This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/05/economists-science-communication-movement

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
What economists can learn from the science communication movement What economists can learn from the science communication movement
(3 months later)
Mitochondrial transfer may be a tricky concept to explain, but that didn't stop the UK's collective science correspondent community from giving it a jolly good go last week. Metaphors such as "miniature batteries" were dotted around yards of column inches, while well-trained experts patiently unpicked the perplexing paradox of a baby "with three parents". The result: a complex IVF process entered the public conscious with minimum controversy and, arguably, maximum comprehension.Mitochondrial transfer may be a tricky concept to explain, but that didn't stop the UK's collective science correspondent community from giving it a jolly good go last week. Metaphors such as "miniature batteries" were dotted around yards of column inches, while well-trained experts patiently unpicked the perplexing paradox of a baby "with three parents". The result: a complex IVF process entered the public conscious with minimum controversy and, arguably, maximum comprehension.
But reading some of the reaction to another development last week, it struck me that some of these experts' colleagues in economics clearly have a bit of catching up to do. "Tremors," we were told, were "spreading through markets", after officials hinted that "quantitative easing" – aka "printing money" – might be "wound down" in the future. The official clarification went thus: "If labour market conditions and the economy's growth momentum were to be less favourable, I would expect that the asset purchases would continue at a higher pace for longer." Clarity? There's more clarity in a puddle of mud.But reading some of the reaction to another development last week, it struck me that some of these experts' colleagues in economics clearly have a bit of catching up to do. "Tremors," we were told, were "spreading through markets", after officials hinted that "quantitative easing" – aka "printing money" – might be "wound down" in the future. The official clarification went thus: "If labour market conditions and the economy's growth momentum were to be less favourable, I would expect that the asset purchases would continue at a higher pace for longer." Clarity? There's more clarity in a puddle of mud.
And what's more, these frequently opaque reactions to fundamental developments in the world economy are – I'd argue – a symptom of an outrageous affront to our democracy: the lack of a serious, coherent, well-funded academic and social movement to improve the way we talk about economics.And what's more, these frequently opaque reactions to fundamental developments in the world economy are – I'd argue – a symptom of an outrageous affront to our democracy: the lack of a serious, coherent, well-funded academic and social movement to improve the way we talk about economics.
This is not to denigrate some noble and heroic efforts. Robert Peston, Paul Mason, Stephanie Flanders, Aditya Chakrabortty et al, have flown the flag of clarity in recent years, and make the best of the material they're given. And initiatives such as those organised by the New Economics Foundation are ploughing a worthy, if under-recognised, furrow.This is not to denigrate some noble and heroic efforts. Robert Peston, Paul Mason, Stephanie Flanders, Aditya Chakrabortty et al, have flown the flag of clarity in recent years, and make the best of the material they're given. And initiatives such as those organised by the New Economics Foundation are ploughing a worthy, if under-recognised, furrow.
But it strikes me as completely unacceptable for interviewees on, say, Newsnight to feel comfortable bandying phrases like "balancing monetary policy versus fiscal policy" without pausing to explain what on earth they mean. (A kindly friend translated for me: "interest rates versus taxes"). You'd almost feel moved to propose, cynically, that there was a vested interest in keeping us all in the dark.But it strikes me as completely unacceptable for interviewees on, say, Newsnight to feel comfortable bandying phrases like "balancing monetary policy versus fiscal policy" without pausing to explain what on earth they mean. (A kindly friend translated for me: "interest rates versus taxes"). You'd almost feel moved to propose, cynically, that there was a vested interest in keeping us all in the dark.
But how much better would it be, how richer our democracy, if economists decided they had a duty to communicate with the lay public? And for inspiration, they could do worse than to look at what's happened in science over the past few decades.But how much better would it be, how richer our democracy, if economists decided they had a duty to communicate with the lay public? And for inspiration, they could do worse than to look at what's happened in science over the past few decades.
In the late 1980s, the seminal Bodmer report gave birth to a "public understanding of science" movement which – while initially criticised for its didactic approach – has evolved, refined, grown, spread into an entire academic discipline and accompanying profession – science communication (of which I have been practitioner for the best part of a decade).In the late 1980s, the seminal Bodmer report gave birth to a "public understanding of science" movement which – while initially criticised for its didactic approach – has evolved, refined, grown, spread into an entire academic discipline and accompanying profession – science communication (of which I have been practitioner for the best part of a decade).
But it wasn't a sudden surge of enthusiasm that jumpstarted the sci-comm movement, it was the availability of significant sums of cash, and the resources to set up an array of co-ordinated activities – master's courses, scholarships and the like – that ultimately snowballed into a noisy and unruly sci-comms community, and to a scientific dialogue that's growing in maturity.But it wasn't a sudden surge of enthusiasm that jumpstarted the sci-comm movement, it was the availability of significant sums of cash, and the resources to set up an array of co-ordinated activities – master's courses, scholarships and the like – that ultimately snowballed into a noisy and unruly sci-comms community, and to a scientific dialogue that's growing in maturity.
Entire corners of the internet now explain and demystify different facets of scientific endeavour. Research organisations train their grantees to speak to the media and engage with the public. Heated debates ensue about whether earnest attempts to support science journalists constitute "establishment PR". Whole conferences discuss "the science of science communication".Entire corners of the internet now explain and demystify different facets of scientific endeavour. Research organisations train their grantees to speak to the media and engage with the public. Heated debates ensue about whether earnest attempts to support science journalists constitute "establishment PR". Whole conferences discuss "the science of science communication".
How different might things be if we had something similar for economics? Would the Reinhart/Rogoff debacle – where a vital plank of Osbornomics was comprehensively debunked – have been discovered sooner with more eyes on the ball? Indeed, Chakrabortty has likened it to the MMR/autism scandal – ironically, Andrew Wakefield's paper would face far more scrutiny today than it did at the time.How different might things be if we had something similar for economics? Would the Reinhart/Rogoff debacle – where a vital plank of Osbornomics was comprehensively debunked – have been discovered sooner with more eyes on the ball? Indeed, Chakrabortty has likened it to the MMR/autism scandal – ironically, Andrew Wakefield's paper would face far more scrutiny today than it did at the time.
So what we need – urgently – is a movement devoted to public engagement with economics movement, modelled on the scientific community's journey over the past 30 years. What, for example, would a survey like the Wellcome Trust Monitor reveal about public comprehension of concepts like "hedge funds", "fiscal stimuli", "futures" or "stagflation"? What recommendations would a financial version of the Bodmer report make? And, to stretch things further, what strides towards enlightenment would a Robert Peston, professor for the public understanding of economics, take with his post?So what we need – urgently – is a movement devoted to public engagement with economics movement, modelled on the scientific community's journey over the past 30 years. What, for example, would a survey like the Wellcome Trust Monitor reveal about public comprehension of concepts like "hedge funds", "fiscal stimuli", "futures" or "stagflation"? What recommendations would a financial version of the Bodmer report make? And, to stretch things further, what strides towards enlightenment would a Robert Peston, professor for the public understanding of economics, take with his post?
The next election, we're told, will hinge largely on the state of the economy. It's vital that economists raise their collective game in terms of engaging with the wider public. We can't have another election based on dodgy, unchallenged metaphors such as "maxing out the national credit card", or "fixing the roof when the sun is shining". We deserve far better.The next election, we're told, will hinge largely on the state of the economy. It's vital that economists raise their collective game in terms of engaging with the wider public. We can't have another election based on dodgy, unchallenged metaphors such as "maxing out the national credit card", or "fixing the roof when the sun is shining". We deserve far better.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.