framing science: the debacle

I really thought that, given their extensive theoretical knowledge of framing theory, Nisbet and Mooney would refrain, the next time around, to fail to apply this theory to scientists they are apparently trying to convince to be communication-smart. But they did it again, and this time with not much style.

I have just finished writing a post on framing supporting their point of view and, to say it with Mooney, my reaction to this is primarily one of sadness. Why did they have to do this? I guess to frame it for the general (American) public, which overwhelmingly believes in God, and whose 15% also believes that Jesus will come back within their lifetime?

Anyway, in their latest article, published in the Washington Post, they decided to pick Richard Dawkins as "a particularly stark example of scientists' failure to explain hot-button issues, such as global warming and evolution, to a wary public". They also singled out PZ Myers, who obviously does not subscribe to their view that "A "science and religion coexistence" message conveyed by church leaders or by scientists who have reconciled the two in their own lives might convince even many devout Christians that evolution is no real threat to faith".

I am no big fan of PZ, but this is the biggest disservice Mooney and Nisbet could have made to ScienceBlogs and their fellow bloggers: making it look as if everybody happily jumped on the "PZ wagon", as if bloggers did not have individual stand points, even if often quite close to PZ's. As if all ScienceBloggers and friends thought that "framing turns scientists into guys with suits who have opinions, and puts us in competition with lawyers and bureaucrats in the media".

They obviously do not, seeing what a wide variety of responses their article in Science generated.

They also say that "Myers [...] accused us of appeasing religion". Well, maybe I missed something, but doesn't that ""science and religion coexistence" message conveyed by church leaders or by scientists who have reconciled the two in their own lives might convince even many devout Christians that evolution is no real threat to faith" a line written purposefully to appease religious believers?

So let me understand this: I should hide being an atheist, and writing about atheism, because I am jeopardizing other people's efforts to make science "likable". As I am a scientist, that should benefit me. Does that not sound like I had to live in the closet at all times, so that oppressive regimes will not consider me openly gay/bisexual, and therefore not hang me/lapidate me/not allow me to give blood transfusions/ not allowing me to pass their customs/discriminate me?

So is that it? Should we all be closeted atheists? Or even so, closeted scientists?

I agree that scientists need to take some of the communication effort in their own hands; I understand that properly done framing will not involve "spinning", or "dumbing down"; I agree with all of this, and I am spending a lot of my free time trying to educate myself to be a better communicator, not just a better scientist.

But I will never, never be in the closet. Fear of openness is not the solution - and the success of LGBT (for the allies, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered) activism is proof that staying in the closet is a losing battle. And if we have to bleed in this fight to win, I am in: but to do not ask me to be fake, calculated and dishonest; do not ask me to put down my personal and professional pride. Some people in the audience will always hate us, will never change their mind no matter what, and that is a statistical fact (look at stats on global warming opinions).

My guess is, those are already lost votes, and they are not the ones we'll be talking to.

P.S. Very fitting: one of my posts just appeared in the latest issue of the Carnival of the Godless. Yes, I am not in the closet. Enjoy it - if you want to.

P.P.S. And for goodness' sake, stop thinking the whole world is the U.S.! I am pretty sure that even in Poland we would not find that 15% of Polish believe that Jesus will come during their lifetime!!!

Other post reactions to the Washington Post article
Effect Measure: Freethinker Sermonette: Framing Spinning
The Intersection: Responding to PZ (and Others) in the Washington Post
Pharyngula: Nisbet and Mooney in the WaPo: snake oil for the snake oil salesmen
Framing Science: Don't be a Dodo: Olson on Dawkins & Framing
Sandwalk: Nisbet and Mooney Reveal Their True Colors