Chris Mooney and Matthew Nisbet Speaking Science Boot Camp Tuesday, June 24, 2008 9:00am-4:30pm Caltech Y Multipurpose Room, Caltech Cost: $15 includes lunch

Over the past several years, the seemingly never-ending controversies over evolution, embryonic stem cell research, global climate change, and many other topics have led to a troubling revelation. Scientific knowledge, alone, does not always suffice when it comes to winning political arguments, changing government policies, or influencing public opinion. Put simply, many journalists, policymakers, and citizens consume and act on scientific information in a vastly different way than do the scientists who generate it. As a result, scientists and their organizations repeatedly face difficult challenges in explaining their knowledge to diverse groups of citizens.

As issues at the intersection of science and politics gain more and more attention, something beyond just scientific data--beyond "getting the facts out there"--will be necessary to break through to the public. But what are the new directions? It's time to question some central assumptions and focus on fresh ideas.

A conversation about new directions in science communication.

In this joint presentation, journalist Chris Mooney and communication professor Matthew Nisbet explain how scientists and their allies can "reframe" old debates in new ways, remaining true to the science but taking advantage of a fragmented media environment to connect with a broader American public.

Syllabus

MORNING SESSION: SCIENCE, MEDIA, & THE PUBLIC

History, Concepts, and Principles

• Burns, T.W. O'Connor, D.J., Stocklmayer, S.M. (2003). Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12, (2), 183-202. [PDF]
• National Science Board (2008). Chapter 7: Public Attitudes and Understanding. National Science Indicators. Washington, DC: National Science Board.
• Kitzinger, J. (2006). The role of media in public engagement. In S. Miller (Ed.), Engaging science: Thoughts, deeds, analysis and action. UK: Wellcome Trust.
• Yankelovich D. (2003, summer). Winning greater influence for science. Issues in Science and Technology.
• Nisbet, M.C. & Scheufele, D.A. (2007, October). The future of public engagement. The Scientist.
• CBC Radio (2008). Interview with Brian Wynne. How to Think about Science series. *[Audio Podcast]*

Recent Controversies and Case Studies

• Moser, S. & Dilling, L (2004). Making climate hot: Communicating the urgency and challenge of global climate change. Environment 46 (10): 32-46.
• Nisbet, M.C. (2008). Moving beyond Gore's message: A look back and ahead at climate change communications. Skeptical Inquirer Online.
• Labov, J. and Pope, B.K. (2008). Understanding our audiences: The design and evolution of Science, Evolution, and Creationism. CBE Life Sciences Education, 7(1): 20-24.
• Nisbet, M.C. (in press). Expelled? Conflict and consensus in communicating about evolution. Kean Review. [Set the PDF to 100%]
• Friedman, S.M.; Egolf, B.P. (2005). Nanotechnology: risks and the media. Technology and Society Magazine, IEEE, 24, (4), 5 - 11. (Log in via library gateway.)
• Scheufele, D. A., Corley, E. A., Dunwoody, S., Shih, T., Hillback, E., & Guston, D. (2007). Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nature Nanotechnology, 2 (12), 732 - 734. [Log in via library gateway if necessary.]
• Editorial (2008). A little knowledge. Nature Nanotechnology, 2, (12). [Log in via library gateway if necessary.]

*Recommended additional reading:

• Logan, R. (2001). Science mass communication: A conceptual history. Science Communication, 23, (2), 135-163. [PDF]
• Weigold, M. (2001). Communicating science: A review of the literature. Science Communication, 23 (2), 164-193. [PDF]
• Bauer, M., Allum, N., & Miller, S. (2007). What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16, (1) 79-95. [PDF]
• House of Lords. 2000. Science and Society. London: UK House of Lords. See also the government response.
• Miller, S. (2001). Public understanding of science at a cross-roads. Public Understanding of Science, 10 (1), 115-120. [PDF]
• Einsiedel, E. and Eastlick, D.L. (2001). Consensus conferences as deliberative democracy: A communications perspective. Science Communication 21 (4):323-343. [PDF]

AFTERNOON SESSION: MEDIA STRATEGY AND RELATIONS

• Willems, J. 2003. Bringing down the barriers - public communication should be part of common scientific practice. Nature 422, 470.
• Russell, C. (2006). Covering Controversial Science: Improving Reporting on Science and Public Policy. Working Paper, Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy, Harvard University.
• Mooney, C. & Nisbet, M.C. (2005, Sept./Oct.). When coverage of evolution shifts to the political and opinion pages, the scientific context falls away, unraveling Darwin. Columbia Journalism Review, 31-39.
• Revkin, A. (2007). Climate Change as News: Challenges in Communicating Environmental Science. In J.C. DiMento & P.M. Doughman (Eds.), Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren. Boston, MA: MIT Press, pp. 139-160. [PDF]
• Nisbet, M.C. & Mooney, C. (2006). The next big storm? Skeptical Inquirer Online.

*Recommended additional reading:

• Hayes, R. & Grossman, D. (2006). A Scientist's guide to talking with the media. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. ON RESERVE IN MILLIKAN LIBRARY
• Metcalfe Institute for Marine and Environmental Reporting (2007). Workshop Reports: Science Communications and the News Media.