Scientist Citizen Research Articles

Topical Analysis of Nuclear Experts' Perceptions of Publics, Nuclear Energy, and Sustainable Futures

Nuclear energy experts consider commercial power from fission to be a strong contender to help mitigate the increasing effects of climate change, in part due to its low-to-no carbon emissions. Nevertheless, nuclear energy's history, including meltdowns such as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, and dumping in sacred Indigenous land such as Yucca Mountain, raises important concerns in public deliberation over nuclear power. These communicative dynamics are crucial to study because they inform larger conversations in communication scholarship about the role of experts in scientific controversies and the complicated nature of public trust in and engagement with science. Thus, this study explores the perspectives of experts and how they make sense of their own communicative practices through a topical analysis of semi-structured interviews with 12 nuclear scientists and engineers in the United States and Canada. Our analysis revealed four major topoi: (1) risk and safety, (2) government and policy, and (3) public education and engagement, and (4) cost, along which nuclear experts make sense of science-public boundaries and their role as scientists and scientist citizens. This paper extends our understanding and how scientists view themselves as communicative actors and the barriers and opportunities for how we can foster productive technical-public relationships around climate change solutions.

The Polysemic Facepalm: Fauci as Rhetorically Savvy Scientist Citizen

ABSTRACT Anthony Fauci, an infectious disease expert in the White House's coronavirus task force, is challenged to offer responsible public communication of science despite working under a habitual liar who has no tolerance for criticism or dissent. Fauci manages this rhetorical exigence by using strategic ambiguity, the topos of the honest broker, dissociation, and a narrative that constrains executive decision making.

Beyond the boundaries of science: Resistance to misinformation by scientist citizens

In November 2016, small groups of coders, climate scientists, scholars, journalists, and activists came together under the umbrella organization Environmental Data & Governance Initiative (EDGI) to defend against the Trump administration’s attacks on environmental protections. A distinguishing feature of EDGI, and the focus of this study, is the methods it has developed to combat propaganda and misinformation around science. This article analyzes the push-and-pull dynamic between the values and practices of EDGI and journalism, as they interacted in the expanded political information news field. Drawing on EDGI publications and interviews with its members, this article details EDGI’s efforts to connect with journalists and the public. It explores EDGI news coverage, focusing on the manner and frequency in which EDGI values and perspectives were, and were not, conveyed in the coverage. We trace the development of what we argue are new forms of public intervention and offer an expanded understanding of the misinformation ecosystem.

Scientist Citizens: Rhetoric and Responsibility in L’Aquila

AbstractIn this essay, we analyze the public communication debacle before the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake that led to the infamous trial of the “L’Aquila Seven.” Examining the trial transcripts to extract norms regarding the proper role of scientists in society, we conclude that the first verdict interpellated the figure of the responsible scientist citizen who is expected to perform rhetorical citizenship when communicating with a lay public, while the second assumed a distinction between public and technical spheres that absolves scientists from responsibility to their fellow citizens and reduces their role to performance of an expertise divorced from rhetoric. Tracing the civic outcomes of these conflicting norms, we identify three missed opportunities during the prequake discourse in which the scientists failed to correct statements that they, and only they, knew to be flawed. To prevent future communicative debacles that arise from a dangerous separation of scientists and laypeople, we argue that scientists need to come to see themselves as scientist citizens, experts who take on the civic responsibility of clearly communicating their knowledge to their fellow citizens when such sharing is necessary to the public good.

A Climate for Art: Enhancing Scientist–Citizen Collaboration in Bangladesh

Abstract In our climate research project in Bangladesh, we work closely with local rural communities. The communities have designed their own citizen science projects in close dialogue with the project’s climate scientists. The climate scientists have also directed their research based on the stories the communities previously shared in longer narrative interviews. In order for the citizen science to be a success, a sense of community and good team spirit is essential. We collaborated with a Bangladeshi artist to achieve some important goals. Not only did we want to create new and exciting outreach materials, but, more importantly, we also wanted to see how the artistic process could nurture a sense of community for the local participants. Despite being limited by time, we saw some promising outcomes from the collaboration. The artist successfully interacted with the project researchers and the local participants. The final artwork was a real collaboration between the artist and the participants, who felt pride and ownership in the results.

