Chris Mooney, the author of The Republican War on Science, has a must-read op-ed in today's Washington Post calling on scientists to more effectively influence the public debate:Scientific training continues to turn out researchers who speak in careful nuances and with many caveats, in a language aimed at their peers, not at the media or the public. Many scientists can scarcely contemplate framing a simple media message for maximum impact; the very idea sounds unbecoming. And many of them don't trust the public or the press: According to a recent Pew study, 85 percent of U.S. scientists say it's a "major problem" that the public doesn't know much about science, and 76 percent say the same about what they see as the media's inability to distinguish between well-supported science and less-than-scientific claims. Rather than spurring greater efforts at communication, such mistrust and resignation have further motivated some scientists to avoid talking to reporters and going on television.
They no longer have that luxury. After all, global-warming skeptics suffer no such compunctions. What's more, amid the current upheaval in the media industry, the traditional science journalists who have long sought to bridge the gap between scientists and the public are losing their jobs en masse. As New York Times science writer Natalie Angier recently observed, her profession is "basically going out of existence." If scientists don't take a central communications role, nobody else with the same expertise and credibility will do it for them.
You can read more from Chris at his Discover Magazine blog, The Intersection.
2 comments:
It seems like this op-ed makes a good case for better science education - seems preferable to scientists abandoning generations of principles and practices for contemporary political debates.
When have scientists not been involved in contemporary political debates? Socrates & Galileo eagerly await your answer.
Post a Comment