The similarities between the Intelligent Design and Space Exploration controversies

            After holding the debate for and against space exploration in class, I was more interested in seeing how the real debate was being laid out.  Looking into more of the arguments on either side I realized that there were many parallels between this debate and the evolution argument.  So my curiosity took me to compare and contrast the two debates based on how their viewed as scientific controversies, how their arguments are framed, and how society has an impact on the outcomes.

The debate on whether the space exploration program should continue falls under the category of a scientific controversy.   Typically the scientific controversies that we have examined so far in this class are based on one of two things:  the difference in scientific and professional opinion on the analysis of data or information, or the moral, religious, or personal beliefs of scientists on a topic.  Similar to the evolution argument, the argument for space exploration is not based on the variances of analysis. The space debate is based on scientist’s personal opinion of the merits of space exploration.  With this particular controversy a lot of people’s livelihoods are at stake so those arguing for space exploration speak with intense motivation and passion.  In the Intelligent Design debate, those for teaching Intelligent Design are arguing based on their religious beliefs which is also a source of passionate discussion.

            This leads into the framing of the arguments on either side of space exploration.  Framing is how the information is portrayed to a given audience and is crucial to any argument or controversy.  It’s interesting to see that the general attitudes in framing the space exploration argument is very analogous to the framing of the evolution argument.  Thinking back to the documentary in class, those arguing for Intelligent Design were very passionate about their beliefs because they were tied to more than their scientific understanding; in this case, Intelligent Design was tied to their religious beliefs. For space exploration, those arguing to continue the program are arguing for their very livelihoods.  With careers that have been based in the aerospace industry for many decades, it would be difficult for some to find work outside of this very specialized field.  On the other side of the debate, the Darwinian evolutionists did not do a very good job presenting their argument by coming forward with ostentatious attitudes.  Somewhat similarly, almost any argument made to shut something down that has been run continuously for a long period of time, and with generally strong support from the public, comes across in a negative light.

            Delving further into the frames used, the most common frames were very similar to those we used in the class debate.  Stephen J. Dubner, journalist and author, listed these frames as the most common found in his research and interviews in his blog on “Is Space Exploration Worth the Cost?":

·         Colonization – to hedge catastrophe on Earth

·         Spin-Off Technologies

·         Developing International Cooperation – can also lead to less cost

·         National Prestige

·         Answering the question “Are we alone?”

The last point can also be compared to the Intelligent Design argument which is that the Earth and all its creatures are so intricate that there must be some intentional, intelligent designer.  This thought and questioning if we are alone in the universe tie back to some blend of religion and curiosity of the unknown.  These arguments become the most difficult to defend against because you begin to attack people’s belief structures when trying to disprove their point.  These questions are also why these debates are so controversial and are continually brought up.

            So getting back to the purpose of framing, at the end of the argument you want everyone to be rooting for your side.  For government funded agencies, like NASA, this point is crucial to operations because the government finds it much harder to fund something that the public isn’t behind.  And this transitions in the course concept that science is a social enterprise.  This course concept was first defined when speaking about how many parties can be involved and others’ perceptions of scientist can affect their credibility which was seen in the Ulcer-bug case study.  In the case of Intelligent Design, their argument doesn’t just stem from a scientific basis but incorporates other facets of society, such as religion, and backing from the church has a huge impact on how this message is perceived as well as who is willing to buy in.  And in the case of space exploration, science becomes an extremely social enterprise because the space program needs public backing and support to continue to move forward.  Because of this, NASA has aggressively worked to get people involved, invested, and intrigued by space exploration. 

          Looking at the homepage of their website is evidence of NASA’s efforts to convey the intrigue and importance of their science.  Reeling across the center of the screen is a photo album of new discoveries and advancements made in space exploration that grab the viewers’ attention and get them interested in reading more.  NASA isn’t using this to reinforce their credibility or publish their findings.  These “advertisements” are there to get the public interested in being a part of the space program or at a minimum finding out more.

The Intelligent Design argument focuses mainly on getting their word out by using the media as a conduit to the public en masse.  When looking at the homepage on their website, you can tell they are playing against their stereotype of religious fanatics and trying to gain the appeal of a more techy “in-the-know” audience.  Both the Intelligent Design group and NASA as a corporation are trying to appeal to large numbers of people to increase their public appeal.

            Those with universal curiosity will continue to wonder if we are alone in the universe, and that question can only be answered by continuing with humankind’s exploration of space.  And the question of which theory of evolution can truly describe species genetic progression will be difficult to answer in the scientific field because the results become more qualitative than quantitative and religion will always be a part of the argument. Both of these debates will continue to crop up time after time because both sides have strong points that can’t be answered definitively.

