowledge. But it takes practice and empathy – a leap of imagination.</p>
<h2>What does it matter for the public?</h2>
<p>As long as they’re effective at actually doing their research, should we care whether scientists can explain that work to the public?</p>
<p>The short answer is yes. Nearly every aspect of our lives – what we eat and wear, how we work, face illness and share information – rests on scientific research. To make well-founded decisions about our future, both as societies and as individuals, we need a basic understanding of the way science works. We need politicians and policymakers and media figures to understand that, too. </p>
<p>And researchers owe it to us. Almost every scientist receives some support from the public, including subsidies for graduate education or grants. So scientists have a responsibility to share their work with the public that funds them. That may mean opening themselves to criticism, as well as appreciation. But if the public doesn’t understand science, they won’t support funding for research.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97652/original/image-20151007-7345-voy3pv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97652/original/image-20151007-7345-voy3pv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97652/original/image-20151007-7345-voy3pv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97652/original/image-20151007-7345-voy3pv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97652/original/image-20151007-7345-voy3pv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97652/original/image-20151007-7345-voy3pv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=532&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97652/original/image-20151007-7345-voy3pv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=532&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97652/original/image-20151007-7345-voy3pv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=532&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’re all scientists here… but what the heck are you talking about?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/iita-media-library/4742714388">International Institute of Tropical Agriculture</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Clear communication benefits the scientists too</h2>
<p>As science gets more specialized, colleagues in neighboring fields become a lot like the public. They <a href="http://arstechnica.com/staff/2013/04/two-sciences-separated-by-a-common-language/">speak different languages</a>, with different knowledge bases. Words like “transformation,” “activation” and even “theory” <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eEBFGRO1UgA6OYoUF9XgRpwgXdliWIYB4J07qElEv-Y/edit?pli=1#gid=0">mean different things</a> in different fields (and something else again in everyday English). Does AI mean artificial intelligence, or artificial insemination?</p>
<p>Scientists often tell us that at meetings in their own field, they don’t understand 60%-80% of the lectures they hear. (“I want those hours of my life back.”) Yet, the world’s big challenges – from climate change to brain disease – increasingly require chemists, biologists, physicists, computer scientists, material scientists, earth scientists and others to collaborate. </p>
<p>And when scientists distill their message for lay audiences, they can actually gain insight that improves their science. Neurobiologist Nicholas Spitzer, co-director of the Kavli Institute for Brain and Mind at UC San Diego, <a href="http://www.kavlifoundation.org/science-spotlights/ucsd-communications-nicholas-spitzer">put it this way</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… when I talk publicly, I appreciate the need to step back and present the big picture, and in so doing put details into a larger context that is much more accessible – and much more memorable – for an audience. This has stimulated me to think about larger questions over the years and has influenced the directions of my research.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Science appreciation broadens our world</h2>
<p>Like art or music, science is a great human endeavor that can provide joy, beauty, entertainment and a sense of wonder to many more people than those who practice it. When scientists invite us into their world, paying attention to our needs the way good hosts do for their guests, they enlarge our lives.</p>
<p>So, thanks to the Nobel Prize for Physics, and all those who are trying to explain it. Not only do I now know a <a href="http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2015/mcdonald-interview.html">little more about neutrinos</a> – and why someone might want to put a 10-story neutrino detector a mile underground in a nickel mine in order to study elementary particles from the core of the sun – but the whole world looks a little wilder to me. And that’s before they even got to the prize for chemistry.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/48722/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Elizabeth Bass works for the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science at Stony Brook University.</span></em></p>
Nobel Prize-winning science is almost by definition arcane and complex. While these esoteric fields have their moment in the spotlight, does it matter if the rest of us understand?
Elizabeth Bass, Director Emerita of the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science, Stony Brook University (The State University of New York)
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/42630
2015-06-04T05:19:38Z
2015-06-04T05:19:38Z
Pseudoscience and conspiracy theory are not victimless crimes against science
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83840/original/image-20150603-2956-g6mbmb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=16%2C173%2C976%2C790&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Pseudoscience: we should know better by now.</span> </figcaption></figure><p>News of anti-vaxxer movements, demands to teach creationism in schools as science, and dubious claims for the health-giving properties of strange diets is enough to make you wonder if some people have forgotten or forsaken the scientific method entirely.</p>
<p>Astronomer Carl Sagan once said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In every country, we should be teaching our children the scientific method and the reasons for a Bill of Rights. With it comes a certain decency, humility and community spirit. In the <a href="http://skepdic.com/refuge/sagan.html">demon-haunted world</a> that we inhabit by virtue of being human, this may be all that stands between us and the enveloping darkness.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Despite the progress of education and living standards, the world must seem like a scary place for many people – full of chemicals in the sky, aliens trying to abduct us, and government or corporate conspiracies. As Stephen Hawking drily remarked: “If governments are involved in a cover-up, they are doing a much better job of it than they seem to do at anything else.”</p>
<h2>What’s the harm in ‘alternative’ science?</h2>
<p>What’s the harm in applying alternative medicine to treat cancer? Why should others care if I don’t vaccinate my children? Such decisions are all too often based on a poor understanding of how science works – and usually guided by someone’s commercial interest. </p>
