National tour questions 'science-speak'

Aspiring scientists at the UW have a lot on their minds: courses, research, theses. Communicating with the non-scientific community is often an afterthought; they prefer to let the facts speak for themselves.

This may be acceptable among peers, but a new notion contends that with respect to society, scientists must actively frame information in ways that are meaningful and personally relevant.

The instigators of this idea, Matthew Nisbet, a professor of communication, and Chris Mooney, an author and journalist, were at the UW Friday as part of a national tour.

The pair argued that scientists operate via an information-laden approach to communication with the public. Due to today's fragmented media environment and the way individuals digest vast streams of news, usage of this popular science method results in a struggle to control attention and definition of technical issues.

"The prevailing model doesn't match studies of how people consume information," Nisbet said. "Individuals look for shortcuts and rely on their religious or ideological backgrounds, making up their minds in the absence of full knowledge. Frames take complex issues and focus on pertinent ideas, establishing common ground with an audience."

Nisbet cited the biologist E.O. Wilson as a scientist already using the tool to refocus response to global warming.In his most recent book,Creation,Wilson frames environmental stewardship as a scientific, moral and personal matter.

Nisbet and Mooney were fully engaged throughout their visit, participating in a morning seminar, an afternoon discussion with students and an evening public presentation at the Pacific Science Center. Their visit was coordinated by the UW's Forum on Science Ethics and Policy (FOSEP). The non-partisan, non-advocacy student group promotes dialogue between scholars, policy experts and the public on the role of science in society.

FOSEP is a prime example of interactive leadership in the university setting, Nisbet said. He praised their efforts toward making communicative connections at the local level.

Student response to the presentations was spirited.

"As Nisbet and Mooney aptly demonstrated in their talk, scientific facts alone do not speak for themselves in the public ear," said Kate Stoll, a graduate student in biochemistry. "If scientists do not frame the issues surrounding science-policy debates, the scientific voice in the political discussion will not be heard."

She said that misuse of framing is cause for concern, but expressed confidence in its underlying principles and intent.

"Using the tools of framing are perfectly compatible with being responsible to the community and true to the science," Stoll said.

Thomas Robey, a bioengineering Ph.D. student, said he would like to see more workshops on campus that deal with media and public communication. He feels framing is an important skill for scientists to possess.

"Doctors need to be able to talk to patients such that they will understand medical conditions," he said. "So too must scientists seek out ways to interact effectively with non-scientists."

In their summary, Nisbet and Mooney said that framing is vital to success in communicating as breaking issues arise, but also added some broader context.

"Using frames is not a panacea, but rather a first step grounded in pragmatism," Mooney said. "Coincident with framing, education and popular media remain an integral part of scientists' connection with the public."

[Reach reporter Brian Smoliak at news@thedaily.washington.edu.]