From “Politico-Scientists” to Democratizing Science Movements

Abstract

The Committee for Nuclear Information (CNI) was one of the first movements to translate expert knowledge to the public. It was led by “politico-scientists” who meant to advance an ethics of science by contributing to public understanding. Since then, citizens have taken research into their own hands, using it to frame issues, challenge corporate practices, and change policy. Movement methods that respond to consistent activist concerns about science are reflected in “democratizing science movements” (DSMs) that have grown, expanded, and changed in the past 50 years. This article compares the CNI to the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, a group of organizations that have critiqued the hazardous ingredients in personal care products. The aim is to update our understanding of how movements use science to protect health and improve the environment since the CNI. Like CNI, Campaign activists have used science to educate the public about hazardous exposures; however, the Campaign reflects that over time, lay people have become more central to scientific production as well as more able to use it without the assistance of experts. It is argued that in Commoner's time scientists focused on translating results and meanings for lay audiences whereas today, movements use science to heighten the political nature of the issue through reframing.

When Scientists Tweet for Social Changes: Dialogic Communication and Collective Mobilization Strategies by Flint Water Study Scientists on Twitter

“…This exploratory case study focused on examining how Flint Water Study scientists utilized Twitter as a communication and mobilization channel to raise awareness about the lead contamination of Flint water before the national news media reported on the issue as a national-level crisis. Previous studies on activism and politico-scientists have suggested the unique role scientists played in presenting social issues with research and facts in a manner that is approachable and understandable to laypersons (Frickel, 2004a;Lubitow, 2013;McCormick, 2009). Findings from a content analysis indicate Twitter was primarily used to educate the public about the scientific facts and research related to lead contamination in Flint water.…”

“…Social movement scholars have examined the ways scientists have collaborated with traditional activists to advance social change efforts in the public arena (Brown, 1992;Edge & Eyles, 2015;Frickel, 2004a;Lubitow, 2013) for a range of issues such as regulating bisphenol-A (Lubitow, 2013) and genetic toxicology (Frickel, 2004a) and preventing climate change (McCormick, 2009). These studies examined the mobilization of scientific experts and how scientists have been integrated into social activists' movements.…”

“…When scientists are engaged in political actions, they are interested in both educating the public about their scientific research and pressuring responsible target organizations or government agencies to increase regulatory measures to protect citizens from potential harm (McCormick, 2009). Labeled as "sympathetic scientists" or "politico-scientists" (McCormick, 2009, p. 36), such scientists are often the first to alert the public of harms revealed or predicted by their scientific research.…”

“…This study modified Guo and Saxton's operational definitions to be better reflective of the Flint Water Crisis: science/research, media advocacy, direct lobbying, grassroots lobbying, public education, coalition building, Flint water expert testimony, electioneering, personal testimony, and other (α = .97). Social issues: Each tweet was coded for any mention of connection to social issues based on the operational definitions of McCormick (2009) and Theocharis et al (2015). Thirteen social issues included race, poverty, economy of Flint, accountability of state governor Rick Snyder, Emergency Management, U.S. EPA, 2016 Presidential election, science, public health, environmental concerns, human rights, democracy, and bureaucracy (α = .95).…”

Does really no one care? Analyzing the public engagement of communication scientists on Twitter

“…The microblogging service Twitter is one of these means for public engagement and is used by numerous academics from all disciplines (Ke et al, 2017). Twitter is used in the context of certain crises, when scientists turn into activists (Jangh and Lee, 2018; McCormick, 2009). But it is also used in the day-to-day communication of scholars, who can thus actively engage with diverse publics and influence their perceptions of science (Dudo and Besley, 2016).…”