Science Communication & Writing Curricula at Select Universities

Patrick Logan,
Dept. of Communication Studies, Univ. Rhode Island

This personal Web page is not an official University of Rhode Island Web page. See disclaimer

Numbers in this paper and its appendices are from a database. Additions, modifications, or deletions in the database may occasionally change these numbers. Should a print version of this article be submitted, I will place a notice here. —P. Logan, January, 2015.



Nature and Scope: The Harrington School of Communication and Media [1] at the University of Rhode Island unites the Departments of Communication Studies, Film Media, Journalism, Library and Information Studies, Public Relations, and Writing and Rhetoric under a vision that promotes scientific and strategic communication, digital media literacy, and community engagement [2]. This post addresses this vision as a contribution to on-going strategic planning. The study includes a web-based database [3], derived from a national survey of science communication and writing courses made during May-August, 2013, and the analysis below.

Domain of the Survey: At the center of inquiry are contemporary communication curricula, a domain characterized by National Communication Association (NCA) definitions, descriptions of interest groups, and briefs on doctoral programs research areas of emphasis [4]. While focused on departments of communication, the survey also includes related writing (usually journalism or English departments) and a few science departments. Universities in the initial sampling universe include the 108 Carnegie classification "very high research activity (RU/VH)" universities and all 79 universities listed in the NCA database "Doctoral Programs in Communication" [5]. Also included are approximately half of the Carnegie "high research activity (RU/H)" institutions and others used in previous Harrington School benchmark studies. Records in the database provide useful links and illustrations to academic units and courses with a focus on science communication, community engagement, and web development. For further explanation, see Methods.

Target Audience: Although this inquiry stems from local concerns, the intended audience is also national, for anyone assessing the state of science communication and writing (and, in parallel, the state of web development curricula) as found in communication, journalism, and writing programs. Links access leading departments and a representative sampling of courses that illustrate targeted aspects of contemporary curricula (and in a few cases, courses that simply stood out as noteworthy). The target audience includes academics with advanced degrees in communication and also those whose scientific awareness—of matters such as climate change, peak fossil energy, or the fate of food, water, and natural resources—drives them to search for better means to connect science discourse communities to the public sphere.

Purpose: Beyond the expository utility of a database and the cursory interpretations made here, I also hope to convey a sense of the very high importance that 21st century global limits place on more effective communication of not only environmental concerns (in the sense of the NCA Environmental Communication Division [6]) but also on the communication of science in general. Science is not a matter for scientists alone. We live in a world too often deficient in elementary understanding of the scientific basis of unprecedented challenges of a planetary scope. Early in the 21st century, our national government is often reluctant or hostile toward injection of rational science into public policy debates. More effective science communication informs citizens and elevates representative government. Stimulation of discussions leading toward this goal provides an overarching purpose to the exercise. (see the appendix "The Rhetorical University").

As a contribution to strategic planning, I seek a balance between understanding where we are today and insight about where we want to be in the future. Too much emphasis on what is retards change. Too little awareness of or openness to where we want to be also impedes change. The goal here is to advance that balance. In particular, this study focuses on the treatment of science broadly, emphasizing the emerging, vital role of communication in advancing scientific awareness in the public sphere. It also uses web development (courses are entered in the database; analysis is set aside as an appendix to this paper), a critical enabling and pervasive technology, as a second handle on the direction and pace of change within the communication and writing discourse communities as they address future national needs.

"Looking back, I think it was more difficult to see what the problems were
than to solve them...."

Approach: In pursuing these goals, I am guided by an analogy between communication and evolutionary ecology. Broadly, we are interested in select components of modern higher education: In the US, higher education largely consists of an amalgam of ~4500 colleges and universities, each campus part of a national mosaic of varied approaches and interests. Just as nature has its phylogenetic arrays of plants and animals living in discrete communities (ponds and oceans, prairies and forests), universities have a familiar taxonomy of more-or-less similar courses arrayed in academic discourse communities, systematically categorized and distributed by campus, college, school, department, or program. Just as ecologists study determinants of the distribution and abundance of the individuals that make up species [8], here our goal is understanding of what determines the distribution and abundance of courses within curricula and how their long-term fate is affected by campus pedagogic ecologies.

In nature, the relative abundances and distributions of species are determined by the environment (ecology) and by the kind of plant or animal (genetics) [9]. Natural selection operating on the gene pools of species determines long-term evolution (Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection), some forms going extinct and others arising and prospering over eons. Similar selection pressures determine university curricula, with courses coming and going, albeit over much shorter periods of time. By sampling courses, we may construct an impression of the current state and direction of this evolution. Because humans can intervene and artificially select and propagate elements of pedagogy, the fate of university curricula is not governed all by chance; we can decide to change.

Ecologists focus their studies of natural communities by dichotomizing into "system" and an associated "environment." [10] Here, the system I am interested in includes university centers (schools, departments, programs) concerned with science communication or writing. For the most part, this does not include those graduate or research programs in the natural sciences primarily concerned with the production of research and attendant science journal articles per se —i.e., the science discourse communities. Rather, the focus is on centers whose discourse tradition and future are built around communication or writing as objects of legitimate study in their own right. When, on occasion, courses concerned with communication or (more commonly) writing may arise from within natural science programs, we may also take note, but these are rare and usually evanescent.

The environment surrounding science communication and writing includes an extramural political and economic world, one that most notably affects all academic programs today by steadily reducing public financial resources. The university ecosystem is also strong influenced by corporations with an appetite for technical skills, and the public, with myriad needs, many of which are poorly understood within the public sphere. The environment within each university also includes competitors scrambling for resources (budgets, position, students, space); faculty and administrative priorities are not always congruent or stable.

Like their natural counterparts, academic communities tend to conserve dominant species characteristics over time. Each scholar in each generation of the professoriate—for the extended period required by degrees and post-doctoral work—acquires an enduring impression of the nature of the discourse community, including its priority areas for scholarship and its approaches to teaching and research, from the local community. The academic employment market and national professional societies create opportunity for cross-fertilization of priorities and approaches, and for the most part the disciplines are remarkably homogenous across the nation. Strong cultural traditions may be offset by disturbances created by emerging technologies or external funding pressures (connecting the academy to society through politics and economics), but overall, disciplines resist intergenerational change. Despite popular labeling as bastions of political liberalism, the disciplinary structures and pedagogy of the academy tends to be self-conservative.

A sampling of contemporary curricula can reveal the cultural "breeding stock" of most popular areas of emphasis within and across institutions. It may also reveal the presence of emerging "hybrids" or "mutations" that indicate potential future areas. Seeking an understanding of culturally conservative (in the sense of maintaining status quo curricular foci) forces, NCA's self-definitional "What is Communication: Areas of Emphasis" provides a useful contemporary outline of the teaching component of the communication discipline. Likewise, NCA's "Interest Group Descriptions" and "Doctoral Programs Research Areas of Interest" help identify potential areas of change-in-the-making. This is the intended essence of the current survey.

