Scientists as Spin Doctors?
by MikeGeneRecently, Matthew Nisbet and Chris Mooney wrote an essay for Science entitled "Framing Science." They argue that science and politics often intersect and that scientists need to do a better job communicating with the general public. Their suggestion is that scientists learn how to "frame" information to make it relevant
to different audiences.
But what do they mean by "frame?"
According to Nisbet and Mooney:
Frames organize central ideas, defining a controversy to resonate with core values and assumptions. Frames pare down complex issues by giving some aspects greater emphasis. They allow citizens to rapidly identify why an issue matters, who might be responsible, and what should be done.
Scientists are supposed to simplify complex issues by focusing on only one or two angles. Why? Defining complex issues like this makes it possible to present them in a way that will resonate with certain values and assumptions. All of this is intended to get the general public to identify "what should be done." The goal is to stimulate action among the public.
In other words, Nisbet and Mooney want scientists to become better politicians, as it sure looks to me as if "frame" means spin. William Safire was the first one to discuss spin in a 1986 New York Times column. According to Kenneth Hicks, from Rogers State University:
According to Safire's Times column, spin derives from 1950's slang "˜to deceive,' which he hypothesized originated with the phrase "˜to spin a yarn.' Safire further mused that spin has more recently become a noun, and that spin now means that a person has "angled" a story "to suit our predilections or interests." Elaborating, Safire noted that the "phrase spin doctor was coined on the analogy of play doctor, one who fixes up a limping second act, and gains from the larcenous connotation of the verb doctor, to fix a product by way a crooked bookkeeper "˜cooks' books" (Safire, 1986).
Since Nisbet and Mooney are clearly encouraging scientists to better "angle" political issues to better suit their predilections and interests, in turns out Nisbet and Mooney are encouraging scientists to become spin doctors. In fact, they seem to be aware of this, as note how they end their essay:
Some readers may consider our proposals too Orwellian, preferring to safely stick to the facts. Yet scientists must realize that facts will be repeatedly misapplied and twisted in direct proportion to their relevance to the political debate and decision-making. In short, as unnatural as it might feel, in many cases, scientists should strategically avoid emphasizing the technical details of science when trying to defend it.
Note that instead of supplying an argument that denies this approach is Orwellian, they appear to be saying that the end justifies the means. And thus in order to "defend science," scientists must cease providing public examples of how to be guided by science and a scientific approach.
In my opinion, Nisbet and Mooney are simply encouraging the further politicization of science and thus offering advice that will ultimately bring great harm to science. If scientists are to speak to the general public on issues where science intersects with politics, Nisbet and Mooney overlook two things.
First, in such contexts, scientists act as ambassadors for science. When they claim to be speaking "for science," everything about their behavior and language causes the general public to extrapolate that behavior and language to the entire scientific community.
Second, the general public continues to become increasingly savvy about media and politics, causing a continued increase in overall cynicism. Nisbet and Mooney note,
Faced with a daily torrent of news, citizens use their value predispositions (such as political or religious beliefs) as perceptual screens, selecting news outlets and Web sites whose outlooks match their own (2). Such screening reduces the choices of what to pay attention to and accept as valid (3).
This dynamic is simply enhanced by cynicism, where citizens screen like this because they don't trust certain sources of information. Thus, once more and more citizens begin to notice that more and more scientists are behaving like spin doctors and politicians, the citizens will begin to increasingly distrust scientists and science. In fact, as the global warming issue shows, we are already well along that road.
The scientific community enjoys the public image of people trying to remain objective as they learn about the world. When scientists speak to people, the people draw from this public image, as people expect to be educated. Yet if more and more people come to suspect they are being manipulated by spin instead of educated by facts, the scientific community incrementally loses credibility. When the scientific community speaks about a matter of great public importance, they will be tuned out by an overly cynical public that prides itself on its media savvy.
April 14th, 2007 at 10:43 am
The full text is now online.
Comment by macht — April 14, 2007 @ 10:43 am
April 14th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Your last paragraph neatly sums up the effects of politicization. A sense that science is objective is its core strength among the community at large. Sacrifice that for short term political gains and there will be greater long term credibility losses with the general public.
Comment by Bradford — April 14, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
April 14th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Comment by neddy — April 14, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
April 14th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Hi Mike,
Allow me to add my "spin".
First of all, I disagree with the suggestion that spin equates to "to deceive".
And I think it is your spin to frame this discussion using these loaded terms.
Obviously, no one person has full control over the definition of terms. To many, "spin" may unequivacally mean "to deceive". I offer that trying to conflate "frame" with "to deceive" would take some PR work, a task that Dr, Dembski, and now you, have decided to undertake.
For what it is worth, to me "spin" is like the spinning of a top. "Spin" is what election handlers do right after their candidate finishes speaking. They try to get various tops spinning in the "right" direction.
"Framing" a debate is an attempt to focus the issues on what the framers wishes the audience to focus on. This does not automatically imply deception. PR people "frame" and "spin" all the time and can be totally honest while doing it.
The current political reality is that "reality-based thinking" doesn't necessarily win the day. Those in power are unabashedly creating their own versions of reality and the public appears to be letting them (at least the American public).
The public is getting used to having everything preframed for them.
I don't like it. I don't think any organization claiming to be discussing scientific subjects should do it, but I understand why they would feel they have no choice.
Provoking Thought
P.S. Please note that, like you, I started out with the attention-getting "spin" and ended up with the rational - it's a bad idea.
