fulltext: pdf (421 kb)

PreliminaryCommunicationUDC1:001:316.774ReceivedDecember30th,2009

Blanka JergovićUniversityofZagreb,UniversityCenterforCroatianStudies,Učilišno-znanstvenikampusBorongaj,

Savudrijskabb,HR–[email protected]

Philosophy, Science and the Media

AbstractIn the complex interaction between science and the public already at the end of the 19th century, Oton Kučera has seen the important role of philosophy, which counts on the advancement of the natural sciences that has begun with the new understanding of natural processes and phenomena. There is no doubt that the media are the most effective in bringing science closer to the broader publics. Therefore, in this short presentation I will compare the results of the recent PublicUnderstandingofScience (PUS) surveys dealing with the knowledge about, the expectations from and the attitudes towards science. I will discuss the possible influence of the media with regard to the content and will present some of the models of science communication, as well as the types and characteristics of audiences for science in the lay public. Many important studies have shown that the correlation between knowledge and positive attitudes exists only to a certain point and that the beliefs have an important role in the creation of attitudes and in the decisionmaking process about sensitive issues or risk. After the analysis of few case studies, my conclusion will be that philosophy can help to improve the science–media–public relationship in its weakest points.

Key wordsphilosophy,media,mediainfluence,sciencecommunication,astronomy,swineflu

The media influence

Whenwethinkaboutthemediainfluenceregardingthecontent,weusuallythink about (1)what kind of issues are important in themassmedia, andthereforeinfluencethepublicperceptionand(2)howtheyareframedinthemedia.Thefirstquestionisacentralquestionoftheagendasettingtheory,whichsaysthatthemainmessagethatthemediaaresendingisthemessageofimportance.Itistransmittedviasalience,andsalienceistheresultofspe-cificplacementofanissueinthemedia(primetimeinelectronicmedia,orthefront,thelastorthemiddlepageinthenewspaper;placeonthepageetc.)andlayout(headlines,photographsorillustrations,etc.).Sothemassmediadonottelluswhattothink,butwhattothinkabout.1Themediainfluenceisnotsimpleanditdependsonwhatthemediaaretalkingorwritingabout.Po-liticalorreligiousbeliefsarefirmandthemediahavealmostnoinfluenceonthem.Onthecontrary,popularculture,music,fashion,etc.,arestronglyin-fluencedbythemedia.Sincepopularcultureisrelatedtosomedeepervalues,likesexualityorraceissues,mediacanindirectlyinfluencethemaswell.

1

DonaldL.Shaw,MaxwellE.McCombs,The Emergence of American Political Issues: The AgendaSetting Function of the Press,West

PublishingCo.,St.Paul–NewYork–LosAn-geles–SanFrancisco1977.

SYNTHESISPHILOSOPHICA50(2/2010)pp.(251–264)

B. Jergović, Philosophy, Science and theMedia252

Massmediacaninfluencethewayweperceivetheircontentandtheworldaroundusthroughthewaytheyframeissuestheyreport:thecontextinwhichtheyareplaced,theprevalenceofpositiveornegativetone,thewayinwhichmedia professionals select sources and information, what they publish orbroadcastandwhattheydonot,andthewaytheypresentit.Inarecentstudy,Brossardetal.2highlightsomenewinsightsintothemediainfluencewithregardtonewtechnologies.Theyassessthedegreetowhichvariouslevelsofreligiosity,useofsciencemedia,knowledgeabouttechnol-ogy,andriskandbenefitperceptioninfluencetheperceptionofnanotechnol-ogy.Theyfindadirectandnegativerelationshipbetweenreligiousbeliefsandthefundingofnanotechnology.Intheearlystageofthedevelopment,sciencemediahadanimportantroleinshapingpositiveattitudesabouttechnology.Itwasnotasurprise,becausethemediaaretheprimarysourceofinforma-tionaboutscienceandtechnologyasithasbeenshowedbyEurobarometerstudies (e.g. Special Eurobarometer 282, Scientific research in the media, European Commission,December2007;SpecialEurobarometer224Europeans, Science and Technology, surveyand report,EuropeanCommission,June2005)orNationalScienceFoundationSurveys(e.g.NationalScienceFoundation, Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding).Factualknowledgeabouttechnologyhasaroleinshapingpositiveattitudesaboutnanotechnology.ButBrossardetal.alsoindicateaninterpretativeroleofreligiosityintheper-ceptionofnanotechnology,whenitinteractswiththefactualknowledge.Re-ligiosityis“aperceptualfilterintheprocessofopinionformationaboutnan-otechnology”.3Asexpected,highlyreligiouspeoplearealsonotablyagainsttheinvestmentinnewtechnologies.Finally,Brossardetal.findoutthattheperceptionofrisksorbenefitsisrelat-edtothenegative(risk)orpositive(benefits)attitudes.Valuepredispositionssuchasreligiosity,theyconclude,cansuppressthepositiveeffectofknowled-geinformingpositiveattitudes.Withregardtothemedia,theyfindtheposi-tive relationshipbetweenreadingonscience in thenewspaperorwatchingitontelevisionandsupportforfundingnanotechnology.Theirconclusionisthatthepublicsupportofinvestinginthenewtechnologiesdependsnotonfactualknowledge,buton“moreappliedheuristicssuchasriskandbenefitperceptionsorothermediaframes”.4Mediaframeeffect,intermsofpotentialbenefitsorrisks,canconstitutepowerfulheuristics,5especiallyforissuesthatarenotdirectlylinkedwitheverydaylife.

