There's a really interesting article in The Scientist : The Future of Public Engagement. The premise of the piece is that scientists need to figure out, themselves, how to frame their science results to best convey the results to the public.
I'm a little conflicted about this, but basically on board. I think there are a lot of topics that non-scientists steal to put their political spin on, despite what the science actual says. Policy makers and voters should have access to the basic scientific results and use them to make decisions. But apparently that isn't what happens. Instead, with so many ignorant of the science, they listen for messages that resonate with their beliefs without taking into account the proper science.
So, should scientists jump into the fray as well? Probably. But it's contrary to the way we ourselves do things. We want the facts, the results, with a minimum of spin, so we can subject them to scrutiny. Good, clear results generally speak for themselves and lead to consensus. Still, we constantly sell ourselves and our own work to help get grant money, better jobs, better students.
I feel like I'm rambling here. The article is thoughtful and raises important issues. Read it.
My own take on framing science is to use science fiction to convey results and explore their meaning, although the science-fiction reading public probably isn't a large enough segment of society to make a substantial difference among voters and politicians. I'm open to suggestions.
Posted by Mike at October 4, 2007 12:48 AM | TrackBack