Zuleyka Zevallos' The March for Science Can't Figure Out How to Handle Diversity highlights conflicting opinions on diversity within the scientific community particularly in the context of the March for Science movement. When considering how this speaks to issues relevant to our Writing for Sciences course, I was struck by the multiple references to non-scientists and reminded of how so many of our readings have reiterated the importance of considering non-scientific audiences in our writing. The other point that I felt was in line with much of the guidance that we have received from the many sources referenced in this course was the integrity of the scientific peer review process. I was concerned to read that according to this article some of the decisions of the current administration have put this, scientific funding, and information about critical global issues such as climate change at risk. According to the writer, “This political issue harms science because it hampers the people and networks of collaboration without whom science is not possible.” If this is, in fact, true then many of rhetorical course concepts that we have studied this semester would also be at risk.
In the second article Nature's How the March for Science Splits Researchers, University College Cork Ireland lecturer states her reason for participating in the march, “I am going so I can stand up for evidence-based policies and the scientific method. The current wave of ‘anti-science’ rhetoric goes against everything that I am trying to do as a scientist and an educator. I keep telling my students that I’m going because science is worth protecting: for them, and for all of us.” I believe that this thinking can inform how we approach our semester major projects because it underscores the importance of not using bias in our work and the vital role that each of us plays in protecting science and the scientific process. It is a good reminder to ensure that we should rely on multiple sources and not take a single opinion as the only truth. Our projects are meant to be opportunities for each of us to communicate effectively to the public about key scientific concepts. Part of doing that effectively will be to be both unbiased and truthful while protecting the scientific basis of the concepts we are exploring. I believe that we have a chance with these projects to affect a better understanding of the concepts we are focused on as well as science itself.
2 Comments
Writer Graham Smart, uses his article "Discourse Coalitions, Science Blogs, and the Global Debate Over Climate Change" to highlight the many conflicting positions involved in the ongoing debate on climate change. To most effectively accomplish his goal, he focuses on the genre of argumentative texts and specifically chooses texts that "communicate a clear claim regarding the nature, causes, and implications of climate change-produced by social actors actively engaged in the climate-change controversy." In line with many of the recommendations we have seen in resources throughout the semester, Smart is particularly focused on "research that relates to the public understanding of science and scholarship on collective argumentation in public spaces, with a focus on the notion of the discourse coalition.'" He references his earlier research in contrasting the different positions of two discourse communities: advocates and skeptics, and then uses his current research to introduce a third coalition: eco-optimists. He also highlights the use of scientific blogs as a platform for each of the alliances in arguing their varying opinions.
Smart's findings show that the conflicting perspectives of these three coalitions serve to "create opportunities for communicating knowledge about climate science to their respective publics, albeit in ways that reflect entrenched adversarial positions and a limited view of audience rather than potentially contributing to a fuller public understanding of climate science and greater public engagement within the climate-change debate." Smart argues that the entrenchment of these three coalitions in their own perspective actually results in an unfavorable environment for the public to better understand the issues "the consequence being that individuals are denied the possibility of developing, through dialogue, greater scientific understanding." I believe there is an essential lesson in his findings for us as we approach our final semester projects and consider the important role we each play in increasing the public's understanding of science. While our own research and perspective may differ from others, we each bear a responsibility to think about the topics we are covering more broadly and share a balanced and well-informed view so that the public can use that information to better understand the overall challenges being faced. |
AuthorHi! I am Collin Barker and I am a Marine Biology Major at Roger Williams University, an avid reader and fish keeper. To learn more about me check out my About page. Archives
May 2018
Categories |