INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter 6ce, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Ifigher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Infonnaticn Company 300 North Zed) Road, Ann Aihor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 THE COMMUNICATION OF SCIENCE TO THE PUBLIC: A PHILOSOPHY OF TELEVISION DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University by Nicholas Brent Carter, B.A., M.Sc. Ohio State University 1997 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Paul Colinvaux, Adviser C.K. Lowe R.W. Wagner Interdisciplinary Program UMI Number: 9731598 UMI Microform 9731598 Copyright 1997, by UMI Company. Ail rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 Copyright by Nicholas Brent Carter 1997 VITA November 19,1964..................................................Bom - Richmond, Indiana 1987 ........................................................................... B A , College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, Massachussetts 1990........................................................................... M.Sc., Department of Zoology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 1990 -1 9 9 3.............................................................. Instructor, Department of General Biology, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1993 - present..........................................................College of Law University of Miami Miami, Florida FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Interdisplinary Program Fields of Study: Zoology, Photography & Cinema, Art Education, Communication TABLE OF CONTENTS VITA ................................................................................................................ ii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................ v LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................... vi INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER PAGE I. SCIENCE IN SOCIETY ........................................................ 11 The Importance of Scientific Literacy .......................... 11 What the Public Needs to Know About Science ...... 24 The Current Status of Scientific Literacy and Interest 34 Scientific Literacy and Perception Considerations 43 Scientific Communication: Modus Operand! 55 II. THE BUSINESS OF REPORTING SCIENCE ................. 66 The Protrayals of Science in the Media ..................... 66 The Science Popularizers .............................................. 77 Scientists as promoters .................................... 80 Joumalists as promoters .................................. 89 Joumalist-scientist connections ...................... 93 What Makes Science “News”? ...................................... 102 III. THE ART OF TELEVISION .................................................. 108 Why Is Television Popular? ............................................ 108 Ingredients of Popular Television Programming ...... 114 Popular television is: funny .............................. 116 Intim ate................................................................ 118 Story-oriented ..................................................... 120 E xtrem e ............................................................... 123 American culture ................................................ 125 Advocacy............................................................ 126 An additional consideration ............................. 128 IV. SCIENCE ON TELEVISION ............................................... 130 The Portrayals of Science on Television .................... 130 Constraints of Television ................................................ 142 The Mysticism of Science on Television ..................... 159 Science Programming Audience Goals ...................... 162 Walter Cronkite's Universe"- A Valiant Attempt ........ 166 The Current Status of Science Programming on Television ..................................................................... 172 Some examples .................................................. 185 Solutions ............................................................................ 191 V. CONCLUSION ...................................................................... 202 VI. SAMPLE TELEVISION PRODUCTION........................... 208 Building the Green Cathedral ........................................ 208 The S tory .......................................................................... 212 Sample Narration Script ................................................. 222 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................... 229 IV LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1. Breakdown of science-related Items on British newspapers 68 2. Pattern of television viewing ........................................................ 164 3. Science on television .................................................................... 179 4. Analysis of topics and total formats ............................................ 180 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. Stratified model of participants in science policy formulation 38 2. Three stages of the scientific communication cycle .................. 57 3. Dramatic narrative curve........................................................................ 121 4. Relationship between amount of television viewing and degree of confidence in the scientific community ...................... 176 5. Relationship between amount of television viewing and degree of confidence in the scientific community II .................... 177 VI INTRODUCTION The code word for criticism of science and scientists these days is ‘hubris’. Once you’ve said that word, you’ve said it aii; it sums up, in a word, ail of today’s apprehensions and misgivings in the public mind - not just about what is perceived as the insufferable attitude of scientists themselves but, enclosed in the same word, what science and technology are perceived to be doing to make this century, this nearing to its ending, tum out so wrong. - Lewis Thomas “The Hazards of Science” You can’t team a science unless you know what it’s aii about. - Aldous Huxley Brave New World There’s always a prevailing mystique in any civilization.... it builds itself as a barrier against change, and that always leaves future generations unprepared for the universe’s treachery. Aii mystiques are the same in building these barriers - the religious mystique, the hero-ieader mystique, the messiah mystique, the mystique of science/technology, and the mystique of nature itself. - Frank Herbert Children of Dune Up until around two hundred or so years ago, science was an intellectual pursuit of common men - the art of curiosity practiced by a motley collection of gardeners, shipbuilders, inventors, and quite often, clergymen and aristocrats. Our knowledge of the world was limited and this was even more true with respect to scientific knowledge. Most individuals pursued science in their spare time, a hobby for those who wished to use their minds and investigate the world around them. Scientific research as it was known, was not the same study of the “hard sciences” we practice today, but rather of a more general character - studies like 1 stargazing, alchemy, and natural history. Every person saw themselves capable of understanding the basics of science. Anyone was fully capable of looking up at the stars or down at the insects scurrying underfoot. Scientists were simply those who looked a little closer, and in most cases, a little longer. By the tum of the nineteenth century, the dam holding back scientific knowledge broke and a technological revolution swept the globe. Our knowledge of the workings of the world increased exponentially. A person could now scratch a living from the discipline of science and the system incorporated a new branch of beings - ones we called “scientists”. The society of science was born. The vast wealth of knowledge was so overpowering that it became necessary to specialize. In order to contribute something worthwhile to the existing pool of knowledge,