RE: Abridged summary of osi2016-25@googlegroups.com - 30 updates in 8 topics

[Eric Olson]

Part of that is why scicomm is about more than just translating science for different audiences.  It is about better describing or conveying science as a process, not just an outcome they see on the nightly news (which is a whole other layer).  The process involves elements that aren't really intuitive for many public audiences, including how organized skepticism works, what consensus means in science, and why that one voice is, in many cases, not representative of the facts (I think playing with the word "truth" just adds more complications to this) or the positions of particular institutions.  It is also a human process.  Highlighting the human factor is crucial to improving the trust in science as an institution for many communities (while others don't need to be convinced, or only need a little push).

This is also tied up in how we communicate risk, as well as media literacy.  The latter is particularly timely, but I have always maintained that understanding science communication (and #histcomm) inexorably linked with media literacy; both how audiences consume media and how communicators produce media (which is my last flailing attempt to tie this back, as it sort of speaks to Rick's point about the two ends of messaging).

Apologies again for the horrid formatting.

Eric

Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>
Date: 4/28/17 1:17 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: 'Rick Anderson' <rick.a...@utah.edu>, 'Eric Olson' <eol...@gmu.edu>, 'Susan Fitzpatrick' <su...@jsmf.org>, osi20...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Abridged summary of osi20...@googlegroups.com - 30 updates in 8 topics

Agreed---thanks for the clarification. But it’s the intersection of these two that worries me---the one bad apple phenomenon (whether the apple is actually bad or has just been portrayed as being bad for some purpose---such as how the cigarette lobby smeared cancer researchers). It happens everywhere, of course----where one crooked politician makes Congress look bad, one out of control athlete makes his team look bad, and so on. In these cases, though, “only” the sport or institution become sullied. When science becomes sullied, the ripple effects are broader and more significant. This may be much ado about nothing and I really don’t know what the answer is---just elaborating on my concern.





Glenn Hampson

Executive Director

National Science Communication Institute (nSCI)

Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)



osi-logo-2016-25-mail



2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133

(206) 417-3607 |  <mailto:gham...@nationalscience.org> gham...@nationalscience.org |  <http://nationalscience.org/> nationalscience.org



From: osi20...@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Rick Anderson
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 10:02 AM
To: Glenn Hampson; 'Eric Olson'; 'Susan Fitzpatrick'; osi20...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Abridged summary of osi20...@googlegroups.com - 30 updates in 8 topics



Glenn, I think where we’re getting tripped up is on the word “perceived.” If the scientist in question really is biased, and if her bias affects the way she does her work and presents her findings, then yes, the bias certainly hurts the quality of the science she produces. Whether she is perceived by others as biased is a separate question – those external perceptions are likely to affect the way people receive and think about her work, regardless of whether her biases actually affected the work itself.



So, to the degree that researchers’ personal biases undermine the rigor and disinterestedness with which they approach research questions, then I would say yes, bias hurts science in a very direct way. Public perception of bias (whether accurate or not) can also hurt science indirectly, by affecting the degree to which science can influence public understandings of reality (not to mention public funding of science).



---

Rick Anderson

Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication

Marriott Library, University of Utah

Desk: (801) 587-9989

Cell: (801) 721-1687

rick.a...@utah.edu



From: <osi20...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>
Organization: National Science Communication Institute
Date: Friday, April 28, 2017 at 10:49 AM
To: 'Eric Olson' <eol...@gmu.edu>, 'Susan Fitzpatrick' <su...@jsmf.org>, "osi20...@googlegroups.com" <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: Abridged summary of osi20...@googlegroups.com - 30 updates in 8 topics



But---and sorry again for this tangent (which it is, but it’s relevant to some of our discussions)---what about the science? I guess my concern isn’t so much whether the scientist herself is perceived as being less credible when grinding an ax, but whether her science suffers. If the scientist in this study was portrayed as being too wedded to the idea of carbon scrubbers over other technical solutions---if she was perceived as being more interested in her truth than in the truth---does this hurt their science or more broadly, does it hurt science in general? This ties back to all the Diet Coke stuff. If a scientist just has a GMO bias going and advances work that distorts science to advance an anti-GMO agenda, does this discolor their science and make all science suspect? Do people then start to question whether all scientists---climate change scientists, medical researchers, etc.---are all in bed with some special interest and are all trying to advance some specific, non-scientific agenda? I’m not sure where this argument is going---it kind of splinter from there into about a hundred different directions (if scientists should grind axes then when, how, they’re only human and will naturally have biases, etc.).



