Stata Center at MIT
I know many of you who attended the Manomet-MIT event had some interesting observations and found the conversation stimulating. A number of people commented that the conversation needs to continue. So this seems like one way to do so—“John’s Manomet Blog.” I invite you to submit your comments if you wish, and check back to see what others have to say.
First, it was a real pleasure to be part of such an important discussion that only a month ago was just a concept. I was on the bus heading back to Maine reading Randy Olson’s book “Don’t be Such a Scientist.” I emailed him right from the bus to see if I could get him to come to Boston to speak (he’s a Ph.D. marine biologist turned Hollywood filmmaker, for those who don’t know). Randy and I then conspired to involve MIT thought leaders like John Sterman from the Sloan School, and Kurt Sternlof from the Earth System Initiative. Soon we had others on board like Beth Daley from the Boston Globe and Gino Del Guercio (freelance filmamker for PBS and Discovery Channel). Next thing you know we’re sitting in the Stata Center on April 22.
The panelists were provocative, thoughtful, and entertaining. But for me, I left with basically the same message I went in with, which is if you want more people to pay attention to climate change (or whatever) you will have to be able to explain it in terms of things THEY care about (not you). To find out what they care about, you have to listen to them. Talking louder won’t work. Talking more passionately won’t work. Spraying them with a “fire-hose” of climate data won’t make any difference. Changing someone’s mind, once they’ve made it up, is almost impossible. The only way you might succeed is to find a way to “connect” to something they care about. That was the central point of Dan Kahan’s paper in the journal Nature in January—first understand the values of your audience. Only then speak.
Given that sociologists warn us that it is hard to change either a “skeptic’s” mind or a “believer’s” mind on climate change, it seems a communication focus on the “independents” would be most fruitful —in this case, those who are undecided or yet non-committal about climate change. As in elections, it’s the “independents” where the opportunity lies for increasing support for action (for either side). Explain how climate change can impact what matters to the independents, and the force for action will grow. It’s a marketing problem not a science problem. As Kahan says in his Nature paper, it would not be an oversimplification to say “science needs a marketing department.”
Back to MIT… As I sat there listening to the fascinating but ultimately academic discussion about what should be done, I was thinking “thank goodness for a place like Manomet.” While some search for a silver-bullet solution to public opinion on climate change, we’ll be a long way down the road toward making a measurable difference. Manomet works in a world where diverse people can be compelled to act even without perfect information. These people are foresters, farmers, fishermen, mayors of towns in Argentina, and corporations as well—people who have to make “it work” day in and day out. Agreed, the “swift boaters” of climate science don’t deserve much respect. But the vast majority of the public does deserve respect, and we’ll get a lot farther a lot faster if we can work with people with varied viewpoints.
At Manomet we’re not obsessed with who’s right and who’s wrong. Most things aren’t that clear cut anyway. We should correct factual errors, but there’s still going to be a level of uncertainty about climate change that is unavoidable, and we’ll do better by acknowledging it rather than painting a doomsday picture when there is a margin of error in the predictions. We’ve weighed the evidence, and we are compelled to use our skills as scientists to hedge against what basic physics seems to be saying.
It might just be simpler than we’re making it out to be. Build trust with those who can make a difference. Then go to work.
How did the Manomet-MIT panel discussion shape your views? What conclusions did you draw? Contrary views from mine are most welcome too.
Publishing more science to support the global warming theory does not seem to make the difference. So what does?
Clearly the response from industry comes from tax incentives, long term savings and its ability to make money from the new green economy. So I wonder about the value of understanding that global warming is real and a threat to civilization. If it’s a threat to the security of an investment then that’s all the science we need.
Scientists seem to have the perception that the public is like the guy telling a thief holding a gun, “Take my life I need my money!” while industry is putting its finger in the barrel and asking for a little more time.
By: Michael Barnes on April 27, 2010
at 1:58 pm
John–Great perspective. Your point about building trust and being respectful is important. Trust forms the foundation for effective communication. This has been a hallmark of Manomet’s approach that invites everybody to the table to find a common reason for caring, and for solving problems together.
By: Robert Kluin on April 27, 2010
at 2:22 pm
I agree with John’s blog. The morning after the panel session I sent an email to Kurt Sternlof.
