Nisbet-What's Next For Science Communication

What's Next for Science Communication?
Promising Directions and Lingering Distractions

Author(s): Matthew C. Nisbet and Dietram A. Scheufele
Source: American Journal of Botany, Vol. 96, No. 10 (Oct., 2009), pp. 1767-1778
Published by: Botanical Society of America, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27733515
Accessed: 09-02-2016 14:25 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/27733515?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Botanical Society of America, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal of
Botany.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 192.236.36.29 on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 14:25:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
American Journal of Botany 96(10): 1767-1778. 2009.
SPECIAL INVITED PAPER?YEAR OF SCIENCE
What's next for science communication?

Promising directions and lingering distractions1
Matthew C. Nisbet24 and Dietram A. Scheufele3
2School of Communication, American University, 4400 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20016 USA; and
3Department of Life Sciences Communication, Hiram Smith Hall, 1545 Observatory Drive, University ofWisconsin, Madison,
Wisconsin USA 53706-1215
In this essay, we review research from the social sciences on how the public makes sense of and participates in societal decisions
about science and technology. We specifically highlight the role of themedia and public communication in this process, challeng
ing the still dominant assumption that science literacy is both the problem and the solution to societal conflicts. After reviewing
the cases of evolution, climate change, food biotechnology, and nanotechnology, we offer a set of detailed recommendations for
improved public engagement efforts on the part of scientists and their organizations. We emphasize the need for science commu
nication initiatives that are guided by careful formative research; that span a diversity of media platforms and audiences; and that
facilitate conversations with the public that recognize, respect, and incorporate differences in knowledge, values, perspectives, and
goals.
Key words: informal learning; popular science; public engagement; science and society; science communication; science
literacy; science policy.
Over thepast few years, therehave been signs of a gradual shift 2008; Cheng et al., 2008). These volumes along with the jour
inhow the scientificcommunity in theUnited States views public nals Science Communication and Public Understanding of Sci
engagement. One can detect a growing recognition that effective ence are evidence of the growing international network of
communication initiatives that sponsor dialogue, trust, re scholars and who are focused on science commu
requires practitioners
lationships, and public participation across a diversity of social nication research and related applications (See also the Interna
settingsand media platforms.Yet despite notable new directions, tional Network on the Public Communication of Science and
many communication efforts continue to be based on ad-hoc, intu Technology at http://pcst-10.org/). In this essay, we build on
ition-driven approaches, paying little attention to several decades thework of others while also drawing heavily upon research
of interdisciplinaryresearch on what makes for effective public thatwe have published over the past decade. In addition, we
engagement.Many of these initiatives startwith the false premise incorporate insights and lessons from our efforts at translating
thatdeficits inpublic knowledge are thecentral culpritdriving so and applying the implications of this research.
cietal conflict over science, when in fact, science has We elaborate on that we first intro
literacy only specifically arguments
a limitedrole in shaping public perceptions and decisions. duced in articles published in Science (Nisbet and Mooney,
In this article, we describe what we know from social science 2007) and The Scientist (Nisbet and Scheufele, 2007). These
research on how members of the public from diverse back articles challenged prevailing assumptions within the scientific
grounds are likely to use informationand reach decisions about community about public communication and engagement, lead
science. We then offer recommendations on how this research ing to widespread attention and debate (see Holland et al.,
should inform effective public engagement and communica 2007). Over the past two years, we have also given more than
tion. To clearly demonstrate these principles, we highlight no four dozen presentations in the United States, Canada, and Eu
table successes and mistakes to the cases of climate rope, discussing ideas and proposals with several thousand sci
specific
change, evolution, plant biotechnology, and nanotechnology. entists, educators, policymakers, and journalists. We have
Across each of our recommendations, we
emphasize the fol additionally worked with several leading science organizations
lowing basic any science communication efforts need to incorporate research-based into their science com
premise: principles
to be based on a systematic empirical understanding of an in munication initiatives. These experiences have fueled addi
tended audience's existing values, knowledge, and attitudes, tional insights and recommendations that we detail in this
their interpersonal and social contexts, and their preferred me essay.
dia sources and communication channels.
Several recent edited books offer excellent introductions to about a pre
Myths public communication?Historically,
elements of the research that we review (Bucchi and Trench, has been that is at the root of so
vailing assumption ignorance
cial conflict over science. As a solution, after formal education
1 ends, science media should be used to educate the public about

