first of all, frame your own frame

During these few days, a Policy Forum article published in Science and written by ScienceBloggers Nisbet and Mooney, is making at least as much noise as the Blog against Theocracy blogswarm. And, in my humble opinion, for good reason.

Before even trying to write a post on the subject, I first of all read the article myself - I would not dare, as others did, to comment something only after listening to second-hand contents (what kind of training scientist would I be otherwise, eh?). I also tried to follow the most cited comments, every one of which surely added a new dimension to "what you missed in your Science article". I still think they managed to miss out on something, however, and this is why I am here.

The article's main idea is that scientists fail to effectively communicate to the public in occasions when decision makers can set funding or legal restrictions to research (think of embryonic stem cell research and cloning) and/or argue against certain science education (think about teaching of evolution in the U.S.). The authors argue that, while scientists may assume that if the public were given more 'facts' they would more easily accept the scientists' point of view, in fact most people do not enquire too much into what is being presented by the media or in public debates, and actually only 'tune in' to messages already on their political/ethical/cultural wavelength. Therefore, according to the authors, it is scientists' responsibility to learn how to 'frame' their arguments in a way that is more easily understandable to the public, and also in a way that can make the science more meaningful to their daily lives' concerns.
These are the main objections that the article immediately raised in science circles:

• Scientists shouldn't be used in the role that Mooney and Nisbet seems to envision them in. Instead scientists should do or teach science, and science communicators should try to communicate the science in a way that suits the audience (Pro-science)
• The authors are focusing on the US, and ignoring the rest of the world (Thorbjörn Larsson)
• It seems that Beardsley’s concept of frames comes from Nisbet. But Nisbet cites Beardsley’s post for what frames are. Oh dear. (Greg Laden)
• But there are limits to how much we can change our own rational scientific observational probabilistic frame and still be talking science. [...] How do we fix this? This probably needs to be done mainly through better science education. (Greg Laden)
• I think I'll try and emulate Isaac Asimov, Dick Lewontin, [...] and Stephen Jay Gould. They're scientists who, in my opinion, communicate pretty effectively and they attracted lots of readers. They didn't have to disguise their atheism or their liberalism in order to get a point across. I don't think they took lessons on "framing". (Sandwalk)
• Why are scientists being told so often that they're bad at communicating? Because, like, we aren't. Most scientists are awesome at communicating, just not on the terms dictated by Fox News. [...] Blame the media. Slamming the scientists is the wrong thing to do when the flaws are obvious and elsewhere. [...] I blame YOU. Yeah, YOU. Why aren't you, the consumer of media, demanding better fare? (Pharyngula)

Others, on the other hand, welcomed the article (and I humbly subscribe to their well-argued, real-world and "off-that-ivory-tower" position):

• After reading the entire article, I have to ask why some reaction has been relatively hostile. [...] Scientists already "frame" their arguments and work each and every day. They just don't do it for the audience that Mooney and Nisbet are talking about, the public. They do it for their fellow scientists, to persuade them that their research is correct. [...] P.Z. is correct in one way: The most successful scientists are often also the best communicators. It's just that they're communicating to other scientists. Is it really so much of a stretch to try to get them to communicate more successfully with non-scientists? I think not. [...] truth is not sufficient even when scientists are talking to other scientists. It's how I as a scientist "frame" my data and argument, the narrative that, hopefully, flows from my data with my help, that convinces other scientists. [...] The bottom line is that the battle for the public's soul does, at least in the short term, come down to a matter of framing the science in such a way that (1) the public can understand it and (2) that it appeals to shared values without gratuitously or needlessly insulting those who are ignorant of the science or ideologically opposed to it. Like it or not, politics is not the rarefied world of science and scientific discussions. (Respectful Insolence)
• It's also important to communicate concepts to people who don't give a damn about the science. They also point out that the opponents of good science are very good at framing their views on stem cell research, the environment, teaching evolution, and other areas that fall at the intersection of science and politics. (The Questionable Authority)
• The worst way to try to persuade people who are either disinclined to believe you to begin with, or people completely ignorant, agnostic and uninterested in the topic, is to try to strip, as much as possible, everything evocative from your text. By making it dry and "sticking to the facts only", you are guaranteed to turn he audience off and make them ripe for the picking by the other side. And scientists, mathematicians and philosophers have been trained to do exactly that. [...] The result of training is that scientists are uniquely trained to be poor communicators of science. Scientists - a tiny percentage of any population - are the only people in the society who even try to think and talk in a value-free way, get insulted when someone suggest they shouldn't do so, and view other people who can't do so as intellectually inferior. [...] Thus, insisting on purity of evolutionary theory when trying to sway someone from IDC to evolution-of-any-kind is misguided, and probably counterproductive - you lose your audience after the first two minutes of presenting hard science. The people in such transitions are scared of such change in their core beliefs - they need a helping hand, not denigration and abuse. (A Blog around the Clock)

Here is what they all (and I mean, ALL) missed out on: the article on framing was published in Science, under subscription barrier, and should have therefore catered to scientists. Instead, the article is written in typical "school of communication" style, talking to the audience of the future journalist/media that might pick up the story and might want it to be ready to be talked about through TV, short articles, etc. The phrasing and development of the argument (which retains its value nevertheless) was often obscured by what a scientist would see as sloppiness: inaccurate use of quotations, terms that start having double meanings, use of terms and expressions such as "demonstrate", "respect diversity" and "strategically avoid emphasizing the technical details of science", which immediately raised, in at least part of the blogosphere, the feeling that what the authors are arguing is to turn science communication into "spin".

Unfortunately, the authors' advice on framing was not followed by the authors themselves in the first place: the argue was not correctly "framed" for their target audience. An already controversial subject generated a large debate on semantic issues with the use of "frame", "spin", "truth", etc.

It seems to me that often even the most authoritative comments stopped at the semantics, and failed to pick up the main message: adapt your message to your audience. Not everybody understands, cares, or is technically versed in scientific issues/communications, therefore the messages should be intelligible to a large audience, and not only that - they must be relevant, they must clearly explain why they are relevant to people's lives, not in principle but in practice. This is not about "spin", it is about smart communication. How many 18-year-old actually give a turd about their prof's lecture? They mostly do, as long as it gives them a good grade and they can forget about it ASAP. Unless of course, they plan to be scientists. But that is preaching to the choir - it will not positively affect policy change, nor will it contribute to science communication in political settings.

Some argue that science communication should be left to "science communicators". However, the career of science communicator is often looked down by scientists (yes, it is, check out the Career section on major journals), and often they are blamed with not being able to "communicate science properly". Which brings me to the point: if "they" are so lousy, why don't you all get off your ivory tower and start learning about the challenges of doing real science communication - i.e. not having a choir willing to be preached at, not having unlimited blogging space, and having super-limited time and space media resources, as well as having to reach out to a very wide audience, while also keeping in mind that there are cultural communication issues to be kept into account?

These are my five cents. Now, let me get back to my science article for lay people.