The Consequences of Spin
by MikeGeneThe Nisbet/Mooney essay has triggered quite a debate on the blogosphere, as it appears there is a significant demand for scientists to embrace the role of spin doctor.
For example, someone named Pam writes:
I pick up echoes of this in the "framing science" debate, which is so far taking place mainly among scientists and wannabe science groupies such as myself. As Bora puts it, there's something the word "framing" that just rubs scientists the wrong way. Beyond that, there's the Mooney/Nisbet contention that scientists have what amounts to a political responsibility to society to get better at communication that sets the public agenda.
At what point did scientists acquire this "political responsibility" to get better at setting agendas? As I have just explained, the general public is becoming increasingly savvy about propaganda and manipulation and thus increasingly sensitized to this type of manipulative communication. Pardoxically, this could mean that as scientists get better at agenda-based "communication," they will become increasingly unpersuasive as millions of people tune them out as yet another "special interest group" or new form of pundits.
David Roberts writes:
The reason I think scientists should stay involved in the public realm is that they have a great deal of authority in our culture. When a scientist says something, it's taken seriously, even if it's not a scientific fact or result. That give scientists a great deal of social power. And as all Spider-man fans know, with great power must come great responsibility.
True, but this social power is easily dwindled and lost once more and more of the public begin to think of scientists as yet another group supporting its own agenda with spin. The very reason scientists still have some of this social power is precisely because most have shied away from becoming politicians and spin doctors.
Of course, once more scientists begin merging their science with the art of public persuasion, what should they do? Roberts says:
So how could scientists improve public communication? The first step is acknowledging the obvious: the reason they ventured into the public sphere in the first place has to do with their values, and their desired ends. It is not, and never has been, purely to impart knowledge.
When scientists enter the political debate, they need to remember this is a two-way street. Thus, the public will want to know what these values and desired ends are. And more importantly, how is the public supposed to know if the scientist is really using science or his/her values when trying to persuade? Why is the public supposed to believe that science, that just happens to coincide with pre-set values, isn't really the output of those values?
Roberts also writes:
The assumption of many scientists is: the public needs more facts! More science! More education!
This is the assumption Mooney and Nisbet were trying to dislodge. More facts ≠more understanding. People begin with a worldview, a set of assumptions and values and predilections, and tend to work backward from there, gathering facts that are convenient. Inconvenient facts just slide right off.
So if scientists want to persuade, instead of just lecture, they must take those worldviews and values into account.
What Roberts fails to realize is that scientists with a political agenda will be perceived as such. That is, their attempt "to persuade" will be recognized as an attempt to persuade. And since the scientist has entered the political fray, arguing for an agenda that has opponents, opponents of the agenda will quickly figure out that the scientist's "social power" must be cut away. And it would be easy. How? If you simply point out that the scientist is not behaving as a scientist, and instead is behaving as a spin doctor, you now provide the cynical public with a good reason to dismiss the inconvenient facts as untrustworthy.
April 14th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Hi Mike,
So, is this top spinning in the right direction for you, yet?
Let me try to provide a little counter-spin.
And if all the scientists are trying to do is "to persuade" the public that unbiased information is good for them?
As I am sure you (and most people) know a top agenda (either #1 or #2) of a scientist is to get enough funding to continue his/her work.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 14, 2007 @ 3:03 pm
April 14th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Hi TP,
I told ya this topic will breed only more cynicism.
LOL. Have fun convincing the general public that a spin doctor is just trying to act as an "unbiased source of information."
If scientists become increasingly political, then the general public, who provide the funds, will want to take a much closer look at this funding process. And that "look" will all be part of the political debate.
Comment by MikeGene — April 14, 2007 @ 3:12 pm
April 14th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Hi Mike…
That was an easy predication to make.
I am curious now, are you claiming your posts are scientific discussions and not PR?
My turn to laugh. They weren't planning on introducing themselves with "Hi, I am Dr. Spin Doctor". However, there are plenty of PR organisations out there that will gladly attempt to make that connection early in the discussion I would call it spinning the issue.
How about honesty? "Hi I am Dr.global-warming-expert, and while I would perfer to present all facts on this issue, it is not practical. Therefore, today I will focus on why I think this is an important issus worthy of funding. BTW, a complete analysis of the issue is available in scientific papers available on the web at…"
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 14, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
April 14th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Hi TP,
You write:
There is plenty of middle ground between a "scientific discussion" and "PR." After all, are you claiming your comments are scientific discussions and not PR?
Ah, but if the scientist takes the advice of Nisbet and Mooney and becomes a spin doctor, it is not spinning to point this out. In other words, Nisbet and Mooney want to make it even easier for PR organizations to make a connection which, ironically, would be valid.
You write:
Sounds fine by me, especially since it is the public who provides the funding. But this is not what Nisbet and Mooney are talking about. They advocate that scientists look for "frames." What are these "frames?"
The goal here is manipulation. That is, design your definition of the issue such that it "resonates with core values and assumptions." Why? It's not just to identify "why an issue matters" but also includes "who might be responsible and what should be done." It's a call for action. Help citizens properly blame "the right people" and undertake some course of action.
Let's use your global warming example to see what trouble the scientific community has gotten itself into. According to Nisbet and Mooney:
There is another word for "college educated Republicans" "“ mainstream. So here we have an important scientific issue that has already become deeply politicized. The way out is to come up with better spin?
Comment by MikeGene — April 14, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
April 14th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Hi Mike,
I am not a "middle ground" kind of guy. My comments in this thread are pure PR.
I will now take the time to read the Nisbet and Mooney article to look for the "spin doctor" part. Up to now, I have been content to agree that "framing" is probably a bad idea based on the selected quotes you provided.
I wrote…
How about honesty? "Hi I am Dr.global-warming-expert, and while I would perfer to present all facts on this issue, it is not practical. Therefore, today I will focus on why I think this is an important issus worthy of funding. BTW, a complete analysis of the issue is available in scientific papers available on the web at"¦"
Someone (Nisbet and Mooney?) wrote…
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.
I will grant you there is some gray area here. Once again, I will have to read the entire article and I will, now that we are past the early spin part of this thread.
My knee jerk reaction was that "who is responsible" was referring to determining who should be interested in the issue because they are the ones charged with doing something about it.
The gray area is scientists proposing a plan of action. Again, I understand why they would want to because if nothing can be done, why bother funding it? Offering some specifics would be consistent with trying to obtain funding
However, I agree that it is very dangerous for scientists to start down the path of suggesting policy.
A truly unbiased scientist could easily see this as a communication problem. Why doesn't this group of people understand the data we are presenting? Are we using terms that causes "college educated Republicans" to stop reading after the opening paragraph? If we can just get them to look at the data…
Providing Counter-spin
P.S.
You wrote…
P.S. Mike, you are better than this. Rush Limbaugh claims to be telling the truth. Does that mean he isn't spinning?
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 14, 2007 @ 5:19 pm
April 17th, 2007 at 4:19 am
There are only two kinds of politics: Good politics, and bad politics. There is no such thing as "no politics."
Do scientists have a political agenda? Sure: Get the truth.
IDists have difficulty with that, and so they yell at scientists to "stop playing politics." Typical.
Why shouldn't scientists explain that our agricultural industry would be impossible without Darwinian theory applied to it? Why shouldn't scientists explain the sterility of ID in practical application?
Comment by edarrell — April 17, 2007 @ 4:19 am