Manuscript received 3 February 2009; revision accepted 26 June 2009.
The authors thank two anonymous reviewers for their detailed comments
the technical details of thematter in dispute. Once citizens are
on an earlier version of this article. brought up to speed on the science, theywill be more likely to
4
Author for correspondence (e-mail: nisbet@american.edu) judge scientific issues as scientists do and controversy will go
away. In this decades-old "deficit" model, communication is
doi:10.3732/ajb. 0900041 defined as a process of transmission. The facts are assumed to
1767
1768 American Journal of Botany [Vol. 96
speak for themselves and to be interpretedby all citizens in torting the objective state of expert agreement. Each time an
similar ways. If the public does not accept or recognize these exaggerated scientific claim is proven false or inaccurate; itrisks
facts, then the failure in transmission is blamed on journalists, further alienating those already distrustful of the science and sci
"irrational" public beliefs, or both (Bauer, 2008; Bauer et al., entists (See Pielke, 2007 formore on thisperceptual trap).
2007; Nisbet and Goidel, 2007; Scheufele, 2007). Finally, there is littlereason to expect that traditional popular
The heavily referenced symbols in this traditional paradigm science approaches if applied to informinga wider public about
are
popular science outlets such as Scientific American or the science will ever be effective. These initiatives instead tend to
Public Broadcasting System (PBS) program NOVA along with reach a small audience of already informed science enthusiasts.
famous such as Richard and Carl The reason is that individuals are misers."
popularizers Feynman Sagan. naturally "cognitive
Often when the relationship between science and society breaks Science communication effortsgrapple with a wider public that
down, science illiteracy is typically blamed, the absence of is for the most part unable or uninterested in developing an in
quality science coverage is bemoaned, and there is a call put out depth understanding of scientific breakthroughs, and instead
for "more Carl Sagans." rely on cognitive shortcuts and heuristic decision making to
Deficit model thinkingalso includes a fall from grace narra help them reach opinions about policy-related matters (Popkin,
tive,with various mythmakers hyperbolizing that in contrast to 1991; Scheufele, 2006). The nature of themedia system further
today's culture of "anti-science," there was a
point in the past exacerbates this human tendency. The increase in content
when the public understood?and as a direct choices available to a general
consequence? audience, paired with decreasing
deeply respected science. In theUnited States, this so-called public affairs news
consumption
across all age cohorts, makes
golden era is often described as the dozen or so years of the widespread messaging difficult. Second, even leading national
"Space Race," the period that stretched from the 1957 Russian media outlets are investing less and lessmoney in staffingtheir
launch of the Sputnik satellite to the U. S. lunar landing in newsrooms with science writers, meaning less coverage de
1969. voted to important scientific topics. At the local level, the his
As we
explain in this essay, continued adherence to the defi toric distress to the news industryhas meant thatmajor cities
citmodel only likely fans the flames of science conflicts. Con and regions of the country no
longer have a reliable source of
descending claims of "public ignorance" too often serve to news about science and the environment that is tailored to the
further alienate key audiences, especially in the case of evolu specific needs of theircommunities (Brumfiel, 2009).
science, when these charges are mixed with atheist cri
tionary
tiques of religion (Nisbet, 2009b). Myths such as Sputnik Never well understood, but always deeply respected?There
oversimplify thepast, making iteasier to falsely define contem is perhaps no better example of the persistence of the deficit
porary debates in terms of "anti-science," "illiteracy"
or "de model than thewidespread belief that the period between the
nial" (Goldston, 2008). Moreover, by emphasizing what is launch of Sputnik in 1957 and theU. S. moon landing in 1969
wrong with the public?or by pinning their hopes on a major was a golden age of science literacy,with an informed public
focusing event such as Sputnik?many scientists ignore the pushing for large-scale government investment in science.
possibility that theircommunication effortsmight be part of the In contrast to this often repeated myth, public opinion
sur
problem (Irwin andWynne, 1996). veys taken just after Sputnik indicate a public barely familiar
Perhaps worse, the assumptions of the deficit model cut with the most basic science concepts. In one measure, just 12%
against the conclusions of several decades of research in the of the public understood the scientificmethod. On basic ques
area. For
example,
a recent
meta-analysis shows that science tions tapping knowledge of polio, fluoridation, radioactivity,
literacy only accounts for a small fraction of the variance in and space satellites, only 1 in 6 could answer all four questions
how lay publics form opinions about controversial areas of sci correctly (Withey, 1959). In other survey results, only 38%
ence (Allum et al., 2008). Far stronger influences on opinion knew that theMoon was smaller than theEarth, and only 4%
derive from value dispositions such as ideology, partisanship, could correctly indicate thedistance inmiles between theMoon
and religious identity (Nisbet, 2005; Nisbet and Goidel, 2007; and the Earth (Michael, 1960). Apart from knowledge, atten
Ho et al., 2008; Scheufele et al., 2009). In addition, no matter tion to science news occurred predominantly among the 10% of
how accurately communicated and understood the science, pol American adults who held a four-year college degree (Swine
icy decisions cannot be
separated from values, political context, hart andMcLeod, 1960.)
and necessary trade-offs between costs, benefits, and risks (Ja Just after the launch of Sputnik, many Americans reported
sanoff, 2005; Pielke, 2007; Guston et al., 2009). paying closer attention to the desegregation conflict inArkan
Given these realities, to focus on science literacy as both the sas and to theWorld Series than to the satellite launch and the
cause and the solution to failures in public communication re call to arms for a Space Race (Michael, 1960). A majority of the
mains a
major distraction for science organizations. If scientists public, in fact, did not view Sputnik as a scientific event, but
had a better understanding of the complex factors that shape rather as fittingwith a larger frame of reference relative to the
public preferences and policy decisions, they would be less Cold War, describing the launch in terms of national security,
likely to define every debate in terms of "crisis" or "politiciza international competitiveness, and falling behind the Soviet
tion," interpretations that often only furtherfuel polarization, Union (Michael, 1960; Swinehart andMcLeod, 1960)
alienation, and/or political gridlock (Goldston, 2008; Nisbet, By deficit model standards, these survey results reveal that
2009a). Moreover, arguing thata policy debate is simply a mat the mythologized Sputnik-era America was in reality a scien
ter of "sound science" reduces scientific knowledge to just an tifically illiterateAmerica. The paradox then is thatdespite low
other resource that interest groups can draw upon in political levels of science literacy, the post-Sputnik public held science
battles, threatening the perceived integrityof science. As we in almost universally high regard. For example, roughly 90%
will discuss relative to climate change, under these conditions, agreed that science was making life healthier, easier, and more
an inevitable part of the framing of an issue will involve a con comfortable, and an
equal number agreed that science was con
test over uncertainty,with each side potentially hyping or dis tributing to societal progress (Withey, 1959). The reason for
October 2009] Nisbet and Scheufele?What's next for science communication? 1769
this divergence between knowledge and admiration is that sci deeply cares about, do perceptual gaps based on values and
ence
literacy,
as we have reviewed, has very little to do with
identityappear among thegeneral public (Brossard and Nisbet,
public perceptions. Instead, driving public opinion during the 2007; Ho et al., 2008). Yet even under these conditions, as is
Space Race and Cold War were strong frames of social prog the case with climate change, scientists still appear to hold the
ress and international competitiveness, historically consistent upper hand in termsof trust(Scheufele et al., 2007). The impli
messages about science that we will return to later. cation is that relative to authority, deference, and respect, scien
Today, despite a doubling in the proportion of Americans tists have earned a rich bounty of perceptual capital. When
with a education and more science-related information controversies occur, the challenge is to understand how to use
college
available by way of theWeb than at any time inmedia history, this capital to sponsor dialogue, invite differing perspectives,
scores on survey factual science knowl facilitate reach consensus when
questions measuring public participation, appropri
have remained stable for more a decade,
than ate, learn from and avoid common communica
edge relatively disagreement,
with Americans averaging six correct answers out of 12 true or tion mistakes that undermine these goals.
false quiz-like items (National Science Board, 2008). Yet even
with these relatively low levels of knowledge, thebest available From transmission to dialogue?Before moving to the
survey data suggest that science commands as much respect as influence of themedia and strategicmessaging in public en
itdid during the decade of the Space Race. gagement initiatives, it is first important to review the earliest
In 2004, the National Science Foundation (NSF) brought challenges to the deficitmodel; challenges that sparked the use
a team of social scientists to re-examine the organization's of deliberative forums and dialogue as a new com
together major public
biannual surveys on public attitudes about science and technology. munication tool.
(The first author of this article served as a member of the commit Serious critiques of thedeficitmodel firstgained prominence
tee advising on theproject.) The NSF asked the team to redesign in the early 1990s as sociologists used ethnographic approaches
the survey to include a new emphasis on what theNSF termed the to study how particular social groups made sense of scientific
"cultural authorityof science," particularly how the public views
expertise and authority.One study in particular helped set the
the role of scientificexpertise in policymaking and societal deci wheels inmotion for new thinking about the public uptake of
sions. The commissioned surveyfindings,gathered in2006, argue scientific advice. Following the 1987 Chernobyl nuclear disas
against the claims of the deficitmodel that scientific illiteracy ter, sociologist Bryan Wynne (1992) examined closely why
that more
English sheep farmers contested government scientistwarnings
threatens the cultural status of science. Consider than
85% agree that"even if itbrings no immediate benefits, scientific about local soil and livestock contamination fromChernobyl's
research that advances the frontiers of knowledge is necessary and continent-wide fallout. Instead of narrowly blaming the conflict
should be supported by the federal government." On the specific on the alleged ignorance of the sheep farmers,Wynne proposed
issues of climate change, stem cell research, and food biotechnol that their skepticism of scientific advice was stronglyfilteredby
feelings of distrust and alienation, feelings thatwere forged by
ogy, Americans believe scientists hold greater expertise, are less
self interested,and should have greater say indecisions than indus local communication mistakes and among
history, by scientists,
try leaders, elected officials, and/or religious leaders. Moreover, a threat to their way of life.
farmers, perceived
during thepast 20 years, as public trustinCongress, thepresidency, Based on his research,
Wynne proposed
a set of common
industry,religious institutions,and themedia have plummeted; mental rules that lay publics are likely to use in evaluating sci
public faith in science has remained virtually unchanged. In fact, entific advice and expertise. Later with several colleagues,
among American institutions,only themilitary enjoys more trust Wynne furtherdeveloped this framework in studies of the con
(National Science Board, 2008). troversyover genetically modified crops (Marris, 2001; Marris
The NSF findings that show an almost unrivaled level of pub et al., 2001). These common-sense heuristics fit closely with
lic trust, respect, and admiration for science and scientists are the conclusions from research re
quantitative public opinion
also reflected in a 2009 survey by the Pew Research Center for viewed earlier. Specifically, lay publics are likely to apply the
People & thePress. According to this survey, 84% ofAmericans following criteria in reaching judgments:
agree that science is having a mostly positive effect on society
with this strong agreement relatively consistent across every ma Does scientific knowledge work? Do public predictions by
jor demographic, political, and religious segment, including 74% scientists fail or prove to be true?
of respondents who scored in the lower thirdon quiz-like ques Do scientists pay attention to other available knowledge when
tions measuring science knowledge. When asked to evaluate making claims? For example, in theChernobyl case, scientists
various professions, roughly 70% of Americans answer that sci did not consult with farmers on how to best monitor grazing
entists "contribute a lot" to society compared to 38% for journal habits and take samples from the sheep, leading farmers to di
ists, 23% for lawyers, 40% for clergy, and 21% for business rectly witness the messiness of scientists' sampling methods.
executives. Only members of themilitary (84%) and teachers Are scientists open to criticism? Are theywilling to admit
(77%) ratehigher inpublic admiration and esteem. Finally, more errors and oversights?
Americans rate advances related to science, medicine, and tech What are the social and institutionalaffiliations of scientists?
nology (27%) as the country's greatest achievement over thepast In other words, do they have a historical track record of trust
50 years than any other topic, including advances related to civil worthiness? Similarly, do they have perceived conflicts of
and equal rights (17%) and advances specific towar and peace interest relative to their associations with industry, govern
(7%) (Pew Research Center for thePeople & thePress, 2009a). ment, universities, or
advocacy groups?
As we will discuss in subsequent sections, a "miserly" public What other issues overlap
or connect to a publics' immediate
relies heavily
on their trust in science and scientists as a domi
perception of the scientific issue? In theChernobyl case, a lo
nant heuristic in reaching judgments about policy matters. Only cal nuclear reactor fire in 1957 preshaped suspicions of gov
on a few issues, where societal leaders effectively redefine an ernment advice and warnings. In the later case of genetically
area of science as in conflict with something else the public modified food, both Chernobyl andmad cow disease served as
recent events that undermined public trust in government of governance. In this case, respectful can serve as
disagreement
claims about risk. a resource for identifying these alternatives. On nanotechnol
Specific to risks, have potential long-term and irreversible ogy, for example, Irwin suggests that public consultation pro
consequences of science been seriously evaluated and by
cesses inEurope are elevating thepossibility of local autonomy
whom? And do regulatory authorities have sufficientpowers on how nanotechnology is regulated, shiftingdebate away from
to and who traditional national, or for regulation.
effectively regulate organizations companies European, global regimes
wish to develop the science? Who will be held responsible in
cases of unforeseen harm? and unfortunate limita
Framing public engagement?An
tion to public dialogue initiatives is their small scale and scope.
In 2000, drawing upon this emerging body of work, a UK Unless intensive resources are spent on
recruiting
a diverse set
House of Lords
report urged science institutions to move be of participants, themost likely individuals to turnout are those
yond just a one-way transmission model of science communi already opinion intense, well informed, and emotionally
com
cation toward a new focus on deliberative contexts where a mitted to an issue (Merkle, 1996; Goidel and Nisbet, 2006).
variety of stakeholders could participate in a dialogue and ex Certainly, if a goal of public engagement is to promote mutual
change of views about science policy. Over the past decade, in understanding between scientists, policymakers, and the public,
the UK, Europe, and Canada there has been a wave of consen then consulting with thosemembers of the public who are the
sus conferences, deliberative forums, and town meetings on a most directly affected, attentive, and active should be a priority
number of issues. In these initiatives, recruited lay partici (Wynne, 2006). Yet, in combination with these public consulta
pants receive background materials in advance, provide input tion efforts, scientists and their organizations must also learn to
on the types of questions they would like addressed at the focus on
framing their messages in ways that activate participa
and then direct on recommendations tion from wider, more diverse and otherwise inattentive
meeting, provide input pub
about what should be done in terms of policy. Each initiative, lics, while discovering new media platforms for reaching these
varies are
however, by how participants asked for feedback, nontraditional audiences.
how much their feedback matters, and exactly when in a conceptual
As term, "frames" are
interpretative storylines
the development of a scientific debate consultation occurs that communicate what is at stake in a societal debate and why
(Einsiedel, 2008). the issuematters (Gamson andModigliani, 1989). At a theoreti