Method: Sampling plan

Sampling was informal, involving a sequential search through University websites in pursuit of colleges, departments, and courses. Various organizational peregrinations mean that the search needed to be adjusted for structures that used terms such as School or Program, in which case these units were assigned to the level of either a college or a department.

Universities: To obtain a representative sampling, I used a set of universities chosen for their current importance to US science and engineering and to communication.

Universities important to science research: There are ~4500 degree-granting colleges and universities in the US; ~2775 of these are four-year colleges. [11] Although scholarship pervades all of these institutions, much of the Nation's science and engineering (S&E) research and development (R&D) is performed in a relatively small number.

Distribution of R&D Funds Across Academic Institutions [12]

Academic R&D expenditures are concentrated in a relatively small number of institutions. In FY 2008, 679 institutions reported spending at least $150,000 on S&E R&D. Of these, the top-spending 20 accounted for 30% of total academic R&D spending and the top 100 for 80% of all academic R&D expenditures. [13] The concentration of academic R&D funds among the top 100 institutions has stayed constant over the past two decades [14], as have the shares held by both the top 10 and the top 20 institutions.

It should be noted that the composition of the universities in each of these groups varies over time as universities increase or decrease their R&D activities. For example, 5 of the top 20 institutions in FY 1988 were no longer in the top 20 in FY 2008.

A similar concentration of funds is found among university performers of non-S&E R&D. The top 20 performers accounted for 36% of the total non-S&E R&D expenditures in FY 2008. [15]

The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching recognizes this disparity in a classification system that currently lists 108 universities, based in large part on relative expenditures on research, as "very high research activity (RU/VH)," and another 99 as "high research activity." [16]

As of late August, 2013, the survey includes 105 of 108 [16b] Carnegie RU/VH and 41 of 99 RU/H institutions. As noted above, these account for more than 80% of US expenditures on science and engineering research.

Universities important to production of PhD's—all categories: Research being the primary vehicle for graduate education, universities important to science research also tend to produce the bulk of the Nation's future science PhDs, which is important as a determinant of future changes in US universities. Of the 49,010 science doctorates awarded in 2011, 73.6% came from RU/VH and 90.9% from RU/VH + RU/H Carnegie institutions. [17] Again, we can estimate that we have included universities accounting for ~80%+ of US production of science PhD's, an important determinant of the evolution of American universities.

Universities important to the production of Communication PhD's: The National Communication Association recognizes 790 communication departments and 79 doctoral-granting programs in Communication. [5] Cross-checking, most of the PhD programs were already included in the sample group as research universities (above), and the remainder were added. We can estimate that we have included 100% of the domestic production of PhD's in Communication. Again, this is taken as an important determinant to the inertia and future evolution of Communication in US universities.

Departments: In seeking information about courses and communication curricula, each university was searched for colleges or departments or programs with likely names. The NCA found 116 names for 790 departments, of which six were used by 607 departments (77%): [18]

In general, these departments were located in Colleges of Arts and Sciences / Liberal Arts, etc., or in hybrid or autonomous colleges or schools of their own (e.g., Mike Curb College of Arts, Media, and Communication (Cal. State Northridge); College of Communication (several)). Universities being political creatures, there were a few instances where a department of communication was located outside a similarly named school or college (e.g., two separate units using "Communication," one in a College of Communication & Media and another in a College of Arts & Sciences). NCA maintains lists of departments, separated into Bachelor's, Master's, and doctoral programs in communication. [19] Only the latter was used directly (see above), to include all Ph.D. departments in the survey.

Each university was also searched for a department or program in journalism. If a department in neither communication nor journalism was encountered, the department of English or the terms "science communication" and/or "science writing" were also searched.

Searching for Courses: Most (but not all) departments provide a link from within department home pages to a dedicated page listing course descriptions or to the university's database of course descriptions. In general, course titles were congruent with the language used by the NCA to describe areas of emphasis used to define communication [20] or with phrases used by the NCA to describe doctoral programs research areas of emphasis [21]. For all departments, at least one course was selected (e.g., "Rhetoric" or "Community Journalism") to provide a link to the course list. No attempt was made to list all courses on any topics other than 1) science (including environmental and science topics; if there were none of these, health communication may have been selected); 2)Persuasion or rhetoric, particularly when there was a suggestion of social influence or engagement; and 3)Web development (including programming and general effects of the internet on communication). Although this provided a general guideline, occasionally additional courses were selected based on personal interest or as placeholders for possible future investigation.

Characterizing Core Communication Curricula: The future of science communication and writing curricula in communication or writing programs depends on myriad factors, including internal university resources and external marketplaces. Inertia tending to maintain a status quo comes from cultural senses experienced within the discipline, cultural in the sense that a shared consensus of the nature of a discipline is inheritable, with limited possibility of alteration, by each new generation of scholars. Cross-disciplinary exchange and intellectual fertilization experience resistance within disciplines, related to how the discipline is structured currently and how this structure is perceived by current faculty and students. The subject is as much a matter of working across disciplines to incorporate new material into communication and writing programs as it is a matter of studying communication between disciplines. In addressing the latter, Joachim Schummer shines light on the former.

In order to understand cross-disciplinary communication issues and the strategies to address them, we first need to have a better understanding of what disciplines are and how to describe their relations.

The English term 'discipline' (from the Latin, disciplina) has a complex meaning, as the following sentence illustrates: Students (disciples) learn a certain doctrine (a discipline) by obeying strict (disciplinary) rules of a school (a discipline) and by practising self-control (discipline). A discipline is not simply an abstract set of information, but both a body of knowledge that is taught at a school and the social context of the school. Disciplinary knowledge requires a social context of transmission and education and a social body that reproduces itself by educating students to become future teachers. A scientific discipline thus comprises both cognitive and social aspects.

The cognitive aspects of a discipline refer to a body of knowledge of three kinds: concepts and beliefs, including facts, classifications, models and theories (knowledge of the world); methods for increasing and validating the knowledge of the world and for problem-solving (knowledge of methods); and values for judging the relevance and importance of the knowledge (knowledge of values). Hence, two disciplines differ not only in the specific set of information and concepts about the world, but also in what they consider important research questions, how to approach the problems and how to assess solutions. Cross-disciplinary communication issues thus arise not only because of different terminologies and information about the world, but also because of a different understanding of values and methods.