Glenn Hampson

Executive Director

National Science Communication Institute (nSCI)

Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)



si-logo-2016-25-mail



2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133

(206) 417-3607 |  <mailto:gham...@nationalscience.org> gham...@nationalscience.org |  <http://nationalscience.org/> nationalscience.org



From: osi20...@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Eric Olson
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 9:23 AM
To: Susan Fitzpatrick; 'Glenn Hampson'; osi20...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Abridged summary of osi20...@googlegroups.com - 30 updates in 8 topics



Please forgive me for a bunch of copy and pasting. 



Here is the article:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17524032.2016.1275736



Here is the abstract: It is often assumed that issue advocacy will compromise the credibility of scientists. We conducted a randomized controlled experiment to test public reactions to six different advocacy statements made by a scientist—ranging from a purely informational statement to an endorsement of specific policies. We found that perceived credibility of the communicating scientist was uniformly high in five of the six message conditions, suffering only when he advocated for a specific policy—building more nuclear power plants (although credibility did not suffer when advocating for a different specific policy—carbon dioxide limits at power plants). We also found no significant differences in trust in the broader climate science community between the six message conditions. Our results suggest that climate scientists who wish to engage in certain forms of advocacy have considerable latitude to do so without risking harm to their credibility, or the credibility of the scientific community.



I might actually be able to get the authors in here if there is an interest; Ed works two floors below me.



I'm just going to copy one more bit that I had written for a post on Trellis:

Actually, this isn't a surprise for our History of Science peers.  This fear seems to be a somewhat modern construction and there are some rather famous cases that point to it being unfounded, even before the studies weigh in.  Take a look  <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHBkyVZFHto> at this talk from this year's AAAS meeting by Naomi Oreskes about the "Scientist as Sentinel" (an abbreviated version anyway, I have some other [unfortunately handwritten] notes from the session if needed).







Sorry again for the messy post.  Formatting will probably be a nightmare...





Eric





Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone



-------- Original message --------
From: Susan Fitzpatrick <su...@jsmf.org>
Date: 4/28/17 11:58 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: 'Eric Olson' <eol...@gmu.edu>, 'Glenn Hampson' <gham...@nationalscience.org>, osi20...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Abridged summary of osi20...@googlegroups.com - 30 updates in 8 topics

Please do – credibility is no threatened when they maintain scientific authority?



Susan M. Fitzpatrick, Ph.D.

President, James S. McDonnell Foundation

Visit JSMF forum on academic issues: www.jsmf.org/clothing-the-emperor

SMF blog  www.scientificphilanthropy.com  







From: Eric Olson [mailto:eol...@gmu.edu]
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 10:45 AM
To: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>; 'Susan Fitzpatrick' <su...@jsmf.org>; osi20...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Abridged summary of osi20...@googlegroups.com - 30 updates in 8 topics



There was just a study about this recently.  According to that, scientists' credibility is not as threatened by advocacy as they perceive.  I am in the middle of an event, but I can post that and a relevant talk from the AAAS meeting a bit later.





Eric







Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone



-------- Original message --------
From: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org  <mailto:gham...@nationalscience.org%20%3cmailto:gham...@nationalscience.org> <mailto:gham...@nationalscience.org> >
Date: 4/28/17 10:37 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: 'Susan Fitzpatrick' <su...@jsmf.org  <mailto:su...@jsmf.org%20%3cmailto:su...@jsmf.org> <mailto:su...@jsmf.org> >, osi20...@googlegroups.com <mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com> 
Subject: RE: Abridged summary of osi20...@googlegroups.com <mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com>  - 30 updates in 8 topics

Ew, but yes---an interesting angle. Does this argue against scientists getting more politically involved? That is, if scientists aren’t perceived as neutral arbiters of truth but instead as smart folks with an axe to grind, does this hurt science or help? Or are we already there? Sorry---this might be a question for the Science of Science Policy listserv but it does seem apropos to the question of how journal articles are promoted to and received by the public.