In essence I agreed with you but used a different framing.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 14, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
April 14th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Hi TP,
That's quite a knee-jerk reaction. The only place that the word "deceive" comes into play is when I quote Hicks who is quoting Safire. I would think it obvious that I am using the term "˜spin' as angling political issues to better suit someone's predilections and interests.
Of course it does not automatically imply deception. It automatically implies manipulation. Do scientists really want to sacrifice their public image and join politicians, special interest groups, pundits, and corporations, sharing in their public image of someone trying to manipulate the public?
Is it the job of science to make sure that someone's notion of "reality-based thinking" wins the day?
It's a dumb, myopic choice that will only breed cynicism and eventually turn science into just another clamoring voice in the political circus.
Comment by MikeGene — April 14, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
April 14th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Hi, Mike,
I don't have a subscription to Science, and so haven't read the entire article. Assuming you've read the article, what are the tangibles? Were any issues mentioned specifically as requiring framing? I.E…ethical issues such as abortion and euthanasia (population control), or political/economic issues like global warming, or religious issues like embryonic stem cell research? Or was the article generic without any examples of what needed framing?
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — April 14, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
April 14th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Hi AnaxagorasRules,
Oddly enough, you pretty much nailed it. The examples they chose were global warming, evolution and public education, and the funding of embryonic stem cell research. For some strange reason, they skipped over other obvious examples, such as the animal rights debate.
Comment by MikeGene — April 14, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
April 14th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
One of my favorite speeches, Extraterrestrials Cause Global Warming, Michael Chrichton ends with this:
Comment by johnnyb — April 14, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
April 14th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Mike:
Actually, the public is quite used to viewing pretty much everything in the media as spin, meaning they generally know that news stories and reports (and entertainment) comes with a built-in bias. Spin here, spin there, pretty soon you're talking nausea! §;o)
This used to be called "slant" or "bias" before it was called "spin." Ideological and political bias attached to everything communicated to the public, in the attempt to shape public opinion to support those biases. They even have classes in media awareness in most public schools these days, though they're not as strong or as inclusive as they should be.
Deal is, science has biases built-in just like everything else, and these have long been communicated. Thus members of the public who are interested and educated well enough to follow have known about the existence of ideological and political bias for a long time. Particularly in sciences that are pertinent to sociopolitical matters.
IOW, science is already just another clamoring voice in the political circus. If it had wanted to be something else, it shouldn't have engaged in so much spin for so long that the public didn't become wise to it. It's too late now.
P.S. I have particularly enjoyed PZ's totally clueless act on all this. As someone who spins like a top 100% of the time, it's really quite funny that he'd think his act doesn't come across as just more spin!
Comment by Joy — April 14, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
April 14th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
John Hawks makes another good point:
Comment by Krauze — April 14, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
April 14th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Hi Joy,
"As someone who spins like a top 100% of the time, it's really quite funny that he'd think his act doesn't come across as just more spin!"
PZ doesn't like Mooney because one of Mooney's frames is the "some of my best friends are theistic evolutionists" frame.
Comment by Krauze — April 14, 2007 @ 6:02 pm
April 14th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Hi all,
Here is a link I found where Nisbet, himself, explains what he meant and defends it.
I will be commenting there after I read it through.
Provoking Balance
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 14, 2007 @ 6:05 pm
April 15th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
"So in today's America, like it or not, those seeking a broader public acceptance of science must rethink their strategies for conveying knowledge." (Nisbet & Mooney from the Washington Post)
Uh, scientists need to rethink their "strategy" for conveying knowledge to gain a broader public acceptance of science?
I didn't know that public acceptance of science was a problem. Anyone else heard of this problem before?
Unless I'm trapped in some alternate universe, the America I'm from is positively goofy for science. The American public generally supports science, materially and otherwise, and quite enthusiastically accepts science. Scientists are mongst the most trusted members of American society. Accordingly, Americans are amongst the most scientifically-literature cultures on Earth. (Not some alternate-Earth that only I inhabit.)
So where are Nisbet & Mooney from?
Some Ivory-Tower-alternate-universe, inhabited by academics (and the editors of the Washington Post) in which statements such as I quoted make perfect sense.
My suspicion is that Nisbet & Mooney know less about the American public than they know about science.
The problem (for Nisbet & Mooney) may be that the American public does pay special attention when scientists talk to them, they learn a lot from them (no failure to communicate), but they still know bullshit when they hear it!
Comment by Rock — April 15, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
April 16th, 2007 at 9:33 am
Rock:
What you say is true, and has been true for half a century (more if you include medicine as science). But it's not enough, because the American public has not yet abandoned its faith in gods/God, its support for sociopolitical institutions, and its democratic ideals. Between the Marxists, EAs and plain old authoritarian megalomaniacs in science - who, being enamored of their own superiority, tend to do the most proselytizing to the public - one might wonder *why* science remains so high on the public esteem-o-meter so long after the space race was won (with borrowed Nazis).
In an age of constant threat of nuclear proliferation, biological and various other WMDs, patenting of genes, mass experimentation on the food supply (with us as guinea pigs), basic health care rationing, universal wiretapping, the wholesale abrogation of the US Constitution and increasing impoverishment of the once-vital middle class, one might think science's contributions to the technology enabling our enslavement might cause the public to reconsider their allegiance. But they still hope, for some unfathomable reason, that science will set us free.
Even while it strongly appears as time goes on that the only freedom science has to offer is freedom from our freedom. It's not such a mystery. Science is and always was about control. If they can't control the physical world, they can at least control us.
Comment by Joy — April 16, 2007 @ 9:33 am