Communicating Popular This page intentionally left blank Communicating Popular Science From Deficit to Democracy

Sarah Tinker Perrault University of California, Davis, USA © Sarah Tinker Perrault 2013 Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 2013 978-1-137-01757-4 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission. No portion of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, Saffron House, 6–10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS. Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. The author has asserted her right to be identified as the author of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. First published 2013 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN Palgrave Macmillan in the UK is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS. Palgrave Macmillan in the US is a division of St Martin’s Press LLC, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010. Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies and has companies and representatives throughout the world. Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the , the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries. ISBN 978-1-349-43713-9 ISBN 978-1-137-01758-1 (eBook) DOI 10.1057/9781137017581

This book is printed on paper suitable for and made from fully managed and sustained forest sources. Logging, pulping and manufacturing processes are expected to conform to the environmental regulations of the country of origin. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

Typeset by MPS Limited, Chennai, India. Contents

List of Figures ix Preface xi Acknowledgments xix List of Abbreviations and Acronyms xxi

Part I Foundations

1 Popular Science Writing: Problems and Potential 3 Social Contracts 6 Why Popular Science Writing Matters 7 How of Science Can Help Improve Popular Science Writing 9 Models of Science Popularization 11 2 Theoretical and Analytical Framework 18 Philosophical Foundation: Traditional–Idealism Versus Realist– 18 Realist–Skepticism and 24 Theoretical Lens: Rhetorical Theory 26 Analytical Framework: The Rhetorical Situation 27 Corpus Selection 31 Conclusion 36 3 A Brief of Science Popularization 37 Early Science: 1600s 37 Enlightenment Science: 1700s and Early 1800s 39 Professionalizing Science: Mid- and Late-1800s 40 Big Science, , and the Traditional Social Contract 42 Post-Academic Science and the Need for a New Social Contract 44 Conclusion 46 4 Practitioner Perspectives on their Craft 48 Practitioner Roles 49 Role #1: Boosters 50 Role #2: Translators 56

v vi Contents

Role #3: Critics 58 Conclusion 60

Part II Applications

5 Boundary Work: Presenting Science in Context 65 Boundary Work and the PAST–CUSP Continuum 66 Boundary Work Described in Practitioner Texts 68 Boundary Work in Popular Science Texts 72 Boundary Work in Kolbert’s ‘The Sixth Extinction?’ 77 Conclusion: Boundary Work and a New Social Contract 80

6 Expertise: Broadening the Scope of Participation 82 Expertise and the PAST–CUSP Continuum 82 Expertise Described in Practitioner Texts 84 Expertise in Popular Science Texts 87 Expertise in Corson’s ‘Stalking the American Lobster’ 91 Conclusion: Expertise and a New Social Contract 93

7 Ethos: Establishing Relationships with Readers 96 Ethos and the PAST–CUSP Continuum 96 Ethos in Popular Science Texts 102 Ethos in Hirsh’s ‘Signs of Life’ 108 Conclusion: Ethos and a New Social Contract 111

8 Rhetorical Orientations: Inviting Reader Engagement 113 Rhetorical Orientations and the PAST–CUSP Continuum 113 Rhetorical Orientations Described in Practitioner Texts 120 Forensic Orientations in Popular Science Texts 123 Epideictic Orientations in Popular Science Texts 128 Deliberative Orientations in Popular Science Texts 132 Rhetorical Orientations in Nijhuis’ ‘Taking Wilderness in Hand’ 135 Conclusion: Rhetorical Orientations and a New Social Contract 138

9 and Democracy: Talking about Risk 140 Risk and the PAST–CUSP Continuum 140 How Practitioners Talk About Risk 147 Risk in Popular Science Texts 151 Risk in Trivedi’s ‘The Wipeout Gene’ 155 Conclusion 158 Contents vii

Part III Final Words 10 Conclusion: Toward a New Social Contract 163 The Need for CUSP and the Role of Popular Science Writing 163 Engaging Larger Conversations 168 Escape From the Science–Society Dualism 169

Notes 171 References 179 Index 193 This page intentionally left blank List of Figures

