As I reflect on this topic of science and communication, I am reminded of something we talked about very early in the semester. For some reason, when I think about scientists communicating their findings, I imagine the pictures of the scientists in their lab coats that we thought about early in the semester. I think a big reason that this is on my mind is because of the jargon I always come across reading a scientific finding from a peer-reviewed journal. While I understand that this is not the way that most people come across their science learning, I have always had a very difficult time understanding anything being said in these journals. I believe that there needs to be improvement editing these journals or perhaps summarizing the findings of these papers so that the layperson like myself can understand what is being said without having to read it several times.

Another reason this image comes to mind is something discussed in class and in one of the articles which is the issue of Science and Religion. For the most part, science views religion as simply a hindrance to growth. Of course religion is something that is based on belief and not evidence, but I think if the scientific community made a more concerted effort to see eye to eye with the religious community as opposed to giving off more of a superior, elitist attitude that religion is simply false and childsplay, more people would be sympathetic to the scientific community and would accept what they are told from the scientific community.

It didn’t surprise me to read that people use their religious/ political beliefs and personal opinions to choose news sources and websites “whose outlooks match their own” (Nisbet & Mooney, “Framing Science” 56). This is especially easy now that much of the Internet is personalized for its users. Websites like Google and Facebook collect information based on the links we click on and the articles we read and information we type into the search bar, and auction that information to companies that place personalized ads strategically right under your nose to sell products they think you might be interested in based on what you seem to be interested in. Before I was consciously aware of this personalization, I was surprised and amazed to receive a postcard from my cable company advertising special cooking channels. I realized that I had been reading about French and Asian cooking and recipes on the Internet and that’s how Time Warner Cable thought it would be smart to inform me of their featured cooking channels. Internet activist Eli Parisier calls the asserts that personalization creates what he calls “filter bubbles” [after which his book on the subject is named] for Internet users—bubbles in which we only see what the Internet thinks we want to see based on our “clicks” and perceived interests. Two people can type the same subject into Google’s search bar and completely different search results can come up based on their interests and previous clicks. Filter bubbles allow us to find information about the findings we already believe in as described in Nisbet and Mooney’s piece. This, as Eli Parisier points out, is detrimental to learning: if we can’t and don’t see what’s outside of our little filer bubbles, how can we learn and understand things we don’t already know and how are we to consider other perspectives that challenge our own? We are in danger of becoming more and more insular with the technology that should give us access to an almost infinite amount of information and should broaden our range of knowledge and interests. Sitting in filter bubbles that select  scientific information that already fits our opinion keeps us from learning more about different perspectives and research and further convinces us of the existence or non-existence of global warming or evolution or genetically modified foods.

The four articles all focus on the issue of communicating science. It has been found (by Nisbet and Mooney) that laypeople do not have the background necessary in forming educated opinions on topics of scientific interest. In fact, what people tend to do is pick news sources that concur with their system of belief and only pay attention to information that is relevant to their daily lives. This creates a challenge for scientists in communicating information to the public. They need to be aware of not only what is supported by testing and theory, but in the best way to frame it for consumption by the general public. There is still work to be done in figuring out how to do this, and as Reddy points out, public outreach is not a significant facet of the academic tenure process.

I think we need more exhibits such as Dark Universe which combines visual and aural elements to educate the public about a topic that not even PhDs know very much about. In addition, advanced concepts and ideas should be introduced early on in the academic career so that all laypeople have a basic idea of such things as climate change or evolution. I believe introducing programming into the curriculum will allow us to see how certain ideas follow directly from easily acceptable postulates, as is the case for evolution.

The hardest part would be to try and reduce the effect that cultural identity has on assimilation of and belief in scientific ideas. This seems to clash with the notion of indigenous knowledge, which we have established is important within the framework of informal science learning; for indigenous knowledge is inherently a part of one’s cultural identity. Depending on what scientists wish to accomplish (and how they frame their communication with the public), we may see either a trend toward rejection of accepted scientific knowledge and acceptance of indigenous knowledge, or likewise rejection of indigenous knowledge and acceptance of scientific knowledge. I’m not sure at this point how the two may be reconciled, but I predict that it will be instrumental in improving public outreach by the scientific community.

