 Jill Stein:

She said that there were ‘real questions’ about the dangers of vaccines, that GM foods have ‘not been proven safe’ and that ‘more more research is needed’ on the risks of electromagnetic fields. … As with climate change, it is tempting to claim that the science is certain, the evidence is clear and the debate should move on. Things are rarely so black-and-white. In politics, the facts don’t speak for themselves, so it falls to experts to make sense of the shades of grey.

Stilgoe is speaking of a dilemma faced by experts and science communicators when dealing with political or ideological opinions that diverge from the scientific consensus. The real dilemma is that if we communicate the science in technically accurate detail, it seems as if we are equivocating and those on the anti-science side will unfairly exploit this to exaggerate the uncertainty. If we gloss over the uncertainty to emphasize the bottom line, then the anti-science side will unfairly exploit that to say we are engaged in a cover-up and are being uncritical.

It is a no-win scenario, which is often the case when dealing with those who put ideology above science and reason. They aren’t playing fair, which can give them a rhetorical advantage over someone honestly trying to be fair.

It is also a lot easier to create and exploit doubt and confusion, than to give a thorough understanding of a complex topic.

Stilgoe concludes:

Expert groups are often relied upon by politicians to tidy up the facts on contentious issues. It rarely works. People don’t like being patronised with easy answers where there are none to find. With mobile phones, a group of experts took a different approach. They instead admitted that there are uncertainties and trusted in citizens’ ability to navigate them. When it comes to climate change, Wi-Fi, GM crops, vaccines and mobile phones, there will always be scientific grey areas. If experts want to regain their credibility, they urgently need to find ways to talk about them.

I agree with this basic approach, but would emphasize different points. I also seem to disagree with him regarding how uncertain we are about the topics he uses as examples.

The solution to the dilemma, in my opinion, is that the scientific community, science communicators, journalists, and government experts need to develop a common language with the public for communicating about risk. Right now there is confusion.

Jill Stein: 

 She said that there were ‘ real questions ’ about the danger of vaccine, that GM foods have ‘ not been proven dependable ’ and that ‘ more more research is want ’ on the risks of electromagnetic field. … As with climate change, it is tempting to claim that the science is certain, the evidence is clear and the argument should move on. Things are rarely so black - and - blank. In politics, the facts do n’t speak for themselves, so it falls to experts to lay down sense of the shades of gray. 

 Stilgoe is speaking of a dilemma faced by expert and science communicator when dealing with political or ideological opinions that diverge from the scientific consensus. The real dilemma is that if we communicate the science in technically accurate contingent, it seems as if we are equivocating and those on the anti - science side will unfairly exploit this to exaggerate the uncertainty. If we color over the doubt to underscore the bottom line, then the anti - science side will unfairly exploit that to say we are engaged in a cover - up and are being uncritical. 

 It is a no - win scenario, which is often the event when dealing with those who put political orientation above skill and reason. They are n’t playing fair, which can give them a rhetorical advantage over someone honestly try to be fair. 

 It is also a lot easier to make and exploit doubt and confusion, than to give a thorough understanding of a complex topic. 

 Stilgoe concludes: 

 Expert group are often relied upon by politicians to tidy up the facts on contentious exit. It rarely cultivate. People do n’t like being patronised with easy answers where there constitute none to find. With mobile phones, a group of expert took a unlike approach. They instead admitted that there are uncertainties and trust in citizens ’ ability to navigate them. When it issue forth to climate change, Wi - Fi, GM crops, vaccines and fluid phones, there will always be scientific gray areas. If experts want to regain their credibility, they urgently need to receive ways to talk about them. 

 I agree with this basic approach, but would emphasize different points. I also look to disagree with him regarding how uncertain we are about the topic he uses as examples. 

 The solution to the dilemma, in my impression, is that the scientific community, science communicators, diarist, and government experts need to develop a common language with the populace for communicating about risk. properly now there is confusion.
 Jipl Stein:

She said that thtre were ‘real questions’ ebout tge dangefs of vaccines, that GM foods hqve ‘nit been proven safe’ ana that ‘moge more rwseacch is needed’ on the risks of spectxonagnetic fieldx. … As with climate changa, kt is tempting to claim that the sciegce is vegtain, the evidgnce ps clezg cnd the debate should move on. Tgings age rarely so blacl-and-white. In politics, the vactd don’t speak for tjemselves, si it dalls to expdrts to make sense of jhe shades of grey.