1.1 Science sends to civil society 12 1.2 Science and civil society exchange ideas 14 1.3 Science is an interactive part of civil society 16 2.1 The rhetorical situation 28 2.2 The rhetorical situation with relationships labeled 28 2.3 The PAST model rhetorical situation 30 2.4 The CUSP model rhetorical situation 31 8.1 Orientations, stases, and a mouse in my house 116 8.2 Orientations, stases, and what to do about the mouse 117

ix This page intentionally left blank Preface

I wrote this book because I wanted to understand how popular science writing works so I could help it do a better job of promoting democratic discussions about science-related issues. I didn’t start with that goal. When I began the that resulted in this book, I was operating under two false assumptions. First, I believed that the job of popular science writing was, and should be, to inform nonscientists about sci- ence. Second, I believed that this job mattered because nonscientists didn’t really understand science and therefore could not make good judgments about it. My goal was to understand popular science writing so I could help it do a better job of promoting science. In retrospect and given my own background, I don’t know what I was thinking. My experience with democracy and science began in 1977 when I was one of 2400 people who gathered to protest the site of the proposed Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant in New Hampshire, and I remained active in the anti-Seabrook movement until I moved away from the East Coast almost ten years later. When I attended that first protest, at the age of 8, I knew little about what nuclear power was; by the time I moved away at 17, I was well versed in the pro and con, and even more well versed in how accusations of scientific igno- rance can be used to dismiss opposition to technoscientific projects. Although I can’t recount specific anecdotes after so many years, philoso- pher of science Don Ihde offers one that parallels the kinds of exchanges I recall happening, for example at Nuclear Regulatory Commission hear- ings where citizen questions (including from my mother) were mocked and dismissed. In ‘Why Not Science Critics?’, Ihde recounts an exchange he had with a physicist during a public panel about the safety of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant on Long Island, New York. The talk by the physicist, Max Dresden, ‘turned out to be a defense of expertise and a diatribe against even allowing public discussion of expert conclusions’ (p. 132). Among other things, Dresden opined that ‘it was “irrational” to oppose—out of ignorance—the opening of the Shoreham plant’. Ihde engaged in a discussion with Dresden, who went so far as to ‘reiterate in even stronger terms his defense of expertise—he now claimed that no one should be allowed to vote on issues of such technical complexity’. At that point, Ihde asked if the debate about the nuclear power plant was scientific or political. When Dresden admitted that it was political,

xi xii Preface

Ihde asked him ‘if he were expert at politics’ and, when Dresden said no, pointed out that, ‘according to [Dresden’s] expertise ’ Dresden himself was not qualified to make pronouncements about the power plant. Dresden’s response was to suggest, the next day in the faculty club, that the entire department be ‘dismantled given its “antisci- entific” tendencies’ (p. 132). What makes this exclusion of public concerns even more interesting is that public oversight of technoscientific developments is heralded as one of democracy’s strengths, even as particular instances of public concern are dismissed because they are not part of the technoscien- tific they question. Physicist and philosopher Jerry Ravetz summed up this paradox nicely: ‘Scientists take credit for penicillin, but Society takes the blame for the Bomb’ (p. 46). As I read more, I began to see this paradox at play in a number of science-related controversies where the public is assigned the role of monitoring science, but, at the same time, science has the ultimate authority to decide which judg- ments about scientific issues are sound. The situation, as I was coming to understand it, was all rather dis- heartening. However, at the same time, the more I read in Science and Studies (STS)—in rhetoric of science, and also in , , the of scientific knowledge, and other related areas—the more I started to see the potential in newer conceptualizations of science not as a realm apart from everyday life but as socially embedded, as one of many approaches to making knowledge about the world and making meaning about that knowledge. Looking at science communication from that point of view shows that the prob- lem is not the reader, but the belief that popular science writing should uncritically promote science. Fortunately, this promotional view, known as the ‘deficit model’ of science communication for its view of readers, is not universal among popular science writers. Dismayed as I was to find a hagiographic ten- dency in much popular science writing, and to find my impressions of it confirmed by other scholars (e.g., Martin Bauer, Massimiano Bucchi, Jane Gregory and Steve Miller, and Dorothy Nelkin, among others), I also found a heartening countertrend toward a popular science writ- ing that encourages critical engagement with science instead of passive appreciation. With the realization of this divide within popular science writing, my question shifted from ‘How can it promote science?’ to ‘How do some texts promote democracy? What makes them different from deficit model texts?’ This book consists of the answers to those question and the analytical framework I developed in order to answer them. Preface xiii