Through these initiatives, studies find that participants not cal and descriptive level, framing research offers a rich expla
only learn directly about the technical aspects of the science nation for how various actors in society define science-related
involved, but perhaps
more
importantly, they also learn about issues in politically strategicways, how journalists from vari
the social, ethical, and economic implications of the scientific ous beats selectively cover these issues, and how diverse pub
topic. Participants also feel more confident and efficacious lics differentiallyperceive, understand, and participate in these
about their ability to participate in science decisions, perceive debates (Pan and Kosicki, 1993; Scheufele, 1999; Nisbet
relevant institutions as more
responsive to their concerns, and 2009b). For each group, frames help simplify complex issues
say that they are motivated to become active on the issue if by lending greater weight to certain considerations and argu
provided a future opportunity to do so (Besley et al., 2008; ments over others, translating why an issue might be a problem,
Powell and Kleinman, 2008). Many of these factors, of course, who or what might be responsible, and what should be done
may be the cause rather than the outcome of people's (Ferr?e et al., 2002). In this manner, frames common
participa provide
tion inpublic forums (McLeod et al., 1999). Nonetheless, delib points of reference and meaning between scientists, the media,
erative forums, if carefully organized, can
shape perceptions of and key publics (Hellsten and Nerlich, 2008).
scientists as open to feedback and respectful of public concerns, At a psychological level, a message frame is only effective
perceptions that predict eventual acceptance and satisfaction if it is relevant?or a inter
"applicable"?to specific, existing
with a policy outcome, even if the decision is contrary to an pretive schema acquired through socialization processes or
individual's original preference (Besley and McComas, 2005; other types of social learning. Successful framing suggests a
Borchelt and Hudson, 2008). linkage between two concepts or
things, such that after expo
These public consultation initiatives can also be conceived of sure to a message, audiences now accept that they are connected
as mechanisms that "democratize" science. and Tewksbury, For example, as we will re
governing Impor (Scheufele 2007).
tantly,
Wynne (2006) and others argue thatpublic consultation view on climate change, by emphasizing the religious andmoral
should not occur only at the late stage when a product such as dimensions of the issue, E. O. Wilson and other scientists have
genetically modified food or nanotechnology has been intro convinced many religious leaders that environmental sustain
duced into the market. Instead, engagement needs to move "up ability is directly applicable to questions of faith.Or as we will
stream" to when science or is in its formative discuss on when draw
technology stage, nanotechnology, opponents comparisons
so that a diversity of stakeholders and concerned citizens can to asbestos, they activate public interpretations of failed gov
have a more say in matters of ownership, ernment and unknown risks.
meaningful regula oversight
tion, uses, applications, benefits, and risks. If the public is not At a
sociological level, tomake sense of political issues, citi
allowed early and meaningful participation in decision-making, zens use as resources the frames available in media coverage,
critics argue that these engagement exercises become just an but integrate these packages with the frames forged by way of
other form of deficit-model public relations and outreach personal experience
or conversations with others. Media frames
(Wynne, 2006; Borchelt, 2008). might help set the termsof thedebate among citizens, but rarely,
Similarly, Irwin (2008) concludes thatnot only should public if ever, do they exclusively determine public opinion. Instead,
engagement occur and decisions, but that these ini as part of a "frame contest," one
early impact interpretative package might
tiatives should focus beyond just building consensus around an gain influence because it resonates with popular culture or a
existing set of policy options. Instead, these forums should be series of events, fits with media routines or
practices, and/or is
mechanisms for expressing, identifying,and rethinkingmodes heavily sponsored by elites (Gamson, 1992; Price et al., 2005).
As Wynne (1992) has argued, many members of the public conversation about an issue. Framing should be used to design
hold their own applicable lay knowledge about a science-re communication contexts that promote dialogue, learning, and
lated debate that is based on culture, or social connections and that allow citizens to recognize points of
personal experience,
conventional wisdom. Moreover, just as in politics generally, in agreement while also understanding the roots of dissent.
combination with media coverage, these lay theories enable Previous studies describe a deductive typology of frames that
to reason and talk about a
complex science debate in appear to reoccur across science-related policy debates. Origi
people
their own familiar terms and to participate in consultation exer
nally identifiedby the sociologists William Gamson and Andre
cises such as deliberative forums (Pan and Kosicki, 2005. In other Modigliani (1989) in an examination of nuclear energy, the ty
words, motivated citizens?when given the opportunity?can pology was furtherdeveloped in studies of food and medical
actively participate in a "bottom-up" framing of issues. Social biotechnology in Europe and the United States (Dahinden,
movements, for example, have historically used frames to mo 2002; Durant et al., 1998; Nisbet and Lewenstein, 2002). In
bilize members and connect groups into advocacy coalitions. Table 1,we outline this generalizable typology, describing the
Consensus conferences, deliberative forums, and town meet latent meanings of each interpretation. These frames consis
ings are a formal mechanism for cultivating this bottom-up tentlyappear in science policy debates, though as we will later
framing process. These initiatives can lend voice and influence see, unique issue-specific frames can also emerge. The latent
to stakeholder-sponsored frames thatmight otherwise be absent meaning of any frame is often translated instantaneously by
or political on as meta
from regulatory decisions science. specific types of frame devices such catchphrases,
new forms of user-centered and user-controlled sound bites, graphics, and allusions to history, culture,
Through phors,
digital media such as blogs, online video, and social media and/or literature (Ferr?e et al., 2002).
sites, bottom-up alternative frames may be gaining greater in In the rest of this section, we briefly explain how framing
fluence in the discursive contest that surround issues such as to the communication of debates over climate
applies dynamics
climate change or biotechnology. Creating, structuring, and change, evolution, plant biotechnology, and nanotechnology.
sponsoring these new forms of participatory media may be an (With the reader inmind, throughout this section and others,
importantmechanism forwhat Wynne (2006) urges is theneed references to frames are italicized, and frame devices are in
to "democratize" the science communication process. We will quotes.)
return to this trend later in the essay.
Climate change?By the end of 2007, conventional wisdom
Ethics, outcomes, and generalizable meanings?Framing is had pegged the year as a major breakthrough formobilizing the
an unavoidable of the science communication process. on climate As evidence, advocates to the
reality public change. pointed
Indeed, it is a mistake to believe that there can be "unframed" Nobel peace prize shared byAI Gore and by the scientistswork
information. Whether writing
a grant proposal, authoring a ing on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
journal article, or
providing expert testimony, scientists often Yet various poll analyses reveal that a deep partisan divide re
emphasize certain technical details over others,with thegoal of mains on the topic, with a majority of Republicans continuing
maximizing persuasion and understanding across contexts (Hil to dispute the validity of the science and theurgency of themat
gartner, 1991). Moreover, press officers and science reporters ter (Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, 2008a;
routinely negotiate story angles that favor particular themes and McRight and Dunlap, 2008). Even among Democrats and Inde
narratives or, at the expense of context, define news narrowly pendents, the issue still rates as a second or third tierpolitical
around a single scientific study (Nelkin, 1995). priority (Pew Research Center for the People & the Press,
When a science subject shifts from its traditional home at 2009b).
science pages to other media beats, new audiences are reached, What explains then thedifference between theobjective real
new
interpretations emerge, and new voices gain standing in ityof climate change and the policy gridlock created by itsper
coverage. These rival voices strategically frame issues around ceived subjective conditions? The answer is that the issue has
dimensions that feed on the biases of journalists, commenta historically been framed inways that reinforces partisan divi
tors,and their respective audiences (Nisbet et al., 2003; Nisbet sions while undermining widespread public concern. During
and Huge, 2006). If scientists do not adapt to the rules of an the late 1990s, the climate-skeptic message strategy was in part
increasingly fragmented media system, shifting from frames devised by Republican pollster Frank Luntz. Based on dial
that traditionallywork at the science beat to new frames thatfit groups and polling, Luntz recommended that the issue be
at othermedia outlets and with wider audiences, then they risk framed by skeptics narrowly in terms of scientific uncertainty
their important role as communicators. and the "unfair economic burden" to the U. S. This strategy was
ceding
As we review in the subsequent case studies, effective fram effectively implemented by conservative think tanks and mem
ing
can result in a range of outcomes. Science organizations
can bers of Congress to defeat adoption of the Kyoto treaty and
use
framing tomotivate greater interest and concern thereby
ex other major policy proposals (McCright and Dunlap, 2003).
panding the audience for science, to go beyond polarized and The strategy also led to further distortions in news coverage, as
gridlocked interpretationsof an issue and provide a context for journalists applied a preferred conflict frame, falsely balancing
dialogue, or to nudge public support toward policies informed competing claims (Boykoff and Boykoff, 2004).
by science and that solve collective problems (Nisbet, 2009b). AI Gore, many environmentalists, and even some scientists
In these cases, framing can be used ethically by prioritizing dia have attempted to counter the uncertainty and economic devel
logue and bottom-up citizen expression, by avoiding false spin opment frames with their own Pandora's box emphasis
on a
or hype and remaining true to what is conventionally known looming "climate crisis." To instantly translate their preferred
about a scientific topic, and by avoiding thedenigration of social interpretation, these advocates have relied on depictions of spe
groups and the advancement of partisan causes (Nisbet, 2009c). cific climate impacts including hurricane devastation, melting
Framing should not be seen as a strategyfor "selling" thepublic polar ice, and the threat to polar bears. Yet this line of commu
on science, but rather as a means for constructively shifting the nication plays directly into the hands of climate skeptics, who
Table 1. A typology of frames applicable to science-related policy debates.
of science-related
Definition issue
Social progress Improving quality of life, or solution to problems. Alternative interpretation as harmony with
nature instead of mastery, "sustainability"
Economic development/competitiveness Economic investment, market benefits or risks; local, national, or global competitiveness
Morality/ethics In terms of right or wrong; respecting or crossing limits, thresholds, or boundaries
Scientific/technical uncertainty A matter of expert understanding; what is known vs. unknown; either invokes or undermines
expert consensus, calls on the authority of "sound science," falsifiability, or peer-review
Pandora's box/Frankenstein's monster/runaway science Call for precaution in face of possible impacts or catastrophe. Out-of-control, a
Frankenstein's monster, or as fatalism, i.e., action is futile, path is chosen, no turning back
Public accountability/governance Research in the public good or serving private interests; a matter of ownership, control,
and/or patenting of research, or responsible use or abuse of science in decision-making,
"politicization"
Middle way/alternative path Around finding a possible compromise position, or a thirdway between conflicting/polarized
views or options
As a game among elites; who's ahead or behind inwinning debate; battle of personalities; or
Conflict/strategy
groups; (usually journalist-driven interpretation.)
accuse Gore of liberal "alarmism," putting the issue quickly religious morality and ethics, engaging evangelical audiences
back into themental box of scientific uncertainty and partisan who might not otherwise pay attention to appeals on climate
ship (see Nisbet, 2009a, for overview). change. Al Gore's more recent We campaign also employs
a
Another strategy to dramatize the importance of climate heavy emphasis
on the morality/ethic s frame,
replacing the In
change has focused on public accountability dimensions. Dem convenient Truth storyline of looming disaster with a secular
ocrats and some scientists accused the George W. Bush admin call to arms forAmericans to unify behind the battle against
istrationof putting politics ahead of science and expertise on a existential threat to the country. Advertisements, for example,
number of issues, including climate change. In 2005, journalist compare the need for action on global warming to the Civil
Chris Mooney's best-selling The Republican War on Science Rights movement andWorld War II (Nisbet, 2009a).
helped crystallize the public accountability train of thought, Finally, a unique public health frame is a promising new in
turning the "war on science" into a
partisan rallying cry. In novation in climate change communication. The public health
2007, Hillary Clinton, in a speech marking the 50th anniversary frame emphasizes the potential of climate change to increase
of Sputnik, promised to end the "war on science" inAmerican the incidence of infectious diseases, heat stroke, and other fa
politics, highlighting theprominence of this frame device. In his miliar health problems, especially among the elderly, children,
transition and inauguration speeches, President Barack Obama or low income groups. The public health frame also shifts the
similarly invoked thepublic accountability frame promising "to visualization of the issue away from remote arctic regions, peo
restore science to its rightfulplace." The public accountability ples, and animals to more socially proximate neighbors and
frame has mobilized many ideologically like-minded Demo places. In the process, the issue begins to cut across media
crats and scientists, yet continued "war on science" claims are zones, coverage at local news and urban media out
triggering
only likely to furtheralienate Republicans on climate change, lets (Maibach et al., 2008).
the very group that scientists need to engage.
Not every citizen cares about the environment or the
politici Evolution?In January 2008, the National Academies and
zation of science, yet as
just reviewed, among environmental the InstituteofMedicine jointly issued a revised edition of Sci
advocates and scientists, these mental of reference con ence, Evolution, and Creationism, a report framed
points intentionally
tinues to be the dominant emphasis. To generate widespread in a manner that would engage more effectively audiences who
support for meaningful action, we need new per remain uncertain about evolution and its place in the public
public policy
contexts, mental boxes that resonate with a school curriculum. The Academies commissioned focus groups
ceptual something
intended audience values or understands. and a national survey to gauge the extent of lay citizens' under
specific already
In one leading example, various advocates have turned the standing of the processes, nature, and limits of science. They
traditional economic development frame in favor of action on also specifically wanted to test various frames that explained
climate action not as an "unfair economic alternatives to evolution were for science
change, redefining why inappropriate
burden," but as an economic opportunity (Nordhaus and Schel class (Labov and Pope, 2008).
lenberger, 2007). This frame, instantly communicated through The committee had expected that a convincing storyline for
the sound bite of "creating green jobs,"
was a
major emphasis thepublic would be a public accountability frame, emphasizing
by both candidates in thepresidential election and is a dominant past legal decisions and separation of church and state.Yet the
focus of the Obama administration. data revealed thataudiences were not persuaded by this framing
A second example is offered by scientists such as E. O. Wil of the issue. Instead, the research pointed to the effectiveness of
son (2006) who frame environmental stewardship in terms of a social progress frame that specifically defined evolutionary
October Nisbet and Scheufele?What's next for science communication? 1773
2009]
science as themodem building block for advances inmedicine views, including feelings of anti-Americanism (and therebyop
and agriculture. The research also underscored the effective position toU. S. biotech products) and a cultural sense thatfood
ness of a middle-way/compromise a message that em has an intrinsic value that should remain beyond the reach of
frame,
phasized the National Academies and other major science science and corporations.
that acceptance of evolu
organizations' longstanding position
tion and religious faith can be fully compatible. Taking careful Nanotechnology?One of the most recent examples of fram
note of this feedback, theNational Academies decided to struc ing efforts surrounding emerging science is nanotechnology.
ture and then publicize the final version of the report around As part of the increasingly heated debates over the potential
these core frames (Nisbet, 2009b). toxic qualities of some nanomaterials, think tanks and nongov
For theNational Academies, political conflicts over evolu ernment organizations are beginning to offer oppositional
a lesson learned as to the importance of connect frames. The most are the messages that portray nan
tion have been prominent
ingwith diverse audiences and in understanding the central role otechnology as "the asbestos of tomorrow" (Scheufele, 2006).
that religious identity likely plays in how the public comes to As a frame device, this analogy is particularly powerful because
understand science. Yet what continues to be the loudest voice it activates two shared sch?mas in people's minds.
culturally
of science on thematter takes a decidedly different interpreta First, the comparison triggers a public accountability link to a
tion. Several authors and pundits, led by the biologist Richard past, well-known health controversy, specifically the absence
Dawkins (2006), argue that the implications of evolutionary of regulatory oversight of asbestos. Second, thephrase instantly
science undermine not only the validity of religion but also re translates the notion that emerging nanotechnologies may open
for all faith. Dawkins, for example, as a a Pandora's box of effects that will be unknown for
spect religious argues long-term
scientist thatreligion is comparable to a mental virus thatcan be years to come.
explained through evolution, that religious education is a form have been sensitive to these
European corporations extremely
of child abuse, that religious believers are delusional, and that framing effortsand have engaged invery successful preemptive
in contrast, atheists are of a healthy, These initiatives are characterized a consistent
representative proscience campaigning. by
mind. In making these claims, not only does Dawkins use his framing of new
product releases and other marketing materials
authority as the formerOxford University Professor of thePub around a "nano is nature" theme. This frame device activates a
licUnderstanding of Science to denigrate various social groups, social progress interpretation of nanotechnology as a process
but he gives resonance to the false narrative of social conserva that is in harmony with nature, existing for thousands of years.
tives that the scientificestablishment has an antireligion agenda. European firmshave also expanded these effortsbeyond current
His claims also help fuel the conflict frame in the news media, market applications, launching preemptive campaigns to brand
generating journalistic frame devices that emphasize God vs. entire industries. The Chemie-Wirtschaftsf?rderungs-Gesell
or science vs. The available heuristic schaft, a German for instance, has rolled out a
science, religion. readily industry group,
for the wider is that science?exactly as critics of evolu broad online and an alternative
public print campaign featuring appli
tion claim?is in fact a threat to theirreligious identity (Nisbet, cation of the social progress frame, Chemie macht Zukunft
2009b, c). [chemistrymakes future]. The campaign highlights future ap
plications of nanotechnology and theirpotential to improve en
Plant biotechnology?Framing also helps to explain why vironmental and economic conditions.
some scientific innovations are widely accepted in theUnited
States, butmight be opposed in other parts of theworld. Take, Directions forward?These
cases demonstrate the need for a
for example, While a small number of en more scientific to science communication, i.e., one
plant biotechnology. approach
vironmental and consumer activists are strongly opposed to the that is less exclusively driven by intuition,personal experience,
survey studies show that the wider American or traditional ways of "doing communication," and more an
technology, pub by
lic continues to be relatively unaware of the issue, yet generally empirical understanding of how modern societies make sense
supportive when asked their opinion (Fink and Rodemeyer, of and participate in debates over science and emerging tech
2007). In part, public support remains high because unlike cli nologies. In this section, we detail several recommendations for
mate or evolution, at the policy level, there has new directions in public communication, forward derived
change always paths
been very strong bipartisan support for plant biotechnology from the research and principles reviewed.
(Brossard and Nisbet, 2007).