The social aspects of a discipline refer to a social body or community of scientists who largely share the three kinds of knowledge and who feel committed to the community. The commitment includes active engagement in increasing and improving the disciplinary body of knowledge through research, in communicating it through publications and in teaching it to students. Like other social groups, a disciplinary community has rules for becoming a junior member (by graduation), for gathering (in society meetings), for distributing honour (through awards and society positions), for reproduction (through teaching appointments), for community-like behavior (through codes of conduct) and for representing itself to publics. Being a member of a disciplinary community does not per se pose specific cross-disciplinary communication issues. However, the commitment to the community reinforces the cognitive issues and, because groups tend to stick together, it reduces the experience of cross-disciplinary communication. [22]

An analysis of central foci of contemporary curricula can clarify forces of inertia, tendencies to keep doing familiar established practices within disciplines. It may also shed light on places where new perspectives may take place without fundamental cultural shifts. Such an analysis can proceed from many starting points, so long as the aim is to establish a center of focus. For communication, this is most commonly a curricular emphasis on public speaking and rhetoric. Creating speeches and delivering them to an audience has historically been an important component of higher education. The art of making the speech persuasive is as old as Aristotle's Rhetoric [23].

A Strong Caveat: As usual, readers should note that this is submitted as a personal effort and that all short-comings, errors, omissions, or faults in judgement are strictly my own. Also, readers should be aware that the probability of such flaws may not reach the normal standards for fact-checking in rigorous surveys, as time and the limits of doing this on my own perhaps may excuse.


Core Communication Curricula

Of the many areas listed by NCA as areas of general [20] or research [21] interest, several are central to most curricula (here listed with NCA descriptions [20]:

Deferring any debate about particulars of this selection (and admitting infinite other possibilities), the point here is to establish a centrum [24] approximating a central focus for the communication discipline. The critical questions concerning the prosperity of any existing novel curricular element are 1) does the new element (say, a course, or a major topical component of a course) chance to survive, endure, and grow increase or decrease as other elements in the curricular environment increase in abundance (or "activity") and 2) does the abundance (or "activity") of the components in the curricular environment increase or decrease as the number of courses (or elements of subject matter) increases?

As disciplines and their containing departments or programs grow, growth itself may or may not create an environment for new courses or course content to take root. This is evident in larger programs, where additional areas of interest spring from the centrum. These include NCA interests: communication education; health, international, intercultural, or legal communication; mediation and dispute resolution; political communication and public address; performance studies, theatre and drama; electronic media, mass media and media literacy; public relations; and semiotics. [20]. These outgrowths may remain within the same local academic unit, or they may branch off (e.g., a department of public relations, which may remain organizationally closely aligned with communication or may drift into, say, a college of business).

Rutgers, for example, has a mature array of courses within their Department of Communication, here aligned with NCA "areas of emphasis" as examples of species within genera [25]:

NCA Area of Emphasis
Course Title
Applied CommunicationAudience and Market Analysis
Applied Study in Communication
Communication EducationCommunication and Learning
Communication TheoryCommunication Theory
Communication and Social Change
Electronic MediaIntroduction to Social Media
Health CommunicationHealth Communication
Health Message and Campaign Design
Advanced Health Communication
International and Intercultural CommunicationInternational Communication
Intercultural Communication
Intercultural Communication Workshop
Interpersonal CommunicationCommunication in Relationships
Beginning American Sign Language?
Intermediate American Sign Language?
Interpersonal Communication
Communicating about Relationship Challenges
Communication and Gender
Relationships and Identities in Interaction
Advanced Interpersonal and Small-Group Communication
Language and Social InteractionLanguage and Communication
Language, Behavior, and Communication
Legal Communication
Mass Communication and Media LiteracyMedia, Marketing and Communication
Crisis Communication and Public Information
Mediation and Dispute ResolutionMediated Communication
Conflict Negotiation and Resolution
Mediated Communication in Society
Organizational CommunicationParliamentary Debate Practicum
Writing and Communication (business)
Information Systems and Communication
Organizational Communication
Principles of Interviewing
Organizational Reputation and Representation
Approaches to Leadership
Leadership in Groups and Organizations
Performance Studies
Public AddressArgumentation
Public RelationsMessage Design for Public Relations
Principles of Public Relations
Public Relations Management
Rhetorical CriticismPersuasive Communication
SemioticsBeginning American Sign Language?
Intermediate American Sign Language?
Small Group CommunicationGroup Communication
Communication and Facilitation
Leadership in Groups and Organizations
Advanced Interpersonal and Small-Group Communication
Family Communication
Speech CommunicationFundamentals of Public Speaking
Public Speaking
Theatre and Drama
Visual CommunicationVisual Communication
Nonverbal Communication

Similar mappings may be made for other communication departments. Here, the diverse array of courses at Rutgers models a typical major department. "Missing" elements such as theatre and drama or legal communication may be covered elsewhere: Rutgers has a law school (Newark campus) and a separate Department of Theatre.

Links to additional examples similar to Rutgers may be developed in a later draft. Links within the database that accompanies this article may facilitate rapid locating or specific departments, course lists, and descriptions. [3]

Extending beyond the communication centrum, universities also have colonies of communication-related curricula scattered in the academic organization charts. Programs of writing and rhetoric, rhetorical writing considered within English departments, dedicated masters programs in science writing for the popular press, and science considered as a "beat" in journalism can extend or replace any consideration of science within the core communication program. Without generalizing about journalism or writing curricula, I'll limit this search initially to science in proximity to the core communication courses, and then extend the search with a focus limited to science writing.

Science in Communication, Journalism, and Writing Curricula

Missing from the NCA areas of emphasis and from most curricula (e.g., the representative Rutgers curriculum) is any reference to or example of science communication (or of Environmental Communication, the NCA interest group [6]). Before arguing a case for increased emphasis on science communication (or on targeted topics integrated into communication courses), recall Schummer's dichotomy of the cognitive and social aspects of disciplines (above). [2]. If communication curricula are a product of a recognized (and, via graduation, culturally transmitted) cognitive body of knowledge (of the world, methods, and values) and of a social understanding of the discipline (e.g., NCA's projection of a common set of emphases and interests), then consideration of science communication asks how can we improve interdisciplinary communication and make it manifest in curricula. Schummer suggests strategies of scientific reductionism (a shared knowledge base), simplification ("a common pool of useful metaphors and images and a common-sense understanding of what matters and what is sound..."), and modularization (..."subprojects, with well-defined types of information input and output from and to the other subprojects" [26] and a fourth strategy:

The fourth strategy, translation or mediation, requires a translator who should ideally be educated in all the disciplines involved. Moreover, because there is no simple translation between the knowledge types of all disciplines, the translator needs to mediate not only between different types of description but also between different opinions on what is sound and important and on how to tackle a problem to best effect. Of course this requires sophisticated social and communicative skills, and it allows the mediator to control the project to a considerable degree. Mediation and translation would certainly be the best cognitive solution to cross-disciplinary communication issues, in particular because mediators can additionally educate scientists from different disciplines to understand each other better. However, mediators are rarely available because there is neither a profession nor a specific education for cross-disciplinary mediation, which leads us to social strategies for improving cross-disciplinary communication. [27]

What is it about science that might command a presence in communication curricula? In a search for courses, a starting point is to establish three "prey" images: 1) Science knowledge, or the telling of things to create awareness of the domain of natural sciences; 2) Clarification of importance, seeking matters that require consideration in the public sphere (e.g., climate change, peak oil, food and water); and 3) Action in response to scientific awareness, and the rhetorical means to foster action via human regulatory mechanisms (i.e., economic, political, and social systems).

