Tag Archives: Matthew Nisbet

Perceptions of Promise, an art/science show at Glenbow Museum, Alberta

Leave a reply

The art/science show, Perceptions of Promise, at Alberta’s Glenbow Museum in Calgary features stem cell research, ethics, and art. It’s the outcome of a workshop that was held May 2010 in Alberta. Here’s an image from the show,

Derek Besant, Still from Metamorphosis Theory, 2010. Copy obtained from Glenbow Museum website.

An article by Jef Akst, Controversy on display; A Canadian art exhibit takes a different look at the ongoing debate surrounding human stem cell research,  in The Scientist provides an interview with one of the organizers of the show, Timothy Caulfield, a bioethicist at the Health Law Institute of the University of Alberta,

Over the last couple of years, Caulfield [Timothy] has worked with his brother Sean, a professor of art design also at the University of Alberta, to brainstorm ways to combine their interests in art, science, and society. The brothers’ first brainchild, a 2009 art show in Alberta called Imagining Science, explored legal and ethical issues surrounding biotechnological advances, such as cloning and genetic testing

While they were happy with the exhibition’s success, they felt there were plenty more issues left to cover. “Many of the people involved thought this conversation isn’t over,” Sean says. “It’s kind of just beginning.” So they decided to do it again, this time focusing on the contentious issues surrounding stem cell research.

Following the tradition of their first exhibition, they organized a workshop that brought together scientists, social commentators, and artists to present their work and represent diverse perspectives on stem cell research.

Here’s an excerpt from a posting by one of the participants, Matthew Nisbet, an associate professor in the School of Communication at American University. (At the time of writing, his blog was called Framing Science, Nisbet has since changed his blogging focus and has moved and renamed his blog, Age of Engagement; all the archival posts for Framing Science are included.) From Nisbet’s archived May 5, 2010 posting on Age of Engagement,

Last week I traveled to the Canadian Rockies to participate in a unique workshop organized by the University at Alberta that focused on the shared perspectives and collaborations among artists, scientists, ethicists, and social scientists. The workshop was the second in a series organized by brothers Sean Caulfield and Timothy Caulfield, professors of Art and Law respectively at the University of Alberta.

In 2009, the first workshop resulted in the “Imagining Science” exhibit at the Art Gallery of Alberta and a book by the same title. The critically acclaimed initiative highlighted the emerging genre of “bio art,” which Tim Caulfield in his contribution to the award-winning book describes as “a field of artistic inquiry that both utilizes the techniques of biotechnology and serves as a medium of reflection on the societal implications of the research.”

Here’s an example of a collaboration from the 2010 workshop which has resulted in the Perceptions of Promise show (from the article by Jef Akst),

Paul Cassar, a doctoral student at the University of Toronto who works with mouse embryonic stem cells, took an even more hands-on approach to his collaboration with artist Daniela Schlüter — he actually drew some scientific schematics from which Schlüter created her mixed media drawings.

“By no means am I a good drawer,” Cassar says. “Even my sketches could have been done better by a three year old,” he jokes. But when Schlüter overlaid her own drawings, she was able to “create this story to contrast some of these tensions [of] where we are now with this stem cell debate,” he says. “I think is a really neat example of how science can be inspiring to other creative minds.”

There’s also video of the show featuring the images,

Finally, the Perceptions of Promise website and the Glenbow Museum website.

Scientists learning to speak and engage

Leave a reply

I’ve come across a couple of US projects designed to help scientists speak and engage with the public. The Scientist (online journal) highlighted an acting workshop for scientists led by Alan Alda (known for the MASH tv series, Woody Allen films, and as the host for Scientific American Frontiers tv series). From the article (you do have to register for free access) by Daniel Grushkin,

This is what happens when you cross doctoral work with improvisational acting: A line of fifteen PhD students face each other in an imaginary tug-of-war. “Make sure you’re all holding the same rope,” says Valeri Lantz-Gefroh, their drama coach and a theater professor at SUNY, Stony Brook. “You don’t want to hold a shoelace when the person in front of you is holding a python.”

…

The students are part of a daylong seminar on communicating science to non scientists at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York. Prior to the imaginary tug-of-war exercise, they stood before each other and delivered short, off the cuff, introductions to their research meant for public consumption. Their talks were stilted and confused. Some swallowed their voices as they spoke. Others talked at the wall behind their audience.

Asked to describe their emotions during their presentations, one researcher complained, “It felt like I was almost insulting myself by dumbing it down.” Others nodded in agreement. The doctoral students were playing out Alda’s criticism of the science community. Alda believes scientists have been unable to make themselves understood by lay audiences. And as a result are failing to inform the public and policy.

…

A 2009 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center reflects Alda’s concern. Though the public ranks scientists third after military personnel and teachers in their contribution to society, only half of Americans believe in global warming and a mere 32 percent believe in evolution. Meanwhile, scientists complain that they’re not being heard. Half say that news media oversimplifies their findings, and 85 percent say the public doesn’t know enough about science. The numbers show a clear gap between the esteem that scientists hold in the public and the knowledge they’re able to transmit.