*Dubner, S. J. (2008, January 11). Is space exploration worth the cost? a freakonomics quorom. Retrieved from http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/01/11/is-space-exploration-worth-the-cost-a-freakonomics-quorum/

Social Science and Framing as seen by the Cold Fusion Press Conference

After reading Pinch’s excerpt “Cold Fusion and the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge” (1998), I was curious to see how Pons and Fleischmann’s discovery was portrayed to the public.  I figured the most straight-forward method would be to find a video of the 1989 press conference on cold fusion held at the University of Utah on March 23.  Below you’ll find a link to a YouTube video of the aforementioned press conference.  This blog will follow along the video pointing out key points at specific times, so my recommendation would be to load the video while reading the first portion of this blog.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CfHaeQo6oU

First and foremost, I believe that this press conference outlines the course concept that science is a social enterprise to the tee.  Many different individuals were brought into the discussion of cold fusion and their reputations and futures were held hostage during this scientific controversy.  Knowing how this series of events turned out, we can say that the reputations of these individuals changed considerably, and most not for the better.

Prior to the release of his cold fusion studies, Fleischmann was known as “one of Britain’s most distinguished electrochemists” to have made “a number of important discoveries, as recognized by his election as a Fellow of the Royal Society” (Pinch, 1998, pg. 77).  Pons was also considered “a productive scientist in his own right and chair of the University of Utah chemistry department” (Pinch, 1998, pg. 75).  Each of these researches brings various organizations into the fire with them simply by association.  Even the Royal Society would feel a small sting knowing that one of its members practices were called into question.

Just as we saw in the “ulcer bug” case study, many people’s credibility will be called into question during the course of this scientific controversy due to the fact that science does not take place in a vacuum and findings are subject to intense critique from all parties.

The second course concept I would like to discuss throughout this press conference is the concept of framing.  To be honest, I thought there would be more platforms on which I expected to hear the scientists specifically sell the idea cold fusion.  However, it was noticeable when Jim Brophy, the Vice President of research at the University of Utah, and Dr. Chase Peterson, President of the University of Utah, spoke on subject.

Cold fusion could be the way to solve the globe’s energy concerns as well as lower our CO₂ emissions and decrease the greenhouse effect, decrease the amount of acid rain by burning less sulfurous coal.  Throughout the press conference both Mr. Brohpy and Dr. Peterson grossly extrapolate possible benefits of cold fusion without using any statistical data or backing, selling cold fusion as the “promise of virtually unlimited energy”.

Now onto the video!

            If you’ll first stop at 4:20, Dr. Peterson does state some of the qualities of the National Academy of Science that we were just speaking of in class.  This gives the hearing an air of legitimacy, seemingly noting that they expect to be poked and prodded for details for replication experiments.

            At 6:10 Pons first takes the floor to give a very basic overview of the apparatus and procedure.  He then dives into the large picture effect of their findings:  “considerable release of energy and we’ve demonstrated that it can be sustained on its own, in other words much more energy is coming out than we’re putting in”.

            Fleischmann then takes over at 7:35 and pushes the claim even further to say that “fusion takes place and can be sustained indefinitely”.  Fleischmann does give a quick definition of his use of indefinitely, but overall these are very powerful statements on cold fusion that the press immediately jump on for “how does this affect the population?” types of questions compared to skeptical “are you sure you’ve got it right?” types of questions.  The benefits of the findings are being framed as the large part of this discussion rather than the science itself.

            At 10:55 the press asks questions about fusion applications to which Pons responds that he thinks “it would be reasonable within a short number of years to build a fully operational device that could produce electric power to drive a steam generator or turbine”.  Pons and Fleischmann’s research was focused on the event of cold fusion itself, like he says, and I would argue that it is outside of their realms as electrochemists to make claims like this one.

            At 13:25 Fleischmann tries to rescind and modify some of the slightly outlandish claims by others.  He tries to reel the subject back into the discussion of their study, on the specific science of cold fusion, rather than the perceived benefits.  He again mentions the gauntlet of skepticism and trial that all scientific findings must run through before really laying down claims to long-term benefits.

            However, at 15:55 Mr. Brophy is back to framing cold fusion as the ideal energy source because it will result in the “elimination of acid rain, reduces the green house effect, and allows us to use fossil fuels in a way which is much more important”. 

            At 24:25 the President of the University takes the floor and mentions concern about the universities ownership although not mentioning other recent findings, such as Jones’ at BYU which we’ve heard of through Pinch’s excerpt.  Dr. Peterson also pulls out a letter from the Governor of Utah that states his full support of Utah’s cold fusion research to which he is “ready to offer the resources of the state at [the governor’s] disposal”.  Yet another party, and another stakeholder, being pulled into the discussion.

            My question on how was this event presented to the public was well answered by finding this video of the press conference.  Although I was surprised that more blatant framing wasn’t used, this topic continues to interest me in seeing what happened next.  Who was the first to lay claim that their replication experiments worked? What were their practices or motives?  And were they directly connected to any of the individuals in this press conference?  Then on the flip side, who were the first to speak out against Pons and Fleischmann’s findings?  And how were they connected?

