And here’s an applied example of the “deficit-dialogue” non-transition. Peter Groffman, Cathlyn Stylinski, Matthew C. Nisbet, Carlos M. Duarte, Rebecca Jordan, Amy Burgin, M. Andrea Previtali, and James Coloso: “Restarting the conversation: challenges at the interface between ecology and society,” from a Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment special issue.
Summary: Science communication and outreach efforts are not currently sufficient to engage the public in pressing environmental issues. The authors summarize current social research and make recommendations. Scientists are widely respected on social-policy issues, but need to rethink outreach efforts. Awareness of environmental issues varies widely (demographics, nationality) and other issues (esp. economy) currently are rated more important; communicators can increase salience of issues by connecting them to people’s lives. Most people learn about scientific issues individually, informally, and sporadically; in the U.S., mainly via TV, but the Internet is a prime source of science info for those who deliberately seek it out (selective perception and interpretation are important). The largest effect of media campaigns is awareness, rather than factual knowledge. Audiences are influenced by presentation, e.g., give both views represented equal weight. Scientists tend to focus on information deficit, rather than changing attention/salience; here’s where framing and mental models come in. There are also new tools and approaches to use: formal research communication, training for young scientists, participation in local social forums, online news communities (e.g., science blogs + news), public participation in research, and recruiting opinion leaders (social networks, etc.)
Comments: Article is introduction to a special issue of journal; other papers go into detail about some of the new approaches mentioned.
More chapters from the Handbook of Public Communication of Science & Technology. First, Iina Hellsten and Brigitte Nehrlich discuss how metaphors are used to frame new or changing ideas in science:
Summary: Discussion of metaphors as framing devices. In life/medical science, they identify 2 important frames: “breakthrough/key to cure disease” and “playing god/Pandora’s box;” both grounded in a narrative of linear progress (journey or creating a map.) Function of metaphors is to create boundary objects between two or more domains either within science (between disciplines, novel models) or in popularization (help understand complexities, evoke emotion, concretize concepts.) Metaphors are both flexible enough and robust enough to remain identifiable across domains. They approach metaphors as “discourse metaphors:” they evolve within disciplines, but can become fixed and create stable (sometimes limiting) structures. They end with an analysis of the metaphors used in the Human Genome Project: metaphors changed as goals changed (e.g., “language of life” and “mapping” to “blueprint” as unexpectedly few genes discovered), and outdated metaphors are still in use (“book of life” predates idea that genetic info has multiple layers, but attempts to include complexity haven’t caught on, e.g., “orchestra,” “ecology”.) Metaphors also have ethical implications: e.g., journey/race metaphors might possibly exacerbate competition & lead to breaches in research ethics.
Comments: Key concepts: metaphors as boundary objects, metaphors providing internal structure within disciplines, metaphors competing for insight in different contexts. Selection of metaphors is a key popularization issue, esp. in areas of science with large social/political implications.
Next, Steven Yearley discusses a related topic with his chapter on the role of NGOs (specifically environmental NGOs) in science communication:
Summary: Environmental groups and other NGOs rely to a large extent on empirical data to back up their claims, so have a unique need to balance powerful imagery with accuracy. First case study on climate change, in which the primary skeptical position is to cast doubt on research; NGOs find themselves in the (unusual) position of urging the public to accept government/institutional claims, as well as point out the vested interests of denialist groups. This position makes it harder for NGOs to counter “official” views in other situations (a key reason being that, given the wide scope of the IPCC, it’s hard to find peer reviewers that are both informed and disinterested). Second case study on GMOs, in which NGOs have argued that regulation is insufficient compared to the possible magnitude of adverse impacts. The strategy here has been to align with other pressure groups, and basically throw every objection possible at the issue; the more professional NGOs have tried to mobilize public engagement with the issue and have been less successful at drawing public into dialogue than generally riling them up. NGOs are generally wary of stepping out of their role as mediators of public action/lobbying for policy decisions, because they fear govt./business manipulation of public and the unpopularity of the best environmental choices (becomes a case of touting public wisdom when it aligns with their goals).
Comments: Some groups generate their own data; these tend to have a more data- than emotion-based persuasive strategy. This chapter is more useful in an applied context, and not central to the direction my research has been going recently…
It’s been a month since the Deepwater Horizon oil spill site was temporarily capped. So what is going on with the oil from the spill? Various media outlets have recently been reporting that about 75% of the oil has been “dealt with,” meaning that only about 25% remains a threat to wildlife. Pretty good, right? These numbers are coming directly from a NOAA report, which categorizes the current state of the oil into seven categories:
NOAA estimate of oil status: Aug. 2, 2010
Well, it turns out that what “dealt with” means is a question of interpretation. “Dealt with,” to me, implies “taken care of,” “no longer a concern,” and “under control.” I suspect that the phrase carries those connotations for many people. Organizations reporting on the NOAA report are including “Evaporated or Dissolved, Naturally Dispersed, and Chemically Dispersed” categories in their 75% “dealt with” calculations, implying that these categories of oil are no longer a problem. (This interpretation is encouraged in the NOAA chart, which highlights that oil in some categories is being naturally degraded.) But what do these categories actually mean?
“Dispersed” oil is oil which has been broken into tiny little droplets. In the case of chemically dispersed oil, these droplets are coated with chemical dispersants; in the case of naturally dispersed oil, droplets have been broken up through wave action or some other means. It is still in the water-it hasn’t magically disappeared- but it’s in tiny little drops, rather than large slicks or goopy tar balls. Think about when you wash your dishes: the dish soap breaks up the greasy residue on your frying pan so the water can wash it away, but that grease is still in the water that goes down the drain. “Dissolved” oil has been broken into even smaller pieces, but it, too, is still in the water- it’s just impossible to see.
Scientists from the Georgia Sea Grant program now say- and I have to agree, according to how I understand the phrase- that this dissolved and dispersed oil is not “dealt with.” In fact, most of it- up to 79% of the spilled oil- is still in the ocean, creating problems (pdf of press release). Here’s the Sea Grant analysis of the situation (note that the Sea Grant scientists do not include the “direct recovery” oil from the NOAA chart in their analysis, since it was not actually spilled into the water, so their numbers differ):
Georgia Sea Grant estimate of oil status: August 16, 2010.
So, what is going on here? The discrepancy about the amount of oil remaining in the water seems to largely hinge on how these different categories of oil are interpreted. (The Sea Grant and NOAA scientists also disagree on the calculations, which creates additional disagreements in the two estimates.) The NOAA report is optimistic in tone and interpretation, but note the highlighted text:
“A third (33 percent) of the total amount of oil released in the Deepwater Horizon/BP spill was captured or mitigated by the Unified Command recovery operations, including burning, skimming, chemical dispersion and direct recovery from the wellhead… An additional 25 percent of the total oil naturally evaporated or dissolved, and 16 percent was dispersed naturally into microscopic droplets. The residual amount, just over one quarter (26 percent), is either on or just below the surface as residue and weathered tarballs, has washed ashore or been collected from the shore, or is buried in sand and sediments. Dispersed and residual oil remain in the system until they degrade through a number of natural processes. Early indications are that the oil is degrading quickly.”
This one-line caveat is an important one, because it implies that these types of oil are not “dealt with.” Yes, some of the oil will be degraded by microbes naturally, but a large portion of the oil has settled into deep underwater plumes where there is little microbial activity, and another chunk is buried in anoxic wetland sediment where it’s unknown how quickly it will be degraded. This oil is certainly not “dealt with” today, and other media outlets are beginning to pick up on that fact. Nor will it be for months, years, or possibly decades. While it’s out of sight, it shouldn’t be out of mind.
