EDUCATION FORUM

Workshop leader Erin Dolan listens to input about her prompts on framing tricky topics to create better public discourse.
Attendees enjoy a well-made point about what can happen to the best laid plans (be they based on research or general preconceptions) for talking science in public.

Plant Biology 2009
Education Workshop—Talking Science in Public: Evolution, GMOs, and Other Challenging Issues

In honor of the Year of Science, the Education Committee dedicated this year’s Education Workshop to “Talking Science in Public: Evolution, GMOs, and Other Challenging Issues.” More than 50 conferees from high schools, colleges, universities, and other organizations from more than five countries participated in the evening session. Attendees engaged in small- and large-group brainstorming, discussion, and planning about how to teach evolution in a way that clearly relates to students’ daily lives.

The discussion started with brainstorming of topics that are controversial to teach, from climate change to animal experimentation to sex. Attendees then shared ideas about why these topics are controversial. Not surprisingly, differences in learners’ beliefs systems, including politics, culture, and religion were considered a major challenge.

As a context for the discussion, the group learned about two models that are most often proposed to explain why certain scientific ideas and new technologies are controversial: the “knowledge deficit” and “contextual” models. The knowledge deficit model proposes that, if the public knew more or had a better understanding of science, they would be more accepting of scientific ideas (e.g., evolution) and emerging technologies (e.g., stem cell research). Although there are studies that demonstrate small but positive correlations between knowledge and acceptance of scientific ideas, other studies show negative or no correlation, especially with respect to controversial issues.

The basis of the contextualist model is that the public needs an understanding not only of science concepts, but also of its nature and how politics, institutions, and societal and cultural priorities and norms influence scientific practice. Indeed, research has demonstrated that students’ understanding of the nature of science (e.g., how scientific ideas change with new evidence, what the scientific definition of a theory is) is positively correlated with acceptance of evolution. Yet, this correlation does not fully explain acceptance of evolution.

The rest of the workshop focused on the idea of framing, which has emerged from the study of public decision making and scientific communication. Grounded in the Nobel Prize–winning work of cognitive psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, framing organizes discussion from a certain viewpoint by making specific facets of an issue more salient. The premise of framing is that nonexperts cannot comprehend, synthesize, and evaluate all of the information available to make decisions and thus will use “interpretive schemata” to decide to which information they will pay attention. An individual’s interpretive schema will be influenced by their personal experiences, beliefs, and worldviews. Through framing, evolution education helps learners develop an understanding of evolution and nature of science, as well as giving them an idea of the applications and implications of evolution for their daily lives.

To practice recognizing frames, the group reviewed a segment of the video, Secrets of the Plant Genome—Revealed!, and the January 11, 2008, episode of the radio show Sounds of Science, titled “Science, Evolution, and Creationism.” The group was challenged to identify frames and their key features, specifically how particular frames connected with different beliefs, values, and perspectives. For example, in the plant genomics video, conferees recognized both economic and environmental sustainability frames that emphasized the cost-effectiveness and reduced environmental contamination afforded by the use of genetically modified plants versus the application of chemical pesticides. In the radio piece, the conferees identified many frames, including a religious frame (e.g., theologists and scientists are not in conflict about evolutionary theory) and an authority frame (e.g., the inclusion of commentary from experts; the mention of experts’ degrees, titles, and high-profile places of employment; and the use of terms and phrases such as “fact,” “bedrock,” and “abundance of evidence”).

Groups of four to eight attendees then selected one or more frames for teaching about evolution and started to develop strategies for using that frame. For example, a group from Hawaii selected authority and environmental conservation frames, emphasizing the factual nature of evolutionary theory as well as how invasive species influence indigenous organisms through the processes of evolution. The discussion ended with an acknowledgment that framing is not likely to convince staunch supporters of particular positions, but it may help reach some of the “wobbly middle” who would otherwise be disengaged.

For more information about the Education Workshop, or to be included in the mailing list for resources, please contact Erin Dolan (540-231-2692).
Erin Dolan