Posts tagged with ‘Framing Science’
Contemporary rhetorical tactics designed to confuse politicians and the public about scientific issues are as old as antiquity. The methods are just as disingenuous 2,500 years after their invention.
By constantly criticizing and responding to anti-science forces, are we only strengthening and propping them up?
Members of the
Science Progress advisory board and editorial staff express their support for the Science Debate 2008 initiative and encourage the presidential candidates of both major political parties to devote one nationally televised debate specifically to issues related to science, technology, and innovation.
How are Americans supposed to figure out the candidates’ stances on matters of science and technology policy? Answer: They won’t unless they strongly care to know in the first place—and even then, they can’t learn much of anything directly from the candidates themselves.
The National Academy of Sciences just released a new book,
Science, Evolution, and Creationism, which “provides information about the role that evolution plays in modern biology and the reasons why only scientifically based explanations should be included in public school science courses.”
The House Oversight Committee on Bush Administration interference with climate science; Atlantis grounded; framing nanotech; sex difference in math and science; Nobel Peace Prize ceremonies; VCs doubtful on carbon regulation from the government.
Three young women scientists make history; arguments over the impact of climate change on global health; how not to get funding from the NSF; John Marburger talks with the National Journal; conflicts of interest at the FDA; the ailing Discovery Corps Fellowship program; and what is Evo-Devo?
The future of the Hubble Space Telescope, a new map of Antarctica, post-Katrina mental health, and metaphors for the climate crisis: in this week’s Science Times section of
The New York Times, several stories covering science, health, and technology policy.
How U.S. media coverage of global warming finally moved past “he said, she said, we’re clueless.”
Talking about about climate change solely in terms of impending catastrophe may still be reasonable from a factual standpoint, but it may not be the most effective frame for debates on climate and energy policy. Here are four other frames in current discussions.
How should we think about the relationship between global warming and an increased risk of wildfires to the United States?
Andrew A. Rosenberg on how “emphasizing what we don’t know often drowns out what we do know.” Also, a new Urban Institute study claims that the U.S. has more than enough scientists and engineers.
The InterAcademies Council report released Monday on sustainable energy options reiterates familiar suggestions for greening the planet’s energy future, but it also presents a compelling argument for applied scientific and technological research in pursuit of the common good.
Today’s edition of the Kojo Nnamdi Show on American University’s WAMU will feature a discussion with David Goldston and Matthew Nisbet on recent clashes between scientists and politicians over matters of public policy.
James Watson’s remarks in the October 14 edition of the Sunday
Times magazine suggesting that Africans are less intelligent than other humans were not just tragic and racist, they were also an abuse of his eminent scientific stature.
In an interview with the magazine Medline Plus, NIH director Dr. Elias Zerhouni repeats his call for more embryonic stem cell research. While the Administration claims to agree, White House rhetoric seems to imply that scientists cannot make ethical decisions.
Scientific integrity and scientific innovation aren’t necessarily—or always—the same thing. There are important distinctions that must be made if we are to marry sound scientific research with sound science and technology policymaking.
Scientific facts no longer speak for themselves. In the age of the Internet, facts need to be framed for diverse audiences spread across fragmented media outlets.
U.S. labs that handle deadly germs have reported “100 accidents and missing shipments since 2003,”
reports the AP. No one was hurt, but the number of incidents are going up with number of labs approved to handle the pathogens. The House Energy and Commerce Committee will hold a
hearing today.
