Framing Science
Framing Science
复制标题
框架科学
作者：
Masako Kudo
56我在科学和政治的交叉点上发表的文章，如气候变化、进化和胚胎干细胞研究，受到了相当大的公众关注，这种关注可能会增加，特别是在2008年总统选举升温的美国。在不歪曲争议性很强的问题上的科学信息的情况下，科学家必须学会积极地“框定”信息，使其与不同的受众相关。科学界的一些人已经接受了这一信息(1)。然而，许多科学家保持着一种善意的信念，即如果外行人从新闻报道中更好地理解技术复杂性，他们的观点就会更像科学家的观点，争议就会平息。在现实中，公民并不像科学家假设的那样使用新闻媒体。研究表明，人们很少有足够的消息灵通或足够的动力来权衡相互竞争的想法和论点。面对每天的新闻洪流，公民利用他们的价值倾向(如政治或宗教信仰)作为感知屏幕，选择与自己的观点相匹配的新闻机构和网站(2)。这种筛选减少了对关注什么和接受什么是有效的选择(3)。框架组织了中心思想，定义了与核心价值观和假设产生共鸣的争议。框架通过更加强调某些方面来减少复杂的问题。它们使公民能够快速确定一个问题为什么重要、谁应该负责以及应该做什么(4，5)。以全球气候变化为例。联合国政府间气候变化专门委员会在其连续的评估报告中总结了科学文献，稳步增强了其对人类温室气体排放正在导致全球变暖的信心。因此，如果科学本身推动了公众的反应，我们预计公众对科学的有效性的信心将会增加，政治僵局将会减少。尽管最近受到了媒体的关注，但许多调查显示，在这个问题上存在重大的党派分歧。皮尤1月份进行的一项调查发现，23%的受过大学教育的共和党人认为全球变暖可归因于人类活动，相比之下，75%的民主党人(6)。不分党派，大多数美国人认为全球变暖不如其他十几个问题重要(6)。这在很大程度上反映了政治操作人员和一些共和党领导人的努力，他们强调的框架要么是“科学不确定性”，要么是“不公平的经济负担”(7)。在一项反战略中，环境问题和一些民主党领导人将全球变暖描述为灾难的潘多拉盒子；这一点以及北极熊在不断缩小的浮冰上和飓风破坏的新闻画面引发了人们对其危言耸听的指责，并引发了进一步的战斗。最近，一个福音派领袖联盟采取了一种不同的策略，将气候变化问题框定为宗教道德问题。商业版吹捧开发应对气候变化的创新技术带来的经济机遇。对布什政府干预气候科学传播的抱怨导致了一个“公共问责”框架，这有助于将这个问题从不确定性转移到政治不法行为上。作为另一个例子，科学进化论已经被研究界接受了几十年。然而，随着一场关于“智能设计”的辩论展开，反进化论者提倡“科学不确定性”和“传授争议”框架，科学家们以科学密集的回应予以反击。然而，许多公众可能对这些技术信息视而不见。相反，关注滥用税收的“公共责任”框架、强调卷入进化斗争的社区的负面影响的“经济发展”框架，以及将进化定义为医学进步基石的“社会进步”框架，可能会获得更广泛的支持。进化问题还突显了另一点：信息必须是积极的，尊重多样性。正如电影《成群的渡渡鸟》痛苦地展示的那样，许多科学家不仅没有从战略上思考如何就进化论进行沟通，而且还贬低和侮辱他人的宗教信仰(8)。相比之下，在胚胎干细胞问题上，患者权益倡导者向公众传递了一个有针对性的信息，他们使用“社会进步”和“经济竞争力”框架辩称，这项研究为数百万美国人带来了希望。在2001至2005年间，这些信息帮助提高了公众对资金的支持(9，10)。然而，反对增加政府资金的人继续在围绕研究的道德影响展开辩论，他们认为科学家正在“扮演上帝”，摧毁人类的生命。意识形态和宗教甚至可以筛选出关于科学的占主导地位的积极叙事，要接触到某些公众群体仍将是一个挑战(11)。一些读者可能会认为我们的建议过于奥威尔式的，倾向于安全地坚持事实。然而，科学家必须认识到，事实将被反复误用和扭曲，与它们与政治辩论和决策的相关性成正比。简而言之，尽管这可能让人感觉不自然，但在许多情况下，科学家在试图为其辩护时，应该战略性地避免强调科学的技术细节。
56 I ssues at the intersection of science and politics, such as climate change, evolution, and embryonic stem cell research, receive considerable public attention, which is likely to grow, especially in the United States as the 2008 presidential election heats up. Without misrepresenting scientific information on highly contested issues, scientists must learn to actively “frame” information to make it relevant to different audiences. Some in the scientific community have been receptive to this message (1). However, many scientists retain the well-intentioned belief that, if laypeople better understood technical complexities from news coverage, their viewpoints would be more like scientists’, and controversy would subside. In reality, citizens do not use the news media as scientists assume. Research shows that people are rarely well enough informed or motivated to weigh competing ideas and arguments. Faced with a daily torrent of news, citizens use their value predispositions (such as political or religious beliefs) as perceptual screens, selecting news outlets and Web sites whose outlooks match their own (2). Such screening reduces the choices of what to pay attention to and accept as valid (3). Frames organize central ideas, defining a controversy to resonate with core values and assumptions. Frames pare down complex issues by giving some aspects greater emphasis. They allow citizens to rapidly identify why an issue matters, who might be responsible, and what should be done (4, 5). Consider global climate change. With its successive assessment reports summarizing the scientific literature, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has steadily increased its confidence that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming. So if science alone drove public responses, we would expect increasing public confidence