As a consequence, the image of the issue for thewider public Graduate training and new interdisciplinary degree pro
remains framed in social progress terms, focus grams?College and doctoral students majoring in the sciences
predominantly
ing on more nutritious and hardier crops for the developing should be offered courses and training in communication. These
world, and in terms of economic with an em courses introduce young scientists to much of the research re
competitiveness,
on American abroad viewed in this essay, on the relationships between sci
phasis promoting agricultural products focusing
(Nisbet and Huge, 2006). More recently,biotechnology compa ence, the media, and society, providing valuable professional
nies have paired this social progress emphasis with a middle know-how and skills. There is also the demand for new inter
way frame, defining drought and pest resistant crops relative to disciplinary degree programs that combine course work in com
climate and munication, the sciences, or law, and other
change mitigation adaptation strategies. policy sociology,
The U. S. situation contrasts sharply with several European fields. Scientists with communication training and graduates of
countries, where surveys show strong public opposition. These these new interdisciplinary programs are likely to find jobs in
negative perceptions derive partly from the effortsof advocacy the news media, the high-tech industries, the government sec
groups to frame plant biotechnology

as a Pandora's box of un tor, or at research institutions, public affairs strategy firms, and
known risks and as a matter of public with an These new courses and programs
accountability, not-for-profits. graduate
emphasis on the undue influence of "big biotech." Apart from would be the pedagogical equivalent of the on-the-job training
partisan cues, the technology also triggers stronglyheld world that the successful AAAS policy fellows program provides
Ph.D. scientists or that theAldo Leopold fellows program of Effective public communication "is not a guessing game, it
fers midcareer scientists. is a science" (Scheufele, 2007, p. 48)?which means it is
Some critics of our have that scientists based on data. Public research allows us to get a very
proposals argued opinion
should stick to research and let media relations officers and sci accurate over
time of what different groups in
picture exactly
ence writers worry about the of that want to know about climate evolution, bio
translating implications society change,
research (Holland et al., 2007). They are right: In an ideal world technology,
or
nanotechnology, about potential implications
that's what should Yet in reality, scientists will for their lives, about what their concerns are, and to
exactly happen. daily
be the key individuals who will give interviews, testifybefore whom they look for answers (Scheufele, et al., 2007). Relying
or address local forums. In addition, as on research to understand and communicate effec
Congress, community systematic
senior decision-makers, many scientists are
ultimately respon tively with different publics is therefore critical to under
sible for setting communication policy at scientific institutions, standing how the public thinks about new technologies, what
agencies, and organizations. These leaders need to understand theyknow, and what informational channels reach themmost
how research can and should inform public communication on
effectively.
all issues. Quality research, of course, is expensive. Recent calls for the
National Science Foundation to fundmore direct research on
Public dialogue thatmatters?As reviewed, public dialogue science communication are welcome developments
as is the
initiatives have many positive
uses but also several limitations. leadership role played by theNational Academies in commis
To enhance public significant resources need to audience research on evolution. the National
participation, sioning Similarly,
be spent on
sampling, recruitment, and turnout. Multiple meet
Academy of Engineering recently issued recommendations for
ings should also be held across dates and locations. In this case, recruiting women and minorities into careers in science and en
success is a function of money and careful planning. Another gineering, relying on empirical audience research and principles
strategy to boost public interest in these types ofmeetings is to of strategic communication (Committee on Public Understand
pair expert testimony and deliberation with the viewing of a ing of Engineering Messages, 2008; the second author of this
or series of short films. These "deliberative article served on this committee).
documentary
can not only increase turn out, but also
screenings" public help
frame discussion and thinking inways thatmight bridge polar Connecting to public values?Effective communication will
ized views. They also provide an additional outlet and repur necessitate connecting a scientific topic to something thepublic
posing formany National Science Foundation-funded films and already values or
prioritizes, conveying personal relevance.
media productions. And inpeople's minds, these links are critical formaking sense
The scope and impact of public dialogue initiatives can also of scientific information.A number of recent studies examine
be expanded by generating local and national news attention to how values shape the interpretationof scientific information.
the event. Not only does this news attention reach a
larger audi Findings on religiosity, for instance, show thatexactly the same
ence with a message that scientists are open to public input,but information can translate into very different attitudinal conclu
coverage is likely to reflect the types of frames that themeet sions for highly religious respondents than for nonreligious
ings were organized around. For example, a recent
study found ones (Nisbet, 2005; Nisbet and Nisbet, 2005; Nisbet and Goi
that a public consultation exercise on
nanotechnology gener del, 2007; Ho et al., 2008; Brossard et al., 2009). In otherwords,
ated discussion thatwas framedmostly in social progress terms, we may be
wasting valuable time and resources
by focusing our
accenting thebenefits to society (Besley et al., 2008). efforts on putting more and more information in front of an
A commitment to early consultation and to a genuine role for unaware public, without firstdeveloping a better understanding
participants' recommendations can
only come with the realiza of how differentgroups will filteror reinterpretthis information
tion that sometimes a competent, informed,and engaged public when it reaches them, given their personal value systems and
might reach collective decisions thatgo against the self-interest beliefs. Recent research also suggests that these value-based
of scientists. For example, at a recent public consultation exer filtersmay in fact differacross differentcultures or national set
cise on
nanotechnology, though the recommendations were not tings (Scheufele et al, 2009).
as one of the outcomes was that several recruited
binding policy,
participants decided to subsequently form theirown local advo "Going broad': Beyond elite audiences?As mentioned ear
cacy group tomonitor thedevelopment of nanotechnology in the lier, some critics argue that itwould be unethical to take advan
area (Powell and Kleinman, 2008). tage of strategic communication tools to make scientific issues
more relevant and accessible to a general But recent
public.
Data should trump intuition?Efforts to use the media and data on potentially widening knowledge gaps suggests that it
communication campaigns to engage the public on science need may be unethical ifwe did not use all communication tools at
to adapt to the realities of information environment. our disposal to connect with hard-to-reach audiences (Scheufele
today's
Many approaches to science communication and outreach still and Brossard, 2008).
on traditional channels, such as science television traditional to public communication about
rely heavily Many approaches
or newspapers. Recent survey data, however, that we science, for instance, have favored elite audi
suggest inadvertently
are seeing significant shifts from television (which is still the ences. In fact, some previous attempts to connect across diverse
primary source of information for three quarters of respondents sections of the public have resulted inwidening gaps between
65 years or older) to online sources (which are the preferred the already information rich and the information poor, partly
media formore than half of those under 24) (Pew Research from the likelihood of exposure. Almost 40% of college-edu
Center for thePeople & thePress, 2008b). The same data also cated respondents, for instance, visited a science or
technology
show that interest in science-related issues is highest among re museum in 2006, compared to less than 10% for respondents
spondents who relied mainly on new information technologies with a high school education or less (National Science Board,
for news, as to traditional mass media channels. 2008).
opposed
As a result, museum exhibits, science Web sites, traditional havior to environmental