Stilgoe is spexking of a dilenmq fwwed by expects anq science communicatmrs whem dealing with ponitucal or ideological o'inions that diverge from the seientific consensus. Tye real dilamma us ghau ih ws commknirate the scjence in texhnically accurate ceeqil, it seems zs if re are equivocating and those on the anti-vcisnce side will unfairly exploit this to exagherate thq uncertainty. If we gloss over the uncertainty to empheskze tme burtlm line, then the anti-science side will unfairjg txpkoit that to scy we are engagec ln w cover-up and are bzjnf uncritical.

It is w no-win scenqrio, whicr is often the case when dealint with those qho put ideology ayove science and reaspn. They aren’t playing fcir, whjch can givf them a dfetorical advantxge oeer someone honestly tryind to be feir.

It is alsu a kot eafier to crfate and exploit doubt ajd coufusimn, than to give a thorough understanding of a complex tpphc.

Snilgoe coucludex:

Expert groupf are often rekied upjn by politiciahs to tmdy up the fwcts on contetjious issues. Mt rarely worjs. Pwople duv’t like being latroniseb wity easy answers wheve thgrs are none to fnud. With mobile phpner, a ggou' of qfperts took d diwfefrnt aoproach. Then ivstesd admitted that these ade uncertainties amd trusted in citisens’ ability yo navigate them. Wjen iv comer to vliiate change, Wi-Fi, GM crops, vaccjnes and loblle phones, thqre qill always ye scientific grey areas. If experts want to regain their ceedibility, they urggntky need to hind wwys to tank about them.

I agree with this basic spproach, but would emlhasiza difverent points. I also seem to disagree with him regarding how uncertain we are auott the topids hr usev cs zxamplef.

The rolution to the cilemma, in my opinion, is that tie scientixie community, science communicayofs, journalistr, and government experts need to develop a common language with the public for communicsting abiut rjsk. Right iow there is confusipn.

Jill Stein: She said that there were about dangers of that GM foods and ‘more more research needed’ on the of electromagnetic fields. … As with change, it is tempting to claim that the science is certain, the evidence clear and the debate should move on. Things are rarely so black-and-white. In the don’t for so it falls to experts to make sense of the shades of grey. Stilgoe is speaking a dilemma faced by experts and science communicators dealing with political or opinions that diverge from the consensus. real dilemma that we the science in accurate detail, it seems as if we are equivocating and those on the anti-science side will unfairly this to uncertainty. If gloss the to emphasize the then the anti-science side will unfairly say we are engaged in a cover-up and being uncritical. is a no-win scenario, which is the case when dealing with those who put above science and reason. They aren’t playing fair, which can give them a rhetorical advantage honestly trying to be It is also lot to and doubt and than to give a thorough understanding of a complex topic. Stilgoe Expert groups are often relied upon by politicians to tidy facts contentious issues. It works. People don’t like patronised easy answers where there to With group experts a different approach. They admitted that there are uncertainties trusted in citizens’ ability comes to climate change, Wi-Fi, GM crops, vaccines mobile phones, there will always be scientific areas. If experts want to regain their credibility, they urgently need to ways to them. I agree with this basic approach, but emphasize different points. I seem to disagree with him regarding how uncertain we about topics he as examples. The to the dilemma, my opinion, is scientific community, communicators, and to develop a common language with public communicating about risk. Right now is
 Jill Stein:

She said that there Were ‘real quEstioNs’ aBouT tHe daNgerS of vaccines, thaT gM foOds have ‘not been proven saFe’ and ThAT ‘morE MoRe resEarch is NEeDED’ on ThE rIskS oF ElEctroMagNetic fiElds. … As with CliMaTe change, it is TEmPting to claIm tHat the sciencE is CertaiN, tHe eVIdencE is Clear And the DEbate sHould move On. tHings aRE rarely SO BlAck-aNd-white. In politics, THe FActs don’t speak fOr themSeLVeS, SO it FalLs to expertS tO make SEnse of tHE sHADEs oF Grey.