The scientist citizen

The scientist citizen

Scientists: Listen Up!

C. Reddy's Editorial “Scientist citizens” (13 March, p. [1405][1]) underscores the need for scientists to better explain their work to policy-makers and the general public. If we as scientist citizens want to be understood, we should begin by listening. ![Figure][2] CREDIT: JUPITERIMAGES

Ecological mentoring: inspiring future scientists

Is nature obsolete? This year, the publisher of the Oxford Junior Dictionary decided to replace dozens of nature-related words, such as “beaver” and “dandelion”, with [words like] “blog” and “MP3 player”. Children just aren't going outside much anymore (Richard Louv, San Diego Times, 24 Feb 2009; author, Last child in the woods) For the past 200 years, Americans have endeavored to improve the quality of life for the next generation. Our country is finally waking up to the realization that this legacy is measured not only in bank accounts, but is also reflected in the quality of our natural capital. Raising the quality of life for children has been an attainable component of the “American dream” for at least six generations, but this goal is now in jeopardy. A “green” stimulus package is in order for America. If individuals, families, and schools returned to nature-based recreation in these times of fiscal restraint, such outdoor activities could enhance science education, ease household budgets, and send a strong message to advocate conservation of natural areas (which, in turn, would contribute to the protection of cost-saving ecosystem services to society). Professional ecologists can lead the charge, engaging teachers and children in our communities. The theme of ESA's 2008 Annual Meeting in Milwaukee centered on ecology education, and included the Society's first daylong workshop that featured ecologists mentoring local K–12 science teachers. Afterwards, ESA's Education and Human Resources Committee issued a challenge to the Society's members: the institution of a program that would aim for “no child left indoors” by the year 2015. To that end, we encouraged members to offer community outreach activities in ecology; for example, if each of our 10 000-strong membership of ecologists spoke to 100 open-minded citizens every year over 10 years, approximately 10 million people could learn from a professional ecologist. If some of those citizens were K–12 science teachers, then the audience might even double or triple. Since that original challenge was issued, an increasing number of ecology education outreach activities have been initiated by the ESA education section, including a summer nature camp at Blandy Experimental Farm in Virginia, ecosystem quilt-making for elementary kids in Florida, ecology field trips for juvenile offenders in Minnesota, the mapping of invasive plants by citizen scientists in North Carolina, forest canopy field trips for middle schools via satellite technology, and many others. For professional ecologists who wish to become scientist citizens in their own community, one “low-hanging fruit” would be to mentor a local K–12 teacher. This relationship can have enormous trickle-down effects on hundreds of students, as well as on their parents and neighbors. The authors of this editorial have shared a mentoring partnership for over 15 years, mutually enhancing our research and teaching skillsets. As a consequence of mentoring, one of us (DCR) participated in field research, coauthored papers in scientific journals, and consequently brought an enthusiasm for science back to the classroom that has inspired hundreds of high-school students. The other (ML) shifted part of her professional focus to K–12 ecology education that included distance-learning programs and leading field trips to the Amazon for at-risk teenagers, thanks to insights gained by mentoring a high-school science teacher. In 2010, ESA will host an education summit – entitled What will ecology education look like in 2020? –embracing three goals: (1) to assemble diverse national organizations that undertake ecology education, to share their best practices for nature-based learning and thus avoid redundancy in our efforts; (2) to create “one voice” for important issues in ecology education, such as the promotion of ecological literacy and better stewardship of ecosystem health; and (3) to spotlight some of the recent, transformational advances in ecology education (such as the National Ecological Observatory Network and Long Term Ecological Research programs, “no child left indoors”, gaming simulations, and new curricula). The summit will serve ESA's long-term objectives of producing a future supply of effective ecologists, enhancing diversity, informing policy, and raising ecological literacy for both citizens and practitioners. America not only needs excellent ecological research, but also outstanding ecological education. As professional ecologists, we hope that all ESA members will engage as scientist citizens and offer outreach activities that will inspire their communities, with a special focus on mentoring K–12 teachers in local school districts who, in turn, will positively impact hundreds of young people.