related or energy use, the
sustainability
science documentaries, and similar outreach efforts may inher favorableframing of controversial issues such as the teaching
ently favor elite audiences. Widening gaps between the infor of evolution in schools, or even a spike in news or policy atten
mation rich and information poor are also a function of the way tion to a scientific topic such as climate change. Web platforms
issues like nanotechnology and biotechnology play out in pub such as theAngels & Demons site facilitate incidental exposure
lic discourse. In theirresearch on knowledge gaps, Phil Tichenor to science among individuals using search engines to findmore
and his colleagues (1970) found thataudiences with high socio informationabout the film.
economic status (SES) showed much stronger learning effects Other important media outlets for expanding audience reach
from health related information than did low-SES audiences. include comedy news programs such as The Daily Show and The
This effect is in part due to the fact that television shows like Colbert Report. Studies have documented the ability of these
NOVA or the Science section of theNew York Times tailor their programs to engage younger, harder to reach audiences about po
content to highly educated audiences. As a result,
learning ef litical candidates and election campaigns, shaping theirpolitical
fects for mass audiences are minimal, even if these audiences attitudes and levels of political knowledge (Feldman, 2007; Feld
happen to tune in toNOVA or read an article in theNew York man and Goldthwaite-Young, 2008). On science, a recent
analy
Times. sis by thePew Project on Excellence in Journalism (2008c) found
What are needed then are media
strategies for "going broad" thatThe Daily Show includes comparatively more attention to
with science-related content,
generating attention and interest science and technology topics than does the mainstream press
among non-elite audiences. for example, show that lo and more attention to climate These pro
Surveys, significantly change.
cal television news remains among the dominant sources of grams also generate buzz online with heavily traffickedand for
public affairs-related informationfor theAmerican public (Pew warded clips
on hot-button science topics such as evolution,
Internet and American Life Project, 2006). Therefore, to reach genetics, climate change,
or stem cell research. Additionally,
nontraditional audiences, scientists and their organizations need both shows frequently feature scientists and science authors such
to be on local television news. To do so, major national com as Neil deGrasse and Brian Greene as interview
Tyson guests.
munication efforts should be closely coordinated across local Given that satire and comedie news are
increasingly pre
media markets, with scientists, institutions, or ferred media formats for younger audiences, more research is
specific organi
zations serving
as the local angle and spokespeople. An alterna needed on the potential for using this style of humor as a tool
tive model is the example of Climate Central, a nonprofit for public engagement on science. Little is known, for example,
partnership between journalists and scientistswho produce cli about the comparative effects of science information communi
mate science stories for syndication at local television outlets cated in satirical form compared with the same information
across theUnited States (Brainard, 2008). communicated in traditional science media. Greater under
New documentary genres and storytelling techniques are standing in this area would informnot just media strategy but
also an importantmechanism for going broad. Surveys in the also the incorporation of humor and satire into the production
United States show thatprogramming at theDiscovery Chan of documentary film, Web, and museum content.
nel,National Geographic, and Learning Channel constitutes the