<p>For example, US blogger Vani Hari, known as the Food Babe, claims to research and reveal problems with food (while receiving <a href="http://adage.com/article/news/activist-capitalist-food-babe-makes-money/294032/">sponsorship from “natural” food companies</a>). Among her profound research <a href="http://gawker.com/the-food-babe-blogger-is-full-of-shit-1694902226">conclusions</a> were that, when studying the effects of microwaves:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Microwaved water produced a similar physical structure to when the words “Satan” and “Hitler” were repeatedly exposed to the water.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The truth is that in science there are no authorities. There are experts at most, and even their opinions can be challenged by anyone – so long as there’s evidence to back up the argument. When some people are taken as “authorities” and their claims, however wacky, believed, then the subsequent decisions that millions of people may take could harm them or even bring a premature end to their lives.</p>
<p>If that sounds outlandish, consider two “wellness” bloggers from Australia. Belle Gibson punted her wholefood recipes and alternative therapies (available as a book and smartphone app) as a “natural” weapon in her fight against cancer – a cancer she later admitted she’d <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-32420070">entirely fabricated</a>. Or Jessica Ainscough, the Wellness Warrior, whose very real sarcoma was not hindered by the “natural healing” pseudoscience she advocated on her blog. Ainscough <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/02/27/the-wellness-warrior-jess-ainscough-has-passed-away/">died in February 2015</a>.</p>
<p>Cancer is terrifying for those facing it and their families. What some of these “wellness” bloggers do whether misguided or for the sake of personal profit is not only an insult to these people and those that have lost loved ones to the disease, but also an irresponsible act.</p>
<p>Similarly, the <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/health360/posts/2015/02/06-measles-vaccines-mmr-herd-immunity-antivaxxers-patel">misinformation and ignorance of science</a> of the anti-vaxxer movement not only <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27481-measles-leaves-you-vulnerable-to-a-host-of-deadly-diseases.html">endangers their own children</a> but also affects the lives of the <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/02/open-letter-parent-unvaccinated-child-measles-exposure">rest of the population</a>. </p>
<p>The spread of pseudoscience can kill, and that’s exactly why we should be doing more to spread understanding of the scientific method, to equip others to apply scepticism in the face of extraordinary claims.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83836/original/image-20150603-2923-122thr0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83836/original/image-20150603-2923-122thr0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83836/original/image-20150603-2923-122thr0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83836/original/image-20150603-2923-122thr0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83836/original/image-20150603-2923-122thr0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83836/original/image-20150603-2923-122thr0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83836/original/image-20150603-2923-122thr0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83836/original/image-20150603-2923-122thr0.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">1940s electro-metabograph, claiming to cure ailments with radio waves. No scientific basis of course - but doesn’t it look good?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/akuchling/50323683/in/photostream/">akuchling</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The demon-haunted world</h2>
<p>But instead of teaching children how to critically analyse the world around them for themselves through a lens of healthy scepticism, the educational system is based on arguments from authority, encouraging them to accept what they’re told. Over time, this may develop into a deep ignorance of a scientific approach resulting in a huge difference in outlook and approach to the world between the scientifically trained and everyone else. Into that gap steps mistrust, charlatans and conspiracy theories. </p>
<p>The world we have is bound up with science and technology, yet very few of us understand that science and technology. This is a recipe for disaster, and in the 20 years since Sagan’s book: <a href="http://www.boerenlandvogels.nl/sites/default/files/demonhauntedworld.pdf">The Demon-haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark</a> was published, the situation has not improved.</p>
<p>It can be difficult for someone without a university education – or even without a scientific degree – to understand and interpret scientific results. Even those working in one scientific field can struggle to understand developments in others, due to the extent of specialisation required for further progress. Mastering this specialisation requires time, of which we humans have only a limited amount. Gone are the days of all-purpose geniuses such as da Vinci and Leibniz, whose expertise stretched from maths, mechanics and invention, to philosophy, politics, anatomy and medicine. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83838/original/image-20150603-2951-17ut2r0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83838/original/image-20150603-2951-17ut2r0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83838/original/image-20150603-2951-17ut2r0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83838/original/image-20150603-2951-17ut2r0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83838/original/image-20150603-2951-17ut2r0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83838/original/image-20150603-2951-17ut2r0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83838/original/image-20150603-2951-17ut2r0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83838/original/image-20150603-2951-17ut2r0.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">Scientific enquiry, in a nutshell.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Scientific_Method_3.jpg">Whatiguana</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Closing the gap</h2>
<p>Lucky for us, knowing all is not a requirement for scientists, nor even for scientific thinking. In fact truly scientific thinking echoes Socrates’ words, that the wisest of men is he who knows that he knows nothing. “There is no shame in not knowing,” Neil deGrasse Tyson <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/115950-the-sky-is-not-the-limit-adventures-of-an-urban-astrophysicist">said</a>. “The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behaviour fill the vacuum left by ignorance.”</p>
<p>The only requirement for scientific thinking is to learn how to apply the <a href="https://www.noodle.com/articles/carl-sagans-rules-for-critical-thinking-and-nonsense-detection">scientific method</a> to what we encounter in our daily lives. That is what scientists should be teaching others – science is the only approach to the truth we have, error-correcting machinery connected to self-criticism that tests our ideas against the real world. And the proof of its veracity is all around you – from the scientific principles that underlie the screen you’re reading this on, to the manufacturing processes and materials required to build it, and the electricity that powers it.</p>
<p>Science might not be perfect but it is the best tool mankind has developed to understand itself and the world around us. With a grasp of the scientific method the world is suddenly revealed not as a place to be feared, but to be understood. As Carl Sagan also said: “There are wonders enough out there without our inventing any.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/42630/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eduardo Nicolas Schulz receives funding from Marie Curie-European Research Council. He is affiliated with CONICET-Argentina.</span></em></p>
The pseudoscience, conspiracy theory and woo spreading across the world wreaks havoc on those that buy into it.
