Frame or be framed?

JC, Fairbanks, AK — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 06:55:30 GMT

As a scientist, I will absolutely NEVER agree with the idea that Science or its results should EVER be "spun". The very idea is, BY DEFINITION, UN-Science; no matter WHO is doing the "spinning", or what the cause is. It is against the very tenets of Science, as embodied in the Scientific Method, which every scientist worthy of the title must hold themselves to, or risk death-by-atomic-wedgie! . . . Ok, maybe not that, but ones who don’t are ‘cranks’, not scientists. Period.

Unfortunately the Scientific Method cannot be easily looked up on the internet, which is clogged with agenda-driven mis-information, all of which comes right up on Google. http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html is the best I can do for the moment on this.

People will do what they will with scientific findings, though I think *we* (scientists) SHOULD put them in as digestible forms as possible, and have done a BAD job of that. But EVERYONE should have access to the results, in UNADULTERATED, UN-CHERRY-PICKED form. A good current example of the negative is how many geo-science organizations, including basically ALL of the US ones, have put out position statements expressing the concensus finding that ‘global warming’ is real and “anthro-assisted”, if not entirely caused. Yet my home-state Senators continue to quote virtually the only guy at the GI or IARC willing to say there’s any doubt people are causing change.

In the end it is EVERYONE'S business to decide what (or IF) to do about things Science is finding out. “Policy” is NOT the province of Science. But I have a serious problem with the sort of interference and censorship of those findings which has been *endemic* in the current administration. It has a pre-determined, ideological agenda that has so far been impervious at best and hostile at worst, to facts, scientific or otherwise, that don’t fit its preconceptions.

Frame or be framed?

john doe, seattle, wash. — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 08:00:09 GMT

framing science to fit the different fashions of the different personalities of society is nothing new. it's just how the world has worked since civilized thinking was awakened in the human mind. in every aspect of society someone twists facts about facts until there no longer facts to have people beleive something that is benificial to the science program war program of the machine we call the civilized world. the lord of lies has crippled the human soul into a downward spiral into mass extinction and instead of opposing it we humans applaud it and praise it because of our lazy egotistical ways of using our inner souls. war against the machine peace and love and fight the system and the program of all that is popular in this day and age.

Frame or be framed?

JC, Fairbanks, AK — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 08:07:17 GMT

This: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17953433/ is a perfect example of my point about politicians messing with scientific findings. It isn't the scientists involved that are making these changes to this scientific report. Why? So PEOPLE won't know about the results? . . . the key words are: “written by scientists before government officials edit it”. For things they don’t like.

Frame or be framed?

Dennis McClain-Furmanski — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 09:33:28 GMT

As a professional scientist as well as a science educator, I heartily agree with the framing side of the issue. Science is conducted with the support of the public, for the public's benefit. Making the products of science socially relevant by framing those products in terms that matter to the public is simply the resposible way to conduct science. This requires that scientists be aware of the relevant social issues. It is unethical to conduct science without considering the implications to society and making statements within the presentation of results that make those implications clear.

It is common for scientists to include statement of implications in their work. Unfortunately this is often done in narrow terms that justify further research on the topic rather than being based on the broader social perspective. Many graduate degree programs offer classes in research ethics, or at least include this in their research methodology classes. But the focus is most often on experimentation on human and other animal subjects, a laubable undertaking, but teaching social responsibility then falls by the wayside.

Presentation to the public then falls to science journalists and writers in the popular media. They are more likely to present more social implications. Again unfortunately, they too often do so in sensationalistic terms. Such is the bias created by the need to publish consistently in a way that attracts public attention. This is a two edged sword in that the public's attention should be brought to bear on the science being done for them, but it also leads them to present only those issues that are hot-button items. Those who present the science to the public on behalf of scientists should also be held accountable to this issue. It is they who can request of the scientists statements of social implications if these are not made clear in the original publications.

For the most part scientists do a good job of policing their own, but they are not without bias either. Journalists, when they do their job well, serve as science watchdogs for the public's interests. These too should be educated in the ethical and social issues so they can write more clearly for the public about those things which truly matter.

Frame or be framed?

Rick, Boca Raton, FL — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 09:42:54 GMT

I'd be willing to bet that if any Neo-Con needed fetal-stem cell treatment, their moral high ground would crumble under their fat little feet.

Frame or be framed?