largest and most diverse audience for science-related content. "Going deep": Participatory, localized media?Initiatives of
More than 40% of respondents across educational levels, gen a differentkind should focus on building a "participatory" pub
der, age, religious background, and ideological orientation say lic media infrastructure for science and environmental informa
that they "regularly" view these channels. In comparison, 10% tion. As reviewed earlier, in a world of many media choices, on
or less of
respondents across these groups regularly watch PBS most topics,members of thepublic are using theWeb to sample
NOVA or subscribe toScientificAmerican, Discover, Nature, or and sometimes accidentally bump into science-related content.
Science (Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2006). Spe Yet for motivated users, when an issue becomes personally
or
cific to the environment, the box office success and media visi relevant, are In coming
politically they "deep diving." years,
bility in theUnited States for the 2009 major motion picture this tendency will be especially the case at the local level, as
release of Earth, a theatrical version of a series that originally citizens face an increasing need for high quality community
aired on theBBC and Discovery Channel, is furtherevidence of related information on
adapting to climate change or managing
the wider appeal of these new documentary genres. the localized implications of emerging technologies such as
A recent National Academies of Science and Institute of nanotechnology. Yet despite
a
growing need for localized in
Medicine (2008) project thatpairs scientists as consultants on formation about science and the environment, given the state of
motion and television is also a in the severe to the news local news
major pictures series step economic distress industry, most
direction of going broad and reaching new audiences. In similar papers cut meaningful
have coverage in the area. As a result,
fashion, an initiative led by physicists used the 2009 major mo many communities lack the type of relevant news and informa
tion picture release of Angels & Demons as a way to capitalize tion that is needed to adapt to environmental or to
challenges
on the summer blockbuster's focus on accelerators and reach collective choices about issues such as
particle nanotechnology
antimatter.The project organized local lectures in 45 locations and biom?dical research.
across the United States and Canada and launched an educa As a way to address these local-level information gaps, gov
tional Web site Angels & Demons: The Science Revealed ernment agencies and private foundations should fund public
(see website television and radio as science infor
http://www.uslhc.us/Angels_Demons/index.html). organizations community
Long used as a strategyfor engaging thepublic on public health mation hubs. These initiativeswould partnerwith universities,
issues (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2004; Montgomery, 2007), museums, public libraries, and other local media outlets to share
active involvement with Hollywood in the construction ofmes digital content that is interactive and user-focused. The digital
sages about science can lead to a range of outcomes can feature shared
including portals in-depth reporting, blogs, podcasts,
informal enhanced interest and attention to science in video, news user recommendations, news games,
learning, aggregation,
news coverage and other media, the modeling of positive be social and commenting. Museums, libraries,
networking, public
and universities can also be real world contexts where citizens marketing. Yet despite the widespread targeting of opinion
can contribute content and meet face-to-face to discuss, leaders in these other fields, science have tradi
digital organizations
deliberate, and plan. tionally overlooked this importantdimension of public engage
These new models for nonprofit science media are an
integral ment (Nisbet and Kotcher, 2009).
part of the infrastructurethat local communities need to adapt Several validated measurement techniques exist for identify
to climate change, to move forward with sustainable economic ing individuals with opinion-leader-like qualities in surveys
development, and to in the governance of nanotech and questionnaires (for an overview, see Scheufele and Shah,
participate
nology, biotechnology, and other areas of science. A commu 2000). Once recruited and trained, audience-tested messages,
a source such as those developed on evolu
nity without quality of science information?packaged by the National Academies
in a way that is accessible and relevant to most members of that tion, can be matched to an opinion leader's socialbackground
community?is ill prepared to make careful decisions about and network.Moreover, when in communication and
"surges"
costs, risks, benefits, and ethics. attention are needed, such as surrounding the release of
public
a future IPCC report or a major state legislative vote on evolu
Science media curriculum?To
literacy motivate and pre tion, opinion leaders can be activated with talking points to
pare citizens to use
digital media to learn about science, share share in conversations with friends and coworkers, in emails, in
information, express their views, and coordinate activities, blog posts, or lettersto the editor (see Nisbet and Kotcher, 2009,
science organizations should partner with universities, social for an overview).
scientists, and journalists to develop "civic science media lit
eracy" curricula. These modules can be formally incorporated Conclusion?We live in an era where most policy debates
intouniversity, junior college, and high school science courses relevant to science and emerging technologies are not
simply
across the country. The modules?as required complements technical issues. Rather, they are collectively decided at the in
to textbook and laboratory content?would introduce students tersection of values, and Under
politics, expert knowledge.
to quality online news sources about science, teach students these conditions, sophisticated public outreach and engagement
about how to constructively use
participatory tools such as are essential to overcoming perceptual gridlock on climate
blogs and other social media applications, educate students on change, for encouraging acceptance of the of
public teaching
how to critically evaluate evidence and claims as
presented in evolution in schools, formeaningfully involving the public in
the media, introduce students to the relationships between sci societal decisions about and nanotechnol
plant biotechnology
ence and institutions as
they
are often covered in the news, ogy, or for effectively engaging with stakeholders and a wider
and socialize students into enjoying and following science by public
on almost any issue.
way of digital media after they complete their formal science Yet public communication and engagement should not be
coursework. In short, this type of media literacy curriculum conceived of as simply a way to "sell" the public on the impor
would not only potentially grow the audience for science me tance of science or to persuade the public to view scientific de
dia, but also impart the skills,motivation, and know-how that bates as scientists and their allies do. To apply sophisticated
students need to be participatory citizens in the online and real approaches such as
framing
or deliberative forums to achieve
worlds. these ends falls back into the trapof deficitmodel thinking and
undermines longer term efforts at building trust,relationships,
Opinion leader campaigns that bridge audience gaps? and participation across of the public.
segments
With so much focus on media strategy and education, it is
Importantly, if the public feels like they are simply being
important not to forget that perhaps themost effective strat marketed to, this perception is likely to only reinforce existing
egy for connecting with difficult to reach audiences is face to polarization and perceptual gridlock. Recently, for example, the
face conversation and other interpersonal channels. In this strategyfirmEcoAmerica used focus groups and polling to de
matter, science organizations need to mobilize
specially velop language intended to "re-brand" the debate over global
trained opinion leaders who can bridge the communication warming, recommending that the "environment" be referred to
gap between news coverage and inattentive audiences, instead as "the air we breathe, the water our children drink." Or
talking
to their friends, and coworkers about the relevance of that "cap and trade" be relabeled and cash back." While
family, "cap
science-related issues such as climate change
or the EcoAmerica's research is in line with the audience
teaching approach
of evolution in schools. based communication methods we recommend in this essay, by
We know that these science opinion leaders exist and can be conceiving and this research as a and
packaging "re-branding"
recruited. For more than 60 years, researchers have traced the marketing campaign, they inadvertently undermine their own
influence of news and messages in local communi at public
advertising attempts engagement.
ties, identifying a small group of opinion-leading individuals Specifically, anytime public engagement is defined, perceived,
who pay close attention to public affairs and advertising, dis and implemented as a
top-down then public
persuasion campaign,
cuss what they learn from themedia with a diversity of others, trust is put at risk. When was ac
the EcoAmerica strategy memo
and appear to be more in convincing
persuasive others to adopt
cidentally leaked to themedia, theNew York Times ran a front
an
opinion
or course In this
of action.
"two-step flow of infor page story"exposing" the effortsof environmental groups who in
mation," opinion-leaders do not necessarily hold formal posi theheadline were described as "Seeking to Save thePlanet,With a
tions of power or
prestige, but rather serve as the connective Thesaurus" (Broder, 2009). The news reportdrew direct parallels
communication tissue that alerts their peers to what matters toFrank Luntz's research on behalf of climate skeptics described
among political events, social issues, and consumer choices earlier in this essay (see also Nisbet, 2009a). Perhaps worse, the
(Lazarsfeld et al., 1948). Over the past decade, as audiences event was in conservative media outlets as yet another
lampooned
have become more difficult to reach and less trustfulof theme attempt by environmentalists to "manipulate" the public.
dia, this research has informed innovative communication cam In this essay, we reviewed what might be next for science
paigns in the areas of public health, politics, and consumer communication and public engagement. An important paradigm
shift is taking place within the scientific community that in Durant, L, M. W. Bauer, and G. Gaskell. 1998. Biotechnology in
volves a movement from a singular focus on science lit the public sphere: A European sourcebook. Michigan State University
away
USA.
eracy as both the culprit and the solution to conflicts over science
Press, Lansing, Michigan,
Einsiedel, E. 2008. Public engagement and dialogue: A research review.
in society. We believe that our essay provides several important In M. Bucchi and B. Smart [eds.], Handbook of public communica
paths forwardwhile emphasizing that effective public engage tion on science and technology, 173-184. Routledge, London, UK.
ment means conver
figuring out ways to structure and promote
Feldman, L. 2007. The news about comedy. Journalism 8: 406-427.
sations with the public that recognize, respect, and incorporate 2008. Late-night comedy as
Feldman, L., and D. Goldthwaite-Young.
differences in knowledge, values, perspectives, and goals. a gateway to traditional news. Political Communication 25: 401^-22.
Ferr?e, M. M., W. A. Gamson, J. Gerhards, and J. Rucht.
LITERATURECITED 2002.Shaping abortion discourse: Democracy and the public sphere
inGermany and the United States. Cambridge University Press, New
Allum, N., P. Sturgis, D. Tabourazi, and I. Brunton-Smith.
York, New York, USA.
2008. Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-anal
Fink, W., and M. Rodemeyer. 2007. Genetically modified foods: U.S.
ysis. Public Understanding of ScienceM\ 35-54.
public opinion research and polls. In D. Brossard, J. Shanahan, and
Bauer, M. 2008. Survey research and the public understanding of science.