Although this book is rooted in the rhetorical tradition, especially in prior work in rhetoric of science, I also draw on a range of other STS disciplines, including history, sociology, and philosophy of science. In drawing on these works, I follow the lead of Charles Alan Taylor, who explains that he is not trying to address other disciplines’ questions ‘in their own terms’ (p. 11), but instead to draw on those areas for and insights that support my own research project.

Terms

So far I have been talking about popular science writing and science popularization without saying what, precisely, those are. I also have not defined some other key concepts, such as rhetoric. Rhetoric has many definitions, some politer than others. The one I use is, to my mind, both the simplest and most powerful: rhetoric, according to I.A. Richards, is ‘the study of miscommunication and its remedies’ (p. 3). I use Richards’ definition because it expresses what drew me to rhetoric in the first place: the realization that a field of study can help solve problems that arise from failures in communication or whose solutions can be facilitated through better communication. ‘Popular science writing’ refers to all written forms of science popu- larization. Popular science texts are published in books and in a range of shorter , including newspaper and magazine articles and essays, and on online forums, such as .com. By ‘science populari- zation’ I mean science-related communication directed at nonspecialist audiences. Note that I am not saying ‘the public’ or even ‘nonscientists’. While commonly used to describe readers of popular science texts, those terms imply a sharp divide between scientists and nonscientist others, whereas, in reality, there are, on any given scientific issue, a multitude of degrees and kinds of expertise. Even scientists in one area read as amateurs in other areas of science; a high energy physicist will not be an expert reader when the topic is microbiology, and the average microbiologist comes to a text about the effects of climate change on predator–prey interactions in a given habitat with no more professional experience in the area than I do. Another common phrase I avoid is ‘the public sphere’. Instead, fol- lowing communication scholar Gerard Hauser, I talk about civil society. Hauser explains that ‘The of civil society refers to a network of associations independent of the state whose members, through social interac- tions that balance conflict and consensus, seek to regulate themselves in ways consistent with a valuation of difference’ (p. 21, emphasis original). Where xiv Preface

‘public spheres’ suggests that there is such a thing as ‘the public’, reduc- ing social complexity to a single, homogenous group, the concept of a ‘civil society’ allows for an understanding of public spheres as multiple and overlapping. Likewise, where ‘the public sphere’ suggests a divide between the public and the private, ‘civil society’ encompasses the vari- ous arenas in which civic discussions take place. Thus, talking about the civil sphere foregrounds the that meaning making is a social proc- ess, one that involves—or at least, in a deliberative democracy, should involve—many people from many parts of society.

Intended Audiences

Three communities are involved in the communication about science that takes place in popular science texts: scientists, science writers, and the nonspecialist readers for whom popular science texts are written. An additional interested community consists of scholars who study popu- lar science writing from various disciplinary angles. This book, while intended primarily for the latter group, is also intended for scientists, popular science writers, and consumers of popular science texts.