in the validity of the science, and decreasing political gridlock. Despite recent media attention, however, many surveys show major partisan differences on the issue. A Pew survey conducted in January found that 23% of collegeeducated Republicans think global warming is attributable to human activity, compared with 75% of Democrats (6). Regardless of party affiliation, most Americans rank global warming as less important than over a dozen other issues (6). Much of this reflects the efforts of political operatives and some Republican leaders who have emphasized the frames of either “scientific uncertainty” or “unfair economic burden” (7). In a counter-strategy, environmental is ts and some Democratic leaders have framed global warming as a “Pandora’s box” of catastrophe; this and news images of polar bears on shrinking ice floes and hurricane devastation have evoked charges of “alarmism” and further battles. Recently, a coalition of Evangelical leaders have adopted a different strategy, framing the problem of climate change as a matter of religious morality. The business pages tout the economic opportunities from developing innovative technologies for climate change. Complaints about the Bush Administration’s interference with communication of climate science have led to a “public accountability” frame that has helped move the issue away from uncertainty to political wrongdoing. As another example, the scientific theory of evolution has been accepted within the research community for decades. Yet as a debate over “intelligent design” was launched, antievolutionists promoted “scientific uncertainty” and “teach-the-controversy” frames, which scientists countered with science-intensive responses. However, much of the public likely tunes out these technical messages. Instead, frames of “public accountability” that focus on the misuse of tax dollars, “economic development” that highlight the negative repercussions for communities embroiled in evolution battles, and “social progress” that define evolution as a building block for medical advances, are likely to engage broader support. The evolution issue also highlights another point: Messages must be positive and respect diversity. As the film Flock of Dodos painfully demonstrates, many scientists not only fail to think strategically about how to communicate on evolution, but belittle and insult others’ religious beliefs (8). On the embryonic stem cell issue, by comparison, patient advocates have delivered a focused message to the public, using “social progress” and “economic competitiveness” frames to argue that the research offers hope for millions of Americans. These messages have helped to drive up public support for funding between 2001 and 2005 (9, 10). However, opponents of increased government funding continue to frame the debatearound the moral implications of research, arguing that scientists are “playing God” and destroying human life. Ideology and religion can screen out even dominant positive narratives about science, and reaching some segments of the public will remain a challenge (11). Some readers may consider our proposals too Orwellian, preferring to safely stick to the facts. Yet scientists must realize that facts will be repeatedly misapplied and twisted in direct proportion to their relevance to the political debate and decision-making. In short, as unnatural as it might feel, in many cases, scientists should strategically avoid emphasizing the technical details of science when trying to defend it.