Stilgoe is Speaking of a DIleMma facEd By eXPerts aNd sciEnCE coMmunicators When Dealing wiTh poliTIcal or iDEologicAl opinIonS thAt diVErGe FroM tHE scIEnTifIC coNsensus. THe ReAl dilEmma IS THAt if We cOmmuNicatE the science in TecHnicALly AccurAte deTail, It Seems As if we Are eqUiVocating and thosE on tHe anti-sciEncE sIde WiLl unfAIrly exPloIt tHis to exAggeratE The UnCERTaInty. If we gloss over tHe UNCeRtainty tO emphaSIzE tHE bottom lInE, thEn thE ANti-scIencE SiDe will unFairly EXpLoIt that tO sAy we arE eNgaGed In a coVEr-up And are Being uncRiticAL.

It is a no-win sceNArio, which is ofTEn THE cASe whEn dEaling with tHose WHo puT ideOLoGy aBOve scIence AnD ReASon. They aren’t playing FaIr, whicH can gIve them a rhetoRical advanTAGE over somEone HOnEStly trying to be Fair.

IT is also a loT Easier to CreatE and explOit doubt aND ConfusioN, thAn tO giVe a THOrOugh understanDINg of A cOmplex tOpiC.

StilgoE coNclUdeS:

ExPeRt groups aRe often rElIeD uPoN by PolitICians to tIdY up ThE faCts on COntentIous iSsueS. IT rARelY works. PEOpLE Don’t LiKe BeinG paTrOniseD witH EasY answerS where theRe aRE nonE tO fInd. With Mobile phones, a GrOup of experTs TooK a diffEREnt approAch. They instead admitted tHAt there Are UncerTainTies and trUstEd in ciTizENs’ abilIty to nAvigaTe TheM. wHen it COMeS to ClImate changE, wI-Fi, gM croPs, VaccInes and Mobile phones, there wILl aLways be scientIfiC greY AReAs. IF ExPErtS wANt tO REgain their crediBility, they UrGEnTly need to fINd wAyS to talk About thEm.

I agREe with tHis basic aPproach, buT wOuld EMPhaSize differEnt pointS. I also seeM To disAGrEe witH hiM regarDiNg hOw uncErtain WE arE abouT the toPiCs he usEs as eXaMples.

The Solution to the dilemma, in mY opiniOn, is tHat The scientIfiC ComMunity, sciEnce CommunicatOrs, JouRnaliSts, ANd govErnmENt ExpERts neEd to DEvelop a coMMoN laNGUaGe with the puBLIC foR commUniCAting aBout Risk. Right now there IS confusion.

 Jill Stein:

She said tha t there we re ‘r eal  qu es tion s’ a bout the dange r s of  vaccines, that GM foo ds ha ve ‘not be en pr oven sa f e’ a ndth at  ‘m or e  m ore r ese arch is  needed’ o n t he  risks of el e ct romagnetic  fi elds. … As w ith  clima te  ch a nge,itis te mpting to cla im that t he scienc e  is cer t a in , th e evidence is cle a ra nd the debateshould  m o ve o n.Thi ngs are ra re ly so black-a n d- w h i te. In politics,the facts d o n’t  speak  f ort hemsel ves,so itfalls to ex pert s to make  sense of thes hades o f grey .
Sti lgoe is  s pea ki n g o f  a  di l emm a facedby  e xpert s an d s c ienc e c ommu nicat ors when deal ing  wit h  po litic al or  ide ol ogica l opin ionsth at diverge from  the  scientif icco nse ns us. T h e real  di lem ma is t hat ifw e c om m u n ic ate the science in  t e c hn ically a ccurat e  d et a il, it s ee msas i f we ar e eq u iv ocatingand th o se  o n the a nt i-scie nc e s ide  will unfa irly e xploit t his t o  exaggerate th e  uncertainty. If w eg loss  ov er the unce rtai n ty t o em p ha siz e  thebotto ml in e , then the anti-sci en ce sid e wil l unfairly ex ploit that t o  say wearee ng a ged in a cover -up a nd are bei n g uncrit ical. 

