Communicating the future

168 Pages·2002·13.2 MB·English

by  Porter, Gail.

TING THE FUTURE
Best Practices for Commumcation
and
of Science Teclinology
to tlie Public 1
CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS
March 6-8, 2002 • GaiMieigburq, Maryland • USA
5l
Nisr
t of Energy
National Institute of
ite of Standards and Technology Standards and Technology
linistration TechnologyAdministration
t of Commerce U.S. DepartmentofCommerce

NIST Special Publication 991
Communicating the Future:
Best Practices for Communication
of Science and Technology to the Public
Conference Proceedings
March 6-8, 2002
Edited by:
Gail Porter
Public and Business Affairs Division
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-3460
www.nist.gov/bestpractices
Co-Sponsored by:
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science
¥%
/
National Institute of Standards and Technology
September 2002
U.S. Department of Commerce
Donald L Evans, Secretary
Technology Administration
Phillip Bond, Under Secretory ofCommerce for Technology
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Arden L Bement, Director
Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this document in order to describe an
experimental procedure or concept adequately. Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or
endorsement by the National Institute ofStandards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the entities,
materials, or equipment are necessarily the best available for the purpose.
This publication contains transcripts ofspeakers' remarks at the conference on Communicating the Future: Best
Practices for Communication ofScience and Technology to the Public held at the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, on March 6-8, 2002. The opinions expressed in this report
should be attributed to the conference steering committee or individual conference speakers and do not imply
endorsement or agreement by the National Institute ofStandards and Technology.
National Institute ofStandards and Technology Special Publication 991
Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Spec. Publ. 991, 164 pages (September 2002)
CODEN: NSPUE2
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON: 2002
For sale by the Superintendent ofDocuments, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov - Phone: [phone] - Fax: [phone]
Mail: Stop SSOP Washington, DC 20402-0001
Cover Photo credits: from left to right, ©Robert Rathe, ©Robert Rathe, Kathie Koenig
Abstract
Communicating science and technology to the This report ofthe conference proceedings includes a
pubhc has become an essential enterprise for research summary statement by the conference steering com-
universities, government agencies, science museums, mittee, transcripts or other text summarizing the
foundations and granting agencies, other non-profit remarks ofconference speakers, and abstracts for 48
scientific organizations, and corporations. To advance "best practice" communications programs selected by
the state ofthe art, a conference on Best Practices for the steering committee through an open competition
Communicating Science and Technology to the and a formal peer review process. Additional informa-
Public was held March 6-8, 2002, at the National tion about the 48 best practice programs is available
Institute ofStandards and Technology in on the archival conference Web site at
Gaithersburg, Md., with major funding provided by www.nist.gov/bestpractices.
the U.S. Department ofEnergy Office ofScience.
Keywords: science communication, technology communication, public communication, science journalism,
public relations, media relations, public information, best practices, science literacy, Web sites. World Wide Web,
exhibits, news media, science museums, evaluation, communications research.
iii
Acknowledgment
The Best Practices conference steering committee select the best practice communications programs,
wishes to express its appreciation to the large number and review and author the conference summary.
ofpeople who made both the conference and this Thanks to the speakers and poster presenters for shar-
proceedings report possible. Thanks to NASA's ing their "best practice" programs with us and for
Marshall Space Flight Center, the U.S. Department of providing materials for both this report and for the
Energy Office ofScience, and the National Institute archival conference Web site at www.nist.gov/
ofStandards and Technology for their multi-year bestpractices. And finally, thanks to staffmembers of
financial support for both the Research Roadmap the National Institute ofStandards and Technology
Panel (R2) that initiated the idea ofa conference on for hosting the conference and handling production
best practices in science and technology communica- ofthis report and the conference Web site, especially
tions and for the Best Practices conference and the Patrice Boulanger, Jennie Covahey, Stephanie
work ofthe steering committee. Thanks to the mem- Edwards, Susan Ford, Sandy Gray, Rebecca Green,
bers ofthe steering committee for their substantial Gail Porter, Crissy Robinson, Sharon Shaffer, Kim
commitment oftime and energy, much ofit on Snouffer, and KellyTalbott.
evenings and weekends, to set up the conference.
