Science of science communication: Science and society perspectives

Bruce V. Lewenstein Professor of Science Communication Chair, Department of Science & Technology Studies Cornell University Presented to NAS Committee on Science of Science Communication 17 Dec 2015

What – and why – studying?

u Science and society are mutually shaping (or mutually constituitive, or co-produced)

u How that happens is inherently interesting and worth studying

u Science communication is part of that process

u But what part of science comm should we study?

Lab/ Field Formal paper

Preprints

Meetings Policy documents, etc.

Textbooks

Media (web, TV magazines, radio newspapers, blogs, Twitter, books, etc.)

Is this science communication?

Grant proposals

Sphere of Science Communication From: Lewenstein, Bruce V. (2011). Experimenting with Engagement. Commentary on "Taking Our Own Medicine: On an Experiment in Science Communication."Science And Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 817-821.

What is the problem?

u “To improve the communication of science on controversial issues…”

u Scientists and science community – Perceived lack of support, misuse of science

(facts and process), denial of well-established knowledge

u Activist groups – Perceived intransigence of science community

u Science studies community – Whose interests do we represent?

Science 22 July 2011:, Vol. 333 no. 6041 p. 394

My take: u Bruce Lewenstein, a sociologist [sic] at Cornell

University … thinks critics are overreacting. He says the distinction between knowledge and belief is important and must be understood to get a clearer picture of the public's knowledge of science. “Knowledge and belief are not the same,” he says. “It might be politically useful for the scientific community to pretend that they are the same, but it would not be intellectually honest.” (Bhattacharjee, 2011, Science, 22 July 2011, p. 394)

The key issue

u Science is a social institution u Science communication is social process u Must be reflexive and explicit about where

social values shape SoSC research

Deficit Model vs. Public Engagement

u Driven by concerns about attitudes towards science

u Data shows that correlation between knowledge and attitudes is not simple; ergo, deficit approach (to measurement and to programming) not sufficient [n.b., not “wrong”])

u Leads to: Public engagement

Public engagement

u Educational engagement u Participatory democracy u Institutional engagement

u Example: Citizen science

– Driven by science? By education? By governance/critical concerns? By institutional needs?

http://informalscience.org/research/wiki/Public-Engagement

Why we care: Controversies

u Vaccines and autism u Evolution u Climate change u GMOs u Hydrofracking u Emerging technologies

– Nanotechnology, Synthetic biology, Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, Geoengineering, etc.

Ways to understand controversies

u Priority disputes: driven by norms and counter-norms

u Scientific process: virtual witnessing, experimenter’s regress, interpretive flexibility, rhetoric, openness/closure

u Social controversies: interest politics, social embeddedness of science, legal and regulatory issues, expertise and authority, institutional trust

Why we care: Controversies

u Vaccines and autism u Evolution u Climate change u GMOs u Hydrofracking u Emerging technologies

– Nanotechnology, Synthetic biology, Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, Geoengineering, etc.

Controversies reveal stress points

u Fundamental methodological issue u Reveals difficulty in specifying standards of

evidence, experimental meanings, relevant variables, interactions with values, interactions with policy, etc.

Lessons?

u Can’t tell scientists how to avoid controversy – It’s inherent in science – There’s a lot we don’t know – My role: analyst or activist? Today: analyst.

Lessons

u Don’t assume we (who are “we”?) know the scientific answer

u Be careful about how we draw the boundaries on science issues we study

u The issue may be one of politics and governance, not comprehension

u Focus on the social/collective, not just the cognitive/individual