C. Nesbitt [eds.], The public, themedia, and agricultural biotechnology,
In M. Bucchi and B. Trench [eds.], Handbook of public communication
on science and technology, 111-130. Routledge, London, UK.
126-161. CABLOxford University Press, New York, New York, USA.
Gamson, W. A. 1992. Talking politics. New York, NY:Cambridge
Bauer, M., N. Allum, and S. Miller. 2007. What can we learn from
University Press.
25-years of PUS research? Liberating and expanding the agenda.
Gamson, W. A., and A. Modigliani. 1989. Media discourse and pub
Public Understanding of Science 16: 79-95.
lic opinion on nuclear power: a constructionist approach. American
Besley, J. C, V. L. Kramer, Q. Yao, and C. P. Toumey.
Journal of Sociology 95: 1-37.
2008. Interpersonal discussion following citizen engagement on
Goidel, K., and M. C. Nisbet. 2006. Exploring the roots of public par
emerging technology. Science Communication 30: 209-235.
J.C, and K. A. McComas. 2005. the ticipation in the controversy over stem cell research and cloning.
Besley, Framing justice: Using
Political Behavior 28: 175-192.
concept of procedural justice to advance political communication re
Goldston, D. 2008. The Sputnik myth. Nature 456: 561.
search. Communication Theory 15: 414-436.
Guston, D. H., D. Sarewitz, and C. Miller. 2009. Scientists not im
Borchelt, R. 2008. Public relations in science: Managing the trustportfolio.
mune to partisanship. Science 323: 582.
InM. Bucchi and B. Trench [eds.], Handbook of public communication
on science and technology, 147-158. Routledge, London, UK. Hellsten, I., and B. Nerlich. 2008. Genetics and genomics: The poli
tics and ethics of metaphorical framing. In M. Bucchi and B. Trench
Borchelt, R., and K. Hudson. 2008. Engaging the scientific community
[eds.], Handbook of public communication on science and technol
with the public. Science Progress (Spring/Summer): 78-81. Available
at ogy, 93-110. Routledge, London, UK.
http://www.scienceprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/
Hilgartner, S. 1990. The Dominant View of Popularization: Conceptual
print_edition/engaging_scientific_community.pdf.
Boykoff, M., and J. Boykoff. 2004. Bias as balance: Global warm Problems, Political Uses. Social Studies of Science 20: 519-539.
Ho, S. S., D. Brossard, and D. A. Scheufele. 2008. Effects of value
ing and the U.S. prestige press. Global Environmental Change 14:
predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes
125-136.
C. 2008. A one-stop shop for climate information? Columbia toward embryonic stem cell research. International Journal of Public
Brainard,
Journalism Review Opinion Research 20: 171-192.
[online], website http://www.cjr.org/the_observa
Holland, E. A., A. Pleasant, S. Quatrano, R. Gerst, M. C. Nisbet,
tory/climate_central.php?page=all [accessed 23 January 2009].
J.M. 2009. Seeking to save the planet, with a thesaurus. New York and C. Mooney. 2007. Letters: The risks and advantages of framing
Broder,
Times at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/ science. Science 317: 1168b.
(1 May). Available
Irwin, A. 2008. Risk, science and public communication: Third-order
politics/02enviro.html.
Brossard, D., and M. C. Nisbet. 2007. Deference to scientific author thinking about scientific culture. In M. Bucchi and B. Trench [eds.],
Handbook of public communication on science and technology, 111
ity among a low information public: Understanding American views
about agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public 130. Routledge, London, UK.
Opinion Research 19: 24-52. Irwin, A., and B. Wynne. 1996. Introduction. In A. Irwin and B. Wynne
Brossard, D., D. A. Scheufele, E. Kim, and B. V. Lewenstein.2009. [eds.], Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of sci
as a perceptual filter: Examining ence and technology, 1-17.
Religiosity processes of opinion for Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
mation about nanotechnology. Public Understanding 18: UK.
of Science
546-558. Jasanoff, S. 2005. Designs on nature: Science and democracy inEurope
Brumfiel, J. 2009. Supplanting the old media? Nature 458: 274-277. and the United States. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New
Bucchi, M., and B. Trench [eds.]. 2008. Handbook of public communi Jersey, USA.
cation on science and technology. Routledge, London, UK. Kaiser Family Foundation. 2004. Entertainment education in the
Cheng, D., M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J.Metcalfe, B. Schiele, United States. Washington, D.C., USA. Website http://www.
and S. Shi [eds.]. 2008. science in social contexts: kff.org/entmedia/loader.cfm ?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.
Communicating
New models, new practices. Springer, New York, New York, USA. cfm&PageID=34381 [accessed 17 August 2009].
Committee on Public Understanding of Engineering Messages. Labov, J., and B. K. Pope. 2008. Understanding our audiences: The de
2008. Changing the conversation: Messages for improving public un sign and evolution of science, evolution, and creationism. CBE Life
derstanding of engineering. National Academies Press, Washington, Sciences Education 7: 20.
D.C., USA. Lazarsfeld, P. F., B. R. Berelson, andH. Gaudet. 1948. The people's
Dahinden, U. 2002. Biotechnology in Switzerland: Frames in a heated choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign.
debate. Science Communication 24: 184-197. Duell, Sloan & Pierce, New York, New York, USA.
Dawkins, R. 2006. The God delusion. Houghton Mifflin, New York, New Marris, C. 2001. Public views on GMOs: Deconstructing the myths.
York, USA. EMBO Reports 2: 545-548.
Dunlap, R. E., and A. M. McCright. 2008. A widening gap: Marris, C. B. Wynne, P. Simmons, and S. Weldon. 2001. Public atti
Republican and Democratic views on climate change. Environment tudes to agricultural biotechnologies inEurope: Final report of PABE
(Sept./Oct.), website http://www.environmentmagazine.org/Archives/ research project, Centre for the Study of Environmental Change
Back%20Issues/September-October%202008/dunlap-full.html [accessed (CSEC), Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK. Website http.V/csec.
1 September 2008].
lancs.ac.uk/pabe/docs/pabe_finalreport.pdf.
1778 American Journal of Botany
McCright, A. M., and R. E. Dunlap. 2003. Defeating Kyoto: The con edFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/News/Press_Releases/Society_and_the_
servative movement's impact on U.S. climate change policy. Social Internet/PIP_Exploratorium_Science 1106.pdf 15 May
[accessed
Problems 50: 348-373. 2009].
McLeod, J.M., D. A. Scheufele, and P. Moy. 1999. Community, commu Pew Project on Excellence in Journalism. 2008c. Journalism: Satire
nication, and participation: The role of mass media and interpersonal or just laughs? Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C., USA. Website
discussion in local political participation. Political Communication http://www.journalism.org/files/Daily%20Show%20PDF_3.pdf [ac
16:315-336. cessed 5 November 2008].
Merkle, D. M. 1996. The polls?Review?The National Issues Convention Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. 2008a. A deeper
deliberative poll. Public Opinion Quarterly 60: 588-619. partisan divide on global warming. Pew Research Center, Washington,
Michael, D. N. 1960. The beginning of the Space Age and American pub D.C., USA. Website http://people-press.org/report/417/a-deeper-par
lic opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly 24: 573-582. tisan-divide-over-global-warming [accessed 1 September 2008].
Montgomery, K. C. 2007. Generation digital: Politics, commerce, and Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. 2008b. Audience
childhood in the age of the Internet. MIT Press, Boston, Massachusetts, segments in a changing news environment: Key news audiences new
USA. blend online and traditional sources. Pew Research, Washington, D.C.,
National Academies of Science and Institute of Medicine. USA. Website http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/444.pdf [accessed 17
2008. Science, evolution, and creationism. National Academies Press, August 2009].
D.C., USA. Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. 2009a. Public praises
Washington,
National Science Board. 2008. Science and engineering indicators scientists fault public, media. Washington, D.C., USA. Website
science;
2008. National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C., USA. Website http://people-press.org/report/528/ [accessed 17August 2009].
[accessed 21 January 2008]. Pew Research Center for The People & The Press. 2009b. Economy,
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/
Nelkin, D. 1995. Selling science: How the press covers science and tech jobs trump all other policy priorities in 2009. Washington, DC, USA.
nology. Freeman and Co., New York, New York, USA. Website http://people-press.org/report/485/economy-top-policy-prior
Nisbet, M. C. 2005. The competition for worldviews: Values, informa ity [accessed 17 August 2009].
tion, and public support for stem cell research. International Journal Pielke, R. 2007. The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and
of Public Opinion Research 17: 90-112. politics. Cambridge University Press, London, UK.
Nisbet, M. C. 2009a. Communicating climate change: Why frames mat Popkin, S. L. 1991. The reasoning voter. University of Chicago Press,
ter to public engagement. Environment 51: 12-23. Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Nisbet, M. C. 2009b. Framing science: A new paradigm in public en Powell, M., and D. Kleinman. 2008. Building citizen capacities for par
gagement. In L. Kahlor and P. Stout [eds.], Understanding science: ticipation in nanotechnology decision-making. Public Understanding
New agendas in science communication, 40-67. Taylor & Francis, of Science 17: 329-348.
New York, New York, USA. Price, V., L. Nir, and J.N. Capella. 2005. Framing public discussion of
Nisbet, M. C. 2009c. The ethics of framing science. In B. Nerlich, B. Larson, gay civil unions. Public Opinion Quarterly 69: 179-212.
and R. Elliott [eds.], Communicating biological sciences: Ethical and Scheufele, D. A. 1999. Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of
dimensions, 51-73. Ashgate, London, UK. Communication 49: 103-122.
metaphorical
Nisbet, M. C, D. Brossard, and A. Kroepsch. 2003. Framing sci Scheufele, D. A. 2006. Messages and heuristics: How audiences form
ence: The stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. Harvard attitudes about emerging technologies. In J. Turney [ed.], Engaging
International Journal of Press/Politics 8: 36-70. science: Thoughts, deeds, analysis and action, 20-25. Wellcome
Nisbet, M. C, and K. Goidel. 2007. Understanding citizen perceptions of Trust, London, UK.
science controversy: Bridging the ethnographic-survey research divide. Scheufele, D. A. 2007. Nano does not have a marketing problem... yet.
Public Understanding of Science 16: 421-440. Nano Today 2: 48.
Nisbet, M. C, and M. Huge. 2006. Attention cycles and frames in the Scheufele, D. A., and D. Brossard. 2008. Nanotechnology as a moral
plant biotechnology debate: Managing power and participation through issue? Religion and science in the U.S. American Association for the
the press/policy connection. Harvard International Journal of Press/ Advancement of Science, Professional Ethics Report 21: 1-3.
Politics 11:3-40. Scheufele, D. A., E. A. Corley, S. Dunwoody, T.-J. Shih, E. Hillback,
and D. H. Guston .2007. Scientists worry about some risks more than
Nisbet, M. C, and J.Kotcher. 2009. A two step flow of influence? Opinion
leader campaigns on climate change. Science Communication 30: the public. Nature Nanotechnology 2: 732-734.
328-354. Scheufele, D. A., E. A. Corley, T.-J. Shih, K. E. Dalrymple, and
Nisbet, M. C, and B. V. Lewenstein. 2002. Biotechnology and the S. S. Ho. 2009. Religious beliefs and public attitudes to nanotech
American media: The policy process and the elite press, 1970 to 1999. nology in Europe and the United States. Nature Nanotechnology
Science Communication 23: 359-391. 4: 91-94.
Nisbet, M. C, and C. Mooney. 2007. Policy forum: Framing science. Scheufele, D. A., and D. V. Shah. 2000. Personality strength and so
Science 316: 56. cial capital?The role of dispositional and informational variables in
Nisbet, M. C, and E. C. Nisbet.
2005. Evolution and intelligent design: the production of civic participation. Communication Research 27:
Understanding public opinion. Geotimes 50: 28-33. 107-131.