Glenn Hampson

Executive Director

National Science Communication Institute (nSCI)

Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)



osi-logo-2016-25-mail



2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133

(206) 417-3607 |  <mailto:gham...@nationalscience.org> ghampson@nation

[David Wojick]

A big part of the problem (which I have studied quite a bit) is that in
K-12 and most of undergraduate college, science is taught as a fixed body
of knowledge. That deeply held views are repeatedly overthrown by
scientific revolutions, or that the frontier is a realm of fierce debate,
is hardly mentioned and certainly not emphasized.

In the US what is taught in K-12 is defined by state standards and it is
all "what the student will know." The new Next Generation Science Standards
do not change this. Science as a process is there but it is a linear
process for generating knowledge, apparently infallible knowledge.

The same is true for every college science textbook that I have seen, at
least in the hard sciences. It is typically only at the Master's degree
level that one gets close enough to the frontier to see the great ongoing
fights. And only by taking a course in history or philosophy of science
does one see the central role of transformative revolutions.

David

>Agreed---thanks for the clarification. But it’s the intersection of

>these two that worries me---the one bad apple phenomenon (whether the
>apple is actually bad or has just been portrayed as being bad for some
>purpose---such as how the cigarette lobby smeared cancer researchers). It
>happens everywhere, of course----where one crooked politician makes
>Congress look bad, one out of control athlete makes his team look bad, and

>so on. In these cases, though, “only†the sport or institution become

>sullied. When science becomes sullied, the ripple effects are broader and

>more significant. This may be much ado about nothing and I really don’t

>know what the answer is---just elaborating on my concern.
>
>
>
>
>
>Glenn Hampson
>
>Executive Director
>
>National Science Communication Institute (nSCI)
>
>Program Director
>Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
>
>
>
>osi-logo-2016-25-mail
>
>
>
>2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
>
>(206) 417-3607 | <mailto:gham...@nationalscience.org>
>gham...@nationalscience.org | <http://nationalscience.org/>
>nationalscience.org
>
>
>
>From: osi20...@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com] On
>Behalf Of Rick Anderson
>Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 10:02 AM
>To: Glenn Hampson; 'Eric Olson'; 'Susan Fitzpatrick';
>osi20...@googlegroups.com
>Subject: Re: Abridged summary of osi20...@googlegroups.com - 30 updates
>in 8 topics
>
>
>

>Glenn, I think where we’re getting tripped up is on the word
>“perceived.†If the scientist in question really is biased, and if her

>bias affects the way she does her work and presents her findings, then
>yes, the bias certainly hurts the quality of the science she produces.
>Whether she is perceived by others as biased is a separate question –

>those external perceptions are likely to affeect the way people receive

>and think about her work, regardless of whether her biases actually
>affected the work itself.
>
>
>

>So, to the degree that researchers’ personal biases undermine the rigor

>and disinterestedness with which they approach research questions, then I
>would say yes, bias hurts science in a very direct way. Public perception
>of bias (whether accurate or not) can also hurt science indirectly, by
>affecting the degree to which science can influence public understandings
>of reality (not to mention public funding of science).
>
>
>
>---
>
>Rick Anderson
>
>Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
>
>Marriott Library, University of Utah
>
>Desk: (801) 587-9989
>
>Cell: (801) 721-1687
>
>rick.a...@utah.edu
>
>
>
>From: <osi20...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Glenn Hampson
><gham...@nationalscience.org>
>Organization: National Science Communication Institute
>Date: Friday, April 28, 2017 at 10:49 AM
>To: 'Eric Olson' <eol...@gmu.edu>, 'Susan Fitzpatrick' <su...@jsmf.org>,
>"osi20...@googlegroups.com" <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
>Subject: RE: Abridged summary of osi20...@googlegroups.com - 30 updates
>in 8 topics
>
>
>

>But---and sorry again for this tangent (which it is, but it’s relevant

>to some of our discussions)---what about the science? I guess my concern

>isn’t so much whether the scientist herself is perceived as being less

>credible when grinding an ax, but whether her science suffers. If the
>scientist in this study was portrayed as being too wedded to the idea of
>carbon scrubbers over other technical solutions---if she was perceived as
>being more interested in her truth than in the truth---does this hurt
>their science or more broadly, does it hurt science in general? This ties
>back to all the Diet Coke stuff. If a scientist just has a GMO bias going
>and advances work that distorts science to advance an anti-GMO agenda,
>does this discolor their science and make all science suspect? Do people
>then start to question whether all scientists---climate change scientists,
>medical researchers, etc.---are all in bed with some special interest and

>are all trying to advance some specific, non-scientific agenda? I’m not

>sure where this argument is going---it kind of splinter from there into
>about a hundred different directions (if scientists should grind axes then

>when, how, they’re only human and will naturally have biases, etc.).