As the articles mention, science is not all about research and finding new things. A large part of the process is presenting the findings to the public. However, as the Scientist Citizens article  mentions many people overlook this part and some scientists are not properly trained to present to the public. As a result, the public becomes less interested in science since they are not able to understand the concept or relate to it in some form or another. Capably Communicating Science states that communicating to the public is an important skill especially when trying persuade Congress or the general public in voting in favor of science. However, if scientists are not able to communicate their ideas and finding properly, people will easily become discouraged and tend not to promote the sciences. The article gives an example using stem research. The article states that according to studies, people support studies that correlate with their culture or religion.For this reason, stem cell research has been getting a lot of backlash from the public. The article states that instead of informing the public about stem cell research using hard facts, scientists should try to relate the topic to them in order to gain more support and in turn making scientists seem more amiable and “humane” contrary to some viewpoints.

I agree with these three articles. As mentioned in the textbook, people tend to enjoy learning about things that relate to them. For example, the older generation like learning about health and trying to stay healthy while their health slowly deteriorates. Also, people will be more willing to learn about the environment and the climate when it addresses how the changes will affect their lives. These are some points that scientists need to take into consideration when doing their deliverable.  Public speaking, as we see, is a skill needed in all fields of study not only the liberal arts. And although, I fear public speaking, since I aspire to do research I know that the skill will become in handy when I wish to present my research in terms of how I present. Furthermore, the points brought up in these articles are also something that we will consider when doing our final project.

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.

Chapter 5 of Surrounded by Science focuses on the interest aspect of a person’s visit to an informal learning environment. Specifically, the entire experience is led and directed by what a person finds exciting and worth learning about. This is completely different from a formal learning environment, where for the most part the course is determined by the instructors and faculty. Furthermore, the typical sentiment ‘I am never going to need this’ never emerges within an informal learning environment, specifically because it is self-directed.

Informal learning environments must be designed to be both safe and easy to explore. They must provide a challenging experience for visitors, but not too challenging that they be overwhelmed. I like to think of this as asking someone to run a marathon before they have ever completed a 5K. Asking visitors to wrap their heads around a particularly elusive idea (such as the evidence that the rate of the universe’s expansion is increasing over time), may be difficult for those who never particularly cared for that field in their younger years.

It is my experience that having prior book-knowledge about something makes it so much more illuminating when that something is brought to life via the 5 senses (sight, tough, hearing, etc.) For example, since I just learned about invertebrates in my biology class and for my seminar project, I came to the Natural History Museum with a unique insight on the invertebrate exhibits that we passed by on our way to the Poison exhibit. That insight allowed me to share some interesting facts about isopods (pill bugs) with my peers that otherwise could not have been shared in context. I adopted the role of facilitator, bringing the preserved physical specimen on the wall to life through videos that I took of these species as part of my research.

The chapter on interest goes over the 5 C’s and P of arousing interest in the student of informal learning. They are:

Curiosity – By virtue of the fact that informal learning environments are self-directed, a person will naturally gravitate toward and linger around the exhibits that intrigue him/her and spark the curiosity. It appears that having some prior experience with the subject helps nurture this curiosity and allows a person to act as a facilitator for others.

Confidence – The subject matter is not made so advanced that the informal science visitor has no way of grasping it within the time that he/she remains in a particular exhibit.

Challenge – Without a goal most of us are not motivated to take on a challenge. The promise that an informal science environment has something new to teach is what keeps visitors coming back time and again. Once again, great care must be taken to ensure that the exhibit is not made too challenging so as to overwhelm the visitor.

Control – In a formal learning environment, the student does not have control over what he learns or how much time is spent on a particular topic. In contrast, informal learning environments are designed to be non-linear and may cater to a variety of learning preferences. Control empowers the informal science visitor to choose what he/she wishes to learn and bore deeply into the subject while maintaining a mild level of difficulty.