The other project highlighted by Matthew Nisbet at the Age of Engagement blog is a fellowship program for training in leadership and public engagement for scientists.  Pop Tech, an organization which focuses on social innovation and problem-solving ideas, is behind this effort. From the Sept. 15, 2010 posting,

PopTech is perhaps best known for its annual PopTech conference held every October in Camden, Maine. Called by Wired magazine a “must-attend for intellectual heavy weights…,” the conference features a line up of interactive talks by social innovators, scientists, researchers, and problem-solvers, with the goal of identifying new ideas and brokering collaborations.

…

PopTech … has announced its inaugural class of 20 Science Fellows. The fellows are early to mid-career leaders in fields such as energy, food supply, sustainability, water, public health, climate change, conservation ecology, green chemistry, computing, education, oceans, and national security.

The fellows were chosen based on their scientific credentials but also for their innate communication and leadership skills. As PopTech describes, the program is designed to provide the Science Fellows with long term communication and leadership training, mentorship, and access to thought leaders across sectors of society including those from the fields of media, business, social innovation, and education.

These projects provide an interesting contrast to the furor which greeted a paper that Chris Mooney wrote about scientists needing to pay more attention to the art of listening (my June 30, 2010 posting). I can certainly see how the acting class could lead to better listening skills (or paying better attention to your audience) but am not so sure about the Pop Tech fellowship project (a bunch of really interesting people getting together and getting excited means they tend to proselytize to the uninitiated for at least a short period afterwards).  Despite my reservations about the fellowship project I find these efforts encouraging.

Frames, nanotechnology and public opinion

Leave a reply

Frames, you find them on paintings and windows and you find them in the social sciences.As per the Wikipedia essay on Erving Goffman and his book Frame Analysis,

This book was Goffman’s way of trying to explain how conceptual frames structure the individual’s perception of the society; therefore, this book is about organization of experiences rather than organization of society. Frames organize the experiences and guide action for the individual and/or for everyone. Frame analysis, then, is the study of organization of social experiences. One example that Goffman used to help people better understand the concept is associating the frame with the concept of a picture frame. He used the picture frame concept to illustrate how people use the frame (which represents structure) to hold together their picture (which represents the context) of what they are experiencing in their life. The most basic frames are called primary frameworks. These frameworks take an experience or an aspect of a scene of an individual that would originally be meaningless and make it to become meaningful. One type of primary framework is natural frameworks, which identifies situations that happened in the natural world, and is completely physical with no human influences. The other type of framework is social framework, which explains events and connects it to humans. An example of natural framework would be the weather and an example of social framework would be the meteorologist who reports people with the weather forecast. Goffman concentrates more on the frameworks and tries to “construct a general statement regarding the structure, or form, of experiences individuals have at any moment of their social life”. [Note: I have removed the footnote numbers, see the essay for them.]

I’m mentioning frames as I’ve seen them referred to in some of the literature about nanotechnology and other emerging technologies and how people form opinions about them.  Specifically,it’s  the topic of one of Matthew Nibet’s latest postings on his new blog, Age of Engagement on his new home site, Big Think. From Nisbet’s August 20, 2910 posting (Study: In Communicating about Nano and GMOs, Do the Frames or the Facts Matter?),

Framing is an unavoidable aspect of human communication. There is no such thing as unframed information. On science-related issues, this idea is difficult to grasp for some advocates and scientists who still view communication through the lens of what scholars call the “deficit model” which assumes that opinion formation is a direct consequence of knowledge (or alternatively ignorance). If the public only better understood the facts of a scientific topic they would more likely view the issue as scientists do and controversy would go away.

Nisbet mentions this in the context of a specific study by Northwestern University researchers James Druckman and Toby Bolsen in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Communication.

On election day in 2008, Druckman and Bolsen assembled 20 teams of students to conduct exit polls of 621 voters in the Chicago region, querying voters on their perceptions of carbon nanotubes (CNTs) and genetically-modified foods (GMOs). For the interviews, voters were randomly assigned to separate frame and issue conditions.

For different groups of voters, CNTs or GMOS were defined using either a “fact” free frame or fact-based frame, with an emphasis on either benefits or risks. In the case of CNTs, respondents were read the following introduction followed by one of the following frames, depending on their assigned experimental condition. A similar method was used on GMOs (see the paper for more details):

One of the most pressing issues facing the nation—as has been clear from the election—concerns the limitations to our energy supply (e.g., with regard to coal, oil and natural gas). One approach to addressing this issue is to rely more on carbon nanotubes or CNTs. CNTs are tiny graphite with distinct chemical properties. They efficiently convert sunlight into electricity, and thus, serve as an alternative to coal, oil, and natural gas. The uncertain long-term effects of CNTs are the subject of continued study and debate.