Eduardo Nicolas Schulz, Research Fellow, University of Birmingham
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/42413
2015-06-03T20:15:14Z
2015-06-03T20:15:14Z
Five challenges for science in Australian primary schools
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83053/original/image-20150527-25098-1qi3bkn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Kids need to love science to thrive</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">from www.shutterstock.com.au</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Science education has been in the spotlight after federal Education Minister Christopher Pyne recently <a href="http://www.afr.com/news/policy/education/labor-states-reject-christopher-pyne-plan-for-compulsory-maths-or-science-to-year-12-20150531-ghdi0l">proposed</a> to make science and maths education compulsory through to year 12. </p>
<p>While this is welcome news, such a proposal needs to include long-term plans for improving the status of science in primary schools and ensuring teachers have the requisite support. Here we outline some of the challenges faced as the new science curriculum is implemented across the country.</p>
<h2>The Australian curriculum is not a ‘national curriculum’</h2>
<p>Many people in education are somewhat bemused that the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority’s Australian Curriculum is not national. </p>
<p>Every state and territory is <a href="http://www.acara.edu.au/curriculum/foundation_-_year_10.html">implementing the curriculum in their own way</a>. This is most noticeable in NSW. Primary school teachers have to follow the <a href="http://syllabus.bos.nsw.edu.au/science/science-k10/">NSW syllabus</a>, which combines an additional “technology” component along with science. </p>
<h2>Primary Connections – one size does not fit all</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.primaryconnections.org.au/about">Primary Connections</a> is a program developed to support the teaching of the Australian science curriculum. It has been overtly promoted and endorsed by the <a href="https://www.science.org.au/primary-connections-0">Australian Academy of Science</a> plus <a href="https://youtu.be/7ODMAyx4y7U?t=55m">the science panel on Q&A in 2014</a>, which included Chief Scientist Ian Chubb, Professor Suzanne Cory and Nobel Laureate Professor Brian Schmidt. Schmidt even used some of his Nobel Prize money to <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/nobel-winners-prize-for-school-science-program/story-e6frgcjx-1226215574165">support it</a>.</p>
<p>Primary Connections does provide a wealth of ideas, activities, background knowledge and safety considerations. However, it also has several issues.</p>
<p>While Primary Connections is free to all schools via the online platform <a href="https://www.scootle.edu.au/ec/p/home">Scootle</a>, many schools are still spending money to get it via the <a href="https://www.primaryconnections.org.au/products/how-to-order">Primary Connections website</a>, to which the Australian Academy of Science website <a href="https://www.science.org.au/news/primary-connections-releasing-new-units-and-teaching-resources">points</a> all those interested.</p>
<p>Primary Connections is essentially just a bunch of PDFs, which is a long way from an inspiring instructive for teachers to get kids interested in science.</p>
<p>Many schools are also implementing Primary Connections in its entirety, which might not be consistent with their state or territory requirements. This will not allow for a personalised journey into scientific inquiry. </p>
<p>In some states, relying solely on Primary Connections would make a school non-compliant with the requirements of the state syllabus. For example, Primary Connections does not cater for the <a href="http://syllabus.bos.nsw.edu.au/science/science-k10/objectives/">technology knowledge and skills</a> in the NSW syllabus.</p>
<h2>Science is a high-anxiety, low-confidence subject for many primary teachers</h2>
<p>As a primary school teacher once told us, “primary teachers are expert generalists”. Most lack the training and experience to teach science, and a deep understanding of the subject and experimentation. Many feel <a href="http://eprints.qut.edu.au/1761/">under-confident in science</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83056/original/image-20150527-25072-12r8exy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83056/original/image-20150527-25072-12r8exy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83056/original/image-20150527-25072-12r8exy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=409&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83056/original/image-20150527-25072-12r8exy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=409&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83056/original/image-20150527-25072-12r8exy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=409&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83056/original/image-20150527-25072-12r8exy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=514&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83056/original/image-20150527-25072-12r8exy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=514&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83056/original/image-20150527-25072-12r8exy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=514&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Teachers spend less time on subjects they’re less confident in, like science.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/rdecom/5461590715/">USArmyRDEcom/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The <a href="http://eprints.qut.edu.au/73153/1/Continuing_decline_of_science_proof.pdf">declines in science participation</a> are longstanding and will have fed into the teaching profession. So, increasingly, teachers will not have studied science at upper secondary school or university. Only <a href="https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/sias_2013_main_report.pdf">around 50% of teachers teaching science in 2013</a> had received training in teaching methods for science. </p>
<p>There are also issues in secondary schools. One in five teachers in science classes <a href="https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/sias_2013_main_report.pdf">teaches out of their area of specialisation</a>.</p>
<p>The introduction of the new curriculum adds to the challenges teachers face. It may lead some to cling onto any resource they find – even if it does not cover all of the curriculum needs.</p>
<h2>Time demands on primary schools</h2>
<p>When primary teachers face disruptions due to impromptu assemblies, excursions (<a href="https://www.acer.edu.au/documents/PISA-2012-Report.pdf">reported as causing serious disruption in Australian schools</a> in particular) and extra-curricular activities, they have to choose what to chop from their teaching. This has been demonstrated to impact most on subjects that the teachers themselves are least comfortable with. This is traditionally mathematics, where teachers are <a href="http://simerr.une.edu.au/pages/projects/129mathsbackground.php">under-confident</a> and often have <a href="http://www.merga.net.au/documents/MERGA33_Meaney&Lange.pdf">limited content knowledge</a>.</p>
<p>While mathematics is assessed in NAPLAN, there is currently no comprehensive national assessment of science. Thus, despite (or perhaps because of) the new emphasis on science, <a href="http://asta.edu.au/generic/file-widget/download/id/693">science is at risk</a> of being the new sacrificial lamb of choice. </p>
<p><a href="http://k6.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/wps/portal/go/parents/parents-guide-to-the-nsw-primary-syllabuses/!ut/p/a1/04_Sj9CPykssy0xPLMnMz0vMAfGjzOLNHB3NPIz8DbwsAsPcDDzDQl0t3L1cjLz9zIAKIoEK_A09XD38gw083f2cXIAKzExDg1zNDQ0MTInTb4ADOBoQ0h-uHwVWAneBRYAFSImZn4Gvu7-hv6k5ugIsTgQrwOOGgtzQCINMT0UABan91g!!/#time">NSW mandates that 6-10% of curriculum time is spent on science</a> in primary schools – that’s 1.5 to 2.5 hours a week. There is substantial variation in the time devoted to science across states and schools. Many schools are operating on only one hour a week, which could easily become 45 minutes when you factor in “pack-up time” at the end of the day and other interruptions. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83458/original/image-20150601-15247-zu9z2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83458/original/image-20150601-15247-zu9z2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83458/original/image-20150601-15247-zu9z2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=232&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83458/original/image-20150601-15247-zu9z2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=232&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83458/original/image-20150601-15247-zu9z2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=232&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83458/original/image-20150601-15247-zu9z2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=292&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83458/original/image-20150601-15247-zu9z2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=292&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83458/original/image-20150601-15247-zu9z2e.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">Primary school science teaching survey, 2014.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Specialist teachers an unlikely dream</h2>
