Lucky Last Word – Science of Communicating Science

Two scientists –one from the US and one from the UK – have called for a new “science of communicating science” to be deployed in order to deal with the fact that public concern over global warming has plunged in recent years, says this report from Lewis Page posted on The Register (UK) site.

We could have assumed this was an April Fools’ Day joke, but we read on and decided it was for real. It was based on a research paper published in Nature 29 March 2011 by Nick Pidgeon of the Understanding Risk Research Group, School of Psychology, Cardiff University and  Baruch Fischhoff of the Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania USA.

A major challenge facing climate scientists is explaining to non-specialists the risks and uncertainties surrounding potential changes over the coming years, decades and centuries. Although there are many guidelines for climate communication, there is little empirical evidence of their efficacy, whether for dispassionately explaining the science or for persuading people to act in more sustainable ways.

With the aid of their special teams of advisers and decision scientists and communications experts, the climate scientists would avoid falling into obvious traps and perhaps alienating the very public they seek to win over. Read More

By Lewis Page Posted in Environment, The Register (1April 2011):

Trick-cyclists in Blighty and the USA have called for a new “science of communicating science” to be deployed in order to deal with the fact that public concern over global warming has plunged in recent years, says this report from Lewis Page posted on t in We could have assumed this was a April Fols’ Day joke, but we read on and decded it was for real.

This won’t do at all

“We need to move on from a sterile debate about whether global warming is happening or not,” says Professor Nick Pidgeon of Cardiff uni.

Pidgeon and his fellow psychologist Baruch Fischhoff (of Carnegie Mellon uni in the States) say that instead climate scientists should ally themselves with psychologists and others from the “social and decision sciences” so as to change the public’s mind and motivate global action.

The two trick-cyclists indicate that modern psychological methods could help mainstream climate scientists to be much more persuasive than they currently are. They write:

Recent advances in behavioural and decision science also tell us that emotion is an integral part of our thinking, perceptions and behaviour, and can be essential for making well-judged decisions … Emotion creates the abiding commitments needed to sustain action on difficult problems, such as climate change … appropriately framed emotional appeals can motivate action, given the right supporting conditions (in particular a sense of personal vulnerability, viable ways to act, feelings of personal control and the support of others).

In order to generate these emotions in the public, Fischhoff and Pidgeon suggest the creation of special cross-disciplinary teams comprised of “climate and other experts, decision scientists, social and communications specialists, and programme designers”. They write:

In this strategy, social and decision science research provides connections that scientists normally lack.

The two men suggest that these teams would be large and well-funded, along the lines of the RAND Corporation in the States. In the UK, the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research would be a good basis to start from, but it would need to develop “a major focus on communication and decision-making research”.

With the aid of their special teams of advisers and decision scientists and communications experts, the climate scientists would avoid falling into obvious traps and perhaps alienating the very public they seek to win over.

Many climate scientists are understandably frustrated by the limited response to what they see as the greatest threat facing our planet. One impulsive response to a seemingly recalcitrant public is a big advertising campaign. However, unless founded on sound social and decision science principles and accompanied by rigorous empirical evaluation, such efforts have little chance of sustained success. Moreover, each communication failure makes future success less likely … Given the gravity and the complexity of climate-related decisions, we need a new model of science communication.

The proposed new “science of communicating science” would seem to have certain parallels with Isaac Asimov’s famous imaginary discipline “Psychohistory”, which in his books could be used to predict – and alter – the behaviour of large populations. Admittedly Psychohistory only worked on huge galactic civilisations, and then only if the people being manipulated for their own good were unaware that the science of Psychohistory existed – neither of which are the case here. But it’s interesting all the same.

You can read the would-be psychohistorians’ paper in full here, courtesy of Nature Climate Change. There’s also a statement with canned quotes from Cardiff uni here. Given what day it is, we should note that neither are datelined today. ®

Source: www.theregister.co.uk

A major challenge facing climate scientists is explaining to non-specialists the risks and uncertainties surrounding potential changes over the coming years, decades and centuries. Although there are many guidelines for climate communication, there is little empirical evidence of their efficacy, whether for dispassionately explaining the science or for persuading people to act in more sustainable ways. Moreover, climate communication faces new challenges as assessments of climate-related changes confront uncertainty more explicitly and adopt risk-based approaches to evaluating impacts. Given its critical importance, public understanding of climate science deserves the strongest possible communications science to convey the practical implications of large, complex, uncertain physical, biological and social processes. Here, we identify the communications science that is needed to meet this challenge and the ambitious, interdisciplinary initiative that its effective application to climate science requires.

Published Nature 29 March 2011

Understanding Risk Research Group, School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF10 3AT, UK

Nick Pidgeon

Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, USA

Baruch Fischhoff

Source: www.nature.com

Editor’s Note: We have for some time been calling for improvements in the communicating science – and particularly climate change – and in the book “The ABC of Carbon” we did our best to demystify and desensitise the issues and the opportunities. But when you observe the tone of political debate in Australia and the US, as well as the noticeable resistance from many business for a carbon price, one can only wonder whether all the words from scientists and other knowledgeable sorts is getting through at all. But we will keep plugging away. We do believe the “pen is mightier than the sword” – or maybe a more up-to-date way of saying the same thing would be:  all modern means of communication will help make sure that truth will prevail and Government and business will be forced take appropriate action on climate change before we reach the tipping point! – Ken Hickson