Play – Without enjoyment the informal learning environment is not far removed from its formal cousin. The power of informal learning is that it naturally lends itself to play and allows the visitor to disengage whenever he/she feels the interest is waning.

Communication – Without communication much of the learning that takes place inside informal learning environments may not take place. This is because as social creatures humans need to communicate in order to disseminate information and for most of us, this is an efficient way to retain information.

Chapter 8 elucidates the concept of life-long learning, and the different ways we learn as we age. The end-of-chapter tips suggest to develop an understanding of the target audience before developing a program. The audience background, strengths and weaknesses, interests, and the educator’s learning goals are all things to take into account when applying the idea of life-long learning to an informal science environment.

These four articles all focus on communicating science, more importantly, the responsibility of those doing it to publicize their findings and to improve the way that the information is conveyed. Scientists often overlook the responsibility of explaining their work to other people. In McNutt’s article, she states that “even the most brilliant scientific discovery, if not communicated widely and accurately is of little value.” This is true because if no one spreads word of a new discovery or breakthrough, then no one will ever hear about it. And if this information is not communicated accurately, then people will be misinformed and might be misled into thinking one thing or another. Therefore, it is important that the scientific community relay the information that they discover.

One way that information is communicated is through peer reviewed articles. These provide us with some level of assurance about the accuracy of the information conveyed because several people assess the veracity and truth of the paper.  Despite this established process, the science community should find ways to improve this process. Some ways to revise the process have been proposed. These alternatives need to be considered, but these news ways also be assessed.

If scientific knowledge was communicated more widely, there stands the possibility that this communication could combat the ignorance of people, guide sound policymaking and garner more support for science. This can be an opportunity for scientists to find ways to inspire young minds and encourage underrepresented groups to enter the science realm. It is very important that scientists not only work in labs, but also in the public sphere. They need to put the information in the right correct context and help people understand what is unknown, known and under debate. With this information, people can formulate their own opinions and make their own decisions about these issues using the correct information.

Overall, it is necessary that scientist determine how better to communicate the information they discover and also how to accurately convey that information. It is just as important to convey information correctly, accurately and with meaning. This is to avoid facts being misapplied or twisted for or against a particular side.

Almost all of these articles (besides Improving Scientific Communication) discuss the importance of communicating important scientific concepts to the general public in a way they can understand it. It’s apparent that some of the articles were written during one of the presidential campaigns when many politically relevant science topics are brought to light. I thought Framing Science was an interesting article because of how it argued that scientists should move away from technical aspects of their research in order to make it more accessible to the general public. While it may be true that scientists have their own language with which they discuss their concepts, I don’t think it’s far to say that scientists have to shy away from technical terms. The fact that science needs to be dumbed down (as the article makes it seem) for the general public says a lot about the state of science education in our country. Sure, the average adult won’t be able to read a scientific journal and understand it at first glace (especially since new scientific discoveries often reference work going on in the field that most people won’t be following up on), but they would be capable of understanding complex scientific theories if it is explained thoroughly and clearly in relation to current scientific discoveries.

Additionally, the fact that the general public in relation to theism debates scientific theories and practices such as evolution or stem cell research says a lot about how children are being educated. I think schools should not be allowed to push Creationism as a truth and demonize the theory of evolution for being “sacrilegious.” Children should be free to learn about scientific theories (keep in mind the word theory, which implies that even these concepts are not concrete fact) without being pushed by adults to consider religious aspects. Too much emphasis is placed on religious education in schools for the general public to be able to have a proper discussion on scientific topics. Religion is pushed upon the young while they are still susceptible to influence, meaning they eventually turn into adults who don’t question what they are taught as children. If everyone was given a chance to learn about both theistic and secular concepts at a young age, they could give new theories a chance, even if it goes against their belief systems. And if everyone could consider new scientific theories for what they are saying (without concerning themselves with religious implications), there would be much more room for intelligent debate and the creating of solutions.