Chris Mooney — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 11:27:43 GMT

Hi Alan,

Thanks so much for the in depth, thoughtful post. Matt Nisbet and I have indeed sparked some debate (as you predicted) and will be doing a reply to all of the replies (including of course yours). In the meantime, let me add that the article in Science was necessarily brief, but I've made a list of further resources that elaborate upon our argument, explaining things like "What is Framing":

http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/
2007/04/framing_science_additional_res.php

Frame or be framed?

Doug Fingles, Warner Robins, GA — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 12:44:32 GMT

Oh, the hubris of the intelligentsia...we, the lay people aren't educated enough or already so biased we cannot understand the facts, so we get the "framed" version? Now I know how the GEICO cavemen feel..

Frame or be framed?

A. Lisa Swift, Lemoore CA — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 13:10:53 GMT

"Can the words "political" and "integrity" be used in the same sentence?"

Only if they're used separated...

Putting them together ("political integrity") forms an oxymoron.

LOL!

Frame or be framed?

A. Lisa Swift, Lemoore CA — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 13:29:41 GMT

Framing... Everyone does it, including scientists. Just ask how they apply for grants from various agencies, both public and private. Each application has to fit the parameters of the grant restrictions, even if the research project is the same one on each application.

The problem comes with release of research results. If they are just reported as facts, the general public has no way of determining what those facts mean, and they fall back on their own information-filtering processes, which can lead to seemingly deliberate perversion of facts, which is not the intent of the layperson.

Then, of course, you have those who deliberately pervert the facts to fit their own political or religious agendas... Faux News is full of them! Unfortunately, many in the general public believe these ideologues. Without framing, scientists feed these perversions, rather than confounding them.

Framing should be SOP for scientists reporting research results in a public forum.
The bare facts belong in peer-reviewed scientific publications.

Frame or be framed?

Rick — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 14:30:35 GMT

'Framing'? Sounds like you want scientists to not remain politically neutral and bias their work and conclusions towards acheiving a set goal. That sounds like everyday politics! Science is science, for its own sake. It's a researchers job to simply do research and present the data. Dishonesty creeps into the scientific process only when politicians meddle.

Frame or be framed?

Prescott, Aurora, Colorado — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 16:47:27 GMT

The term “framing science” is itself framed by politically correctness. It’s more to the point to say science is stifled by superstition, fear, greed, and jealousy. Rather than “framed science”, the term “bias science” is more accurate and to the point.

Science has been deliberately stifled for millennia, but it must be recognized that there’s a powerful current trend toward political correctness.

How ironic… In the field of knowledge we perceive as being the most honest...

In the time of Galileo Galilei, heresy against the One Church and the Bible were the greatest taboos. The truth was “unspeakable”. Today, the greatest, most unspeakable truth is anthropology, or the scientific study of various races.

Frame or be framed?

Peter Wilson, Simi Valley, CA — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 18:17:27 GMT

What comes to mind is a show I saw on PBS the other night about cuttlefish. The scientists had determined to test cuttlefish intelligence. The way they "framed" these intelligence tests was so abstract, so disconnected from the cuttlefish's "real world," that they seemed completely worthless. I know anthropomorphism is considered a deadly sin by scientists, but I feel at some point, they must put themselves in the shoes of the animals they study, "frame" the problem in other terms, or no real progress can come of it.

Frame or be framed?

Chris Winters, Seattle, Wash. — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 18:48:17 GMT

Hmm... how to frame this? "Scientists, write your own headlines, lest a time-pressed newspaper editor with no background in science picks the most convenient and controversial data point and tells the nearest reporter to go write about how evolution leads to breast cancer." This is really about addressing the science-media gap more than anything.

Frame or be framed?

Joe Hartley, Vancouver Washington — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 21:07:52 GMT

This is way off the subject and compound this with the fact that I am just a common layman, but concerning the roadside bomb issue in the Mid-East, What is the possibility using a focused electromagnetic pulse to sweep an area just ahead of personel that would be targeted,quite possibly even a high gain fm frequency to disarm IED's??

Frame or be framed?