<p>Ian Chubb recently wrote about <a href="https://theconversation.com/aspiring-to-something-magnificent-with-science-in-australia-39248">aspiring to something magnificent with science in Australia</a>. He said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Every primary school ought to have a science teacher with continually updated knowledge. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is a noble dream. However, it also raises several issues.</p>
<p>First, there are enough <a href="https://theconversation.com/too-many-teachers-teaching-outside-their-area-of-expertise-39688">problems recruiting specialist science teachers into secondary</a>, let alone primary schools. And what happens to those students already in school during the hiatus to train up specialist primary science teachers?</p>
<p>Second, in a large primary school, only one science specialist would not be enough. They would not be able to get to every class for the recommended curriculum time. Teaching science, as with any subject, is the responsibility of all primary teachers. With science being somewhat neglected historically in pre-service training, how are we going to train up all of the incumbents?</p>
<p>There are some wonderful primary teachers out there who openly admit they need help with teaching science. However, national, state and school structures currently conspire to make this more difficult and less enjoyable than it should be. </p>
<p>To <a href="https://13-science.cdn.aspedia.net/sites/default/files/user-content/resources/file/report_0.pdf">benefit the national economy</a>, we need to raise the profile of science and develop a long-term plan to nurture it in schools and industry. Educational attainment in science is linked to <a href="http://www.oecdbookshop.org/browse.asp?pid=title-detail&lang=en&ds=&ISB=9789264234833">national economic growth</a> and <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02188791.2014.924387">competitiveness</a>. These high stakes prompted the UK Royal Society to develop <a href="https://royalsociety.org/%7E/media/education/policy/vision/reports/vision-full-report-20140625.pdf">a 20-year plan</a> and a follow-up <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/387780/PU1719_HMT_Science_.pdf?utm_source=Home_Page&utm_medium=FlexSlider&utm_campaign=UK_Governments_plan_for_growth">UK government strategy</a>. </p>
<p>Here, Australia’s Chief Scientist has <a href="http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/STEM_AustraliasFuture_Sept2014_Web.pdf">outlined the need for such planning</a>. Central to this is the need to support teachers in schools, because, in the <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/comment/every-child-needs-to-love-science-to-thrive-20150519-gh4ve4.html">words of Ian Chubb</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… every child needs to love science to thrive.</p>
</blockquote><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/42413/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Simon Crook is the Founder of CrookED Science, a science education consultancy.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rachel Wilson works for the University of Sydney and does not have any interests that would benefit from this article.</span></em></p>
Just having a national curriculum for science doesn’t solve all of our problems.
Simon Crook, PhD Candidate - Physics Education Research, University of Sydney
Rachel Wilson, Senior Lecturer - Research Methodology / Educational Assessment & Evaluation, University of Sydney
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/41540
2015-06-03T04:34:39Z
2015-06-03T04:34:39Z
Helping learners become fluent in the language of science classrooms
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83691/original/image-20150602-19232-c80lhn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The language that's spoken in science classrooms is very different to every day English – even mother tongue English speakers may struggle because of this.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">From www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Science at school level is largely viewed as a practical subject – one that is taught using <a href="http://sciencebob.com/category/experiments/">experiments</a>, for instance. But effective teaching and learning requires language, whether it’s written in textbooks or shared orally during classroom discussions. Language is necessary even while doing practical work: teachers must explain what they are doing and students need to ask questions.</p>
<p><a href="http://ascd.com/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_196112_flanders.pdf">Research</a> involving a wide range of educators in a number of countries has consistently found that teachers do most of the talking in classrooms. Language plays a <a href="http://www.slideshare.net/danilavsky/vygotsky-and-language-development">crucial role</a> in the formation and development of concepts. This suggests that a teacher’s language is vital in teaching science and creating the condition for meaningful learning.</p>
<h2>The language of teaching and learning</h2>
<p>In South Africa and other countries where many pupils do not learn in their home language, curriculum designers have judged the appropriateness of the language in which science is taught by considering whether it is the learners’ mother tongue or not. </p>
<p>Students learning in their mother tongue are generally thought to have an advantage over their counterparts who are being taught in a second or third language.</p>
<p>The general assumption among teachers is that all learning follows through smoothly once learners have attained some proficiency in the language of learning and teaching. But not everyone who is proficient in the language of teaching and learning – for instance, English – excels in science.</p>
<h2>The anatomy of words in the classroom</h2>
<p>The words that comprise the science classroom language fall into two broad components: the technical and non-technical. The former comprises technical words which are specific to a science subject or discipline: photosynthesis, respiration and genes in biology; momentum, capacitance and voltage in physics; atoms, elements and cations in chemistry. When used as science terms, every day words attain new meanings. They become science words.</p>
<p>The non-technical component is made up of non-technical words and defines or gives identity to the particular language of learning and teaching in a classroom or the language of a science text. Some of these non-technical words give identity to certain science subjects where they are used to embody a particular concept important to a process of learning in the specific science subjects: “reaction” in chemistry, “diversity” in biology and “disintegrate” in physics. </p>
<p>Some non-technical words like “if” and “therefore” serve as links between sentences or between a concept and a proposition. Some words like “define” and “explain” are used in place of “say”, while non-technical words like “calculate” and “predict” are used in place of “think”. </p>
<h2>The difficulty of the science classroom’s language</h2>
<p>Science is considered a <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4100936.stm">difficult school subject</a>. This is partly because pupils find science words tough or unfamiliar. They are also confused when a word that means one thing in everyday language means something different in science. “Resistance”, for instance, means something totally different in everyday language and in physics. </p>
<p>They will also be puzzled when a non-technical word seems to have acquired a meaning specific to the context of a particular science subject. “Disintegrate” when used in physics does not refer to something “breaking into lots of very small pieces”. Even children who speak English as their first language and are learning science in English struggle because of these differences.</p>
<p>A <a href="http://ejlts.ucdavis.edu/sites/ejlts.ucdavis.edu/files/articles/EJLTSOyoo.pdf">review</a> of relevant research shows that students struggle with the language of the science classroom because of these differences whether they are learning in their home language or not. Boys and girls struggle equally. Pupils battle irrespective of their individual cultural backgrounds. </p>
<p>This transformation of everyday words’ meanings when used in the science context is one reason that even learners who speak the language of learning and teaching fluently sometimes struggle to tell the meanings of everyday words when used in science.</p>
<h2>The appropriate approach</h2>
<p>It’s clear that a new measure is needed to judge whether the language used in science classrooms is appropriate. Curriculum developers and teachers must consider how easily accessible the meanings of all categories of words are to science students.</p>
<p>Pupils will still have to be proficient in the language of learning and teaching. But teachers will have to become more conscious of how words change their meaning in the context of a science classroom. Then they will need to carefully explain these words and their varied meanings. </p>
<p>Once again, “teacher talk” will take centre stage in classrooms – but it will result in pupils who can understand and apply scientific concepts that might otherwise elude them.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41540/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Samuel Ouma Oyoo 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>
We view school science as largely a practical subject, but pupils must understand the language of science – which is often very different from every day language – if they are to excel.