>
>
>
>Glenn Hampson
>
>Executive Director
>
>National Science Communication Institute (nSCI)
>
>Program Director
>Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
>
>
>
>si-logo-2016-25-mail
>
>
>
>2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
>
>(206) 417-3607 | <mailto:gham...@nationalscience.org>
>gham...@nationalscience.org | <http://nationalscience.org/>
>nationalscience.org
>
>
>
>From: osi20...@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com] On
>Behalf Of Eric Olson
>Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 9:23 AM
>To: Susan Fitzpatrick; 'Glenn Hampson'; osi20...@googlegroups.com
>Subject: RE: Abridged summary of osi20...@googlegroups.com - 30 updates
>in 8 topics
>
>
>
>Please forgive me for a bunch of copy and pasting.
>
>
>
>Here is the article:
>
>http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17524032.2016.1275736
>
>
>
>Here is the abstract: It is often assumed that issue advocacy will
>compromise the credibility of scientists. We conducted a randomized
>controlled experiment to test public reactions to six different advocacy

>statements made by a scientist—ranging froom a purely informational

>statement to an endorsement of specific policies. We found that perceived
>credibility of the communicating scientist was uniformly high in five of
>the six message conditions, suffering only when he advocated for a

>specific policy—building more nuclear power plants (aalthough credibility

>did not suffer when advocating for a different specific policy—carbon

>dioxide limits at power plants). We also found no siignificant differences

>Please do – credibility is no threatened when they maintain scientiffic

>getting more politically involved? That is, if scientists aren’t

[David Wojick]

This just in from NAS, including a research agenda:
http://mailchi.mp/nas/watch-livestream-aera-2017-and-communicating-science-effectively-and-science-literacy-two-recent-reports-from-the-national-academeis?e=11bd51549a

David

>>Agreed---thanks for the clarification. But it̢۪s thethe intersection of

>>these two that worries me---the one bad apple phenomenon (whether the
>>apple is actually bad or has just been portrayed as being bad for some
>>purpose---such as how the cigarette lobby smeared cancer researchers). It
>>happens everywhere, of course----where one crooked politician makes
>>Congress look bad, one out of control athlete makes his team look bad,

>>and so on. In these cases, though, “only†t¬ the sport or

>>institution become sullied. When science becomes sullied, the ripple
>>effects are broader and more significant. This may be much ado about

>>nothing and I really don̢۪t

>
>>know what the answer is---just elaborating on my concern.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Glenn Hampson
>>
>>Executive Director
>>
>>National Science Communication Institute (nSCI)
>>
>>Program Director
>>Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
>>
>>
>>
>>osi-logo-2016-25-mail
>>
>>
>>
>>2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
>>
>>(206) 417-3607 | <mailto:gham...@nationalscience.org>
>>gham...@nationalscience.org | <http://nationalscience.org/>
>>nationalscience.org
>>
>>
>>
>>From: osi20...@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com] On
>>Behalf Of Rick Anderson
>>Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 10:02 AM
>>To: Glenn Hampson; 'Eric Olson'; 'Susan Fitzpatrick';
>>osi20...@googlegroups.com
>>Subject: Re: Abridged summary of osi20...@googlegroups.com - 30 updates
>>in 8 topics
>>
>>
>>

>>Glenn, I think where we̢۪re getting tripped up is on on the word
>>“perceived.†If the scientist in questiestion really is biased, and

>>if her bias affects the way she does her work and presents her findings,
>>then yes, the bias certainly hurts the quality of the science she
>>produces. Whether she is perceived by others as biased is a separate

>>question – those external perceptions are likely to affeect the way

>>people receive and think about her work, regardless of whether her biases
>>actually affected the work itself.
>>
>>
>>