iv
Table of Contents
Steering Committee
vi
Conference Summary
1
Speaker transcripts of summary materials:
Keynote Address: Sense, Nonsense, and Science
Joseph Schwarcz, Professor ofChemistry and Director ofthe Office ofChemistry and Society,
McGill University 17
Putting Communications Research and Evaluation into Practice
A&M
Susanna Hornig Priest, Associate Professor, Texas University Department ofJournaUsm 35
The Evolution ofResearch and Evaluation in Public Relations
James Grunig, Professor, University ofMaryland Department ofCommunication 40
—
Topical Lecture The Future ofBroadcast Journalism
Peggy Girshman, Assistant Managing Editor, National Public Radio News 49
Live from the Field: Observing Science in Its Natural Habitat
Hannah Holmes, freelance writer; reporter and columnist, Discovery Online; and author 55
Research Roadmap for Communicating Science and Technology in the 21st Century
Rick Borchelt, Director, Communications and Public Affairs, The Whitehead Institute 61
Topical Lecture: How Science Books Drive Public Discussion
Bruce Lewenstein, Associate Professor ofScience Communication, Cornell University 69
Graphic Science: New Venues for Science Communication
Frank Burnet, Faculty ofApplied Science, University of the West ofEngland 77
Keynote Address: Sex, Lies, and Science Television
WGBH
Paula Apsell, Executive Producer, NOVA, Public Television 90
Abstracts for 48 poster topics 99
Appendices
—
A Conference Program 148
—
B Call for Papers/Entry Form 152
V
Communicating the Future:
Best Practices for Communication of Science
and Technology to the Public
Conference Steering Committee
Earle Holland (Co-chair) Robert Logan
Science Communications School ofJournalism
The Ohio State University University ofMissouri
Joann Rodgers (Co-chair) Jon Miller
Public Affairs Center for Biomedical Communications
The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions Northwestern University Medical School
Deborah Blum Mary Miller
School ofJournalism and Mass Communication Center for Media and Communications
University ofWisconsin-Madison Exploratorium
Rick Borchelt (Conference co-organizer) Gail Porter (Conference co-organizer)
Communications and Public Affairs Public and Business Affairs
The Whitehead Institute National Institute ofStandards and Technology
Joe Culver Carol Rogers
Public Affairs College ofJournalism
National EnergyTechnology Laboratory University ofMaryland
Lynne Friedmann Barbara Valentino
Friedmann Communications Evolving Communications
Greg Koller Kris Wilson
Media and External Communications Department ofJournalism
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory University ofTexas, Austin
Committee Science Writer
Diana Steele
Free-lance writer
vi
Summary
Conference
TonightShow hostJay Leno is walking around the losing weight or for improving life's decision-making
streets ofLos Angeles asking random adults questions through the wonders ofastrology.
about science. However, connections between science literacy and
"How long does it take the Earth to go around the the well-being ofthe nation's research enterprise or
sun?" he asks. "Twenty-four hours," two people in suc- society in general that may seem like common sense
cession reply. are, in fact, more complex than the simple statements
"What causes the tides?" he asks. "Boats?" his next above imply.
—
victim replies. "Fish?" A wide range ofscientific institutions from cor-
—
Leno's informal survey was highlighted by Paula porations to hospitals to government agencies have
Apsell, executive producer ofthe public television pro- initiated science communications programs for the
gram Nova, in a keynote talk to the 280 participants of public because they believe that increased knowledge
the conference. Communicating the Future: Best ofthe organization's role in advancing research will
Practices for Communication ofScience and improve the institution's reputation, making it easier
Technology to the Public. to gain public support for other organizational goals.
Held March 6-8, 2002, at the National Institute of Finally, many public science and technology commu-
—
Standards and Technology (NIST) in Gaithersburg, nications programs particularly those conducted by
—
Md., with major funding from the U.S. Department government laboratories or universities are grounded
ofEnergy, the conference provided a forum for science in the principle ofthe "public's right to know." Since a
communicators, educators, and researchers to share large percentage ofscientific and technical research is
both their successes and their frustrations in commu- funded with tax dollars, the institutions and the
nicating the results ofresearch advances to lay researchers using those funds have an obligation to
audiences. explain to the public in understandable language how
The at times startling ignorance ofaverage U.S. that money has been used.
