It would appear that communication within the field of science, science learning, scientific research, etc. is something that has lacked attention. I suppose this is sensible, because oftentimes when working in the field, people focus on the acquisition of data and not necessarily how to convey that data to other people, whether those people be peers or civilians. But I agree with Christopher Reddy’s argument that scientific work doesn’t mean much of anything if it isn’t shared with the public, and in such a way that many people from far and wide can know about it and understand it. It’s by sharing scientific discoveries with those with the power to act on them that necessary changes get made, ones involving such issues as climate change or clean energy, for example. Of course, herein we get into issues of partisan politics or cultural differences, as Matthew C. Nisbet and Chris Mooney mention, but in that case, “framing” discoveries in ways that make them more attractive or digestible to different kinds of people comes in handy. Essentially, the purpose of framing scientific points of interest is to make them, well, interesting to different people, and because there is such a swath of varying opinions, politics, and cultures, no one person will be as receptive to one particular frame as another person. We saw this in the example of evolution, and how common people didn’t typically respond well to overly scientific ways of framing evolution, but rather how the existence of evolutionary theory affected economic conditions, and therefore, affected them. People typically only respond to things if they affect or threaten them.

I thought it was actually rather interesting how Nisbet’s and Mooney’s “framing” argument somewhat provides a solution to Reddy’s conundrum. Reddy argued that scientists needed to be more focused on making their scientific work available to, and understandable by, the public. The best way to do this, according to Nisbet and Mooney, is to frame the scientific findings in a way that makes them accessible. I agree that these two arguments are very important to the concept of science communication. Scientific progress is nothing if not communicated to the people, because the people are the ones who need science the most. It’s unfortunate that we don’t pay as much attention to issues like climate change as we should, and it’s a shame that oftentimes that disinterest comes down to political views rather than scientific views. It probably goes back to what my father and I discussed today about how partisanship was one of the worst things to happen to this country. George Washington wasn’t a fan of it. But, I digress. Perhaps through framing, we can find a way around the political pigheadedness and get people to pay attention to the science of it? Maybe in order to do so, we’ll have to do what Nisbet and Mooney said at the end of the article, which was to “avoid emphasizing the technical details of science”, because oftentimes it is the technical details that scare people away.