Models of science communication

Forthepurposeofthispaper,Iwillshortlypresentsomemodelsofsciencecommunicationandchronologyofresearchinthisfieldwhich,someresearch-erspresume,isrelatedtothosemodels.So-called“Linearmodel”,asthetitlesays,meansthatsciencecommunicationisalinearprocessinwhich,aftertheresearchhasbeendone,thereistheevaluationprocessincludingpresentationof theresults tothescientificcommunityinintra-scientificcommunication(e.g.talksorlectures,scientificmeetingsorconferences,etc.)andpublishinginscientificjournals.Finally,thethirdandthelaststageisthepresentationtothegeneralpublic,mainlythroughthemedia.Thus,beforethecommunica-tion to thepublic, scientific informationhas togo throughall thosestages(fig.1a).6



Figure 1a: Thelinearmodelofsciencecommunication

But,thereareauthorsthatseemanymoresubjectsinvolvedintosciencecom-munication.For instance,BruceLewensteinhasdevelopedso-called“Webmodel”whichispresentedinthefigure1B.7Heretheemphasisisoncom-munication,whichisatwowayprocessandnotonlyonewayasitisimpliedinthelinearmodel.

Figure 1b: Thewebmodelofsciencecommunication

Thereisanotherapproach,whichputscommunicationinthecentre,andsaysthattherearevariousmodelsofsciencecommunicationstartingfromthepre-vailingmonologueandtop-downcommunication,viadialoguetoparticipa-tionofvariousactorsinvolvedintheprocess.

2

DominiqueBrossard,DietramA.Scheufele,Eunkyung Kim, BruceV. Lewenstein, “Re-ligiosity as a Perceptual Filter: ExaminingProcessesofOpinionFormationaboutNan-otechnology”,Public Understanding of Science18(5),2009,pp.546–558.

3

Ibid.,p.546.

4

Ibid.,p.555.

5

DietramA.Scheufele,BruceV.Lewenstein,“ThePublicandNanotechnology:HowCiti-zensMakeSenseofEmergingTechnologies”,

Journal of Nanoparticle Research7(6),2005,pp.659–667.

6

BlankaJergović,MladenJuračić,“Evolucija,smrt, život i dugovječnost: znanost, službeza odnose s javnošću imediji” (“Evolution,Death, Life and Immortality: Science, Pub-lic Relations and the Media”), Društvena istraživanja 18(4–5),2009,pp.875–893.

7

Bruce V. Lewenstein, “From Fax to Facts:Communication in the Cold Fusion Saga”,Social Studies of Science 25 (3), 1995, pp.403–436.

Scientific magazines → Media → Public



AsshowninTable1,modelsofsciencecommunicationareconnectedwithcertain“paradigm”,includingthewayofperceivingpublicscienceandcer-tainmethodsofsciencecommunicationresearch.Thefirstperiod,so-called“Deficitmodel”,startedin1960s.“Dialoguemodel”wasdevelopedin1985,and“Participationmodel”in1990s.8

Communication Purpose Accent IdeologyDeficit top-down,one

time,transfer,popularisation

scientificliteracy,educationbringspositiveattitudes

content,factualknowledge

scientism,technocracy,knowledgebasedeconomyrhetoric

Dialogue consultation,two-way,interactive

persuasion,nego-tiation,consensus

context socialresponsibility,culture

Participation co-production,many-ways,open-ended

persuasion,consensus,cooperation

contact participation,“citizens”,science,democracy

Table 1: Modelsofsciencecommunication

Therhetorichasbeenchangedwithtime,too.First,sciencewaspopularisedandwewere talking about bringing science closer to the public.Thenwemovedto“scienceandthepublic”and,toshowmoreinteractionandgenuinecommunication,to“scienceinthepublic”.Nevertheless,thechangeofrheto-ricdoesnotnecessarilymeanthechangeofmeaning.9TheDialoguemodelwascriticisedbecauseitwasdevelopingtheserialofmonologues.Dialoguemeansalsolistening,butthisideawasnotsopresentwithinthismodel.There-fore,togetherwithpublicunderstandingofscience,scientificunderstandingofthepublicisneededtoestablishtwowaycommunicationandinvolvement.10

Nevertheless,theprofoundandrapidchangesintechnologyhaveintroducedchanges in receivingand sharing scientific information.Acompletelynewscenehasbeen set for sciencecommunicationand so-called“Participationmodel”hasbeendeveloped.Thetimeframeofthemodelsisnotshowninthistable,becauseitisnotfixedandthereareoverlapsinwhichthecharacteristicsoftwomodelsarepresent.Also,wehavetotakeintoconsiderationvariouscultural,educational,politicalandeconomicaldifferencesinfluencingscien-cecommunicationinvariouscountries.Inthepubliccommunicationofscience,theveryimportantroleofPRagen-ciesorscienceinformationofficersatscientificinstitutionshastobeempha-sized,11aswellastheroleofthemostprominentscientificjournalssuchasNatureorScienceasthemostusedsourcesofinformationinEuropeanUnion,accordingtotheEuropeanCommission’sOnlinesurveyofmediaeditorsandjournalists(2007).12

Audiences for science in the public

Tobesuccessful,everycommunicationhastohave(a)wellselectedgoal(s)andtobeawareofwhatkindofaudiencesithas.Theaudiencesforsciencearethesubjectofvarioussurveys.Inanattempttolearnmoreabouttheaudi-encesforscienceinthepublic,thereareusuallythreeacceptedcriteria:theknowledgeabout,theattitudestowards,andtheexpectationsfromscienceandtechnology.Accordingtotheirknowledgeandattitudes,J.D.Miller(2000)



proposes threebroadcategoriesofpublic.Thisstudy isbasedon the largescalesurveysinEurope,UnitedStatesandJapan:Attentive publichashighleveloffactualknowledgeandknowledgeaboutscientificmethodologyandhighlevelsofinterest.Theyalsofollowmediacoverageofimportantissues.Theyconstitute15%ofthepublic.Interested publicconstitutesabout10%ofthetotalpopulation,theydonotfeelconfidentwiththebasisofknowledgeaboutscienceandtechnology,buttheyshowhighlevelsofinterest.Also,theyregularly follow themedia coverage of relevant issues.The vastmajority,Residual public,occasionally learnsaboutand isoccasionally interested inscience,andtheyconstitute75%ofpopulation.13