adults ofbasic scientific facts has been well docu- Regardless ofwhy research institutions and other
mented by annual surveys conducted by the U.S. organizations carry out science and technology com-
National Science Foundation.' For example, 50 per- munications programs for the public, the Best
cent ofU.S. adults surveyed don't know that it takes a Practices conference steering committee (see page vi)
year for the Earth to orbit the sun. Similarly, 50 per- ofscience communicators, journalists, and researchers
cent ofrespondents believe that early humans lived at approached its task ofidentifying model communica-
the same time as the dinosaurs and that atoms are tions programs from the following perspective:
smaller than electrons. Jon Miller, director ofNSF's Given that many research institutions and other
science literacy surveys for many years and director of science-oriented organizations such as museums do
the Center for Biomedical Communications at conduct public communications programs, what does
Northwestern University Medical School, concludes the communications research literature tell us about
that fewer than one in five Americans meet a minimal the most effective ways to carry out these programs,
standard ofcivic scientific literacy- and how can we apply this knowledge to help select
Many in the scientific community believe that a model programs or "best practices" that can be
lack ofknowledge about science and technology is a adopted by a wide range ofinstitutions?
major obstacle preventing increases in government
funding ofresearch. Another commonly held view is Historical Context
that science literacy is a major factor in discouraging In 1998, the Space Sciences Laboratory at the
students from choosing science or technology careers. National Aeronautics and Space Administration's
Still others point out that widespread science illiteracy Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., char-
makes a large segment ofthe public vulnerable to the tered a l6-member working group to identify the
claims ofcharlatans who promise "miracle" results in most compelling questions still to be answered by the
1
academic science and technology communications journal Science Communication, in a paper authored by
research community.' The group also was asked to R2 chairman. Rick Borchelt.' The same issue ofthe
compile examples ofbest practices in science and tech- journal included several papers describing research
nology communications programs as implemented by projects funded by the panel. (See a bulleted list of
research institutions across the United States or findings on page 6.)
abroad. The laboratory planned to use the committee's With the research agenda portion ofits mission
findings to determine high-priority communication complete, the R2 panel had planned to host a major
research areas for future funding and to apply best peer-reviewed conference to feature model science and
practice lessons learned from other organizations to technology communications programs. Funding con-
improve its own and NASA's communications straints at NASA Marshall, however, forced postpone-
programs. ment ofthese plans until alternative funding for the
The Research Roadmap for Communicating conference could be secured.
Science and Technology in the 21st Century Working
Group included science communicators, communica- A 'Best Practices' Conference
tions researchers, journalists, and scientists. Dubbed In April 2001, the U.S. Department ofEnergy's
the R2 group, the panel met eight times over the next Office ofScience and the National Institute of
three years. Locations for these meetings included Standards and Technology formally agreed to co-
La Jolla, Calif; Woods Hole, Mass.; Washington, sponsor the conference originally envisioned by the
D.C.; Chicago, 111.; Santa Cruz, Calif; Durham, N.C.; R2 panel, with major funding being provided by DOE
Huntsville, Ala.; and Jacksonville, Fla. and primary staffsupport and conference facilities by
Each meeting was hosted by a different research NIST. A steering committee for the conference was
organization.^ Science communicators, journalists, and selected that included many members from the previ-
researchers from government laboratories, universities, ous R2 panel, as well as new members selected to
newspapers, foundations, non-profit organizations, ensure that the committee could competently review
public relations firms, and museums were invited to proposals from a wide variety ofinstitutions and to
make presentations to the committee about their pro- ensure that results from the conference would be effec-
DOE
grams, science coverage, and communications research tively disseminated to national laboratories.
efforts. The meetings were open to attendance by jour- The steering committee, co-chaired byJoann
nalists and the public. In addition, the R2 committee Rodgers ofthe Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions
solicited comments from members ofgroups such as and Earle Holland ofOhio State University, met in
the National Association ofScience Writers, the Chicago in May 2001 to establish criteria for selecting
Council for the Advancement and Support of communications programs as best practices, to deter-
Education, and the International Association of mine what types of institutions would be eligible to
Science Writers. submit entries, and to agree on a strategy for maximiz-
The R2 group also used part ofits NASA Marshall ing the number ofentries. From the outset ofits delib-
funding to sponsor five original research projects. erations, the Best Practices Steering Committee decid-
These projects included comprehensive reviews ofthe ed to limit entries to communications programs spon-
science and health communication research literature;' sored by or conducted by research-oriented and
a study ofU.S. public attitudes toward biotechnology public-education institutions. While numerous awards
and implications for improving science communica- exist to honor science journalists from media organiza-
tions,"^ a review ofcommunications programs conduct- tions who communicate well with the public, there are
ed by federal research organizations,' and a study of fewer opportunities for science communicators based
how public information officers broker information at research and other science and technology institu-
exchange between scientists and journalists.' tions to receive such recognition. The committee
The R2 group's major findings and recommenda- included communications programs aimed at children
tions were published in a special issue ofthe research
2