Scientist citizens

Scientist citizens

Qualitative Evaluation and Scientific Citizenship

Qualitative approaches to evaluation have recently attained legitimacy. Now it's time to advance their influence. Towards that end, this discussion offers a self-reflective critique of four critical issues in qualitative evaluation: relativism, theory and generalization, warrant and inquiry criteria, and positioning. Refractions from this critique embolden a recentering of qualitative evaluation around its socio-political value dimensions and a concomitant assumption of the rights and responsibilities of scientist citizens. These refractions further challenge the remainder of the evaluation community to do the same.

The Activist Scientist

The author is professor of Botany at the University of Wisconsin-Madison; senior science advisor of the University of Wisconsin System; and president of the Association for Women in Science, Washington, DC. The era of generous and stable federal funding of science, long taken for granted, is over. In order to stave off encroaching and damaging cuts in funding, many science and technology (S&T) leaders have strongly urged us to learn to communicate with the public and become more engaged in the political process. Although the scientific community has by and large realized that business is not as usual, our response has been spotty. We remain reluctant. Yet it is a forgone conclusion that we must become truly engaged with the fundamental issues and the politics of budget allocation. In recent years, professional scientific societies have become more involved in the political process and have had some successes (witness the FY 1996 NIH appropriation for the full year and at a higher level than that for FY 1995), but much remains to be done by scientists as individuals, and we must apply the know-how gained in 1996 to future budget allocations. In a recent address, Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala used a telling metaphor that, in my view, constitutes a call for greater intervention by the scientific community. She said that the “activist scientist is something rarer than the spotted owl.” Scientists often cite time pressures as the reason for their disengagement as citizens, but that explanation is too simplistic. More likely the problem is rooted in a limited understanding of, and general disaffection with, the political and legislative process, combined with the false perception that such activities are inappropriate for scientists or have no immediate and direct effect on one9s own life. In fact, individual activism (such as letter-writing or e-mail campaigns) is not uncommon, even among scientists and academics, if the issue seems to have personal impact and urgency. Instead of taking a defensive posture, we as independent individuals must wear the “scientist citizen” hat with confidence and purpose. To my own surprise, I have found the role to be both educational and rewarding. As a member of the Board of the Council of Scientific Society Presidents, I have been introduced to science activism. Yes, it takes time and discipline, but knowing that my actions supported my colleagues and, more important, the next generation of scientists has been gratifying. I will continue to wear this hat and encourage all of you to give it a try. The public know that they are the benefactors, but we must reassure them that they also have been and will continue to be the beneficiaries of public investment in S&T. The favorable attitudes of an enthusiastic public will ultimately result in legislative support. It behooves us to rethink the norms of science culture and give, in our own personal ways, a few minutes each week or month to support this enterprise. In the interests of science, we must accept the necessity of playing by Washington9s rules and speaking the Washington language. A two-prong approach is needed. At the “macro” level, we must establish a real relationship with our elected officials. We must let them hear from us on a regular basis, not just at crisis times, and help them to rationalize and articulate economic leadership that results from S&T investment. We must show that we can be an important constituency. Good examples of how one can effectively play in this arena are already emerging: Several professional societies provide “do-it-yourself kits” containing model letters and information about how to get an appointment, whom to talk to, and what questions to ask, along with examples of effective communication that is factual and devoid of rhetoric. Some are going farther than what I suggest here. In a recent commentary in The Scientist ,* Eugene Garfield advocated “the establishment of a formal lobbying organization.” At the “micro” level, each of us must pitch in to create broad enthusiasm through dialogue and help the public to appreciate and acknowledge that a robust S&T enterprise is key to the quality of all our lives. Our best tool is our own deep personal commitment to and excitement about science. The stakes are high. If not now, when? If not us, who? Clearly, the responsibility is ours alone. If necessity is the mother of invention, and if scientists are unresponsive to professional evolution, then is it not time to invent a new species of scientist? I submit that we need both activist scientists and science activists.