The blogosphere is all lit up with views and commentary on the "Framing Science" article by Matthew Nisbet and Chris Mooney. Interesting discussion can be found at Sandwalk, A Blog Aroung The Clock (and links within), Pharyngula, as well as Matthew Nisbet's site. Essentially, the article argues that scientists are losing the battle of popular opinion because they don't frame science in a way that normal folk can relate to. People glaze over when someone start to talk science. Unless scientists and science writers get better at communicating with the public, so the argument goes, we will lose valuable mind-space to interests that are better "framers", such as Conservative politicians and the Intelligent Design movement. If only scientists could choose better words, use friendlier concepts, and be more inclusive, surely everyone would see things our way, and society would be ruled by the concepts of pure science and reason.

As far as I can tell (and I'm not the first to say it), "framing" is little more than a neo-term for rhetoric, a.k.a. "spin". Nisbet and Mooney have framed rhetoric in a new way to make it new and exciting for scientists again.

Most basic science is performed using animal models on the assumption that we can learn something about humans by studying how other animals work. Obviously, the ethical issues surrounding human experimentation necessitates the use of animals models. It wasn't always this way though, and the history of science is littered with examples of human experimentation. 
Read More...
   

I was thinking about how us humans have 25,000 or so genes, and I know nothing about 99.9% of them. And I call myself a molecular geneticist! Wouldn't it be nice to know a little more about the strands of DNA that play a big part in making up who we are? I think it would be, so I'm going to start a semi-frequent excersion into the human genome and invite any willing blog readers to join with me. 
Read More...