My second session here at Science Online 2011 is on Sunday--it's the following:
Room A - Defending Science Online: Tactics and Conflicts in Science Communication - Chris Mooney, Josh Rosenau, Val Jones and Eric Michael Johnson Climate change "skeptics," intelligent design creationists, anti-vaccine activists and others who oppose science-based policy decisions are poisoning the well of our national dialogue on important scientific issues. But what's the best strategy to counter their misinformation? This is perhaps the most contentious issue among science bloggers and journalists today. Whether it’s described as “framing science” or presented as confrontation vs. accommodation, the conflict among science communicators is a debate over tactics and how to best achieve our shared goals. Some choose to work with moderates in the "anti-science" group and reframe the way they write about the issues to accommodate the different perspective. Others feel that this approach merely compromises on settled scientific questions and offers legitimacy to the more extreme position. Panelists will discuss what they see as the most effective tactics within three contentious science policy issues: climate science, evolution in public schools, and science-based medicine. Is there one tactic that is best employed in all cases? Does a multi-level approach undermine scientific values by not fully defending the evidence and countering false information? When we consider science policy is it more important to be right or influential in our efforts to strengthen scientific literacy in our democracy?
This session is going to be a tough one for me, because I am fairly pessimistic about how well we can really counter misinformation online, given 1) the audience fragmentation effect that inevitably occurs and leads to a situation in which those most in need of corrective information are least likely to receive it; 2) the way the human mind works when it encounters disagreeable contradictory information (i.e., shut it down). However, I will discuss one case study that was at least somewhat effective: The online blogger evisceration of George Will's terrible, terrible, atrociously terrible 2009 column abusing World Meteorological Organization data in order to deny global warming. However, I think what worked here was not simply debunking Will online, but also going to the Washington Post and demanding redress--which led to the record at least being balanced in a major paper of record (though Will never retracted or corrected his column). So here, ironically, combating misinformation online was most effective...in print. What do others think?