Scholars The primary audience for this book consists of scholars interested in science communication, especially those in STS, and in rhetoric and related areas (e.g., writing studies, communications, and journalism). Science popularization is a shared concern of STS because of the power of popular media to shape public discussions about issues of common concern, including scientific issues. For example, sociologist Thomas F. Gieryn suggests that if we want to understand the ‘cultural reali- ties’ reinscribed by representations of science, ‘The answers will not be found upstream… but down’ (p. ix), meaning in popular science writing rather than in the texts used within scientific disciplines. Others agree about its importance but say that an analytical framework is needed. Shane Huntington, Executive Vice President of the China Association for Science and Technology (a nongovernmental organi- zation), agrees that communication can foster engagement between different sectors of society but ‘require[s] a set of well-established rules and guidelines for implementation. Such a system needs to be developed’ (p. x). Likewise, communications scholar Brian Trench and sociologist Massimiano Bucchi call for more ‘clarification and deep- ening of the concepts’ of science communication, say that it is ‘sig- nificantly undertheorised’, and mention the lack of ‘recent book-length Preface xv publications… that propose a coherent framework for thinking about key issues in science communication’ (pp. 2–3). They also allude to soci- ologist Steve Fuller’s call for attention to ‘more humanistic approaches to rhetoric’ than have generally been used (p. 4)—an invitation that I accept and hope this book answers. The book should also be useful to rhetoricians given our interest in discursive constructions of authority and expertise, and in how to fos- ter conversations between people with different perspectives and with different degrees and kinds of expertise. Also of interest to rhetoricians is the book’s effort to adapt concepts from classical rhetoric to current usage—an effort that responds to Fahnestock and Secor’s comment that the ‘usefulness of classical rhetoric is often extolled but less often demonstrated’ (p. 427). In addition, rhetoricians might be interested in the book’s focus on a genre that does not map neatly onto a particular community. Bawarshi and Reiff note that research on such genres might ‘challenge rhetorical genre studies to look beyond fairly stable, bounded, institutionalized contexts like workplaces or academ- ics and to examine what happens when genres are much more diffused’ (p. 159). Popular science writing is a highly diffused genre. Within rhetoric of science specifically, this book complements exist- ing work in three ways. First, it focuses on popularization. Within rhetoric of science, much excellent work has been done on scientists’ communication with one another, while significantly less attention has been paid to popular science writing. Second, it looks at what popular science writers say about their craft, their subject matter, and their audiences. This analysis offers perspectives on how those writing about science think of and represent the relationships among the three com- munities involved in science popularization: scientists, science writers, and popular science readers. Finally, it offers a new level of detail by bringing together theories about popular science writing from a variety of disciplines and operationalizing the concepts to show how they are enacted in popular science texts. In doing so, it responds to calls for a popular science writing that will help civil society as a whole move toward more democratic engagements with scientific issues.

Practitioners This book also offers some useful insights for practitioners. Practitioner audiences include people writing about technical, scientific, and envi- ronmental topics. These writers may or may not be working scientists, and may or may not have science communication as their primary job or responsibility. For them, the book offers two things. First, it can help xvi Preface practitioners gain some critical distance from their work. Although ‘complex social circumstances’ in which science communication takes place ‘challenge people in science communication to articulate much more clearly the strategic choices they are making’ (Trench, ‘Towards’, p. 129), not all science communicators have the time, opportunity, or training to bring their implicit knowledge to conscious awareness. Even writers who are conscious of the decisions they make can come to see a genre’s norms as ‘obvious (and in some cases trivial)’ (Spinuzzi, p. 109) and can find it difficult to pull back from that insider view to see the genre with an analytical eye. Books such this one are therefore impor- tant to help writers understand their work by making tangible the tacit rhetorical choices involved in creating this kind of text. In addition to understanding the range of rhetorical choices they make, and the consequences of those choices, science communicators need to understand science-in-society, a point of view not emphasized in existing science communication programs. Although ‘we have seen science’s understanding of the public become at least as important as the public’s understanding of science’ (Stilgoe and Wilsdon, p. 18), efforts to improve science communication generally focus on teaching scien- tists how the media work, not how science-in-society works. Such texts can be useful for writers who want to learn the nuts and bolts of the news cycle. However, as the unquestioned authority of science erodes in the face of greater and greater public scrutiny, scientists and science writers will have to decide whether to focus on shoring up that author- ity or on earning the public’s trust. This book is partly for writers who choose the latter course, as it offers science communicators a way to understand and a rhetorical vocabulary for talking about the decisions they make as they write.

Readers Finally, this book is for anyone who wants to become a more critical reader of popular science texts. Although primarily intended for aca- demics, the book is written in language that should be accessible to general readers. This also makes it suitable for use in advanced under- graduate and graduate courses both in and outside of STS fields.

