Framing Again: Kurt Wins the Internet
One of the best points in the entire framing debate has been made by Kurt of Learning Computation, better known to me as a commenter on Pharyngula. The original is here, but I want to quote him in entirety:
I’m coming late to the “framing” debate, but it seems to me that the main problem with Mooney and Nisbet is that, if they’re talking to scientists then they’re addressing the wrong audience. Who is it that’s “framing” the debate against global warming, or in favor of teaching ID in science classes, etc.? Conservative scientists? Mostly, no. It’s being done by conservative politicians, think tanks, and religious leaders who are acting in the political sphere. So just who should be “framing” the other side of the debate? The only reason that scientists are being asked to get engaged in this debate is because progressive politicians have totally dropped the ball. The things Mooney and Nisbet are saying might make a lot of sense if they were being directed to, say, the DNC. Democratic politicians have been loath to take on this debate for the same reasons they were all too willing to give George W. Bush everything he wanted regarding Iraq, and it’s frankly disgusting. Maybe now that they can see what their lack of spine has brought on this country, they might be a little more willing to stand up for scientific integrity.One can only hope.
I wholeheartedly agree. Chiding scientists to become better PR flacks seems… unproductive. Especially when there are already big organisations with a lot of money and staffs filled with professional PR flacks, not to mention ties to professional PR firms, for whom “framing” and many other tried-and-true techniques are not only second-nature but in fact their whole job.
Scientists aren’t political activists, and I consider one of science’s strong points to be the fact that it is essentially anti-ideological in nature. If you claim something that’s not supported by the data, you’ll get called on it; likewise, if you try to hide something that is supported by data, someone else will bring it up. Why are we telling scientists that they need to be more political and sacrifice that high ground? Why are we telling scientists that they need to use PR techniques when they communicate to the public?
It seems to me we could get a lot more bang for our buck by having scientists lean on the PR flacks and the science-friendly politicians and think tanks out there, who can take the message and frame or spin or whatever to their heart’s content without compromising the good name of science itself. After all, they’re better at it. It’s what they do. If scientists apparently suck at framing, why should they be encouraged to do more of it? Wouldn’t that be counter-productive?
If there’s one thing we can chide scientists for, it’s not being more involved in politics at the organisational level, not the public relations level. Where are the science advisors to the Democratic National Committee? Does the Democratic National Committee even know they need science advisors? If not, somebody should tell them! And, hopefully, some qualified people should volunteer themselves for the position as well.