The “framing” kerfluffle continues apace at ScienceBlogs.com. For a primer on this subject, see my earlier remarks here. I like what “Revere” has to say at Effect Measure:
Nisbet and Mooney argue that just presenting the facts…

A few quick notes:

a) As Mooney and I described in a 2005 cover story for the Columbia Journalism Review (where instead of scientists, we engage journalists on these problems) science writers often do a terrific job in conveying the technical details of science. It’s when debates over evolution (or climate change or stem cell research etc) move to the political beat and the opinion pages that the science becomes reinterpreted as “he said-she said, I’m clueless.” Check out the article, it addresses a lot of the discussion in this post:

http://www.cjr.org/issues/2005/5/mooney.asp

b) In chronicling the problems in reaching the wider public on climate change, I offer a few novel suggestions in a recent column for Skeptical Inquirer Online. These include using entertainment and celebrity culture, but also harnessing the power of opinion-leaders, i.e. average citizens who can pass on to their peers information about climate change (or another scientific debate) that will be trusted, persuasive, and packaged in a way that resonates with the targeted public’s social identity. Go to this link:

http://www.csicop.org/scienceandmedia/climate/

A response to a suggestion made above: Even if coverage by science writers were prefect in the eyes of their sometimes scientist critics, it would still only reach a very small audience of science enthusiasts. Left out would be the majority audience of Americans who pay little or no attention to coverage of science.

As we suggest in the CJR piece, and as I implemented as part of the curriculum when I was on the faculty at Ohio State, (and as I am trying to do here at American University,) general assignment and political reporters are where the training focus needs to be. For example, at Ohio State, for two years I designed and taught a course called “Scientific Reasoning for Journalists” that *all* journalism majors were required to take. Here’s a description:

An introduction for public affairs journalism students to the major methods of scientific and evidence-based reasoning. The course covers scientific measurement, the nature of causality, experimental methods, survey methods, sources of scientific uncertainty, and the political nature of how scientific knowledge is produced and/or used in policy decisions. A central goal of the course would be to prepare students to think critically about the many scientific and statistical claims that are made in everyday political discourse, to evaluate the credibility of sources, and to make judgments relative to expertise. Case study exercises are assigned that apply the principles of the course to contemporary public affairs debates. These case studies involve research and analysis, but also the production of communication messages or media specific to the topic. Examples of possible case studies include intelligent design; climate change; drug trials and the placebo effect; causes and deterrents of crime; the use of opinion surveys and exit polls in news coverage and campaign strategy; and debates over risk in the context of issues such as e. coli, food biotechnology, Vioxx, or nanotechnology.

c) As a social scientist, my research specialty is the media and it’s influence on policy decisions and public perceptions. In top “basic research” journals I have published numerous peer-reviewed studies over the past few years on these topics. You can find a list of all of my publications, peer-reviewed and otherwise, at the link below:

http://www.soc.american.edu/content.cfm?id=294

I appreciate Greg Laden’s intense interest in Goffman’s work from 1974, but he dismisses literally more than a hundred studies published across three major academic disciplines, specifically communication, sociology, and political science.

While moving forward with my peer-reviewed work in my academic specialty, I also think there is a lot of value in engaging scientists, policymakers, advocates, and journalists on what research in this area points to as effective public engagement strategies.

In teaming up with Chris Mooney, an award winning journalist covering the intersection of science and politics, I think together we can offer some unique and valuable insight. It’s a great pairing of a credentialed social scientist and a veteran journalist. We also welcome the debate that our work might generate, since it provides further valuable feedback and “anecdotal data” to work with.

The Science piece, where we engage an audience of scientists, and the CJR cover story where we engage an audience of journalists, are two examples of this outreach. So is my blog Framing Science, the semi-regular columns I write for Skeptical Inquirer Online, and the more than a dozen lectures I have given in the U.S. and Canada over the past year. I also have had the opportunity to consult with several major science-related organizations including the National Academies and the National Science Foundation.

On discussing public engagement strategies, expect much more to come from us. We look forward to your feedback and discussion.

Best,
Matt