The joint report byTheBritishOfficeofScience andTechnology and theWellcomeTrust,Science and the Public. A Review of Science Communication and Attitudes towards Science in Great Britain,14publishedalsoin2000,makesamoresubtledistinctionandrecognizessixcategoriesofaudiencesforthescienceinthepublic.Thisreportindicatestheimportanceofperceptionofbenefitsandrisks,whichwaslatelyconfirmedbyBrossardetal.(2009),andtheimportanceofpossibilityofactivecitizens’involvementinthedecisionmakingprocessincreatingpositiveattitudestowardsandexpectationsfromscience,laterconfirmedbyDurantetal.15

Thefirstcategoryofaudiences,accordingtothisreport,isFull of confidence,characterizedby thepositiveattitudesandconfidence in science.Theyaremiddleaged,welleducatedandhaveagoodsocio-economicstatus.Theyalsotrustinpoliticsandbelievethattheycaninfluencethegovernmentindeci-sion-making.Theyrepresent17%ofthepopulation.Thelargestgroup,Technophiles,represent25%ofthegeneralpublic.Theyhavetrustinscience,buttheydonotbelievepoliticiansandtheyneedconfirmationthatregulatorysys-temexistsandworks,andtheyareskilledinfindinginformationwhentheyneedit.Another17%oftheaudiencesareSupporters.Younger,impressedbyscience,engineeringandtechnology,confidentintheirabilitytoadapttothe

8

MartinBauer,NickAllum,SteveMiller,“WhatCanWeLearnfrom25YearsofPUSSurveyResearch? Liberating and Expanding theAgenda”, Public Understanding of Science16(1),2007,pp.79–95.

9

Massimiano Bucchi, Beyond Technocracy: Science, Politics and Citizens,Springer,NewYork2009.

10

Steve Miller, Declan Fahy, “Can ScienceCommunicationWorkshops Train ScientistsforReflexivePublicEngagement?”,Science Communication31(1),2009,pp.116–128.

11

E.g. in B. Jergović,M. Juračić, “Evolucija,smrt,životidugovječnost:znanost,službezaodnosesjavnošćuimediji”.

12

See also Blanka Jergović, “Towards MoreResponsibility in Communicating Science”,in: Michel Claessens (ed.), Communicating European Research, Springer,Utrecht,2007,pp.187–191.

13

JohnD.Miller,The Public Understanding of Science and Technology in the United States: A Report to the National Science Foundation: Science and Technology Indicators,Na-tionalScienceFoundation,Washington,D.C.,2000.

14

Science and the Public. A Review of Science communication and Attitudes Towards Science in Great Britain,AjointreportbyTheOf-ficeofScienceandTechnologyandTheWell-comeTrust,TheWellcomeTrustPublishing,London2000.

15

JohnDurant,MartinBauer,GeorgeGaskell,CeesMidden,MiltosLiakopoulous,LiesbethSholten,“TwoCulturesofPublicUnderstand-ingofScienceandTechnologyinEurope”,in:MeinolfDierkes,ClaudiavonGlotz,Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science and Technology, Routledge, Amsterdam2000,pp.89–107.



rapidchanges, theyshowinterest inbiomedicalsciencesaswell,andhavetrustinthegovernment.ThesmallestgroupareConcerned–only13%ofthepopulation,mainlywomen(inthisgroup60%arewomen).Theyshowinter-estinthebroadspectrumofissuesandareawareoftheimportanceofscience,particularlyfortheirchildren.Theirsocialandeducationalstatusrepresentstheaverageofthesociety,andtheyarescepticaltowardsthegovernment.Atthebottom,therearetwogroupsaccordingtothetrustinscience.Not surearenotagainst,butalsonotforthesciencebecausethebenefitsitbringsarenotsoevidentintheirlives.Theyarepoorlyeducatedandsociallynotsecuredand they represent another 17%of the population. Finally, there are thosewhoarenotsointerestedinpoliticsandscience,butappreciatetheirmeaningfortheyoungergenerations;Notformeareolderthan65andrepresent15%ofthepopulation.Withoutanydoubt,PUSsurveysareofferingusvaluableinformationabouttheaudiencesforscienceinthepublic.16

Nevertheless,someauthorsareunderlying that incontactwithcitizens,sci-enceismuchmorecomplexthatitcanbeconcludedfromthequantitativeorPUSstudies.17Scienceisnothomogeneousanditcannotofferenoughreliableanswerstothequestionsfromoureverydaylife.18AsshownbyFalchettietal.,theinterestdetectedinthePUSstudiescanbebroaderandmoredemanding,particularlywhenitisconnectedtotheactionsanddecisionmakinginreallife,whenweneedknowledgewhichiseasytounderstandandreadytouse.Thisstudydifferentiates(1)thosewhoaskscientificinformationtoresolveatask(e.g.students);(2)thosewhoneedtheinformationwhentheyneedtosolveaproblemfromeverydaylife,makecareerchoicesetc;and(3)thosewhoseekinformationforintellectualpleasure.19Inthefirstcase,whichisalsothemostusual,theeasilyapplicableinformationisneeded.Butthesituationwhenweneedinformationtomakeadecisionorforintellectualpleasure,presumetrustandconfidencethatscienceisvaluableandpowerful.20Insituationslikethat,citizensuseInternet,21particularlyyoungerandmoreeducated,andtheypreferinteractivesites.22Itisevidentthatthisisnotinaccordancetowhattraditionaleducationormediaisoffering.Thereareon-lineeditionsofnewspaperswhereaudiencecanmakecomments,butthisisnotcomparabletotheactivesearchforscientificinformation,andisusefulmainlyasafeedbacktothemediaorcanbeinterestingtothemediatheoreticians.Activesearchforknowledgecanrevealmoreaboutthecitizen’srealneedforinformationandexpectationsfromscience,anditalsoincludestheneedtounderstandandknowabouttheprocessofthescientificproduction,evaluationandvalidationofinformation.23