Samuel Ouma Oyoo, Senior Lecturer in Science Education, University of the Witwatersrand
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/42522
2015-06-01T05:59:58Z
2015-06-01T05:59:58Z
American universities: reclaiming our role in society
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83422/original/image-20150529-15253-iktfcv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">But who will come out to talk with the public? </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/71380981@N06/11069730733/in/photolist-4MED4a-hScghr-MSB83-28e964-qENtYy-ch288s-9yrcap-pjYU1o-eFwfDE-6erBSg-64obiJ-agDbc5-2U5KFN-sn7GQ3-3C1uxC-5jDzsv-kX5dXM-4nVNMF-7Wyxur-5DeBui-5zVLmg-9ybBge-9Fh7r-ra8Kzw-aF7t7b-kWCKPt-kY8EUK-2yt1k7-7fisMx-4nVNir-eFq8iX-eFq8hB-eFwfAL-eFq8gK-eFq8gc-eFwfzJ-eFwfCA-eFq8ce-eFwfvq-eFwfy9-eFwfAf-eFwfyW-eFq8hn-4xrahD-4nVNGi-62D8k6-4nZS3Q-a66Ux3-4nZWT5-4nZSnd">Roger </a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>American universities are facing a crisis of relevance. There is, quite simply, a growing tension between their internal cultures and their role within society. </p>
<p>But the good news is that a growing number of us academics are taking this issue head on, exploring a broader range of models for what it means to be a scholar within society, and challenging old models that stand in the way of such progress.</p>
<h2>‘Stark fissures’ between gown and town</h2>
<p>New York Times columnist <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/opinion/sunday/kristof-professors-we-need-you.html">Nicholas Kristof wrote</a> about the disconnect in this way: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Some of the smartest thinkers on problems at home and around the world are university professors, but most of them just don’t matter in today’s great debates.” </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Kristof was roundly criticized by a number of academics who accused him of lopsided arguments. But he was actually adding his voice to those of a growing number of prominent academics who are also calling for change, with book titles like <a href="http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1933371153.html">Fixing the Fragmented University</a>, <a href="https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/designing-new-american-university">Designing the New American University</a> and many more. </p>
<p>Echoing this reality, the most recent Pew Research Center <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/">survey of public and scientists’ views on science and society</a> exposed “stark fissures between scientists and citizens on a range of science, engineering and technology issues.” </p>
<p>For example, where 87% of scientists accept that natural selection plays a role in evolution, only 32% of the public agrees; where 88% of scientists think that Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are safe to eat, only 37% of the public agrees. </p>
<p>In its most extreme example, actress <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/07/130716-autism-vaccines-mccarthy-view-medicine-science/">Jenny McCarthy</a> has been able to lead a movement in which parents choose not to vaccinate their children for fear of autism, despite the vehement <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-vaccines-are-dangerous/">rejection of that causal link</a> by American medical institutions. </p>
<p>This dire state of affairs prompted National Geographic to devote a cover story to America’s “<a href="http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/science-doubters/achenbach-text">War on Science</a>.” </p>
<p>At the same time, public universities are increasingly struggling to hold on to dwindling levels of state funding as state legislators profess a lack of appreciation of their value to society and parents struggle with their rising costs. </p>
<p>One <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/16941775">Economist article</a> opined that the American university system may be declining in much the same way that the Big 3 automakers did as their tuition costs rise, research displaces teaching as the primary focus of faculty, and administrative staffs grow to unprecedented proportions. </p>
<p>While one may worry about the future of the university in such circumstances, this drift from relevance has tremendous costs for society as well. </p>
<p>Academics have a critically important, though often neglected, role in the public and political debate on a range of issues: GMOs, climate change, gun control, health care, fiscal policy, nuclear power; the list goes on.</p>
<h2>A time for self-examination</h2>
<p>Two years ago, we were part of a group of 10 faculty at the University of Michigan who began to address this problem, exploring our role as academics in public and political discourse. </p>
<p>We started with a <a href="http://graham.umich.edu/media/files/PrelimSurveyResults-PublicEngagement.pdf">survey</a> of our fellow faculty’s attitudes toward academic engagement, followed by a series of <a href="http://graham.umich.edu/mm/brownbag/">faculty forums</a>, and culminated in a <a href="http://graham.umich.edu/mm/">May 2015 conference</a> that brought together experts and participants from across the US to discuss the role of academic engagement in public and political discourse. </p>
<p>The three days reflected the concerns of faculty but also provided unexpected insights into the nature of emerging challenges and opportunities. </p>
<p>We discovered a commitment to public dialogue among the faculty, although there are also concerns that engagement outside the walls of academia does not receive strong institutional support, leaving academics vulnerable to marginalization and even exclusion. For many within academia, public engagement is viewed as a waste of time at best, and anti-intellectual at worst. </p>