Bill Mullins, Belgrade, Maine — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 23:51:43 GMT

I'm just an average Bill. I read these scientific blogs hoping for some insight into the things I like to think about, like the nature of space and time, or whether my Buick is dooming the next generation. I rather rely on the scientists to be impartial reporters of the facts as they understand them. Sometimes I don't fully understand what the hell they're trying to say, but I put that down to my own lack of understanding. Sometimes, as with that guy who thinks that the observer of an event not only changes the event but elevates it to some sort of new age religious experence, I consider it but in the end reject it as unfounded. I guess I'm just trying to educate myself.

My point is that I trust the scientfic community to tell me what they understand about any given subject. Of course there is disagreement about what any set of data might mean. I expect that. Let me have all sides of the debate and let me decide what I think might be true. I'm not at all sure, for instance, that I'll buy into any report that's been edited by any political entity. I doubt anyone would. Is there global warming? Yes, it seems so. Is it all the fault of my Buick? Maybe, but the jury is still out, because the edited report seems to have fudged the facts when it comes to the warming event that preceded the Little Ice Age.

Frame or be framed?

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 16:50:18 GMT

People can't handle the truth which is what science seeks to discover. The most popular issue is global warming. Many area happy with dodging the truth and making up their own "truths" to suit themselves. This is trailer park science.

Frame or be framed?

Matthew C. Nisbet, Washington, DC — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 18:12:25 GMT

Hi all,
At the link below, in regards to our Science commentary, I have a round up and some reactions to the major blog debate that has erupted over the past 72 hours.

http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/
2007/04/dont_be_a_dodo_bloggers_weigh.php

Frame or be framed?

Alan Sheets, Loveland CO — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:04:15 GMT

The problem with "framing" and "politics" in science is that ALL scientists start off with an agenda of some sort when they do their observations or form their initial hypothesis. "Integrity" comes in during the revision of the hypothesis to match the recorded data during the experiment, while "lack of integrity" comes to play during the recording or observation of data that doesn't fit the original hypothesis.

Frame or be framed?

Hunter Jacksonville Fl — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 20:23:01 GMT

Thank You Rick in Boca Raton. Thank You.

Frame or be framed?

JC, Fairbanks, AK — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 14:14:23 GMT

To: D. M-F.
>“Science is conducted with the support of the public, for the public's benefit.”
Whose benefit? If so, why do major inventions that come out of our space program (and others) end up in ‘private’ (read: ‘rich guy’s) hands for a dime? Next up: aero-gel.

>“It is common for scientists to include statement of implications in their work.”

No. It isn’t. Ones who do so individually are ones with an agenda. Most scientific organizations occasionally produce ‘position statements’, but editorializing is a good way to get lumped in with the Michael Crichtons of the world, at least in my field, and rightly so. Would kind of like to give that **** an ‘atomic wedgie’….

“For the most part scientists do a good job of policing their own, but they are not without bias either.”

True on both counts D. M-F., but thanks for pointing out the former. The latter is something that comes complete with being human.

To A. Lisa:
I think your observation about “political” ”integrity” is cynical, but true, unless someone like Colin Powell would get into it. I vote for him perennially, but my one vote hasn’t had the hoped-for effect yet . . . I keep hoping it’ll “tunnel” . . .

“The bare facts belong in peer-reviewed scientific publications.”

Granted they have to be put into terms people can understand, but no, I don’t agree that the ‘bare facts’ belong just in peer-reviewed journals. I don’t agree with that any more than I expect to be handed a ‘shop manual’ to my car when I bring it in and it’s whatzis has a corrosion-related multi-capacitance with compound hose infractions . . . .

To Rick and Bill Mullins:

Thanks for your votes of confidence, guys. 98% of us will do our best not to let you down.

To Prescott:
“science is stifled by superstition, fear, greed, and jealousy”

Superstition especially . . .

Frame or be framed?

Greg Laden, Minneapolis, MN — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:10:39 GMT

There is a lot of resistance to "spinning" because science itself attempts to do the exact opposite! But there may be a role for this sort of thing ... not at the immediate level of this press release or that news conference, but rather, in developing a broader public "Frame" into which members of the general public can "shift" when they recognize that they are seeing or hearing about science.

To some extent this already exists ... much of the public already knows that when a scientist is talking they are not the same thing as a politician.

And this sort of thing ... this large scale "frame building" probably needs a lot of support from the K-12 education system.

Frame or be framed?

JC, Fairbanks, AK — Thu, 15 May 2008 18:10:04 GMT

To Ron of Boca Raton: . . . as happened to Nancy Reagan.... I feel sorry for her.