Hi,

Am 15.02.2010 15:34, schrieb Chris Stokes:
> Out of interest, how easily do science communicators nowadays go
> about engaging the public in dialogue about climate change without
> acknowledging the contested nature of the science?

Well, the science is not really contested. However there is a change in 
public perception that is very worrying. I've spent too much time 
recently reading skeptics' blogs and newspaper comments recently and 
there isn't much of a scientific argument (although they do show graphs 
and stuff), but clearly mostly driven by a political agenda (often 
libertarian or pseudo-intellectual, i.e. criticising authorities for the 
sake of appearing critical).

What I also see is a failure by some media reports and most blogs or 
comments on newspaper websites to understand how science works and how 
the scientific community operates. For example, that just because 
universities are government funded that doesn't mean they are like a 
government agency where politicians determine the agenda. Or a failure 
to see that universities and research institutes are inherently open 
with millions of students passing through and lots of researchers moving 
between institutions, which would make it really difficult to 
orchestrate a big cover-up.

And everybody is trying to do something that hasn't been done before, so 
often there are no established protocols, and mistakes and errors can 
happen, which are mostly discovered (and sometimes not) but don't 
invalidate the whole picture. That scientists are neither the perfect 
geniusses nor the perfect scrupulous villains that appear in movies and 
TV productions (have you ever seen a scientist in a drama who was just a 
normal guy?). Etc. etc.

Most of the debate seems to be about these aspects, there are very few 
solid argument that would change the scientific conclusion one bit.

You've probably seen the recent BBC poll about a significan swing of 
opinion in short time. Personally I think this is an indication that the 
dynamics and social aspects of science are not understood by 
non-scientists, otherwise a swing like this would hardly be possible.

I don't want to be critical, but to be honest I think there is a certain 
failure of the science communication community to make it clear to 
non-scientist how science works in social terms; who the scientists are, 
how they think and what drives them.

I have seen many science communication "shows", and many do appear as 
shows - slick presentations of "fun"tastic phenomena etc. But they seem 
just like many other entertainment shows, from stage magicians to TV 
special effects. Everybody knows these are fakes - so how do we know the 
science shows are real? Sometimes shows are presented by a "mad 
scientist" because everybody thinks that's fun. Yes it is, but it also 
reinforces the stereotypes about scientists' personalities.

There can be a place for these activities, no doubt, to get people 
interested. But I think as science communicators we also have to put 
more emphasis on showing non-scientists how science works in practice, 
with all its mess, uncertainties and trying to make sense of results 
that are far from obvious. I don't think this really comes across in 
many engagement activities.

Back to climate: I'm teaching an open studies class on climate change 
and human history right now, looking at how climate in the past has 
influenced human history. Before the course I expected to have all 
climate skeptics in the course (that's why I read all the blogs, see 
above). But fortunately that's not the case. However, in the discussions 
students told me that they find it very difficult to make sense of the 
contradictory newspaper reports. They come from different backgrounds, 
some with more technical knowledge (retired teacher, engineers), others 
not so much (artists for example). Mostly these classes attract a more 
educated audience though.

In the class we have great discussions, and as the evidence from the 
past is of varying quality (both with respect to climate and to the 
response of human societies) there is plenty of opportunities to discuss 
uncertainties and also give an impression how different researchers 
interpret certain evidence differently. It really works well, but of 
course can only be done in small groups (I have 14 students, the course 
runs 10 weeks with 2 hours per week).

Now I've written more than I planned and have to get back to work to 
prepare tomorrow's class!

But I hope this personal comment helps
Cheers
Stephan

-- 
Stephan Matthiesen, PhD
http://www.stephan-matthiesen.de
Neu auf www.science-texts.de: Grün! Muster des Monats 2/2010

**********************************************************************
1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example,
send an email to mailto:[log in to unmask] with the following message:

set psci-com nomail -- [include hyphens]

2. To resume email from the list, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message:

set psci-com mail -- [include hyphens]

3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message:

leave psci-com -- [include hyphens]

4. Further information about the psci-com discussion list, including list archive, can be found at the list web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html

5. The psci-com gateway to internet resources on science communication and science and society can be found at http://psci-com.ac.uk

6. To contact the Psci-com list owner, please send an email to mailto:[log in to unmask]
**********************************************************************