<p>There was also a clear sense that this is something we should be doing as academics, but something we have neither the training, the resources, nor the institutional support to undertake effectively. From our beginning as doctoral students through our evaluation for tenure, academic research is our primary metric of excellence.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83302/original/image-20150528-31337-1iksgt8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83302/original/image-20150528-31337-1iksgt8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83302/original/image-20150528-31337-1iksgt8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=380&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83302/original/image-20150528-31337-1iksgt8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=380&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83302/original/image-20150528-31337-1iksgt8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=380&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83302/original/image-20150528-31337-1iksgt8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83302/original/image-20150528-31337-1iksgt8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83302/original/image-20150528-31337-1iksgt8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Four university presidents discuss academic engagement in public and political discourse at a recent University of Michigan meeting. From right to left: Michael Crow (Arizona State University), Philip Hanlon (Dartmouth College), Mark Schlissel (University of Michigan) and Teresa Sullivan (University of Virginia). The panel was moderated by Andrew Hoffman (far left).</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">University of Michigan</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In an <a href="http://media.rackham.umich.edu/rossmedia/Play/7c9a78ca3e7c407db466777873bcdef91d">opening discussion</a> between the presidents of the University of Michigan, University of Virginia, Dartmouth College and Arizona State University, it was clear that, while there was general agreement on the importance of academic engagement, individual institutions had markedly different challenges and approaches to its practice. </p>
<p>University of Virginia President Teresa Sullivan spiced up the conversation by pointing out that many state legislatures not only fail to see the value of our research; some don’t think we should be doing research at all.</p>
<p>In the face of such concerns, there was surprisingly little clarity on what we mean by “engagement,” who should be engaging, how they should be doing this and what the role of the institution is in the public and political spheres. </p>
<p>There was much talk about cultural and institutional barriers. The criteria and process of tenure and promotion review came up again and again as an institutionalized disincentive to engage. We simply don’t know how to value or even measure impact beyond the academic world where, so often, it is the citation counts – the number of times a scholar’s work is cited by other scholars – that determine success. </p>
<p>Yet there was also the recognition that academics need to jolt themselves out of well-worn ruts and think creatively about how to successfully engage, rather than commiserate about how the institutions they themselves form create barriers to engagement.</p>
<p>Reflecting this, Penn State Professor Richard Alley made the point that if he could change one thing about the academy, he would change how universities measure “excellence.”</p>
<h2>The need for two-way communication</h2>
<p>Throughout the conversations, though, one aspect of engagement with the public was repeated again and again: it must be more than one-way communication.</p>
<p>To be truly effective, academics need to both listen and speak, to profess deep topic knowledge but also express humility and patience in hearing what people need and what they want. </p>
<p>As stated by Michael Kennedy from Northwestern University, we need to begin with the question “How can we help you?”</p>
<p>In fact, despite the urgency and confusion, <a href="http://media.rackham.umich.edu/rossmedia/Play/9abaec96f79547d984f96c84ef2273371d">Professor Jane Lubchenco</a> – former Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and now Oregon State University professor – remarked that early-career academics are engaging whether we like it or not.</p>
<p>Indeed, we noted marked generational differences in this conversation. There is a growing hunger among scientists-in-training to ensure that their work has relevance beyond the ivory tower of the academy. They are already, for example, using forms of social media such as Twitter, Facebook and blogs in innovative ways that older academics neither use nor fully understand. </p>
<p>Many of the nearly 60 PhD students who attended the conference worry that academia may take some time to be welcoming to their desires. This led some to wonder whether it will take the next generation of scholars to drag the “old guard” into relevance. </p>
<p>But with this theme came questions about whether young academics that value engagement will end up voting with their feet, migrating to those universities that provide them with the opportunities, support and recognition they are looking for. Indeed, this could create a new way to differentiate universities based on the faculty they hire, the students they attract and the communities they serve.</p>
<h2>Initiatives taking place across the country</h2>
<p>We are still mulling over the takeaway from the conference and plan to produce a <a href="http://graham.umich.edu/mm/conference-output/">final summary report</a> later this summer. </p>
<p>But overall, what was clear from our deliberations was that faculty want to engage, and change is already in play, with programs like Northwestern’s <a href="http://scienceinsociety.northwestern.edu/">Science in Society Program</a>, the University of Massachusetts’ <a href="https://www.umass.edu/pep/">Public Engagement Project</a>, Stanford’s <a href="https://leopoldleadership.stanford.edu/">Leopold Leadership Program</a>, Harvard’s <a href="http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/">Scholars Strategy Network</a>, the University of Michigan’s <a href="http://artsofcitizenship.umich.edu/">Arts of Citizenship Program</a> and more developing at institutions around the country. </p>
<p>Reflecting the desire of the next generation to change the norms of academia, young scholars at the University of Michigan have created the <a href="http://www.learntorelate.org/">RELATE program</a> (Researchers Expanding Lay-Audience Teaching and Engagement). This program’s story also demonstrates the resistance to public engagement that still exists in some of the US’s top academic institutions. </p>
<p>In RELATE’s inaugural year, some students were so worried about their advisor’s disapproval that they kept their participation a secret.</p>
<p>Whether such innovations will have a lasting impact on US universities as a whole is unclear. </p>
<p>But if the success of these programs is anything to go by, there is a growing hunger for more diverse academic institutions and career paths that enable research and teaching excellence to be augmented by excellence in engaging in public and political discourse – and finding relevance and value in communities outside the ivory tower.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/42522/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Maynard does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew J. Hoffman 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>
Universities may be facing a crisis of relevance but a growing number of academics are tackling this issue head on.