Roadmap

The book has three sections. ‘Part I: Foundations’ introduces the problem of science populariza- tion and the discursive work it does. Chapter 1, ‘Introduction: The Preface xvii

Potential of Popular Science Writing’, frames the problem in terms of a continuum, from deficit model to critical popular science writing. Chapter 2, ‘Theoretical and Analytical Framework’, describes the theo- retical foundations of these models and the analytical framework I use, and explains how I selected the specific practitioner and popular science texts to analyze. Chapter 3, ‘A Brief History of Science Popularization’, shows the roots of both models in the changing role of science in soci- ety over the last four centuries, and Chapter 4, ‘Practitioner Perspectives on their Craft’, examines practitioner texts (written by popular science writers for other popular science writers) to see what these writers think the genre’s purpose is. ‘Part II: Applications’ applies the theoretical framework to actual popular science texts and shifts to a focus on positive, critical examples. Whereas earlier chapters contained many deficit-type examples in order to demonstrate the and extent of the problem, the application chapters focus on writers and texts that exemplify the best—meaning the most critique-oriented—practices I found. Given my aim of helping shift of science popularization toward the critical end of the spectrum, it makes more sense to focus on texts that already reflect the democratic impulse than on those that do not. ‘Part III: Final Words’ uses key points and arguments from each chap- ter to re-envision what science popularization is today, what it is becom- ing, and what it has the potential to become. Ultimately, this book is about that potential.

Sarah Tinker Perrault This page intentionally left blank Acknowledgments

I have been incredibly lucky at all stages of this project. My luck began with my being raised in an activist family, and I thank Claire Perrault, Ruth Perrault and Burt Tinker, and Michele Perrault for teaching me what civic engagement means. My luck continued with my undergradu- ate education at Reed College; I honor the memories of Claude Vaucher and Gail Kelly, and am grateful to Edwin Gerow for noticing that I did not understand academic writing and for helping me learn. In gradu- ate school, I had the great fortune to meet my PhD advisor, mentor, and friend, Jane Detweiler, and also benefited from guidance by Kathy Boardman and Tom Nickles. At UC Davis I am deeply grateful to work with Rebekka Andersen— colleague, peer mentor, inspiration, and friend—and with other members of the University Writing Program and faculty friends. Two in particular, Scott ‘Good Day’ Herring and Susan Verba, have gone well above and beyond the calls of friendship and collegiality in reading and commenting on this book. Thank you, too, to Caitlin Kiley and Joanne Hossack for making sure the quotation marks and punctuation were correctly arranged. For the endless glasses of iced tea, thank you to the folks at Crepeville (Xochitl, Erin, Haley, Alex, Jorge, Rudi, Santos, and Vicente), at Delta of Venus (Lee, Arnold, Blake, Iwaca, Elizabeth, Jared, Jessica, Lindsey, Michelle, and Thongxi), and the Common Ground crew (Son and Michelle, David, Deborah, John, Liz, and especially Lane and Sarah). Space does not allow me to offer detailed thanks to everyone else who has offered encouragement and feedback, but the following have also made this process enjoyable, as well as productive: Andy Jones, Brenda Rinard, Cindy Dufern, Dale Flynn, Dana Ferris, David Earwicker, Heather Milton, Jeanene Hayes, Katie Rodger, Katy Schleef and John Hadder, Ken Andersen, Kerry Enright, Lisa Auchincloss, Meghan Sweeney, Melissa Lovejoy, Pamela Major, Poonam Sachdev, Scott Banville, and Susan Palwick; thank you all. Many thanks also to Felicity Plester, Chris Penfold, Jayne MacArthur, and the rest of the Palgrave team, as well as to the anonymous reader for offering helpful comments. And always and especially, thank you to Orhan Orgun, sevgilim, for everything.

xix This page intentionally left blank List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

AC Air-conditioning CUSP Critical Understanding of Science in Public DSM Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERA Expert risk assessment GISS Goddard Institute for Space Studies GMP Genetically modified plant NGO Nongovernmental organization NSF National Science Foundation PAST Public Appreciation of Science and Technology PEST Public Engagement with Science and Technology PUS Public Understanding of Science RGT Rhetorical genre theory STS Science and Technology Studies

xxi