Survey categories: In scanning the web for curricula, special note was taken (and examples selected for inclusion in the database) of courses emphasizing 1) communicating science (n=215); 2) writing about science (n=178); 3) science itself, when the focus is to create a basic understanding on which importance of action can be estimated and social action projected (n=); and 4) social engagement, or the formation of social movements (n=).

Communicating science includes foci on, for example, rhetorical analysis, popularization, and the use of systematically distorted science in political arenas. Writing about science is here taken to be exclusive of the production of peer reviewed (IMRAD format) natural science primary literature or technical writing meant for consumption within discourse communities. Examples chosen to represent science itself were added especially when the description suggested an underlying theme of acting on scientific awareness. Many of the examples of science courses were taken from Arizona State, where the relatively recent formation of a School of Sustainability, represents the leading edge of science integrated with social action. Examples selected to represent social engagement were not limited to engagement for action on natural science matters (e.g., courses on sustainability), but were chosen more broadly (in the sense of Habermas). For the most part, formal science writing of this nature is taught within science-discourse graduate programs.

Courses on Science Communication

NCA Doctoral Granting Programs: Of the 215 courses identified as "communicating science" in the database, 73 (48.2%) are taught in 26 of NCA's 79 doctoral departments (32.9%) (Appendix I) (the other 53 doctoral communication departments teach no science communication courses).

Non-NCA Doctoral Granting Programs: An additional 59 courses on "communicating science" were listed in the database from 31 departments not included in NCA's list of doctoral departments (Appendix II).

Science per se in NCA Doctoral Granting Programs: Within the 79 doctoral granting departments, eight courses, taught in five departments, emphasize science itself, independent of the environment, risk, or other narrow science foci (Appendix III).

Courses on Science Writing

There were 178 courses in the database that may be categorized as focused on "science writing." These are taught within a few NCA doctoral programs, but largely outside of the NCA doctoral arena in departments of journalism, English, or science.

NCA Doctoral Granting Programs: The 79 doctoral granting departments offer 16 courses deal with science writing, taught in eleven departments (Appendix IV). All are aimed at popular press (mostly journalism). Seven of the 16 courses deal with the environment, none with risk, and four with social engagement.

Science Writing in Journalism Courses: There were an additional 38 science writing courses taught in 17 non-NCA doctoral granting departments or schools with the word "journalism" in their name (Appendix V). All of these were focused on writing for the public (newspapers, magazines, etc.); four courses at Lehigh University were also addressed to the needs of students of science (i.e., writing about science within the discourse community). Fourteen were concerned with the environment; this was determined either explicitly (12 with "environment" or "nature" in the course title) or as suggested by the description ("natural sciences," "climate change," or "environmental science"). Risk was alluded to as a focus in four courses through use of phrases like "environmental uncertainty," although this may overstate emphasis. Eight courses addressed social concerns through phrases like "political and policy issues," "social responsibilities," "smart growth," "forest management," "culture's values," and "lifestyle choices." There was little evidence that science itself was a focus other than indirectly and in the abstract. This may be a function of the limited breadth of course descriptions, or it may be, as a course on "Science Journalism" from the University of Arizona suggests, that there are fundamental difference between "science communication" and "science journalism."

Science Writing in English, Other Writing, or Science Courses: In non-NCA doctoral granting departments and departments with neither "communication" nor "journalism" in their name, 114 additional courses dealing with science writing were encountered (usually by searching the university site for "science writing" or "scientific writing" or by scanning the English department course lists), taught in 41 departments (Appendix VI).

Of these courses, 35 emphasized writing for the public and 23 writing for scientists or students of science (4 were both or non-specific). Eighteen courses emphasized environmental writing based on course title or phrases in the description. None appeared to emphasize writing about risks. Twelve addressed social concerns, as indicated by phrases within the course descriptions ("relationship with nature," "preparing briefing for policy-makers," "science journalists role in society," "political ... contexts of modern environmentalism," "cultural place of science in our society," "conservation movement," etc.).


The use of course titles and descriptions gleaned from web listings or online course catalogs provides a lens with limited ability to provide insight into what is being learned within the nation's science communication and writing academic galaxy. But even Galileo, using Tycho Brahe's crude telescopic lens, created a vastly improved understanding of the medieval universe. Acknowledging the crudeness of the current effort, there are some things that seem clear about what we are, and perhaps more importantly, what we are not doing in U.S. universities to improve the connection between science discourse communities and the public sphere.

Status of Science Communication in the Curricula

Two-thirds of the 79 NCA doctoral programs offer no coursework at any level specifically focused on science communication. Of the remainder (26 departments), five have more than two courses, led by Cornell and George Mason's Departments of Communication. Cornell's program, it should be noted, has its roots in the agriculture college (George Mason in Arts and Sciences). American University, UNC Chapel Hill, and U Washington-Seattle also have broader (i.e., more than two) science communication course offerings. About half (26) of the 55 science communication courses encountered focus on the environment. Only eight courses address science per se and four of these deal with social impacts of technologies derived from science. Despite strong interest in Environmental Communication within the NCA, the core departments—those that will produce the next generation of communication faculty—pay generally weak and non-uniform attention to science communication.

In non NCA doctoral departments, Environmental Communication makes up more than half (34 of 59) of the science communication courses listed.

Course titles and descriptions provide few clues into any specific content covered in the "science" part of science communication. Queries for specific phrases in the 114 science communication course descriptions found a limited number of mentions of critical terms like "climate change" (6 records total, 1 from an NCA doctoral department), "sustainable"(2 total, 1 doctoral), "energy" (3,1), "peak oil" (1,1), "population" (2,1) [28], or "natural resources" (1,1) (Appendix VII). Certainly, a more exhaustive review of individual course syllabi would reveal at least some attention to these components of 21st century environmental concern, but none rose to the level of prominence implied by mention in a course description.

Status of Science Writing in the Curricula

There are very few science writing courses (16) taught within the NCA doctoral departments; the Department of Writing Studies at the University of Minnesota sets the bar with four courses. Most (13) of these focus on writing for the public, and about half (7) focus on the environment.

Although journalism is represented in some NCA doctoral programs, most of the science writing is outside the NCA doctoral group. As within the communication departments, about half of science writing courses (14 of 31 courses listed) emphasized the environment. Virtually none focused on science per se, which seems to be relatively invisible outside of topical writing in contemporary journalism.

