Science, media and the public domain: lessons to be learnt from the climate change debate

Historically, scientists have tried to maintain themselves and their profession as distinct from the public domain and political debates. As news becomes more about entertainment and less about informing the public, and when we are faced with major environmental challenges such as climate change, it highlights the need for more effective science communication in the public domain.
When climate change first became newsworthy, the media and the public were more concerned about whether climate change was real and to what extent (Fischhoff 2007), than they were about how society could change to address the problem. I am sure this direction was not expected or predicted by climate scientists, but I am also sure they were unprepared and under-resourced to influence the media direction and public thought on climate change.
This is a lesson to be learnt from the climate change debate and a mistake that should never be repeated. Science is a recognised and well-respected profession (Van Riper 2006), and yet it does not have a representative professional body in Australia. At least not one that is well-known by the public and active in the media. Compare this to the accounting profession, which has two well-recognised professional bodies in Australia, Chartered Accountants and CPA Australia. Both of which have media departments and represent their members to the media.
This idea of a lack of investment in media relations and public relations can be demonstrated on many different levels. For example, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) was reviewed by the National Research Council and it found that the communication of results and engagement of stakeholders, including the media and public, was inadequate (Maibach & Priest 2009). This was likely due to the small amount of budget dedicated towards decision-support services and communication. Surprisingly, the CCSP vision was to produce "information that can be used to formulate strategies for preventing, mitigating and adapting to climate change" (Maibach & Priest 2009 p.303), and yet science still is unprepared to fully engage with the media and public domain.
In the defence of science, Fischhoff (2007) points out that the rules of communicating within the scientific community are completely different to the rules of the media and public advocacy. The science community expects its members to consider all evidence and identify uncertainties; even to the extent that theories are updated as new evidence is discovered. In the media, however, the rules are dramatically different. Claims need not include all the facts, "evidence is assembled to make a case, not to provide a full picture", "uncertainty is avoided" and "positions are defended, come what may" (Fischhoff 2007 p.7205).
So it is understandable that there is a large chasm to cross when communicating as a scientist within your profession and then as a scientific representative to the media and public. These skills are barely touched upon or not taught at all to would-be scientists before they graduate. Although it is a high demand to require this double skill-set from all scientists, surely the profession itself could organise a representative body to assist scientists when speaking to the media. Fischhoff (2007) suggests that climate scientists, decision scientists, social scientists and designers should work together to present a clear message of "nonpersuasive communication" (p.7208), and this will provide the accuracy, relevance and clarity needed to successfully communicate to the public, without undermining scientific integrity.
In terms of accuracy, relevance and clarity, Kahlor and Rosenthal suggest that "having less knowledge, if what is known is more worth knowing, can have greater individual and societal value than having more knowledge that is less worth knowing." This was definitely not considered in the climate change debate. There was so much information in the public domain, and arguably still is, that the key pieces of information were lost and public confusion was the result.
Action on climate change is often spoken about as either a top-down or bottom-up approach. In Newcastle, we have seen grass roots organisations like 'Rising Tide Newcastle' receive national media coverage (ABC News 2010) and 'Climate Action Newcastle' organise solar panels for hundreds of Newcastle homes (Climate Action Newcastle 2010). Nationally we have seen the debacle of emissions trading and carbon taxes unfold with still no action from the Australian Government. Internationally we have seen the Kyoto Protocol have its successes and the Copenhagen Summit fall short of all expectations (The Australian 2010). Regardless of the past success or failures of these bottom-up or top-down approaches, climate change is still a major issue of our time and science still has a major role to play in it.
Climate change will be an ongoing issue for modern society indefinitely. It is therefore necessary for science to quickly learn from the mistakes of the past and reapply itself to the ongoing problem of international inaction on climate change. Whether this is media training for scientists, a professional body or bodies to represent scientists in the media, or some other solution. Climate change will irrevocably change science communication, just as it will change social structures and culture. It is worth noting, however, that the way science is conducted within its own domain is a culture that maintains the integrity and independence of what is uniquely the scientific process, and it is not this process which I am suggesting needs to be changed. I would suggest, however, that if science cannot communicate its findings to the media and public in a way that doesn't cause confusion or take away from the key messages of the research; then its position in society will lose its influence and become redundant. Science cannot afford not to learn from the mistakes of the climate change debate just as society too must change its ways.

Article Source: http://www.gamblingarticlessite.net

This article written by Chelsey Zuiderwyk - For more information visit my website Greening Newcastle. Addressing topics such as living green.

Please Rate this Article

5 out of 54 out of 53 out of 52 out of 51 out of 5 

Not yet Rated