            There were many societal implications of these findings, as was said many times by Mr. Brophy and Dr. Peterson.  And there were also implications throughout this event as a large-scale scientific controversy.  I can imagine research funding was rapidly reallocated towards this subject from other deserving topics, a university was embarrassed in the long-run by exaggerated and hastily-made claims to cold fusion.  In the future, I’m sure many organizations will take careful consideration into whether they give their full support, backing, and funding to up-and-coming technologies and procedures.

Pinch, 1998, pgs. 75, 77.

New Energy Institute, 1989, video.

Framing Nanotechnology

Part of the Kuzma article was about how the science community and public was perceiving the advancements in nanotechnology and part of the Thomas article was about framing.  I was interested in combining these two thoughts and learning more on how the scientific community was framing information about nanotechnology and obtaining public opinion.



Dr. Dietram A. Scheufele

 Simply searching “framing nanotechnology” actually produced a fair amount of credible sources and I stumbled upon Dr. Dietram A. Scheufele’s blog titled Nanopublic [http://www.nanopublic.com/].  Scheufele wrote a specific piece for an upcoming book and this excerpt is called “Public attitudes toward nanotechnology”.  The first section is subtitled “Attitudes without knowledge?” and addresses whether the public, and scientific community as well, are actually well informed on this topic.  Scheufele references many surveys that supposedly obtained information on the public standing on nanotechnology but also points out that a general level of understanding was not obtained.  Quiz based surveys would have been more useful to obtain a gauge of how well the public understood the actual topic before surveying for their attitudes towards the subject of nanotechnology.

There is a difference between perceived knowledge versus measured knowledge and this difference is not often taken into account during public surveys.  In the United States, the gap between the highly educated and less educated public is increasing.  Even the scientific community is not all on the same page when it comes to nanotechnology.  So how can you have truly meaningful discussions, or survey results for that matter, when the audience lacks understanding of the subject?  The deficit model describes this dilemma; the difficulty of trying to communicate across the scientific and public interface is due to the fact that one party finds the other to be lacking in some understanding.  This can be viewed from either side of the interface: the public could be lacking technical knowledge or the scientific community could be lacking in knowledge on the intrinsic value the public places on some issue.

To have the most meaningful discussions across this interface both parties need to work to meet each other in the middle.  Bidirectional communication is a good way to sum this up.  The scientific community needs to come up with practical ways to inform the public without alienating a large portion of their audience and the public needs to exert effort to do their own research to understand more technically-dense material.  The scientific community is well aware of the public’s need of readily accessible and easy to understand material. 

“Science … has a marketing problem, and if we like it or not, it needs to be fixed” (Scheufele 2011).  After reading this quote in Scheufele’s blog I decided to find an actual example of media coverage on the topic of general nanotechnology.  Searching “nanotechnology” on youtube.com I found a video titled “Dr. Michio Kaku discussing Nanotechnology” which was featured on BBCFour – the guide to intelligent television [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdISRJHFpLI]. 



Dr. Michio Kaku

 This video opens up with a shot of a beautiful Rhode Island estuary and Dr. Kaku sitting out in the field introducing nanotechnology as a form of science that is already present in nature.  Throughout the video there are calming hues of blue and green with a few more shots of natural landscapes, colorful flowers, and birds soaring in the sky.  This subliminally redirects the audience’s first impressions from something manipulated, man-made, and possibly dangerous to something natural and highly beneficial.  This framing sends very specific and intentional messages to the audience.  Many positive applications are detailed throughout the ten minute video and only at the nine minute mark are any negative comments made. 

Dr. Michio Kaku is a theoretical physicist who is known for popularizing scientific subjects in the media.  Based on the speaker and the television channel, you can already tell that the directors of this clip are using the credit of authority in support of their information.  “I almost feel omnipotent, like a god, controlling thousands and thousands of bacteria” was an interesting sound byte from Dr. Kaku as he was controlling a colony of engineered bacteria that responded to magnetic fields.  I thought it strange of him to bring up such a touchy subject such as religion in this technical based video and as I was watching this video I noticed “Dr. Michio Kaku on God”, another video of his.

In class we spoke about science being a social enterprise as in multiple parties have say and influence in individual findings and studies.  This course concept seemed very applicable in this situation; all of Dr. Kaku’s works will continually affect his current studies.  For example, if he were to say something on the topic of religion that his supporters didn’t agree with, whether it was at all related to the current research or not, they could take away financial or political backing in a heartbeat solely based on how he conducts himself within the social realm of science.

Initially, I set out to look for specific ways the scientific community was framing nanotechnology and then obtaining public feedback.  In the end, I found myself with a link to a professor’s blog and a short documentary aired on BBC.  Scheufele wrote on current methods used to obtain public feedback and personal thoughts on framing and the BBC video had some blatant aims to tie nanotechnology to nature.  Between these two sources, it seems that the scientific community has a ways to go to obtain really meaningful feedback and supply unbiased, informative findings to the public.  So what steps will be taken to better these areas? Could the audience just choose a different channel? Or should the scientific community develop a different approach to media communication?  The important part is that the foundation is there to solve these problems and now it’s just up to finding the best way to approach the scientific and public interface.