Join Dr. Scheufele for an interactive discussion that will explore the future of societal debates about controversial science in our highly polarized political environment. Together we will delve into the questions: "How can citizens make meaningful policy choices in an age of (anti-)science blogs and vicious online debates?"; and "What can we learn from recent empirical work in the social sciences about strategies for navigating this brave new world of science, media, and society?"
Hangout Hosts: - +Dietram Scheufele , co-chair of the National Academies' Roundtable on Public Interfaces of the Life Sciences and John E. Ross Professor in Science Communication, at +University of Wisconsin-Madison - Peter Frumhoff, director of science and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and chief scientist of the UCS climate campaign; Cox visiting professor at +Stanford University - Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at UCS
This is important to read and understand - the arguments we use in framing our science communication matter. Claims about public opinion should be based on evidence. To condense Dan's argument: 1. "Pockets of resistance to vaccination pose a serious and unmistakable public health concern. 2. But the existence of anti-vaccine enclaves and the dangers they pose do not furnish empirical support for asserting that there is a “growing crisis of public confidence” in childhood vaccines. 3. [This is a problem because the social science] suggests that understating the high level of vaccination in the U.S. could actually weaken public support for and cooperation with universal immunization programs."
If you haven't seen our new position postings yet, you'll want to! COMPASS is hiring for three new positions this year - in writing, science engagement, and administrative capacities. It's an amazing team and I'm proud to be a part of it. Please apply, share, recommend people, and help us grow. Thanks!
COMPASS Administrative Assistant (link to full job description). COMPASS seeks motivated candidates with strong attention to detail, organizational and event planning skills, and an interest in science, society and environment for the position of COMPASS Administrative Assistant.
With more than 87 percent of Americans getting information online and 30 percent of those under 30 following the news via social media, the need for social-media savvy scientists and experts is increasingly essential in order to communicate science to the public. Join us for an opportunity to talk with experts in sparking science-based conversations via social media. Hear about their experiences to learn the tricks of the trade and lessons learned for jump-starting or enhancing your use of social media to create the space for science in public conversations.
Hangout Hosts: - Liz Neeley, Assistant Director of Science Outreach at COMPASS - Jamie Vernon, AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow at US DOE - Dawn Wright, Chief Scientist, ESRI - Craig McClain, Assistant Director of Science at National Evolutionary Synthesis Center, - Moderator: Gretchen Goldman, Analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists
Read moreShow less
This Hangout On Air is hosted by Union of Concerned Scientists. The live video broadcast will begin soon.
Hi Liz, it was a great session Dec 17 hangout. I've heard great things about COMPASS from the Switzer Network, too. Thanks ! Would it be possible to share the following job posting with attendees of the webinar and anyone else in your networks? Seeking an idealist who loves nature, understands science and grassroots development, and is passionate about Latin American culture. He or she should have the communication skills of Tom Brokaw, the sense of humor of Jon Stewart, the artistic magic of Frida Kahlo, the computing skills of Mark Zuckerberg, and the Spanish fluency of Gabriel Garcia Marquez.! http://www.idealist.org/view/job/tzSsdtbcdn2D/
Hi Luc. Probably the best place to start is on twitter. Search for the #scicomm and #scioscicomm hashtags to see what people are talking about, and build out your list of people to follow. Don't hesitate to jump into conversations! It's why we're having them in public.
Our first event was exactly two years ago today. In between, we had amazing discussions of everything from big data and the quantified self to multilingual #scicomm and what happens to our data after we die. We even spun off a start-up business from one of our events - http://www.geekwire.com/2013/startup-data-safe-pass/
These conversations, and above all, the people of ScienceOnline Seattle have meant the world to me. So proud to have been a part of it, from start to finish, and so hungry to see where we go next.
"Not only are scientists just one of many stakeholders vying for access to the public agenda, but the political debates surrounding science and its applications may sometimes confront scientists with unfamiliar and uncomfortable discussions involving religious values, partisan interests, and even the trustworthiness of science."
Summary booklet of Sackler "Science of Science Communication II" now available as free download from +National Academies Press. Special issue of PNAS will be out later this year.
My colleague Heather Galindo's latest post for our blog is about the fundamental #scicomm skills we should all be employing, even in our most technical talks to peers. I like it because it prompted me go back to basics and ask if I've allowed myself to fall into any bad habits.
Includes a nice mention of +Todd Reubold's "Fight the Power Point", which reminds me that +Zen Faulkes's "Better Posters" is another good resource (he doesn't pull punches in naming and shaming).
Sounds all too familiar, doesn't it? " The major problem with this semantic extravaganza relates to the extent to which it blocks the connection with existing knowledge. As new terms come up, the “field” starts, again, to be considered as a new one. And the fact that the majority is unaware of evidence that may exist under other terminology leads to a collective illusion that the evidence does not exist. Then, the “we know very little” sentence starts to be repeated ad nauseam, opening the floodgates to all kinds of half-baked hypotheses (usually masked as “theory of change”) and unbridled calls for “evidence” .
As many of you know, I've been working for over a year on a big project to improve science communication training opportunities for graduate students in the STEM disciplines. (It's the first time I've ever been a co-PI on an NSF grant!)
Have poured my heart into this one. Please read, share, comment and contribute to the work.
(Writing this update from the plane enroute to the workshop in DC - wish us luck!)
This post is co-authored by Erica Goldman and Liz Neeley. As we've written here and here, over the past year, COMPASS has worked to assess the current landscape of communication trainings available to graduate students in the STEM disciplines. We've dubbed this project #GradSciComm, ...
You can read the tweets sharing and reacting to Fiske's talk here. Within the first four minutes of her presentation dissecting when and how people make decisions, Fiske told the audience that scientists have the respect of the public but not their trust. Trustworthiness, she explained, is a ...
"Perceived… " Sounds like its more a problem within the audience than within the scientists themselves. Look, if you start trying to look or act a certain way… that is affect. Affect is always slimy. I think scientists should just keep being scientists. No bullshit. What is confused here isn't scientists. It is engineers being lumped into and perceived as scientists. The only intent a scientist has is figuring out the universe. Its the engineers who have all sorts of silent and selfish motives. Cold cold cold!