This blog post may sound a bit similar to one I posted 3 weeks ago, but for a very good reason… I recently attended another wonderful sustainability showcase series, this time featuring Communications professor Lee Ahern. Lee comes from a background in marketing and communications/behavioral sciences, which in the context of sustainability, is a perspective that I am not used to hearing from. The talk was centered around how scientific research, findings, information, and knowledge are communicated, and how pro-science communications are interpreted by different audiences.
While empirical sciences, especially those focused on the climate (a main topic of discussion during this sustainability showcase), do not focus on the human as the subject of study, humans are inherently involved in climate change, whether as producers of greenhouse gases or as active agents in approving/designing in resilient communities. Behavioral sciences are therefore really important in understanding how people respond to scientific information. A better understanding of people’s behavior toward climate can allow scientists, policy-makers, engineers, and community leaders to orient their efforts and arrive more-often at pro-science solutions.
As Lee shared in his presentation, the combination of behavioral sciences with bio/physical sciences can have a very powerful effect, powerful to a point that may be a bit unethical in certain cases. One specific example that he spoke of was of the Nudge Unit, a team of behavioral scientists that offered insights and recommendations to British policymakers in how to convince constituents of certain policies and approaches. Using the POWER of behavioral sciences, the Nudge Unit proved to be quite effective in getting certain policies passed and adopted, so effective that the Nudge Unit was nudged out of its initial realm. This case exposed that behavioral sciences can offer a means to really control the populace, maybe to a degree that is impeding on an individual’s choice.
No matter how sound the science is, if people don’t agree with its adoption through policies or public projects, then is the science actually useful? I really gained a lot from Lee’s talk, and I will keep in mind the importance of how a problem and its solution are framed to the community being impacted.
Hi Jack!
I’ve had the pleasure of meeting with Lee through my own research fellowship in the economics and ethics of cellular agriculture (lab grown meat!) and how firms might deploy this product that is rapidly developing in labs across the world. Since this technology (ethically harvesting muscle tissue from animals and growing it on biomedical scaffolding for consumption) has the potential to disrupt conventional agriculture as well as consumption patterns in general society, I reached out to Lee to ask how our team might democratize knowledge surrounding the technology, and how different framing techniques might make some more receptive to the product and others in opposition. I agree with your thought about no matter how sound the science is, if people can’t understand it, support it, and implement it, then we should be asking ourselves if it is actually useful or beneficial. Lee talked about communication and framing research that he actually did for one of our Honor 301 speakers, Dr. Rachel Brennan, and her research surrounding duckweed plant grown in wastewater treatment plants for fertilizer for food sources; how you rhetorically convey and implement these sciences has huge impacts for how people think about them and put them into policy and practice. Thanks for sharing about the talk!
Hi Jack!
I’ve had the pleasure of meeting with Lee through my own research fellowship in the economics and ethics of cellular agriculture (lab grown meat!) and how firms might deploy this product that is rapidly developing in labs across the world. Since this technology (ethically harvesting muscle tissue from animals and growing it on biomedical scaffolding for consumption) has the potential to disrupt conventional agriculture as well as consumption patterns in general society, I reached out to Lee to ask how our team might democratize knowledge surrounding the technology, and how different framing techniques might make some more receptive to the product and others in opposition. I agree with your thought about no matter how sound the science is, if people can’t understand it, support it, and implement it, then we should be asking ourselves if it is actually useful or beneficial. Lee talked about communication and framing research that he actually did for one of our Honor 301 speakers, Dr. Rachel Brennan, and her research surrounding duckweed plant grown in wastewater treatment plants for fertilizer for food sources; how you rhetorically convey and implement these sciences has huge impacts for how people think about them and put them into policy and practice. Thanks for sharing about the talk!