Controversial science

It is apparent from a review of the literature (see Chapter 2) that the more controversial science becomes with publics, the more that various actors call for different models of engagement. This is often because traditional means of science communication are perceived to fail in practice (Irwin, 2008; 2014). Following McMullin (1987), I define ‘scientific controversy’ as a “publicly conducted and persistently maintained dispute” over a matter of belief where “each side of the controversy claims the authority of ‘science’ for their view” (p. 51). This definition means that a scientific controversy endures publicly over a significant period of time. Given the role of controversy in shaping the theoretical development of science communication models, it is important that I explore the notion of controversy further in this thesis. Therefore, this thesis compares two practical examples focussed on climate change science with the theorised science communication models.

1.4.1 Climate Change as an example of a controversial science issue

For those involved in communication about climate science, there is a perceived need to overturn the influential views of climate deniers and gain publics’ support for peer- reviewed climate science (e.g. Cook, 2014). It is hoped that such support will in turn lead to support for policy and behaviour changes that are thought to be critical for mitigating or adapting to climate change.

Climate change is a controversial public issue in Australia, as it is in USA and to a lesser extent, the UK and other western democracies. Despite Australia being warned of climate change threats by scientists some 30 years ago, Australia is ranked among the worst developed countries for climate action (Slezak, 2016). Many players and agendas compete for attention in controversial issues such as climate change. Such issues

generate increased public interest and engagement in shaping the debate around the science and the politics when the existing institutions such as science organisations, governments, advocacy groups and the media fail to resolve matters (Marres, 2007). Most experts argue that the success of climate change policies, such as international treaties to reduce emissions, will depend on broad public support (Prikken, Burrall & Katyirtzi, 2011; Marquart et al., 2011; Swain, 2012). Lemonick (2010) argues that “it will take massive changes in agriculture, energy production and more to avert a

potential disaster [from climate change]” (p. 80). Some scholars argue such engagement is best done through more deliberative communication if we are to meet the challenges of climate change (Niemeyer, 2013).

However, despite the huge science communication efforts of the last two decades on climate change, public polarisation around climate change has intensified (Brin, 2010; Hart & Nisbet, 2012). Quality traditional news coverage only reaches a small audience of already engaged citizens (Swain, 2012), meaning that most publics likely reinterpret such science based on their own sources of information as well as their perceptions and cultural norms. People strenuously defend their own positions on climate change as being evidence-based and the opposing position as being either conspiratorial or ill informed (Brin, 2010). In such high-profile controversial science spaces, there is often widespread confusion and misunderstanding about the science (Schmidt 2008), which is often brought on by the inability of the mediators of science, like journalists and science communicators, to communicate the complexities and uncertainties of the science clearly. This leads to a desire by publics to have more direct access to the scientists (Schmidt, 2008) and to directly question and interrogate such science. The public generally wants to know if the planet is warming, by how much, and in what time frame. They want to know the impacts and the possible ways they can

adapt (Swain, 2012). However, scientists, in accordance with their training in the norms of presenting evidence, often couch their responses in the language of statistical

probabilities (Lemonick, 2010), which makes the science harder to understand. Of further concern, is that some scientists and science communicators have retreated from directly engaging with the public, especially the sceptical or ‘denier’ public. For example, controversial climate scientist Judith Curry, who heads the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology in the United States, says that the: “mainstream climate science community has moved beyond the ivory tower into a type of fortress mentality, in which insiders can do no wrong and outsiders are forbidden entry” (Lemonick, 2010, p. 81). There have certainly been instances of such fortress mentality in the communication of climate science in

Australia with leading climate scientists avoiding communication in response to abuse and threats to them and their families (Simon Torok, personal communication).

Another issue with climate change communication is the global nature of the issue, meaning it can lack local relevance, which often leads to climate inaction as people feel disenfranchised and fail to act. It can also lead to national polarisation of views and subsequent government inaction. For example, the USA backing out of the Kyoto Protocol treaty and the failure of successive Australian governments to put a price on carbon. However, where science communication about climate change can appear to make a difference is at the local level, involving smaller groups of people who demand the specific information they need to create change in their local area or sphere of influence (Braun, 2010; Khan et al., 2012). In a paper providing the five ‘best

practice’ insights from psychological science for communicating about climate change, van der Linden et al. (2015) say that the global nature of climate change makes people feel powerless, and consequently one of their best practice recommendations is to

“emphasize climate change as a present, local, and personal risk” (p. 758). Despite this, little has been researched about smaller groups of people participating with scientists to solve problems or deal with issues about controversial science like climate change. This was my motivation behind exploring the Climate Champion Program where farmers participate with scientists to explore how climate science can better help them manage their on-farm risks (see Chapter 5).

1.4.2 Failure of science literacy communication on controversial topics

With controversial science issues, such as climate change, there continues to be the belief by many that ‘if only the public understood the science’, they would be able to accept it and understand the need for action or policy change. Bucchi (2004) talks about the failure of science literacy-driven science communication, given that many studies have shown, for example in the biotechnology arena, that increasing

communication with the public did not “reduce significantly the likelihood of being hostile to certain biotechnology application, or at least that lack of information cannot be used as the only explanation for public scepticism” (p. 270). Others similarly discuss the failure and futility of facts in winning the fight to communicate climate science to publics (Grant, 2016; Roberts, 2013). Such scholarly research findings indicate that the communication styles and methods theorised for the deficit model may create hostility to science by various publics, rather than helping such publics make evidence-based decisions about new technologies or proposed policies. As such, my comparison of the theorised science communication models with examples of controversial practice in this thesis is intended to provide insight into how theorised science communication can be used or developed for more effective science communication.

1.4.3 Research on science controversies is mostly focussed on linear science communication

Most of the research to date on public engagement in controversial science, including climate change, has focussed on linear (one-way and two-way) science communication such as: media messages and framing; public awareness and gaps in understanding of the science and its impacts; public attitudes to the issues; and strategies to ‘sell’ the technology to the public. For example, a growing body of research investigates the media’s framing of climate science (e.g. Akerlof et al., 2012; Binder, 2010); the framing and language of climate change (e.g. Barr, Gilg & Shaw, 2011; Budescu, Broomwell & Por, 2009); public understanding and literacy about climate change (e.g. Ashworth, Jeannerret, Gardener & Shaw, 2011); and public attitudes to climate change science (e.g. Eckard, 2012). While there has been some analysis of public engagement aimed at changing attitudes to new technologies like nanotechnology or biotechnology (e.g. Delgado et al., 2011; Katz, Solomon, Mee and Lovel, 2009; Lyons & Whelan, 2010; Pidgeon & Rogers-Hayden, 2007), most of this research is directed at whether it was successful or not at changing public attitudes and behaviours or gaining policy support. There has been little exploration of the application of science communication models to practice, and the actors involved in communicating about controversial science.

This thesis explores the role of controversy in shaping science communication models (see Chapter 2). It compares controversial engagement activities with those that are not controversial (see Chapter 3). The thesis also analyses two practical examples of science communication of climate change science. The first example (Chapter 4) compares two Australian-based blogs about climate change—one in support of the science of anthropogenic climate change, and the other against. The second example (Chapter 5) explores the participatory science communication embedded in the Climate

Champion Program where Australian farmers interacted with scientists over a seven- year period (2010-2016).