>>So, to the degree that researchers̢۪ personal biasesses undermine the

>>rigor and disinterestedness with which they approach research questions,
>>then I would say yes, bias hurts science in a very direct way. Public
>>perception of bias (whether accurate or not) can also hurt science
>>indirectly, by affecting the degree to which science can influence public
>>understandings of reality (not to mention public funding of science).
>>
>>
>>
>>---
>>
>>Rick Anderson
>>
>>Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
>>
>>Marriott Library, University of Utah
>>
>>Desk: (801) 587-9989
>>
>>Cell: (801) 721-1687
>>
>>rick.a...@utah.edu
>>
>>
>>
>>From: <osi20...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Glenn Hampson
>><gham...@nationalscience.org>
>>Organization: National Science Communication Institute
>>Date: Friday, April 28, 2017 at 10:49 AM
>>To: 'Eric Olson' <eol...@gmu.edu>, 'Susan Fitzpatrick' <su...@jsmf.org>,
>>"osi20...@googlegroups.com" <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
>>Subject: RE: Abridged summary of osi20...@googlegroups.com - 30 updates
>>in 8 topics
>>
>>
>>

>>But---and sorry again for this tangent (which it is, but it‬™s relevant

> >to some of our discussions)---what about the science? I guess my concern

>>isn̢۪t so much whether the scientist herself is percerceived as being

>>less credible when grinding an ax, but whether her science suffers. If
>>the scientist in this study was portrayed as being too wedded to the idea
>>of carbon scrubbers over other technical solutions---if she was perceived
>>as being more interested in her truth than in the truth---does this hurt
>>their science or more broadly, does it hurt science in general? This ties
>>back to all the Diet Coke stuff. If a scientist just has a GMO bias going
>>and advances work that distorts science to advance an anti-GMO agenda,
>>does this discolor their science and make all science suspect? Do people
>>then start to question whether all scientists---climate change
>>scientists, medical researchers, etc.---are all in bed with some special
>>interest and are all trying to advance some specific, non-scientific

>>agenda? I’m not

> >sure where this argument is going---it kind of splinter from there into
>>about a hundred different directions (if scientists should grind axes

>>then when, how, they̢۪re only human and will naturally ha have biases, etc.).

>>
>>
>>
>>Glenn Hampson
>>
>>Executive Director
>>
>>National Science Communication Institute (nSCI)
>>
>>Program Director
>>Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
>>
>>
>>
>>si-logo-2016-25-mail
>>
>>
>>
>>2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
>>
>>(206) 417-3607 | <mailto:gham...@nationalscience.org>
>>gham...@nationalscience.org | <http://nationalscience.org/>
>>nationalscience.org
>>
>>
>>
>>From: osi20...@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com] On
>>Behalf Of Eric Olson
>>Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 9:23 AM
>>To: Susan Fitzpatrick; 'Glenn Hampson'; osi20...@googlegroups.com
>>Subject: RE: Abridged summary of osi20...@googlegroups.com - 30 updates
>>in 8 topics
>>
>>
>>
>>Please forgive me for a bunch of copy and pasting.
>>
>>
>>
>>Here is the article:
>>
>>http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17524032.2016.1275736
>>
>>
>>
>>Here is the abstract: It is often assumed that issue advocacy will
>>compromise the credibility of scientists. We conducted a randomized
>>controlled experiment to test public reactions to six different advocacy

>>statements made by a scientist—ranging froom a purely informationaal

>>statement to an endorsement of specific policies. We found that perceived
>>credibility of the communicating scientist was uniformly high in five of
>>the six message conditions, suffering only when he advocated for a
>>specific policy—building more nuclear power plants (aalthough

>>creddibility did not suffer when advocating for a different specific
>>policy—carrbon dioxide limits at power plants). We also found no

>>Please do ­ credibility is no threatened when they maintain scienttiffic

>>getting more politically involved? That is, if scientists aren’t

> >perceived as neutral arbiters of truth but instead as smart folks with an
>>axe to grind, does this hurt science or help? Or are we already there?
>>Sorry---this might be a question for the Science of Science Policy
>>listserv but it does seem apropos to the question of how journal articles
>>are promoted to and received by the public.
>>
>>Glenn Hampson
>>Executive Director
>>National Science Communication Institute (nSCI)
>>Program Director
>>Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
>>
>>osi-logo-2016-25-mail
>>2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
>>
>>(206) 417-3607 | <mailto:gham...@nationalscience.org> ghampson@nation
>

>--
>As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can
>be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete
>listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit
>http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
>--- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
>To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
>To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
>Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.