Nevertheless, queries for specific phrases in the 112 science writing courses led to a relatively small number of clearly identified topics. "Climate change" was included in course descriptions four times (none from an NCA doctoral department), "energy" was found twice (0 NCA), "population" (in "population growth") was mentioned once, and "sustainable" and "peak oil" were not found (Appendix VIII).

Potential Areas for Growth of Academic Science Communication and Writing

For modern society to function, science discourse communities must communicate with the public with effective rhetoric able to inspire public action on climate change, post-fossil fuel energy, etc. Effective communication are certainly congruent with rhetorical traditions of the discipline and its contemporary academic bifurcations. It behooves university communication programs, through research and the classroom, to become active agents to guide this rhetoric. A necessary beginning is to address three primary inhibitors of effective science communication:

Nature of Science—Communicating Hard Science and Technology: As a focus for communication (including journalism, media, etc.), an understanding of science must include at least a core familiarity with a scholarly body of knowledge obtained from study of one or more science disciplines. Schummer's strategy (above) for improving interdisciplinary communication, applied to communication between discourse communities and the public, is a strategy of translation or mediation. Translation from a discourse community to another discourse community or to the public "requires a translator who should ideally be educated in all the disciplines involved." The translator must also be capable to mediate "between different opinions on what is sound and important and on how to tackle a problem to best effect." A core quandary for science communication is that "mediators are rarely available because there is neither a profession nor a specific education for cross-disciplinary mediation." [27]

One approach to addressing this quandary is to provide close access between communication curricula and science discourse communities. This may be more intrinsic in communication departments historically derived from within science programs. For example, this is a point of distinction for the Department of Life Sciences Communication (LSC) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, a department which also shows keen awareness of local natural advantages which bring potential for topical integration across disciplines [30].

Situated in the heart of College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, LSC benefits from close proximity to life science departments, and from an increasing number of double majors at the undergraduate level ( pursuing a simultaneous major in Genetics and LSC, for example) and from a graduate student body that includes science graduates.

Our faculty studies a broad range of science communication issues critical to the future of our state, nation and global community. Examples include combating invasive species in order to preserve environmental integrity, exploring how risk aversion influences public opinion of controversial science, and helping Native-American children relate tribal beliefs about the natural world to emerging scientific discoveries. We have notable expertise in framing messages to audiences facing bioterrorism threats, confronting products using nanotechnology, and wrestling with a fossil fuel crisis.

Note that the Madison's Department of Life Science Communication, which is not listed as an NCA doctoral program, does offer a doctoral degree; this suggests that the program is more likely than others less entwined with exposure to science to become a vital source of future seed stock for science communicators nation wide. The Department also coexists with the NCA doctoral listed Department of Communication Arts, found on the same campus, within the College of Letters and Science [31], a program of undoubted prominence, but one not currently positioning itself to contribute to any evolution of the discipline favorable to proliferation of new species of science communicators.

Cornell's (NCA doctoral) Department of Communication also resides within the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Hinting at a more traditional self-perception as a social science, the Department nevertheless also seems aware of its place as an agent of social engagement.

We are therefore committed to engaging in grounded, empirical research, drawn from an array of social science traditions and a variety of research methodologies, and both developing and applying novel theoretical perspectives to the most pressing social and policy issues of the day [32].

Arizona State's huge and relatively new (established in 2007) School of Sustainability, provides a similar stimulus for integrative learning, including a rich array of both undergraduate and graduate courses that could nurture a deep scholarship for any student in the (NCA doctoral) Hugh Downs School of Human Communication interested in science communication. The extent to which a student may become "ideally educated in all the disciplines involved" depends on the goals of the student and the receptivity toward or encouragement of a multidisciplinary learning environment within the communication and science departments, an assessment beyond the current study.

Nature of Science—Communicating Science as a Way of Knowing: Even when armed with competence in a knowledge base and techniques, students of science communication require a still deeper level of understanding. Risk communication, often associated with health communication, for example, extends into matters where science enters the policy arena. Often, these matters are in areas of critical national or global concern, such as energy (peak oil, nuclear, alternatives), food (GMOs, animal versus plant protein, eating disorders), population (birth control, tax dependencies), and, of course, climate change. Risk communication may receive less attention in science programs than it does in many communication curricula, where courses vary as to the nature of risk considered (health versus environmental, for example). The works of Sunstein or Slovic, for example, provide critical perspectives on communication of risk [33]. Of particular concern for science communicators, concepts such as Sunstein's availability heuristic or probability neglect [34] are seldom part of science curricula.

Science communicators in public arenas are surrounded by systematic distortions and misuse of science in politics [35]—for purposes of greed [36], ideology [37], or theology [38]. Science is also under siege from the left, often from within the academies [39]. Because, as Gross and Levitt point out, scientists generally ignore such attacks and carry on with their work blissfully, there are rarely any efforts to create awareness or strategic counter arguments within science or science communication curricula. This appears to be a serious deficit in preparation for those who would choose to practice science communication in the public sphere, but one that could easily provide topical material in a communication course on, say, political discourse or propaganda.

When science advocates perennially call out for an increase in production of scientists to meet myriad national needs [40], universities generally interpret this as meaning more attention to teaching the periodic table, molecular biology, or astrophysics, or their contemporary offspring in nano technology, genomics and proteomics, quantum cosmology, etc.. To bring the leading edge of science into the public sphere, science communicators must also understand the rhetorical roots and philosophical history of science, well taught by reference to the early astronomers, Descartes, Bacon, and Newton [41]. Familiarity with Darwin—more specifically Darwinism, or the role of chance in natural selection, usually referred to a the Theory of Evolution— is not only a prerequisite to articulating contemporary science consensus on evolution (as a counter to theocratic, non-science intelligent design, for example), but also a requirement for understanding the differences between deterministic and stochastic views of nature; in turn, this is the starting point for communicating the importance of uncertainty and the tools used by policy makers for acting in the statistically "messy" real world. The essential training of a doctoral-level science communicator, accordingly, may well include history and philosophy to an extent rarely encountered in contemporary science departments (one can only speculate how many doctoral students could satisfactorily present an outline of the meaning, ontology, or vital contemporary relevance of the scientific method, for example) [42].

Language of Science—From Facts to Meaning: When Schummer calls for translation and mediation, he goes beyond asking communication to build definitional bridges from esoteric science discourse to publicly accessible language, although this remains a central focus of most science journalism curricula. A vexing question for modern modern science remains why the Enlightenment ("Age of Reason") so often appears to have failed to "stick" in the early 21st century. The usual scientific assumption—if we adequately present the data, the public will understand and eventually act appropriately (any further exhortations being "outside of the job description" of scientists [43])—falls short of explaining the effectiveness of anti-science politicians and their advisors [44].

