Framing Science: The Same Old Thing And Also Something Completely Different
by tristero
Lots of good commentary on this earlier post on the debate over re-framing science touched off by Matt Nisbet and Chris Mooney. Again, to be clear:
Much, but certainly not all, of the differences in opinion are between people who agree on the basics, namely that (1) science and, more broadly, the importance of reality-based decision making, is under serious attack by far right extremists; (2) the writing skills of the average scientist could stand improvement; (3) science reporting and advocacy also can be much better; and (4) when writing about science, it is important to take into account for whom you are writing - a paper in a physics journal assumes a different level of expertise in its topic than an article on physics in Newsweek Magazine.Therefore. the argument with Nisbet/Mooney hinges on whether scientists, when speaking to a lay public, should emphasize science - ie data, and the inferences and theories from it - or emphasize things non-scientific.
So what do Nisbet/Mooney have in mind? It's a little unclear from the op-ed but fortunately, in an interview Nisbet offers some concrete examples of exactly what he has in mind:BROOKE GLADSTONE: ... what is it that you're asking the scientists to do? How are they supposed to change the way they present [science] in order to confront this political reality?
MATTHEW NISBET: You start recasting the issue in ways that are still true to the science but, in fact, actually you're not talking about the science. You're engaging with business leaders and CEOs. They're talking about the promise for innovative technology, again, the market potential for that. They might activate that moderate Republican base that reads The Wall Street Journal and says, hey, suddenly I care about global warming ‘cause there might be investment potential here.
You recast the issue as really a moral duty, not just in a religious sense but saying, look, this is like credit card debt. We're passing the buck on to future generations if you don't do something now. The science is there. This is an urgent problem. We need to take action.
Let's unpack this from the back first. Passing the problem on to future generations is just a variation of a classic Madison Ave. guilt-trip ad technique - think of your co-workers and use Dial brand soap! It's a bit skeevy but that's not what's wrong with the suggestion. Nisbet is claiming that this is a change of frame when it is an argument made all the time by environmentalists. There's nothing new or original in his suggestion.
As for his first example, I really don't know how to say this without sending a little, maybe a lot, mean, but Nisbet is hopelessly naive if he thinks businessmen haven't beat him already to the punch to see whether there "might be investment potential" in catastrophic global warming.* There are things like the groovy Tesla Roadster, a nifty sportscar that's affordable (I read they were $100,000, which is cheap these days if you happen to be European) and runs quite nicely on a large bank of modified laptop batteries. And, of course, there are also plenty of other products out, or coming out, that are of more immediate utility to us little people.
But even worse than Nisbet's naivete is, I think, his failure to undertstand that those on the forefront of research into global warming aren't necessarily going to be the same people who have great ideas for money-making technology that addresses it. I know James Hansen's time is ill spent trying to do end runs around the likes of Bush-appointed christianists. I'm really not sure his time is any better spent pitching get rich quick schemes to air conditioning manufacturers.
In short, global warming scientists can change the frame all Nisbet wants and they still won't be listened to. So they might as well talk about global warming. At least when they do so, they're talking from expertise.
Enough with the negativity! Let's briefly look at what may be a real frame changer for how science is portrayed to the public. But to call it that is already to impugn the sheer entertainment value of the show, and that is its main objective. I'm speaking of MythBusters. If you're not familiar with the show, grab it. But a word of advice: Avoid the episodes where they blow up dead pigs (you'lll understand once you've seen it.)
Anyway, most science shows that I know deal with faits accompli. The science is long done and they already intone the results as the scientist(s) walks in medium longshot down a remarkably uninteresting corridor. Or an overly enthusiastic host dangles for no good reason from the top of the George Washington Bridge to introduce a mediocre animation segment on, well, I can't remember because I'm too busy trying to figure out why that guy is so cheerful when a strong wind could knock him off the platform to a ghastly death.
Well, Mythbusters is (are?) different. They pose a question and proceed to find out if it's true. The questions usually run the gamut from the ridiculous (how exactly can you find a needle in a haystack?) to the genuinely insane (if you use gasoline to get a raccoon out of a culvert, can you inadvertently become a human cannonbal)? The Mythbusters then proceed to test these questions and in the process develop hypotheses, build experimental models and other apparatus, collect data and draw inferences for conclusions.
Rather than avoiding talking about the science and finessing the often long, tedious process of running an experiment (what happens to plants if you yell at them 24/7 for six weeks?), Mythbusters revels in it. And rather than trying to pretend that the main hosts are somehow like "you and me," it is clear that they are very strange people who you want nowhere near your microwave, your car, or your bug spray.
Most importantly in terms of re-framing science, the experiments and tests are messy and often fail (they also look like a blast to do.) Things go wrong, sometimes because they failed to anticipate problems, sometimes because they spaced out (the plants died before the yelling experiment ended 'cause someone didn't notice a broken water timer) and sometimes the experiments have to be completely reconfigured in midstream. Sometimes, they even get hurt (never seriously, they are, as the show says, "what you call experts" and are exceedingly cautious at their craziest). And sometimes they go way over the top(the Chinese water torture was horrific, and, by the way, the closest the show's gotten to political/social commentary: it was clearly a thinly-veiled response to Abu Ghraib). Oh yeah, and sometimes they work perfectly.
By showing us not only the successes but the messiness of failed experiments and their attempts to salvage at least something from the results, Mythbusters shows us laypeople that science (well, engineering science, at least) is a lot more trial and error than many of us might suspect. There are times the "coldly rational" host gets it dead wrong while the manically silly one is spot on. Other times, Jamie - the rationalist - barely manages to rescue Adam - the histrionic - from a total catastrophe.
I suppose Nisbet and Mooney are right, that Mythbusters isn't for everyone but I can't imagine who they might be. Doesn't everyone stand to benefit from knowing which is better at removing bloodstains: straight rum or human urine?. And I dunno, maybe real scientists have major league problems with the actual science they do - some of their sound tests seemed a bit off to me - but I haven't heard any other than critiques of certain methodologies (hate those exploding pigs). But I do think the series demonstrates that science can be made exceedingly interesting not by avoiding, but actually celebrating both the process and the results.
Hell, forget what I wrote. Just watch it.
*[Warning! Gratuitous snarky comment ahead.] And why shouldn't businessmen profit handsomely off the End Of The World As We Know It? Somebody has to. When you think about it, drug companies find huge investment potential in potentially fatal diseases, after all.
Hmm...on 2nd thought, let's not go there.