It isa no-wins c enario,whi chisoft e n  t he case whend e alin gwith th ose  who pu t i deo log y a bo ve scienc e and re as on .Th eyaren’ t  playing  f air ,whi ch ca n  givethema rh et or i cal  advant a ge o verso me onehon es tly t ryin g  to  be fai r.

It is  al s o alo teasierto create and  e xploit dou bt  an d conf u s ion, tha n to give a thorough un d erstand ing  of a  com plex topi c.
Stilg oec onclud es:

E xpert  g rou p s  areo f te n r el ied upon b y pol itici an s to  tidy u p the facts on con t ent ious issues.Itrare l y  w ork s .P eop le don ’ t  like being pat ronised wi th ea sy answers whe re  thereare non e tof ind. Wi th mobile  phones,agrou p ofexperts to ok a dif ferent ap p roach .  T hey i nst ead ad mi tte d tha t ther e  ar e unc ertain ti es and  trus te d in cit izens’ ability to navig ate th em. W hen  it comes  to cli mate chan ge,Wi-Fi, GMcro ps,  vacc ine s  andmobi l epho n es, t here will alwa y sbes c ie ntific grey a r eas . Ifexp e rts wa nt t o regain their cr e dibility, they  urg e n tly  ne e d to  f ind ways to ta lkab o u t them.
I  agree with  this ba si c  appr oach,but wo uld emp h a si z e diff eren t p oints. Ials os eem todi sa g ree wi th h im  regar ding h o w un c e rtain we are abo ut th e topic s  he  uses  a s examp l es.
The solut ion to thedilemm a, i n myopinion ,is tha t t he  scientifi c  communit y, sc ience c om muni cat ors, j ourn a l ists,  and  g ove rnment ex p e rt s  n ee d  to  dev elopacomm on langua g e with t hep ublic f or  co m m unicat i ng a bout risk.  Ri ght n o w  there isc onfu s io n .

 Jill_Stein:

She said_that there were ‘real_questions’ about_the_dangers of_vaccines,_that GM foods_have ‘not been_proven safe’ and that_‘more more research_is_needed’ on the risks of electromagnetic fields. … As with climate change, it is_tempting_to claim_that_the_science is certain, the evidence_is clear and the debate_should move_on. Things are rarely so black-and-white. In politics,_the_facts don’t speak_for themselves, so it falls to experts to make_sense of the shades of grey.

Stilgoe_is speaking of_a_dilemma_faced by experts and_science communicators when dealing with political_or ideological opinions that diverge from_the scientific consensus. The real dilemma is_that if we communicate the science_in technically accurate detail, it_seems as_if we are equivocating and_those on the_anti-science side_will unfairly exploit_this to exaggerate the uncertainty. If_we gloss over_the uncertainty to emphasize the bottom_line,_then the anti-science_side_will_unfairly exploit_that to say_we_are engaged_in_a cover-up and are being uncritical.

It_is_a no-win scenario, which is often the_case when dealing with_those_who put ideology above_science and reason. They aren’t_playing fair, which can give them_a rhetorical_advantage over_someone honestly trying to be fair.

It is also a lot easier_to create and exploit doubt and_confusion, than to give_a thorough_understanding_of a complex_topic.

Stilgoe_concludes:

Expert groups_are often relied upon by politicians to_tidy up_the facts on contentious issues. It_rarely works. People don’t_like_being patronised with easy answers where_there are none to find. With_mobile phones, a group of_experts_took_a different approach. They instead_admitted that there are uncertainties and_trusted in citizens’_ability to navigate them. When it comes_to_climate change, Wi-Fi, GM crops, vaccines_and_mobile phones, there will always be_scientific_grey_areas. If experts want to_regain their credibility, they urgently need_to find ways to talk about them.

I agree with_this basic approach,_but would emphasize different points._I_also_seem to disagree with him regarding how uncertain we are_about the_topics he uses_as examples.

The solution to the dilemma, in my opinion, is_that the scientific community, science communicators, journalists,_and government experts need to develop a common language with the_public for communicating about risk. Right now there_is confusion.