Since antiquity, students of rhetoric have been schooled in the meaning of ethos, pathos, and logos. If the observations and reasoning of science (logos) and the (perhaps failing) credibility of scientists and academicians (ethos) are so easily dismissed in contemporary politics, students of communication know that a key to rhetorical weakness of raw science (presented as authoritative and factual) is in strong part due to failure to adequately understand the roll of emotions (pathos), including subconscious feelings. Relatively recent linguistic and brain physiology studies thus are an important foundation for those who seek to effectively translate and mediate. In part, this is a key to the relative (although not yet complete) success of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which provides equal attention to the presentation of basic scientific observations, interpretation of the consequences of observable trends, and encouragement for action to mitigate damages [45].

Effective science communication on matters such as climate change and future energy alternatives is critical to contemporary public engagements such as Hopkins' Transition Movement [46]. Responses to information from science contribute to citizen motivation to explore new concepts of local community resilience, consumption, etc. Equally important, however, is an awareness of shared political and moral feelings. As communicators engage to persuade formation of such public movements, they will be well advised to acquire an understanding of the roll of mental frames of reference [47], the emotions—sub-conscious mental associations (a result of relatively recent work on brain physiology) and the concept of positive asymmetry as it affects public ability to comprehend natural disasters such as hurricanes Katrina or Sandy— and their role in contemporary politics [48].

Communication and the Culture of Science: Although it is very difficult to convey (reference to the Career of Carl Sagen is instructive [49]), the cultural pressures within universities and science guilds against engagement with the public is important for science communicators to comprehend if they are to understand the great reluctance of most scientists to speak out about the implications of their work on climate, energy, food, water, or the biosphere. Students of science communication may also benefit from awareness of the difficulties that scientists encounter as they venture from the relative refuge of life in the laboratory (both literal and figurative) into the wilds of public forums. Internecine warfare within the climate science community, for example, is vividly portrayed in Cooney's Storm World [50]. The more disturbing politicizing of science at a federal level is also well captured in books on climate science in a political arena: studies of the experiences of James Hansen, Stephen Schneider, or Michael Mann are prominent examples [51].

Writing Science: Pragmatic reasons for increased attention to science writing have been put forth by science communicators such as journalist Chris Mooney.

If American science truly fears for its competitiveness in the global marketplace, it ought to be expanding and reinventing itself to incorporate new opportunities for young American scientists. The scientist who can write, or design a Web site, or understand patent law, or speak Spanish will be better equipped to face the competition than a scientist who only knows his or her discipline—not to mention a better science communicator. And in the context of the science-education pipeline, these alternative valves will alleviate pressure by opening new pathways for pent-up scientific talent to filter out into society. [52]

Others, such as English professor Michael Zerbe [53], see the need for greater attention to the rhetoric of science in composition studies as a matter of (the subtitle of his book) "engaging the dominant discourse." Why?

First, to persuade compositionists, writing across the curriculum specialists, and technical communicators to consider scientific discourse an integral part of their research and teaching, and second, to convince rhetoricians of science, who already do conduct research on scientific discourse, to think about pedagogy and literacy. I want to make the study and teaching of scientific discourse—the most powerful rhetoric of Western culture—a central disciplinary issue in rhetoric and composition.

A mixture of desire to engage the dominant discourse and a pragmatic desire to turn out some of the nations best science writers informs to exemplary Science Communication Program within Kresge College at the University of California Santa Cruz.

The science writing program at UC Santa Cruz has produced professional science writers since 1981. The program is one academic year long, with internships throughout the school year and the following summer. It focuses entirely on practical training through classroom work and diverse internships, and it's the only graduate science writing program in the nation that requires a degree in science and experience in research. [54]

Certainly, these themes are reflected in the quality writing programs of MIT's Graduate Program in Science Writing, found within the School of Humanities, Arts, and Sciences.

"For MIT to have a graduate program in writing about science for a public audience sends the message that we feel the public should be engaged with the scientific enterprise. That's a critical message for citizens, and for the country as a whole."

MIT, along with Georgia Tech, Stanford, and few others, represents the best of U.S. science and technology education, and the presence of a graduate level program dedicated to writing about science is particularly noteworthy. But especially remarkable is the dedication to writing for the public.

About Science Writing

Science writing means writing about science, medicine, and technology for general readers. It appears in magazines and newspapers, in popular books, on the walls of museums, on television or radio programs, and on the internet. It grapples with DNA, fractals, synapses, and quasars, but always with grace and style. Its practitioners worry as much about how to tell the story of science as the science itself–and yet, in maddening paradox, as much about the science as its telling. Science writing tackles big ideas, important issues. It's ambitious, creative, hard to do–yet utterly compelling.

What science writing is not is a technical report aimed at other specialists. Or a lab paper, or a how-to manual, or a peer-reviewed research article in even the most prestigious scientific journal. These are not the focus of this program.

Science writers address the larger public about the science and technology that shape modern life, as well as the broader social issues–nuclear power safety, for example, or bioethics, or the environment–that science so profoundly influences.

Science writers respect scientists and engineers, but don't treat their work as privileged, or as immune from informed criticism. Science writers never forget that the work of science takes place within a human and historical frame–and supply their readers with that context as needed.

Science writers may, or may not, hold academic credentials in science or engineering. But they are always humanists, one foot in the sciences, the other in the arts, as apt to be seduced by a shapely sentence as by an elegant scientific idea. [55]

If there is a national mood of despair about the role of science in contemporary journalism or writing programs, it is not reflected by the awareness or exuberance displayed by MIT and UCal Santa Cruz.

Conclusion: Beyond Environmental Communication

As American universities have evolved, particularly since the mid-nineteenth century rise of the public Land Grant Universities, a key to their international success has been the innovation of increasing homes for specialization of scholarship. Essential for individual researchers and teachers to focus their studies, the emergence of academic discourse communities also empowers claims to quality and distinction, a key source of the prestige that undergirds success in a competitive academic marketplace [56].

Communication's geneology extends to ancient Greece, where formalized education prepared citizens for vibrant civic engagement, citizenry contrasted with idiocy (a tendency toward concern with private—as contrasted to public—affairs) [56]. Key to the education was rhetoric for public speaking. Ironically, the tendency toward disciplinary isolation that was a foundation for a rise to global preeminence for American higher education in the twentieth century, may be now showing signs of strategic stagnation in the face of the complex, multidiscipliary challenges of twenty-first century global society. Is the collective vision of contemporary communication too narrow, too overly concerned with a private, internally focused and overly narrow set of emphases? Or is communication on the verge of expanding its sense of wider engagement with a broader array of academic concerns, reestablishing a more central role as a critical agent of academic citizenry?