Toconclude,inordertotailorourcommunicationsothatitfulfilsourinten-tionsandmeetstheneedsofouraudiences,itisrecommendedtogatherasmuchinformationabouttheaudiencesaswecan.Forscienceinthepublic,accordingtoBrossardetal.,communicationhastobedesignedtakingintoaccountthecharacteristicsofthepublic.Scienceinthepublic,therefore,canbeinfluencedbythemassmediaasthemostcommonsourceforscientificinformation,togetherwithotherfactorslikeeducation,levelsofinformation,beliefssystemsandrisk/benefitperception.24

Few examples of media–philosophy relation

1. 40th anniversary of the first man landing on the Moon

About50yearsago,intimesoftheColdWar,justafterthePanamaCanalhasbeenbuilt,Americaneededanewpush.ThatwasatimeofthecharismaticleaderJohnF.Kennedy,whohadafirmpoliticalwilltosendamancrewto



theMoon.Thatwasaveryambitiousplan,butwithinfewyearsalltechnicalproblemsweresolvedandApollo11landedontheMoononthe21thofJuly1969.Therewerethreeastronautsonboard;NeilArmstrong,EdwinAldrinandMichaelCollins.Itwasagreatachievementofmankind,newAmericanprimacy,unbelievablescientificaccomplishmentfromwhichwehavelearnedthatthereisnolifeorliquidwaterontheMoon,andthatitisapproximatelythesameageastheEarth.TheexpeditiontotheMoonofferedusanewlookattheEarthaswell;forthefirsttimewesawitfromatotallynewperspec-tive.Itwasalsoagreatbenefitforthescienceandpeople’slife.IntheApollo11programthesearchfor thenewsourcesofenergyhasbeenstarted,andSWC (SolarWindCollector) experimentwas conducted (also as the onlynon-Americanproject).Webenefitedfromthenewtechnologiesofthelightandstrongmaterialsforvariouscomponents,whichhascontributedtothead-vancementofindustry,particularlyBoeingandDouglas(JumboJet,DC10),orChryslerintheautomobileindustry,andtothecommunications,coopera-tionandmanagement.ThefirsthumanflighttotheMoonhad,ofcourse,alotofphilosophyinit,likeintheotheroccasionsinwhichcrossingthebordersofpreviouslyknownandseen, retrospection,orfascinatingandsometimesconfusingsensationsaskfordeeperunderstandingofknowledge.Therefore,itisnotunusualthatMichaelCollins,thethirdmemberoftheApollocrew,whilehewassittinginthespacecraftduringoneoftheMoonwalksofhiscol-leagues,saidthathesuddenlycametotheideathattheyshouldhavetakenonboardapoet,apriestandaphilosopheraswell.“Therewemightgetamuchbetterideaofwhatwesaw”,saidCollins.NASAcarefullyplannedtheApollomissioninallaspects,includingtheimpressionsinthepublicandinfluenceontheculturalhistory.WeallknowthewordsofNeilArmstrong,themanwhomadeafirststepontheMoon,withhisleftleg.Abitofconfusionintro-ducedthesmallmistakeinhisfamoussentence:“That’sonesmallstepfor[a]man;onegiantleapformankind”,inwhichhe–bymistakeorforsomeother

16

See also M. Bauer, N. Allum, S. Miller,“WhatCanWeLearnfrom25YearsofPUSSurveyResearch?LiberatingandExpandingtheAgenda”.

17

See e.g. EdgarW. Jenkins, “School ScienceCitizenship and the PublicUnderstanding ofScience”, International Journal of Science Education21(7),1999,pp.703–710,andElis-abetta Falchetti, Silvia Caravita, AlessandraSperduti,“WhatDoLaypersonsWanttoKnowfromScientists?AnAnalysisofaDialoguebe-tweenScientistsandLaypersonsontheWeb-siteScienzaonline”,Public Understanding of Science16(4),2007,pp.489–506.

18

E.W. Jenkins, “School Science CitizenshipandthePublicUnderstandingofScience”.

19

E.Falchetti,S.Caravita,A.Sperduti,“WhatDo LaypersonsWant to Know from Scien-tists?AnAnalysisofaDialoguebetweenSci-entistsandLaypersonsontheWebsiteScien-zaonline”,p.503.

20

Ibid.

21

European Commission, Special Eurobarometer 282: Scientific research in the media,Brussels 2007, http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_282_en.pdf.

22

E.Falchetti,S.Caravita,A.Sperduti,“WhatDo LaypersonsWant to Know from Scien-tists? An Analysis of a Dialogue betweenScientists and Laypersons on the WebsiteScienzaonline”.

23

JohnRyder,“IdentifyingScienceUnderstand-ingforFunctionalScientificLiteracy”,Studies in Science Education36,2001,pp.1–44.

24

D.Brossard,D.A.Scheufele,E.Kim,B.V.Lewenstein,“ReligiosityasaPerceptualFil-ter:ExaminingProcessesofOpinionForma-tionaboutNanotechnology”.



reason–didnotsay“a”infrontof“man”andchangedthemeaning.Coulditbethatitwasnotlapsus linguaebutlapsus memoriae?NowtherearedoubtsthatNeilArmstrongwasnottheauthorofthefamoussentence,butNormanMailer,amissingpoetonboard,whosuccessfullycombined thebeautyofexpressionwithphilosophicaldeepnessofthoughtinthissentence.25

2. Superstring theory

Anotherexampleofthepresenceofphilosophyinastronomy,whichisalsoreflectedinthemediacoverage,istheSuperstringtheory.TheideathatthenatureismadeoftinystringswhichvibrateintheUniversemadeof11dimensionswasneversupportedbyempiricalevidence.ItisverydifficulttoexplainandthereisnothingthatwealreadyknowthatcouldhelpusdescribethefunctioningoftheUniverseinsuchamanner.Andyetitbe-camepopularinthewholeworldthankstoBrianGreen’sbookThe Elegant Universe,whichhasturnedtheunexplainableandimpossibletodescribeintobestseller.Evenmore,superstringtheorybecameapartof thepopularcul-ture,aswecanseefromthefollowingdialoguefromtheCBSdramaJoan of Arcadia:

“Luke:See,stringtheoryprovidesaunifieddescriptionoftheuniverse.Imean,it’slikeholygrailofphysics.Will:Yeah,likelasagne’sholygrailofItalianfood.Luke:Notanexactanalogy.Will:Well,maybewhenIseethestrings.”26

Sciencehastheempiricalvalidityand,separatedfromthis,theestheticalval-ues,arguesJamesMcAlister,philosopherwhodescribedhowaestheticsandbeautyhelptoformulateandacceptscientifictheories.Aestheticalvaluesofsciencearenot the signof the truth, asGreenalsoconfirms.Forhim, theaestheticsinthetheoryisasensefortheeleganceandthebeautyofthestruc-ture.27

Philosophyandsciencearesometimesnotinaccordance,whennewscienti-ficideashavetobecommunicatedtothepublic.Apartofmodernphilosophysaysthattheunexplainableshouldnotbeexplained.Sciencecommunicationapparently does not agree.How canwe explain something forwhichwehavenovalidproofsorevidence,orsomethingthatissocomplicatedthatnoteventheexpertsinthefieldcantransferittootherpeople?Theansweris thepopularisationof science.According toAlanGross (1996), scienceisatheoreticalachievementandinthecentreispersuasion.28JohnTurney(2004)addsanotherpossibleexplanationoftheneedtopopularisetheoriesthataredifficulttoexplain:wherethereisalackofevidence,thepublicsup-portisneeded.29

Modern cosmology is an example of the recognised need to effectivelycommunicate its results to the broader lay public. Einstein, Heisenberg,Hawking,PenroseorBarroware theauthorsofbestsellers,philosophicaldiscussions with the reflections and explanations (sometimes with pole-mics, too) ofwhat theyhave learned in their research.Here, philosophyis a logical continuum of scientific research.BrianGreen’sThe Elegant Universe,orbookswrittenbyphysicistRichardFeynmanandauthorswhopopularisedotherscientificdisciplines,e.g.evolution,molecularbiology,geneticsandsoon,arealsopartofit.Theirworkinpopularizationofsci-encestronglyinfluencedpopularaccountofsciencepresentedinthemassmediaaswell.



3. Swine flu

Themedia/science/philosophyrelationinourthirdcaseiscompletelydiffer-ent.Swineflubecamepublicissueinthespringof2009.Newdiseasethatshowstheabilitytocrossspeciesbarriersappearedforthefirsttimeinthe1950s,butwasnotapublichealthproblemuntilthespringof2009.Itreap-pearedinMexico,affectingsomepigfarmsfirst,butsoonitspreadamonghumanstoo.Thediseasehadallpreferablenewsvalues:itwasrelevant,andnovel,itcontainedproximity,controversy,sensationandoriginality.Thegoodnewswasalsothatitwasbadnews,dangerousandunpredictable.Croatianmedia reportsabout thenew influenzaweresensationalandalarming.Theimportancewasmoreonframingtheswinefluissuethanonprovidingreli-able trustworthy information.Oneof themaincharacteristicsof themediacoverageoftheAH1N1fluwasconfusion.Itwasacompletelynewdisease,anunexpectedsituation,andtherewerepoorscientificknowledgeandinfor-mationaboutthenewflu.Theconfusioninthemediawascreatedintwodifferentways.First,thedatareportedbythemediawerenoteasilyverifiable.Therewerevarioussources,mainlyofficialreportsfromdifferentcountries,andthegeneralimpressionwas that they tended to downsize the extent of the influenza because ofvariousreasons,suchastourismordiplomaticreasons.Ontheotherhand,therewereverifiabledatafromsourcessuchasWorldHealthOrganization(WHO) or Centre forDiseaseControl (CDC),which sometimes differedandmadethewholesituationmoredifficulttounderstand.Themediaframewasnegative.Mediareportedaboutthegrowingnumberofinfectedpeoplearoundtheworldandfear.Thedatausedtopicturethesituationwerefright-ening:inonedaythenumberoftheclosedschoolsintheUSAgrew40%,therewereofficialsuggestionsnottotravelandtoavoidclosedareaswithmany people (e.g.Vjesnik and Jutarnji list, 4–6May 2009).The officialstatementsalsocreatedalarmingtonein thecoverageof theswineflu.Inher clumsyattempt to avoid“unnecessarypanic”and to“fulfil herduty”MargaretChan,WHO,said:“The6thlevel(ofdiseasespreaddanger)doesnotmean thatweare facing theendof theworld.”Shealsosaid that thenewwaveofthediseasecouldbemuchmoredangerous(Financial Times,4May2009,quoted inJutarnji list andVjesnik, 5May2009).AmericanpresidentObamadedicatedhismessagetothenewinfluenza;expertswerepredictingpandemics(e.g.MichaelRyan,WHO,Jutarnji list,5May2009).Somemediareportedabouttheairplanewhichhadtolandduetothepanicbecause a womenwas coughing, and theHarvardUniversity whichwasclosedbecauseofthefearofspreadingthevirus(“Awomen’scoughlandedBoeing777”,Jutarnji list,3May2009).Theotherswroteabouttheworld

25

Neue Züricher Zeitung,20July2009.

26

ThomasGarrings,“ShadowsandLight”,tele-visionseriesepisode,Joan of Arcadia,CBS,NewYork2005.

27

Quoted fromRachelEdford, “TheEleganceofThe Elegant Universe:Unity,Beauty,andHarmonyinBrianGreene’sPopularizationofSuperstring Theory”, Public Understanding of Science16(4),2007,pp.441–454.

28

Alan G. Gross, “Rhetoric of Science”, in:TheresaEnos(ed.),Encyclopedia of Rhetoric and Composition: Communication from Ancient Times to the Information Age,GarlandPublishing,NewYork1996.