I didn’t stay for the discussion last night. Can you send me John
Hagan’s email? He seems to understand that communication is two way
— it is about listening and not talking at each other. When I talk
about science and communication the only word I underline is “listen”
in my presentation. When people listen to each other it’s a sign of
respect and that although they may disagree they recognize each
other’s view as legitimate. By listening science falls into place
with values, interests, etc. I believe decisions are based on values
and that science provides a context. I also found it notable that he
talked about listening to the end users and applying what you learn
from them. He’s the only panelist that did so. One can only
communicate when one understands other’s concerns, and, recognizes
them as legitimate. And scientists need to understand that science
may not be the principal concern and thus not the answer.
Listening is hard work. It much easier for us to talk at each other
even if we do not communicate.
I believe we need a “dialog and not a diatribe.”
And both sides, conservatives and liberals, use science when it suits
them and don’t when it doesn’t. Both spin when it suits their
agendas. And there are cases when both use the science “objectively”
in a decision. The polar bear was listed by Interior over the
objections of the Bush White House because the Secretary and Deputy
Secretary insisted the decision be made on the best science. The
Deputy Secretary spent over 500 hours on assessing the science and
other factors — she commissioned additional studies because the
initial report was weak and she could not base on decision on weak
science — it would have resulted in not listing the bear. I can
give you examples of environmental organizations that have discounted
science when it did not support their agenda.
As to my own background. I’ve been a USGS scientist for more than 30 years. Larry Sussind invited me to MIT to work together on finding ways to get science more effectively used in decisions. After two temporary years at MIT, USGS permanently relocated me to MIT. We were interested in how to better communicate science and how to better educate students to be “science impact coordinators.” Our experiment has ended this semester after six years and I’m retiring June 1. However, my journey over the horizon continues and I will be more busy than ever.
For a large part of my career I was a research-graded scientist doing basic research. However, I learned that much of that research was not being used. So I embarked on a course to figure out why. On the way I became an instructor in the BLM Community Based Ecosystems Stewardship course. It would have been helpful in my view if the panel included someone who actually talks to people and has had experience communicating science effectively and someone who was using the science — what do they think? That’s what the BLM Community Based Ecosystem Stewardship course was about. And we developed a pilot to specifically talk about science (I think we called it Science in the Service of Society) — in my eagerness to clean out my office I unfortunately threw out the course materials. When you ask what people think about scientists and get answers like: “lying SOBs” and “you can’t trust them as far as you can throw them” and “you can pay any one of them what you want them to say” you recognize there’s a problem. And if you are concerned about more than your own self-interest you seek the reason people responded that way and how to go about building a capacity of understanding for the effective use of science, which is only one of many factors that enter into a decision.
All the professional societies talk about “educating” the public. Education is a two way street. We need to learn from people. Then maybe we’ll be more effective in communicating science.
I don’t have all the answers about how to effectively communicate science better. I have ideas that have been forged by experience and not theory. I do know that doing more of the same will not make a difference. We scientist need to look at this issue through a different lens. It’s not about educating ignorant people. It’s about building a joint understanding of the problem and then jointly asking the questions about the problem. And then jointly solving the problem. Many of our environmental problems are wicked problems — that class of problem that does not have a simple technical and scientific solution because of the human dimension.
What I’ve said is too simple, but I hope not simplistic. As I’ve said to colleagues about this and other issues we need ongoing discussion to get beneath the surface to understand the nuances and subtleties and not be afraid to try something different.
By: Herman Karl on April 27, 2010
at 3:47 pm
I strongly agree with Johns points above.
But was somewhat dissapointed in the narrow perspective of the evening. “Communicating Science in an Age of Sound Bites” quickly condensed to Global Warming and Politics. We have many issues that would fit the topic but went striaght to and stayed on the same sound bite. Godd science is the anit-sound bite my hope for the evening was how do we make science work within our world of sound bites.
Someone that evening approached this question; it is not all doom, we have some good news! The science sound bite of the 60′s was Greenhouse Effect; then in the 70s & 80s overpopulation & Oil shortage; in the 90s Ozone; 2000s we are at Global Warming.
Do we have some victiories here? I belive science would be wise to take advantage of these victories, document them, and use sound bites to declare them.
Invasive species, cell phone cause cancer, red tide, conservation land, nitrogen loading, etc. could all use some good news, then when we discuss the doom will the public look to science & goverment for solutions
By: Bill Hoyerman on April 29, 2010
at 9:42 am