Download Citizen science: What is it and why might STS be interested?

Science of science communication:
Science and society perspectives
Bruce V. Lewenstein
Professor of Science Communication
Chair, Department of Science & Technology Studies
Cornell University
Presented to NAS Committee on Science of Science Communication
17 Dec 2015
What – and why – studying?
u
u
u
u
Science and society are mutually shaping
(or mutually constituitive, or co-produced)
How that happens is inherently interesting
and worth studying
Science communication is part of that
process
But what part of science comm should we
study?
Is this science communication?
Grant proposals
Lab/
Field
Formal paper
Meetings
Preprints
Media (web, TV
magazines, radio
newspapers, blogs,
Twitter, books, etc.)
Textbooks
Policy
documents,
etc.
Sphere of Science Communication
From: Lewenstein, Bruce V. (2011). Experimenting with Engagement. Commentary on "Taking Our Own Medicine:
On an Experiment in Science Communication."Science And Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 817-821.
What is the problem?
u
u
“To improve the communication of science
on controversial issues…”
Scientists and science community
– Perceived lack of support, misuse of science
(facts and process), denial of well-established
knowledge
u
Activist groups
– Perceived intransigence of science community
u
Science studies community
– Whose interests do we represent?
Science 22 July 2011:, Vol. 333 no. 6041 p. 394
My take:
u
Bruce Lewenstein, a sociologist [sic] at Cornell
University … thinks critics are overreacting. He
says the distinction between knowledge and belief
is important and must be understood to get a
clearer picture of the public's knowledge of
science. “Knowledge and belief are not the same,”
he says. “It might be politically useful for the
scientific community to pretend that they are the
same, but it would not be intellectually honest.”
(Bhattacharjee, 2011, Science, 22 July 2011, p.
394)
The key issue
u
u
u
Science is a social institution
Science communication is social process
Must be reflexive and explicit about where
social values shape SoSC research
Deficit Model vs. Public Engagement
u
u
u
Driven by concerns about attitudes towards
science
Data shows that correlation between
knowledge and attitudes is not simple; ergo,
deficit approach (to measurement and to
programming) not sufficient [n.b., not
“wrong”])
Leads to: Public engagement
Public engagement
u
Educational engagement
Participatory democracy
Institutional engagement
u
Example: Citizen science
u
u
– Driven by science? By education? By
governance/critical concerns? By institutional
needs?
http://informalscience.org/research/wiki/Public-Engagement
Why we care: Controversies
u
u
u
u
u
u
Vaccines and autism
Evolution
Climate change
GMOs
Hydrofracking
Emerging technologies
– Nanotechnology, Synthetic biology, Artificial
Intelligence, Robotics, Geoengineering, etc.
Ways to understand controversies
u
u
u
Priority disputes: driven by norms and
counter-norms
Scientific process: virtual witnessing,
experimenter’s regress, interpretive
flexibility, rhetoric, openness/closure
Social controversies: interest politics, social
embeddedness of science, legal and
regulatory issues, expertise and authority,
institutional trust
Why we care: Controversies
u
u
u
u
u
u
Vaccines and autism
Evolution
Climate change
GMOs
Hydrofracking
Emerging technologies
– Nanotechnology, Synthetic biology, Artificial
Intelligence, Robotics, Geoengineering, etc.
Controversies reveal stress points
u
u
Fundamental methodological issue
Reveals difficulty in specifying standards of
evidence, experimental meanings, relevant
variables, interactions with values,
interactions with policy, etc.
Lessons?
u
Can’t tell scientists how to avoid
controversy
– It’s inherent in science
– There’s a lot we don’t know
– My role: analyst or activist? Today: analyst.
Lessons
u
u
u
u
Don’t assume we (who are “we”?) know
the scientific answer
Be careful about how we draw the
boundaries on science issues we study
The issue may be one of politics and
governance, not comprehension
Focus on the social/collective, not just the
cognitive/individual