29

JohnTurney,“AccountingforExplanationinPopularScienceTexts–anAnalysisofPopu-larizedAccountsofSuperstringTheory”,Public Understanding of Science13(4),2004,pp.331–346.



fearingfromthefataldiseases(Vjesnik,1–2May2009).Novi listpublished,on2May2009,astoryfromMexicoCity,“thecityoffearandtears”,“inthe dark and deserted”, once the city of friendly peoplewho now “don’tshakehandsandkeep thedistance”. It reportedabout the lackof“masksandTamiflu”(theantiviralmedicine),withoutevenmentioninghowtheflustarted,oraboutthecurrentstateoftheepidemics.Mediafocusedmoreoncreatingtheatmospherethanoninforming.Theirmaintaskwastoframethenewdiseaseissueandtocreateapictureofdanger,mysteryandfear,andnottoprovidereliableinformation.

Media and philosophy

Whilephilosophywasintegralpartofthemediareportsaboutastronomy(the40th anniversaryof the firsthumanmission to theMoon,Cassini-HuygensorSuperstringtheory),intheswineflucasephilosophyisnotpresentper se,orastheapproachaccordingtowhichjournalistsandeditorsaskthemselvesabouttherelevance,credibilityortheeffectsoftheinformation,asitispre-sentedintables2and3.

The picture of science The goal How is it achievedfascinating,thrilling;bigdiscoveries;newhorizons;usefulforus

toexplain,bringcloser,picture,intrigue,inform,entertain,surprisewiththenewdetails;involvement(scienceinthemaking)

storytelling,metaphors,enoughinformation;relationtophilosophy,politics,religion;fairandobjectivereporting

Table 2: Mediacoverageofastronomy

The picture of science inmedia coverage of astronomy is fascinating andthrilling(expectationsoftheApollolandingontheMoonorHuygenslandingonSaturn’smoonTitan,particularlyafterthefiascoofanotherBritishspacemission,Beagle2).Here,scienceisthestoryaboutthegreatnessofhuman-kind,aboutbigdiscoveriesandachievementsofscienceandtechnologythatcanbeusedinoureverydaylifemakingitmorecomfortableandefficient.Therefore,storytellingstyle,metaphorsandemotionsareveryimportantinthemediacoverage.IntheHuygenscaseitwastheexcitementandhappinessofthescientificteamsinvolvedinthemission,inlivebroadcastingofthesci-ence-in-the-making,withscientists’off-the-cuffcomments,whicharewidelyreported.30InbothcasesoftheApolloandCassini-Huygensmission,scienceisalsorelatedtopolitics.Itisanadditionalnewsvalueandthewaytoachievemore prominence and importance.Religiousmetaphors are often invoked,andinvolvementofphilosophyaddsanew,reflectivedimensionandvalue.Thereisapictureofsensational(butnotsensationalistic!)science,andthepossibilityoffailure(therewasalotofconcernsabouttheHuygensmissionafterBeagle2crashedonMars)doesnotmakeitmorecomplicatedtoreport.Onthecontrary,theexcitementmakesthesuccessevenbigger,andjournal-istsseemtoappreciatethesituationofuncertaintyandseemnottocaremuchaboutthemissingpeer-reviewedprocessthatinmostofthecasesusuallyisastepbeforegoingpublicwiththescientificinformation.Thephilosophyisincorporatedinmediareportsaboutastronomy,particularlyinmoderncos-mology.



The picture of science The goal How is it achievednotinthefocus;scienceisimportant,butalsoimpotent;peripheral

toexcite,alarm,attracttheattention;sellthenewspaper;toservethegoalsofpharmaceuticalindustry?

hype,metaphors,speculations;selectionofinformationandquotations;nonreliableinformation;sensationalism;

Table 3: Mediacoverageoftheswineflu

MediacoverageofthepigfluinCroatiaiscompletelydifferent.Scienceisnotinthefocus,particularlynotatthebeginningoftheepidemics.Ofcourse,sciencewasimportant.Weneededtoisolatethevirus,describeitsproperties,andcreatelaboratorychainsinordertoproducethevaccine.Therewerehu-manlives tobesaved; therewereepidemicsandpossiblepandemics tobecontrolled.But,sciencewasnotefficientenough.Thestoryofswinefluwassimplynotthestoryaboutscience,butthestoryaboutacataclysmicdanger,whichwasdescribedbytheexcessiveuseofhypeandexaggeration.Thelackofreliableinformation,statementsthatprovokefearanduncertainty,sensa-tionalistic catchy headlines and layoutwere used to excite the public andtosellthenewspaper.Thepublicinformationaboutthenewinfluenza,andlateronaboutthevaccinewascompromised.Thelackofreliableinforma-tionopened theway todoubtsabout thepossible interest and influenceofthepharmaceuticalindustryonthemediacoverageofthepigfluepidemics,togetherwithconspiracytheoryabouttheoriginoftheH1N1virusandaboutthevaccine.

Philosophy and the media

Bothcasesanalysedhereshowhowthemediacan,byusingsaliences,affectthepublicagendaandcreatecertainatmospherebyframingtheissuestheyreportabout.Also,itisclearthattheaudienceneedsreliableinformation,anditwasstatedalsobysomeofthemostprominentscientistsandexperts(e.g.IvanĐikićinVjesnik,16May2009,orAlemkaMarkotićforCroatian Radio,30December2009).Notlongagophilosophywasapartofscience,anditstillis,aswehaveseeninastronomy,particularlyinthecaseofmoderncosmol-ogy.Despitetheexistinggapsinotherfields,philosophyisorshouldbeapartofsciencenotonlywhenthereare“big”questionsseekingfor“big”answers,likethequestionabouttheoriginsoftheuniverseorlife,ortheissuesrelatedtothetheoryofrelativity,orwhensciencecannotofferclear,preciseanswersorexplanations,e.g.relatedtotheSuperstringtheory.Itseemsthattodaysci-entistssometimestrytoavoidthose“big”questions,likemediado,asiftheyassumethatpeopleareinterestedmoreininformationonlyandintheeve-rydayissues,whicharepresentintheirlives.31Ontheotherhand,thefocusonthepracticalissuesisnotwithoutthedeeperreflection,likethoseaboutscienceinthemedia,aswecansometimeswitnessreadingtheletterstotheeditorinourdailynewspapersoron-linecommentarieswhicharepublished

30

Blanka Jergović, Steve Miller, “FramingSpace:UKNewspaperReportingoftheBea-gle2andCassini-HuygensSpaceMissions”,CAPjournal (3)2008,pp.5–11.