The current survey suggests both a culturally-rooted sense of a set areas of emphasis essential to disciplinary identity, and a dynamic response to the stimulative effects of new media technology, extending speech and writing in new and exciting ways. There is a justified sense of pride in the scholarship of communication research over a wide intellectual domain, and an awareness of the important contributions being made by the discipline as a vital source of public social commentary and criticism, an exercise of the highest democratic social function of modern universities.

The survey also suggests that there is still great potential for communication as a catalyst to reignite the Enlightenment by facilitating a return of science to public discourse. Through preparation of better educated citizens, more competent to assess the credibility of sources of scientific sense (and nonsense), and through preparation of a new generation of teachers and practitioners of science-infused social action, there is yet significant room for expansion of science communication within the Nation's curricula.

There are clear models in which collaborations or integrations of science and communication create benchmarks for others to emulate. There are focused programs that should inspire growth in science writing, and in the creation of hybrid science communication in new or evolving media. There is, it seems clear, an adequate seed stock of people and ideas from which a population of diverse and interesting species of science communicators can evolve.

If what we are seeing is evidence of potential for growth and refinement in what is recognized as science communication, then it may be correct to say that the discipline has adequate awareness within its current cognitive body of knowledge (using Schummer's analysis) for production of an expanded array of curricular offerings, adding to the traditional perception of the boundary's of essential science education an expanded diversity of communication curricula (further speciation, if you will) to include insights from the political implications of brain sciences (e.g., neuro networks, frames, the subconscious nature of thought, the role of metaphors, etc.), from understanding of human perceptions of risk analysis and the availability heuristic, and from an understanding of the asymetric nature of human emotional positivism.

Finally, while there are many academic arenas for experimentation with Schummer's social understanding of the discipline, we may as yet not have begun to understand the power of external influence on the nature of communication, or to forsee the future selective pressures for communication to become even more engaged as an agent of social change in response to planetary concerns which science is now bringing to our awareness. The need for going beyond the traditional tri-part land grant philosophy of teaching, research, and technical outreach will be explored in a separate appendix, an inquiry into communication as an agent of advocacy in a twenty-first century Rhetorical University.

Footnotes and References Cited:

[2] See About the Harrington School ( for current vision and mission statements, and a snapshot of strategic considerations.
[3] "Science Communication & Writing Curricula at Select Universities," a survey conducted May-August, 2013, by Dr. Patrick Logan, Dept. of Communication Studies, The University of Rhode Island.
[4] The National Communication Association,, "advances communication as the discipline that studies all forms, modes, media and consequences of communication through humanistic, social scientific and aesthetic inquiry." (see "About NCA")

(Access requires NCA membership.)