Andrew J. Hoffman, Holcim (US) Professor of Sustainable Enterprise and Director of the Erb Institute, University of Michigan
Andrew Maynard, Director, Risk Science Center, University of Michigan
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/42077
2015-05-20T10:07:35Z
2015-05-20T10:07:35Z
The curse of Frankenstein: how archetypal myths shape the way people think about science
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82298/original/image-20150519-30551-66qvf3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Is the real villain in Frankenstein the scientist who created him, or the people who refused to understand him? </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-107343878/stock-photo-united-kingdom-circa-a-stamp-printed-in-great-britain-shows-the-curse-of-frankenstein.html?src=t3aNML1CeS9KmjHioOH3jg-1-1">Stamp via www.shutterstock.com. </a></span></figcaption></figure><p>“One doesn’t expect Dr Frankenstein to show up in a wool sweater,” <a href="http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,986022,00.html">wrote</a> political commentator Charles Krauthammer, ominously, in the March 1997 issue of Time magazine. He was referring to British scientist Dr Ian Wilmut, who eight months earlier had successfully created Dolly, the world’s most famous sheep, by cloning her from another adult sheep’s cell.</p>
<p>Krauthammer’s criticism was unsparing. “This was not supposed to happen,” he insisted. Dolly was “a cataclysmic” creature. But PPL Therapeutics, the company responsible for funding the science behind Dolly, was undeterred, and four years later produced five cloned female pigs. Again, the news provoked outrage. Lisa Lange, a spokeswoman for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, echoed Krauthammer <a href="https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2202&dat=20000315&id=EdQzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=yugFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5529,1558628&hl=en">when she dismissed</a> justifications of cloning: “There’s always a reason given to validate these Frankenstein-like experiments.”</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82261/original/image-20150519-30538-jjzm24.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82261/original/image-20150519-30538-jjzm24.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82261/original/image-20150519-30538-jjzm24.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=852&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82261/original/image-20150519-30538-jjzm24.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=852&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82261/original/image-20150519-30538-jjzm24.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=852&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82261/original/image-20150519-30538-jjzm24.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1070&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82261/original/image-20150519-30538-jjzm24.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1070&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82261/original/image-20150519-30538-jjzm24.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1070&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Frontispiece to Mary Shelley, Frankenstein published by Colburn and Bentley, London 1831.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AFrankenstein_engraved.jpg">By Theodor von Holst via Wikimedia Commons</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Invoking Mary Shelley’s myth of Frankenstein is standard fare in arguments over controversial science. In 1992, Boston College English professor Paul Lewis coined the term “Frankenfood” in <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2000/08/13/magazine/the-way-we-live-now-8-13-00-on-language-franken.html">a letter to the New York Times</a> that argued for stricter FDA regulation of genetically modified foods. “If they want to sell us Frankenfood,” he wrote, “perhaps it’s time to gather the villagers, light some torches and head to the castle.” Dr William Davis, author of the bestselling book Wheat Belly, refers to modern strains of wheat as “frankenwheat,” and then blames them for nearly every chronic illness imaginable. And 19 years before Dolly, in-vitro fertilization pioneer Dr Patrick Steptoe tried to preempt such criticism when he defended his role in the birth of Louise Brown, the world’s first “test-tube” baby. “I am not a wizard or a Frankenstein,” <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/1988-03-23/news/mn-1905_1_patrick-steptoe">he pleaded</a>.</p>
<p>Steptoe was wise to dissociate himself from Frankenstein. Research suggests that story archetypes – encoded in powerful, culturally pervasive myths – may play a crucial role in how people process new information. In their studies of jury verdicts, for instance, psychologists Nancy Pennington and Reid Hastie <a href="http://conium.org/%7Emaccoun/LP_PenningtonHastie1992.pdf">found that</a> jurors made decisions, in part, by fitting the evidence into previously defined narrative structures. </p>
<p>The persuasive power of these structures has led Rutgers law professor Ruth Anne Robbins to argue that attorneys should represent their clients as “<a href="http://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sulr/vol29/iss4/1/">archetypal heroes</a>” (her example of choice is from another modern myth, Harry Potter). Heroes are more likely to be perceived sympathetically, while villains – Dr Frankenstein and Dr Steptoe alike – will be perceived as criminals, independent of the evidence.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82252/original/image-20150519-30494-y4i7jd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82252/original/image-20150519-30494-y4i7jd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82252/original/image-20150519-30494-y4i7jd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=886&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82252/original/image-20150519-30494-y4i7jd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=886&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82252/original/image-20150519-30494-y4i7jd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=886&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82252/original/image-20150519-30494-y4i7jd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1113&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82252/original/image-20150519-30494-y4i7jd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1113&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82252/original/image-20150519-30494-y4i7jd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1113&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Adam and Eve.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ALucas_Cranach_d._%C3%84._001.jpg">Lucas Cranach the Elder, via Wikimedia Commons</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Indeed, myths appear to lead consistently away from the truth, not toward it. Researchers from the University of Oregon have found that pairing statistics with narratives detracts from accurate evaluations of risk. And in a 2014 British <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0089177">study of vaccination intentions</a>, subjects exposed to the powerful narrative archetype of a conspiracy – complete with “secret acts of powerful, malevolent forces” – were more likely to fear vaccines, despite access to evidence of vaccine safety.</p>
<p>The Frankenstein myth is particularly potent, since it recapitulates elements of the world’s most famous myth. Temptation leads Adam and Eve, like Dr Frankenstein, to acquire forbidden knowledge, which results in a cataclysmic fall from grace. </p>
<p>The potency of this narrative – the sinful knowledge seeker who departs from nature – worries New York University bioethicist Arthur Caplan, who believes it can shut down rational, nuanced dialogue. He told me:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>You have to be very careful about deploying these powerful myths. There’s no reason to believe that technology, in general, is inherently dangerous or out of control. Not only that, Frankenstein can narrow our focus to biological and reproductive science. Other technologies, weaponized satellites and military technology, those don’t attract the same kind of criticism.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>People don’t just live by archetypal myths – they are <em>constituted</em> by them. Group identity, from religion to politics to race, depends on an investment in the truth of a few indispensable stories, which in turn serve as shorthand justifications of one’s preferred moral and social order. “When you tell a story about your client, you pick a storyline that people can identify with,” Robbins explains of her approach. This helps explain why mythically justified beliefs are so resistant to evidence: changing them means changing oneself. </p>
<p>The biasing power of myth is disconcerting, but it also points to a potential solution. If, in some cases, narrative can trump scientific evidence, perhaps literary criticism can come to the rescue. </p>
<p>Take the myth of Frankenstein. As Krauthammer, Lewis, and Davis tell it, genetically modified organisms are dangerous, unnatural and disgusting, and those who oppose them are the archetypal heroes. The villains are foolish, power-hungry scientists like Wilmut and Steptoe, whose unchecked hubris threatens to plunge mankind into darkness.</p>
<p>In the original tale, however, Dr Frankenstein’s creation is no monster, but rather a kind, gentle Creature. Tragically, the Creature soon learns to fear humans, who, terrified by his appearance, drive him away with stones and never come to understand his true identity.</p>
<p>The real villain in Shelley’s story is neither Dr Frankenstein nor his creation – it is the intolerant, torch-wielding villagers. Only after experiencing their cruelty does the Creature become a monster, exacting revenge on those who refused to give him a chance. This is the real myth, the original myth, and it suggests a radically different moral and social order than the more familiar version. If we embrace it, maybe the evidence about controversial science will start to tell a different story.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/42077/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alan Levinovitz 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>
Critics of controversial science like GMOs and cloning often invoke the myth of Frankenstein to highlight the dangers of new technology. But these critics may overlook the moral of Shelley’s story.