Fact Free Benefits of Nanotechnology

Most agree that the most important implication of CNTs concerns how they will affect energy cost and availability. A recent study on cost and availability showed that CNTs will double the efficiency of solar cells in the coming years.

Fact Free Risks of Nanotechnology

Most agree that the most important implication of CNTs concerns their unknown long-run implications for human health.

Fact-based Benefits of Nanotechnology

A recent study on cost and availability showed that CNTs will double the efficiency of solar cells in the coming years.

Fact-based Risks of Nanotechnology

A recent study on health showed that mice injected with large quantities of CNTs reacted in the same way as they do when injected with asbestos.

…

We find at every stage of the decision-making process, the processing of factual information is fraught with imperfections. First, facts have limited impact on initial opinions—no greater than alternative considerations including values and perceptions about science credibility (also see, e.g., Scheufele & Lewenstein 2005). Second, we find that when provided with frames that lack factual information and frames that include facts, individuals do not privilege the facts (also see, e.g., Nisbet & Mooney, 2007). Facts do not enhance frame strength (although facts do have effects equivalent to that of frames without facts). Third, once they form initial opinions, individuals process new factual information in a biased manner (also see, e.g., Kahan et al., 2008). Specifically, they view information consistent with their prior opinions as relatively stronger and they view neutral facts as consistent with their existing dispositions.

Of course ours is just one study on two particular technologies, and as a result, caution needs to be taken in generalizing. It does seem clear, however, that factual information is not always as it appears (to a neutral observer). Our results suggest that the best route to facilitate reasonable opinion formation may be to provide alternative ways of thinking about new technologies—that is, different frames—and then to encourage individuals to weigh these frames against one another. Under distinct circumstances, facts may play a more salient and less biased role.

I find this study a little confusing because they seem to be using at least two meanings for frames/framing. There’s both topical framing, i.e., fact-based vs nonfact-based with regard to how nanotechnology information is framed and an individual’s more comprehensive framing strategy which is derived from their values and beliefs.  (Note: I’ve read the preliminary paper which Nisbet makes available in the August 20, 2010 posting.)

Another element which always niggles at me in these kinds of studies is that people have  responded in a similar fashion to previously emerging technologies such as electricity and telephony (see Carolyn Marvin’s book, When old technologies were new, for some insights into the concerns and ‘cultural’ wars that ensued).  The question I keep asking myself is, what does understanding the process of framing in the context of accepting emerging technologies do for us? Humans have accepted any number of technological innovations  over the millenia while expressing many of the same concerns we do now without all this probing analysis and discussion of frames. What purpose is there to understanding framing strategies?

As for the suggestion that science literacy is neither here nor there, I’m not sure I’m ready to accept that but then I imagine the researchers would point out that my own framing strategy is what compels me to reject that notion.

One other thing, I found their ‘facts’ lacking. The information about the mice and CNTs with regard to nanotechnology risks is very minimal and frankly it wouldn’t be enough to convince of me of anything.

Examining communication strategies for nanotechnology and for the BP oil spill

Leave a reply

This won’t be a very long posting as it’s really a pointer to a couple commentaries by Dietram Scheufele (nanosunscreens) and Matthew Nisbet (BP oil spill).

First up Scheufele ( last mentioned here in a posting about Google influencing online searches for information nanotechnology; note: you can find out more about that in an interview with Elizabeth Baum) highlights in his June 17, 2010 posting, a public education/advertising campaign that the US Friends of the Earth (FOE) organization recently kicked off,

The timing is impeccable, of course, keeping alive a news wave started last week by a push from NY Senator Sen. Chuck Schumer to have the Food and Drug Administration looking into a possible link between retinyl palmitate in sun screens and skin cancer in humans.

It’s an interesting observation which suggests a great deal of thought goes into developing campaigns by nongovernmental organizations (aka civil society groups) and by extension other interests such as companies, politicians, governments, etc. You can follow links and read more at Dietram Scheufele’s nanopublic blog.

Here’s another observation about strategy this time by Matthew Nisbett in a his June 14, 2010 posting where he comments on why he thinks the environmental groups are being relatively muted in their response to the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and how they have responded,

In my own comments quoted in the article [by Josh Gerstein on Politico], I note that environmental groups appear to have adopted a smart strategy, letting the heavy news attention and general emphasis on public accountability do the communication work for them. If environmental groups were to become more open in their criticism of the Administration or too visible in news coverage, they risk alienating the White House and may be criticized by the media and the public for being politically opportunistic. Below are additional thoughts on the article and recent trends:

* As I emphasized to Gerstein, the sound bite of the crisis so far has been James Carville’s “who’s your daddy” comment, a frame device delivered with deep emotion that instantly conveys the emphasis on public accountability that has come to dominate news narratives.

Links and the full posting  are at Nisbett’s blog, Framing Science.

In coming to conclusions and positions of my own, I find it’s helpful to understand the mechanics (yes, there’s luck but there’s also a lot of planning)  behind the messages I receive.