[5] Doctoral Programs in Communication. NCA. Updated April 2012. Excel file.
[6] "Interest Group Descriptions: Environmental Communication Division"
[7] Charles Darwin, Letter to Charles Lyle, September 30, 1859. Letter number 2496, Darwin Correspondence Project. Quoted by Andrewartha and Birch (1954, 1984).
[8] See, for example:
[9] The Genetic Factor in Population Ecology. L. C. Birch. The American Naturalist, Vol. 94, No. 874 (Jan. - Feb., 1960), pp. 5-24. "The ecological problem of populations has to do with the numbers of animals and what determines these numbers. The genetical problem of populations has to do with the kind or kinds of animals and what determines kind. These two disciplines meet when the questions are asked, how does the kind of animal (i.e., genotype) influence the numbers and how does the number of animals influence the kind, i.e., the genetical composition of the population? These questions are as much ecological as they are genetical."
[10] Andrewartha and Birch. 1984. "The Web: Envirograms." p. 19-42.
For extensions of this concept into agriculture, for example, see:
  • T. C. Edens and H. E. Koenig. 1980. "Agroecosystem Management in a Resource-Limited World." BioScience 30 (10), pp. 697-701.
  • D. L. Haynes, R. L. Tummala, and T. L. Ellis. 1980. "Ecosystem Management for Pest Control." BioScience 30 (10), pp. 690-696. "System-environmnent dichotomy conceptually separates the universe of concern into an object of control and its associated environment. Such a conceptual separation [...] does not imply that the object of control and its environment are mutually independent. On the contrary, this provides a framework for quantitative evaluation of the interdependence between the ecosystem (object of control) and its surrounding environment. Not everything about the interactions between the object of control and its environment can be known in advance, nor is it possible in any practical sense to manipulate all the parameters of an ecosystem. However, the system environment dichotomy enables researchers to be realistic about those aspects of the overall universe of concern that they wish to manage (the object of control) and those aspects to which they want their control strategies to be responsive (the environment of the object of control)."
[11] "Fast Facts." National Center for Educational Statistics. 2012.
Referencing also U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). Digest of Education Statistics, 2011 (NCES 2012-001), Chapter 2 (
[12] Chapter 5—Academic Research and Development, Science and Engineering Indicators 2010, National Science Foundation.
[13] Table 5-10, "Top 100 academic institutions in R&D expenditures, by source of funds: 2008. NSF S&E Indicators 2012, chapter 5. (see footnote 12)
[14] Fig. 5-9, "Academic R&D, by rank of university and college R&D expenditures, 1988-2008." NSF S&E Indicators 2012, chapter 5. (see footnote 12).
[15] Table 5-11, "Top 50 academic institutions in non-S&E R&D expenditures, by non-S&E field: 2008." NSF S&E Indicators 2012, chapter 5. (see footnote 12)
[16] "List of research universities in the United States." Wikipedia.
"The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education™ The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
[16b] Currently (7/29/13) there are 105. I am missing CUNY Graduate Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the University of Central Florida, to be added.
[17] Table 11, "Doctorates awarded, by Carnegie category and broad field of study: 2001–11." Data Tables. Science and Engineering Doctorates: 2011, National Science Foundation. For the social sciences alone, these percentages are 66.7 and 87.4%.
[18] "Analysis of Communication Department Names." NCA. C-Briefs, Oct. 2011.
[20] "What is Communication?" NCA.
Areas of emphasis:
  • Applied Communication
  • Communication Education
  • Communication Theory
  • Electronic Media
  • Health Communication
  • International and Intercultural Communication
  • Interpersonal Communication
  • Language and Social Interaction
  • Legal Communication
  • Mass Communication and Media Literacy
  • Mediation and Dispute Resolution
  • Organizational Communication
  • Performance Studies
  • Political Communication
  • Public Address
  • Public Relations
  • Rhetorical Criticism
  • Semiotics
  • Small Group Communication
  • Speech Communication
  • Theatre and Drama
  • Visual Communication
[21] ""Doctoral Programs Research Areas of Emphasis. NCA. C-Briefs, Apr. 2012.
Areas of emphasis (total # identified):
  • Rhetoric (34)
  • Interpersonal Comm. (29)
  • Health Comm. (21)
  • Organizational Comm. (19)
  • Intercultural Comm. (16)
  • Media/Film & tv (15)
  • International Comm. (15)
  • Media & Tech/
    New Media (13)
  • Mass Media Comm. (13)
  • Comm. & Tech. (13)
  • Political Comm./
    Pol. Economy (12)
  • Critical/Cultural Studies (11)
  • Persuasion/Social Influence (10)
  • Strat. Comm./
    Public Rel. (9)
  • Media Effects (7)
  • Visual Comm. (6)
  • Performance Studies (6)
  • Media Institutions (6)
  • Gender Comm./
    Feminist Studies (6)
  • Media History (5)
  • Media & Society (5)
  • Environmental/
    Science Comm. (4)
  • Race/Ethnicity/Diversity (3)
  • Media Law (3)
  • Media Ethics (3)
  • Comm. Educ. (3)
  • Research Methods (2)
  • Information Sci. (2)
  • Comm. Theory (2)
  • Nonverbal Comm. (1)
  • Applied Comm. (1)
  • None (29)/Other (13)
[22] "Science Communication Across Disciplines." Joachim Schummer. Pp. 56-57. In Holliman, R., J. Thomas, S. Smidt, E. Scanlon, and E. Whitelegg. 2009. Practising Science Communication in the Information Age: Theorising professional practices. Oxford. 238 pages.
[23] Aristotle. 4th century BC. Rhetoric. See "Aristotle's Rhetoric," Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, for outline and summary (
[24] sensu Andrewartha and Birch. 1984 (op. cit.). From the latin meaning center. Here I draw an analogy from A&B's Theory of Environment.
"The Centrum. There are two questions to be asked about any directly acting component of environment: 1) Does the animal's chance to survive and reproduce increase or decrease as the environmental component increase in abundance (or "activity")? 2) Does the abundance (or "activity") of the environmental component increase or decrease as the population increases?" (page 8)
[25] The categorical assignments are mine and may not accurately reflect the actual content or thrust of the course. The intent is to illustrate the mapping between NCA's conceptual areas of emphasis and real-world examples within a single institution. Rutger's course listing,,192/option,com_courses/sch,04/task,listing/, provides direct access to descriptions and other courses.
[26] Joachim Schummer. 2009. op. cit. p. 58.
[27] Joachim Schummer. 2009. op. cit. p. 59.
As an example of cross-disciplinary mediation as a social strategy for improving science communication, see the example of Arkansas State University, Jonesboro, in Amy Pearce, Aldemaro Romero, and John B. Zibluk. 2010. "An Interdisciplinary Approach to Science Communication Education: A Case Study." In Communicating Science: New Agendas in Communication. Ed. by LeeAnn Kahlor and Patricia Stout. Routledge. 265 p.
[28] One of the two records for a match to "population" was from the phrase "Communicating science to the general population ...." That is, the count should be 1 course mentioning population, and none from the NCA doctoral category.
[29] P. A. Logan. 2013. "How Science Confronts Doubt, Complexity, and Uncertainty." Lecture notes for GCH104: Science and Communication for a Century of Limits.
[33] For example: Cass Sunstein, 2005. Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle. Cambridge. 248 p. Also, Paul Slovic, 2010. The Feeling of Risk: New Perspectives on Risk Perception, Routledge, 456 p.
[34] Sunstein, 2005. p. 35.
[35] Chris Mooney, 2006. The Republican War on Science. Basic Books. 376 p.
[36] Jane Mayer. 2010. Covert Operations: The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama. The New Yorker. August 30.
[38] Barbara Forest and Paul Gross. 2004. Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. Oxford. 416 p.
[39] Paul Gross and Normal Levitt. 1994. Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science. Johns Hopkins. 348 p.
Noretta Koertge. 1998. A House Built on Sand: Exposing Postmodernist Myths About Science. Oxford. 336 p.
[40] Epitomized by Vannevar Bush. 1945. "Science The Endless Frontier: A Report to the President." Bush, Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development immediately after WWII, is generally credited with stimulating the formation of the National Science Foundation.
[41] For a brief review and relevant references, see P. A. Logan. 2013. "How Science Confronts Doubt, Complexity, and Uncertainty." op. cit. (footnote 29)
[42] The course "Science and Communication in a Century of Limits,", is intended to serve as a prototype for upper-level undergraduate communication students, an experiment with many of these issues. Those interested in an overview, well annotated and linked to many suggested sources and readings, may wish to review the online lecture notes, study questions, assignments, and current events links associated with this venture. Constructive feedback ( would be greatly appreciated. A parallel prototype is also in its fourth year as an offering to freshmen (using the same lecture notes but with fewer external readings and modified assignments, etc.),
[43] Susan Solomon, a lead scientist on the 2007 IPCC report Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis: "The only way to do the type of science that I do is keeping your science separate from your personal political opinions," said Solomon. "The distinction between what you know and what you believe is so important. Our value to society as scientists is preserved by keeping those two things separate." Washington Post, Dec. 23, 2010.
[44] Most notably, Senator James Inhofe, 2012. The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future. WND Books. 305 p.
See also, Frank Luntz, 2007. Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear. Hyperion. 352 p.

[45] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Group Report Summaries:

  • "Synthesis Report"
  • I—"The Physical Science Basis"
  • II—"Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability"
  • III—"Mitigation of Climate Change"

The IPCC has also made extraordinary effort to adopt a language tailored for the broad audience of scientists and policy makers, a model of writing for a well-considered audience. An update, the Fifth Assessment, will be released in the Fall, 2013.

[46] Rob Hopkins. 2008. The Transition Handbook: From Oil Dependency to Local Resilience. Chelsea Green. 240 p.
[47] George Lakoff. 2010. Why it Matters How We Frame the Environment, Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 4:1, 70-81. (pdf)
See also, George Lakoff. 2002. Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Univ. Chicago. 471 p.
[49] Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum. 2010. Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future. Basic Books. 240 p.
[50] Chris Mooney. 2007. Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle Over Global Warming. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. 400 p.
[52] Mooney and Kirshenbaum. 2010. op cit. pages 127-128. Mooney cites (page 121) disturbing estimates that "the chance of a Ph.D. recipient [in science] under age thirty-five winning a tenure-track job has tumbled to only 7 percent" as the basis for his contention that an employment safety valve is needed. The 7 percent estimate is from B. L. Benderly, "The Incredible Shrinking Tenure Track," Science Careers, July 2, 2004.
[53] Michael Zerbe. 2007. Composition and the Rhetoric of Science: Engaging the Dominant Discourse. Southern Illinois. 272 p.
[55] Alan Lightman, Program Director. See database entry
[56] Dominic Brewer, Susan Gates, and Charles Goldman. 2004. In Pursuit of Prestige: Strategy and Competition in U.S. Higher Education. Transaction Publishers. 175 p.
[57] Walter C. Parker. 2005. "Teaching Against Idiocy." Phi Delta Kappan. January, 2005. vol. 86 (5): 344-351.