31

E.Falchetti,S.Caravita,A.Sperduti,“WhatDo LaypersonsWant to Know from Scien-tists?AnAnalysisofaDialoguebetweenSci-entistsandLaypersonsontheWebsiteScien-zaonline”,p.501.



withinonlineeditions,inblogsoronvarioussocialnetworkslikeFacebook.Themediapublicalsoneedsguidelinesinordertocreatethemeaningfromthemediascience,andmakeitusefulandvaluableineverydaylife.Inasenseofreflectionandguidingthewayofthinkingaboutcertainissues,philosophyshouldbepresentnotonlytherewhere“big”questionsorreflec-tionsareatstake,includingnewdiseases(e.g.theswineflu)oranewtreat-ment.Mediarepresentationisthenthecontinuationofthescientificprocessinwhichtheresearch,intra-scientificcommunication,evaluation,publishingandcommunicationtothelaypublicaretheusualsteps.Thedecisionmakingprocessabouttheapplicationoraboutthecontinuationofresearchisalogi-calprocessofproductionanddisseminationoftheknowledgeinthemodernsociety,wherescienceisapartofourcultureandenvironment.Intheattempttocreateastoryfromtheinformationabouttheresearchornewresults,themediaalsoneedguidelines. Inthebestcasescenario,theyneedtoselectin-formationandthewayofpresentingthemcouldcompetewithotherissuesforthetimeinthebroadcastmediaorspaceinthepress,andatthesametimenottodistortorcompromisethisinformation.Philosophyinthischoicebe-tweenthegoodandthebad,betweenrightandwrongoffersthesolutioninits“frame”andphilosophicaldiscipline,inethics.32Thepresenceofphilosophyasaparadigm,whichhelps in themediaeveryday routineof selecting thesources,theinformationandthestyleofpresentation,couldhelptogaincred-ibilityandaudiences.

Literature

MartinBauer,NickAllum,SteveMiller,“WhatCanWeLearnfrom25YearsofPUSSur-veyResearch?LiberatingandExpandingtheAgenda”,Public Understanding of Science16(1),2007,pp.79–95.

MassimianoBucchi,Beyond Technocracy: Science, Politics and Citizens,Springer,NewYork2009.

DominiqueBrossard,DietramA.Scheufele,EunkyungKim,BruceV.Lewenstein,“Reli-giosityasaPerceptualFilter:ExaminingProcessesofOpinionFormationaboutNanote-chnology”,Public Understanding of Science18(5),2009,pp.546–558.

JohnDurant,MartinBauer,GeorgeGaskell,CeesMidden,MiltosLiakopoulous,LiesbethSholten,“TwoCulturesofPublicUnderstandingofScienceandTechnologyinEurope”,in:MeinolfDierkes,ClaudiavonGlotz,Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science and Technology,Routledge,Amsterdam2000,pp.89–107.

RachelEdford,“TheEleganceofThe Elegant Universe:Unity,Beauty,andHarmonyinBrianGreene’sPopularizationofSuperstringTheory”,Public Understanding of Science16(4),2007,pp.441–454.

EuropeanCommission,Special Eurobarometer 224: Europeans, Science and Technology,Brussels2005,http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_282_en.pdf.

European Commission, Special Eurobarometer 282: Scientific Research in the Media,Brussels2007,http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_282_en.pdf.

EuropeanCommission,Online Survey of Media Editors and Journalists. Survey of Researchers, Media Editors and Journalists,Brussels,2007http://ec.europa.eu/research/con-ferences/2007/bcn2007/executive_summary_en.pdf.

ElisabettaFalchetti,SilviaCaravita,AlessandraSperduti,“WhatDoLaypersonsWanttoKnowfromScientists?AnAnalysisofaDialoguebetweenScientistsandLaypersonsontheWebsiteScienzaonline”,Public Understanding of Science16(4),2007,pp.489–506.

ThomasGarrings,“ShadowsandLight”,televisionseriesepisode,Joan of Arcadia,CBS,NewYork2005.



BlankaJergović,MladenJuračić,“Evolucija,smrt,životidugovječnost:znanost,službezaodnosesjavnošćuimediji”(“Evolution,Death,LifeandImmortality:Science,PublicRelationsandtheMedia”),Društvena istraživanja 18(4–5),2009,pp.875–893.

BlankaJergović,SteveMiller,“FramingSpace:UKNewspaperReportingoftheBeagle2andCassini-HuygensSpaceMissions”,CAPjournal3,2008,pp.5–11.

BlankaJergović, “TowardsMoreResponsibilityinCommunicatingScience”,in:MichelClaessens(ed.), Communicating European Research, Springer,Utrecht,2007,pp.187–191.

Danijel Labaš, La funzione del principio della responsabilita nella fondazione etica dell’informazionecomunicazione(EstrattodellaTesiperilDottorato,TesidiDottoraton.376),Zagreb1999.

BruceV.Lewenstein,“FromFaxtoFacts:CommunicationintheColdFusionSaga”,Social Studies of Science 25(3),1995,pp.403–436.

JohnD.Miller,The Public Understanding of Science and Technology in the United States: A Report to the National Science Foundation: Science and Technology Indicators,Natio-nalScienceFoundation,Washington,D.C.,2000.

SteveMiller,DeclanFahy,“CanScienceCommunicationWorkshopsTrainScientistsforReflexivePublicEngagement?”,Science Communication31(1),2009,pp.116–128.