Nisbet, M. C, and D. A. Scheufele. 2007. The future of public engagement. Scheufele, D. A., and D. Tewksbury. 2007. Framing, agenda setting,
Scientist 21: 38^14. and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of
Nordhaus, T., and M. Schellenberger. 2007. Break through: From Communication 57: 9-20.
the death of environmentalism to the politics of possibility. Houghton Swinehart,J.W.,andJ.M.McLeod. 1960. News about science: Channels,
Mifflin, New York, New York, USA. audiences, and effects. Public Opinion Quarterly 24: 583-589.
Pan, Z., and G. M. Kosicki. 1993. Framing analysis: An approach to news Tichenor, P. L, G. A. Donohue, and C. N. Olien. 1970. Mass media flow
discourse. Political Communication 10: 55-75. and differential growth in knowledge. Public Opinion Quarterly 34:
Pan, Z. D., and Kosicki, G. M. 2005. Framing and understanding 159-170.
of citizenship. In S. Dunwoody, L. Becker, G. Kosicki, and D. Wilson, E. O. 2006. Creation. WW. Norton, New York, New York, USA.
McLeod [eds.], The evolution of key mass communication con Withey, S. B. 1959. Public opinion about science and scientists. Public
cepts: Honoring Jack M. McLeod, 165-204. Hampton, Cresskill, Opinion Quarterly 23: 382-388.
New Jersey, USA. Wynne, B. 1992. Misunderstood Social
misunderstanding: identities and
2006. The internet as a re of Science 1: 281-304.
Pew Internet and American Life Project. public uptake of science. Public Understanding
source for news and information about science. Pew Research Center, Wynne, B. 2006. Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust
D.C., USA. Website in science. Community Genetics 9: 211-220.
Washington, http://www.pewtrusts.org/upload

Nisbet-What's Next For Science Communication

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nisbet-What's Next For Science Communication

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What's Next for Science Communication?

Promising Directions and Lingering Distractions

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

SPECIAL INVITED PAPER?YEAR OF SCIENCE

What's next for science communication?

Matthew C. Nisbet24 and Dietram A. Scheufele3

literacy; science policy.

1 ends, science media should be used to educate the public about

doi:10.3732/ajb. 0900041 defined as a process of transmission. The facts are assumed to

(Einsiedel, 2008). the issuematters (Gamson andModigliani, 1989). At a theoreti

Table 1. A typology of frames applicable to science-related policy debates.

Morality/ethics In terms of right or wrong; respecting or crossing limits, thresholds, or boundaries

(Brossard and Nisbet, 2007).

groups to frame plant biotechnology

As a result, museum exhibits, science Web sites, traditional havior to environmental

nel,National Geographic, and Learning Channel constitutes the

Understanding public opinion. Geotimes 50: 28-33. 107-131.

You might also like