John Hawks’ update on the framing debate is a must-read; not only I agree with his conclusions, but also with the way he states it:
I think that scientists are unlikely to be unchanged by the public discourse. I think that cautious, conservative scientists who stick to the facts represent themselves in the best light — and really, in the most effective frame. I think that if this frame is the accepted role of scientists, we will have an enriched public discourse.
It may be very difficult for science to affect politics, but it is very easy for politics to affect science. Science has far more to lose by accepting the strategy of framing than politicians have to gain by hearing us more easily.
What is more, as the following excerpt shows, John Hawks takes the sting off from Coturnix’s criticism of Moran’s statement that framing is a fancy word for spin.
Nisbet forwarded a book chapter (PDF) by Dietram Scheufele reviewing the concept of framing science-related public policy debates. Scheufele has a post on the subject on his own blog. One of the pullout points of the chapter was this:
The popular notion of ‘spin’, while used more broadly, often refers
to the idea of framing.
That’s basically the point.
Take a look!