NationalScienceFoundation, Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding,http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/c7/c7s1.htm.

JohnRyder,“IdentifyingScienceUnderstandingforFunctionalScientificLiteracy”,Studies in Science Education36,2001,pp.1–44.

Science and the Public. A Review of Science communication and Attitudes Towards Science in Great Britain,AjointreportbyTheOfficeofScienceandTechnologyandTheWellcomeTrust,TheWellcomeTrustPublishing,London2000.

DietramA.Scheufele,BruceV.Lewenstein,“ThePublicandNanotechnology:HowCi-tizensMakeSenseofEmergingTechnologies”,Journal of Nanoparticle Research7(6),2005,pp.659–667.

DonaldL.Shaw,MaxwellE.McCombs,The Emergence of American Political Issues: The AgendaSetting Function of the Press,WestPublishingCo.,St.Paul–NewYork–LosAngeles–SanFrancisco1977.

JohnTurney,“AccountingforExplanationinPopularScienceTexts–anAnalysisofPo-pularizedAccountsofSuperstringTheory”,Public Understanding of Science13(4),2004,pp.331–346.

Blanka Jergović

Filozofija, znanost i mediji

SažetakU kompleksnom ispreplitanju znanosti i javnosti već je Oton Kučera krajem 19. stoljeća vidio važnu ulogu filozofije »koja savjesno računa sa napretkom prirodne znanosti« kojoj »stadosmo na prag« s novim razumijevanjem prirodnih procesa i pojava. Budući da su mediji u približavanju znanstvenih informacija javnosti nesumnjivo najučinkovitiji, ovdje ću prikazati rezultate recentnih europskih i američkih anketa o informiranosti javnosti o znanosti (PublicUnderstan-dingofScience), o stavovima javnosti prema znanosti i očekivanju javnosti od znanosti. Ukratko ću se osvrnuti na utjecaj medija s obzirom na sadržaj i na neke od modela komuniciranja

32

Danijel Labaš, La funzione del principio della responsabilita nella fondazione etica dell’informazionecomunicazione,Zagreb1999.



znanosti te opisati vrste i osobine publike za znanost u javnosti. Naime, korelacija znanja i pozitivnih stavova postoji do određenog stupnja informiranosti i dosadašnje su studije pokazale da kod donošenja odluka ili zauzimanja stava prema osjetljivim ili rizičnim pitanjima veliku ulogu imaju vjerovanja, više nego informiranost ili znanje. Nakon analize nekolicine studija slučaja, moj će zaključak biti da filozofija može pomoći upravo u tim najslabijim točkama javnoga razumijevanja i prihvaćanja znanosti.

Ključne riječifilozofija,mediji,utjecajmedija,znanstvenakomunikacija,astronomija,svinjskagripa

Blanka Jergović

Philosophie, Wissenschaft und Medien

ZusammenfassungIn der komplexen Wechselbeziehung zwischen Wissenschaft und Öffentlichkeit – bereits Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts – hat Oton Kučera eine belangvolle Rolle der Philosophie erkannt, die mit dem Aufschwung der Naturwissenschaften rechnet, der mit einer neuen Lesart der Naturprozesse und Phänomene eingesetzt hat. Es ist unbezweifelbar, dass die Medien in puncto Näherbringung der Wissenschaft an das Breitpublikum am effektivsten sind. Aufgrund dessen vergleiche ich in der vorliegenden, kurz gefassten Präsentation, die Ergebnisse der Public-Understanding-of-Science-Meinungsforschung (PUS), welche sich mit dem Wissen von, den Erwartungen von sowie der Einstellung zur Wissenschaft befasst. Ich erörtere den möglichen Einfluss der Medien hinsichtlich des Inhalts und präsentiere etliche Modelle der Wissenschaftskommunikation, als auch die Publikumstypen und eigenschaften für die Wissenschaft in der Laienöffentlichkeit. Zahlreiche signifikante Studien haben abgehandelt, dass die Korrelation zwischen dem Wissen und der positiven Haltung nur bis zu einem gewissen Punkt existiert, wie auch dass die Überzeugungen eine schwerwiegende Rolle bei der Gesinnungsbildung sowie dem Entscheidungsprozess in heiklen Fragen bzw. beim Wagnis spielen. Nach der Analyse einiger Fallstudien wäre meine Schlussfolgerung, dass Philosophie die WissenschaftMedienÖffentlichkeitBeziehung an ihren Schwächststellen zu verbessern vermag.

SchlüsselwörterPhilosophie,Medien,Medieneinfluss,Wissenschaftskommunikation,Astronomie,Schweinegrippe

Blanka Jergović

Philosophie, science et médias

RésuméDans l’interaction complexe entre la science et le public, déjà Oton Kučera avait vu le rôle important de la philosophie qui compte sur l’avancée des sciences naturelles, amorcée par la nouvelle compréhension des processus et des phénomènes naturels. Puisque les médias sont sans doute le moyen le plus efficace lorsqu’il s’agit de familiariser un public plus large à la science, je présenterai ici les résultats de récentes enquêtes d’opinion européennes et américaines sur l’état de connaissance (PublicUnderstandingofScience), les attitudes et les attentes du public à l’égard de la science. Je reviendrai brièvement sur l’influence des médias par rapport au contenu ainsi que sur certains modèles de communication scientifique, puis je décrirai les types et les caractéristiques de publics profanes pour la science. En effet, de nombreuses études ont montré que la corrélation entre la connaissance et les attitudes positives existe jusqu’à un certain point seulement et que les croyances, plus que l’état d’information ou la connaissance, jouent un rôle important dans la prise de décision et l’adoption d’attitudes par rapport aux questions sensibles ou le risque. Après avoir analysé plusieurs cas d’étude, je concluerai que la philosophie peut justement améliorer les points les plus faibles de la compréhension et l’acceptation publique de la science.

Mots-clésphilosophie,médias,influencedesmédias,communicationscientifique,astronomie,grippeporcine

fulltext: pdf (421 kb)

Documents