Lakoff Revisited: Framing Science
April 15th, 2007 | 
Author: In Sunday’s Washington Post, Chris Mooney and Matthew Nisbet published a piece called “Thanks for the Facts. Now Sell Them,” chastising the scientific establishment for failing to interpret their findings for the general public. Scientists are ceding their ability to contribute to the future of our nation, they wrote. Harsh!
In particular, they cite scientists’ tendency to present the facts of the matter at hand — global warming, stem cell research, etc. — and leave the public to muddle through what those facts mean for them. As Water Words viewers know, I have some views on this subject.
And although I completely agree with their point, I strongly dislike the tone of the piece. It’s full of criticism, but doesn’t provide scientists with a single constructive recommendation for how to do a better job. It may even have the unintended consequence of making scientists even more self-conscious and hesitant about speaking or writing for the public than they already are. How does that help?
George Lakoff, who made a splash with the chattering classes in 2004 with Don’t Think of an Elephant, also failed to follow up on his critique. He slipped back into academic obscurity precisely 15 minutes later.
Also, Mooney and Nisbet are not practicing what they preach. They want scientists to communicate to the public in the style that the public accepts, but they aren’t communicating to scientists in a style that scientists will accept. If you want scientists to believe they’re failing to make an important connection, don’t just assert it prove it. There’s plenty of evidence out there, and I’ve only investigated one tiny corner of science.
On a related topic, I know that many Water Words viewers are unfamiliar with the blogosphere. This is a good opportunity to get a taste of how these debates unfold. Read the original piece here in the Washington post, and then follow some of these links to what other bloggers are saying about the topic.
Visualize Whirled Peas
Daylight Atheism
Greedy, GreedyAlgorithms
Bark’s Blog
Anomolous Data
The NonSequitor
Get Busy Livin’, Or Get Busy Bloggin’
Effect Measure
Reconciliation Ecology
The Intersection
Posted in 
Hi there,
Definitely appreciate the feedback on our article. As you know, op-eds can be tricky as they allow for very tight space for a complex set of ideas and suggestions. Chris and I are rolling these out over the next several months across media including magazines, newspapers, blogs, and many public presentations.
On concrete suggestions, figuring the frames that engage specific key audiences is just one part of the toolbox. We also will be detailing the role that entertainment media, film, and new media play in engaging the vast majority of the public who do not pay attention to public affairs and science.
We also be detailing how local-level, grassroots opinion-leaders can help connect other citizens to the messages appearing in the media. I lay out some of this already in a column for Skeptical Inquirer Online. Go here:
http://www.csicop.org/scienceandmedia/climate/
Also, you might be interested in an interview I did with NPR’s ON the Media, that further breaks out the details on what framing is and how it can be employed. Listen here:
http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2007/04/at_nprs_on_the_media_a_focus_o.php
Nice piece. I think–as I argued on my site–that there’s a larger philosophical issue here. Biologists can work within the realm of biology, for instance, but the metaphysical significance of that work is not something they ought to be considering. Whether there work proves there is no God (which it obviously doesn’t) is not a question for them. That’s a philosophical question. And I think it’s wrong-headed to make scientists start answering these philosophical questions. As a professor of mine in grad school said, there’s nothing worse than a scientist in a metaphysical mood (and I’d add: the only thing worse is a philosopher in a scientific mood). I think the broader question is that American public discourse falls far short in its discussion of knowledge. The problem is not just limited to science in other words.