Alan Levinovitz, Assistant Professor of Religion, James Madison University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/38631
2015-04-30T05:14:44Z
2015-04-30T05:14:44Z
Reducing science to sensational headlines too often misses the bigger picture
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77642/original/image-20150410-2118-c0b2ty.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">"This theory complex but important and -- hey look, it's Kim Kardashian!"</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye#/media/File:Bill_Nye.jpg">Ed Schipul </a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>We are all being lied to, but it’s okay because we sort of know it. Exaggeration, sensationalism and hype are in the newspaper headlines and on the magazine covers we read and in the films we watch. Even the conversations we have with each other are exaggerated to make things sound that little bit more interesting. But what happens when you try to sensationalise science, and put little lies into something that revolves around truth?</p>
<p>The role of science in society is changing. Science is now in the mainstream, with “science editors” commonplace. But the little lies are creeping into science, designed to sensationalise, to entertain, to generate clicks online, to sell newspapers, and to make science sexy. </p>
<h2>Missing the point</h2>
<p>The best way to illustrate this problem is with an example. There is an ambitious idea called the <a href="http://www.space.com/22004-skylon-space-plane-rocket-engine.html">Skylon project</a>, essentially a rocket plane. Rocket planes are an excellent way to get to space, but building an engine is difficult. However, Skylon recently achieved this with their <a href="http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/sabre.html">SABRE engine</a>. This was widely reported with headlines tending toward the likes of “<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2875158/The-plane-fly-four-hours-space-just-15-minutes.html">Now Possible to Get to Australia in Four Hours</a>”.</p>
<p>In order to understand why that is important, a little context: rockets are a terrible way of getting to space. Large rockets weigh close to 1,000 tonnes, yet can only carry around ten tonnes of payload into orbit. Worse, most of that rocket gets crashed into the ocean in the process, and those rockets aren’t cheap. </p>
<p>Imagine if every time you took a flight you had to pay for the entire cost of the aircraft – ticket prices would go up, and the number of aircraft available would go down. The Skylon rocket plane is the first, completely reusable way of getting into space. This means in comparison to non-reusable rockets, rocket planes such as Skylon would hugely increase capacity and availability of flights and lower the cost of flying people and cargo into space. Everyone who could afford to buy a sports car could now afford to go to space. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77643/original/image-20150410-2097-j1lpz4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77643/original/image-20150410-2097-j1lpz4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77643/original/image-20150410-2097-j1lpz4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77643/original/image-20150410-2097-j1lpz4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77643/original/image-20150410-2097-j1lpz4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77643/original/image-20150410-2097-j1lpz4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77643/original/image-20150410-2097-j1lpz4.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">The Wright Brothers first flight.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Getting lost in the headline</h2>
<p>Yet all the reporting of Skylon’s new engine chose to focus on the idea that it would be possible to fly from one side of the world to another in hours. Sure it’s attention grabbing, but it misses the point. It’s like being alive in 1903. At this point in time, the only way to fly was with a balloon or glider. Then the Wright brothers invent powered flight. With the ambitions of many from Icarus to Leonardo da Vinci finally realised and mankind able to take to the skies, it would be absurd to report it with the headline: “Now Possible to Get to the Shops in 30 Seconds”.</p>
<p>We all know that powered flight changed the world. A century after the Wright brothers’ breakthrough, two billion people and <a href="http://www.icao.int/publications/Documents/9898_en.pdf">40m tonnes of cargo</a> were transported that year alone. Just 110 years later <a href="http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/">Voyager 1</a> would become the first man-made object to leave the solar system entirely. </p>
<p>Think about that. Only a century after we worked out how to take off from the ground, we managed to leave the solar system. And you’re telling me that the most interesting part of the SABRE engine is that you can get to Australia in four hours? No. Not even close. We are potentially ushering in a whole new era of human existence. </p>
<p>Yet somehow this message gets lost in the sensationalising of the world around us. Modern society has become obsessed with short-term gains and creating the illusion of progress and achievement. That is why popular media is full of these little lies and it is why we are trying to make science sexy.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/79305/original/image-20150424-14535-6bpfs4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/79305/original/image-20150424-14535-6bpfs4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79305/original/image-20150424-14535-6bpfs4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79305/original/image-20150424-14535-6bpfs4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79305/original/image-20150424-14535-6bpfs4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79305/original/image-20150424-14535-6bpfs4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79305/original/image-20150424-14535-6bpfs4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Tracy Caldwell Dyson viewing Earth from the ISS Cupola, 2010.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">WikiCommons</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Beauty is in the bigger picture</h2>
<p>But when you make science sexy you lose the beauty, and there is tremendous beauty in science. That beauty is hope. Science is the hope of a future. Because if we just sit here on this planet and do the things we already do, getting places just a little bit faster, living just a little bit longer, happy to simply survive as we are then we know how humanity’s journey ends – and it will end, here, on this planet.</p>
<p>But if we do more than survive; if we discover and explore and expand, then our future is uncertain. Science is a demonstration that humanity need not exist only on some tiny rock in the outer spiral arm of a single galaxy. To me, it means that humanity refused to go gently into that good night. Will it make it? Who knows – but it’s important that we try.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/38631/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Leon Vanstone receives funding from USA Government Grants.</span></em></p>
Making science ‘sexy’ leads us to keep looking in the wrong place for the things science could do for us.
Leon Vanstone, Post-doctoral Researcher, The University of Texas at Austin
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.