Commercials, Controversy and Core Values

*click words in large blue font to access external links*

 

"UNTIL the Great Exposition closed its doors in November, Adams haunted it, aching to absorb knowledge, and helpless to find it. He would have liked to know how much of it could have been grasped by the best-informed man in the world...Then [Langley] showed his scholar the great hall of dynamos, and explained how little he knew about electricity or force of any kind, even of his own special sun...to Adams the dynamo became a symbol of infinity. As he grew accustomed to the great gallery of machines, he began to feel the forty-foot dynamos as a moral force, much as the early Christians felt the Cross."--The Education of Henry Adams, 1918

Humans have been perplexed by technology and science for centuries. In many cultures, faith was used as a way to explain things that were difficult, or seemingly impossible to understand. The above is an excerpt from Henry Adams' personal account of the Great Exposition in 1900. He is expressing his fascination with the "dynamo," or electric generator (to avoid confusion I should mention that he writes in the third person!). He finds himself in awe of an invention so complex that he cannot grasp the science behind it. Yet, its mystery is part of its awe. The dynamo is so mysterious to Adams that he compares its effect on him to the ability of religious objects, such as the cross, to evoke wonder. Ultimately,  Adams concludes that that accepting the science behind the great machine is simply a matter of "faith."

On Tuesday we got into a small in-class debate about the best way to generate interest in science news. Should we market science in a way that skims the surface, but provides tips on how people can improve the environment, educate themselves, and become better citizens? Or should we find an entertaining way to present science so that citizens want to learn about it without sacrificing in-depth knowledge?

As Americans, we live in a capitalist society, where incentive is the motivation behind most decisions. Like Matthew Nisbet said in class, Americans won't want to learn about climate change without an immediate, compelling reason. Advertisers are well aware of this phenomenon, and have strategically manipulated science issues to engage consumers.

Here is a great example from  my Stonyfield yogurt container:

 

Front side of the lid: "A climate change movie that doesn't even care if you believe in climate change. Carbon Nation: gives all sorts of good reasons to reduce carbon emissions. Win a DVD"

The back side the lid: "Reducing carbon emissions isn't just for us environmentalists anymore. Carbon Nation is an entertaining movie that shows how even climate skeptics are reducing carbon emissions to keep the air and water clean and produce jobs, profits, and greater economic strength and national security."

Stonyfield's marketing re frames the issue of climate change. Just as Nisbet explained in class, they are marketing global warming in terms of jobs, profits, clean water, and a stronger economy, issues that are currently of immediate national importance. The yogurt company is selling science by gearing their marketing toward "something the public already values or prioritizes, conveying personal relevance" (Nisbet). Stonyfield understands our capitalist society, and is giving us a strong incentive to care about this issue.

This video is an ad for an Olay cosmetic product. Although it does not pertain to a certain issue, it is an illustration of how advertisers are exploiting the widespread lack of knowledge about chemistry to sell a product. They describe utilizing a concentration of "amino peptide b3 complex" to firm and hydrate the skin. They could have just said protein. Instead, the ad is specifically designed to evoke the same sense of awe from the seemingly "magical" product as Henry Adams felt from the dynamo. After watching, we want to purchase it, not because we understand the science, but because we have "faith" in its ability to work.

What a contradiction! For "faith" is exactly what makes science issues like global warming, evolution, and stem cell research so unnecessarily controversial. I grew up in an extremely conservative area in Western Maryland, where my 10th grade science teacher skipped the chapter on evolution in our biology textbook. She readily admitted being fearful of criticism from the large and vocal minority of students (and their parents) who adhered to a literal reading of the biblical story of creation. The science of evolution causes such a religious uproar because it threatens many Americans' core religious values. The 46% of Americans who reject evolution and think the earth is less than 6,000 years old do not want to accept this science because they think it challenges their fundamental world view, and for them, that's scary. In Nisbet's words, when people get scared they respond in one of two ways: denial or submission.

I suppose this is why new marketing on climate change takes the approach that Stonyfield does. Instead of "scaring us into caring" or threatening long-held beliefs, they tell us its fine if we don't believe in climate change, and give us tips on how to improve our individual lives and national economy. So is this type of science education okay? Can we really skirt around the issues to manipulate people into half-halfheartedly participating? The answer might be more complex than a simple yes or no. Nisbet says that "if the public feels like they are simply being marketed to, this perception is likely to only reinforce existing polarization and perceptual gridlock." He gives the great example of the controversy which resulted from EcoAmerica's attempt to "re-brand" the debate over global warming as the "environment."

However, public communication about science through advertising could be the first step to grabbing the public's attention. For example, if Stonyfield's purchasers followed up and won the DVD advertised on their yogurts, they might develop an interest in reducing carbon emissions. Even if they simply read about the topic or googled "Carbon Emissions," the company would have heightened awareness through its advertising campaign.

But ultimately, this can only be a first step. It is not enough to tell people what actions to take and what products to buy and expect them to trust in the science behind that marketing. This approach puts scientists on the same plane as the closed-minded skeptics whose "faith" they often criticize. They are simply asking the public to have a different kind of "faith" in their research, technology, and theories.

As the public, we deserve more for ourselves, our community, and our future generations. The only way that science progresses is through innovation. We cannot be content in our ignorance, or even submit to it like Adams. We must take on the mental challenge to understand science so that we can make informed decisions.

In order to do this, we must utilize creative resources available to us as well as develop new, and better resources. Nisbet's solutions are a great place to start. Although we are in difficult economic times, we cannot continue to cut funding for programs like NPR when we have spent 1.2 trillion dollars on war since 2001. Instead, we need to increase funding for public radio and television, specifically in the area of science. We also need to make science accessible to groups beyond the elite, engaging the broader public in meaningful dialogue about about the issues. Finally, we must ensure that our schools have a strong science curriculum. Science news can be entertaining, but it must delve into substantive issues. Darlene Cavalier is a leading expert on this strategy.. She realized that "sexy science would sell" and found a way to connect scantily dressed cheerleaders with science! NASA has also created an interactive video game for children (much like the idea I had in my second blog) to engage kids with science. However, it is most important to connect science to people's values in meaningful ways. We can show citizens that it is possible to reconcile religious beliefs with scientific knowledge through face-to-face discussions throughout the community--even in churches!

In my opinion, the most effective way to promote science education is through the development of a strong partnership among scientists, journalists, and advertisers. We must stop using science as an exploitative tool that we manipulate to get consumers to buy our products, or follow our messages. A joint relationship among scientists, journalists and advertisers would foster the creation of sources that inform the public in a straightforward way without sacrificing valuable information. If the public feels defeated and confused by science, they will simply disengage. I believe that the tripartite relationship between these sectors would result in better information, and lead to a greater public incentive to actively engage with science. Furthermore, positive public response to interesting science news would provide scientists, advertisers and journalists with an incentive to continue their profitable partnership. And who knows? What might start as a strategic economic approach could very well lead to the integration of science and technology into the core values of American citizens.