Reflections on Science Communication in the Context of Global

May 31, 2019 - ... 22nd Conference of the Parties (COP22) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in November 2016...
6 downloads 0 Views 3MB Size
Download PDF
Chapter 12

Reflections on Science Communication in the Context of Global Climate Policy Downloaded via IDAHO STATE UNIV on July 17, 2019 at 16:13:40 (UTC). See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

Alice N. Henderson* Agricultural & Environmental Chemistry Graduate Group, University of California, Davis, One Shields Avenue, Davis, California 95616, United States *E-mail: [email protected].

To promote climate-change literacy and education, I joined student representatives of the American Chemical Society at the 22nd Conference of the Parties (COP22) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in November 2016. I spent the week considering challenges to effective science communication as well as strategies to improve the relationship between science, public policy, and decision-makers. Climate policy issues lie at the boundary between science and society. Effective solutions require communication among scientific, policymaking, and public communities. Through my experience at COP22, as well as through research on the history and current science of science communication, I make the case for improved communication training, research, and efforts from students, universities, scientific organizations, and government agencies alike.

Introduction Political tensions in the United States, particularly over issues of environmental regulations and the factual basis of scientific knowledge, have made it increasingly clear that scientists are in the midst of a communication crisis. The scientific community increasingly recognizes that much of the general public and many of our influential leaders do not relate to or connect with scientific data when presented with numbers, charts, and figures (1–3). In the United States, this contributes to a general distrust of the very institution of science. At the same time, many scientists lack training and tools with which to relate their technical, detailed work to the needs of communities and the lives of individuals. This divide between science and society presents real challenges to those seeking to communicate technical research concepts. The American Chemical Society (ACS) is engaged in these issues. The ACS Strategic Plan for 2018 and beyond lists “communicate chemistry’s value” as one of its four key goals, along with “provide information,” “empower members and member communities,” and “support excellence in education (4).” Furthermore, our Public Policy Statement on Climate Change urges the United © 2019 American Chemical Society

Peterman et al.; Global Consensus on Climate Change: Paris Agreement and the Path Beyond ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.

States government to promote “climate science literacy and education for citizens and policymakers about climate change impacts” as an important action to combat climate change (5). In support of this proposed action, the ACS has selected student representatives each year since 2010 to represent the organization as official nongovernmental organization observers at the yearly Conference of the Parties (COP) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (6). While attending the 22nd Conference of the Parties (COP22) in Marrakesh, Morocco, I interacted with policymakers, scientists, diplomats, politicians, activists, and other professionals whose work traverses the landscape around science and society. I was particularly drawn to the issues of science communication and the role of science in the public sphere during my final year completing a BS in chemistry, BA in French, and minor in environmental studies in 2016. I reflected on these issues throughout my COP22 experience, including a 2-day training in Washington, DC meeting policymakers and presenting at the spring ACS National Meeting in San Francisco. Today, I work as an AmeriCorps member at the Washington State Department of Ecology, collecting beach elevation data to investigate coastal sediment transport patterns on behalf of local decision-makers. In this chapter, I seek to present an overview of the challenges faced by scientists, communicators, and decision-makers when seeking to engage with each other across boundaries. These reflections are based on history and current social science of science communication as well as on numerous conversations I had and presentations I attended at COP22. I seek not to provide answers but to analyze challenges and describe examples of promising strategies.

History and Philosophy of Science Communication How should chemists and other scientists effectively communicate their work in an increasingly political and polarized public sphere? This question first interested me during my final year as an undergraduate completing senior theses in both chemistry and French. My senior thesis in French focused on selected works from Antoine Lavoisier (1743–1794), widely regarded as the father of modern chemistry (7). Simultaneously a chemist, revolutionary, and educator, Antoine Lavoisier played a unique role in history. He is widely celebrated for overturning the accepted theory of combustion, improving chemical instrumentation, and developing chemical nomenclature. Despite this laudatory, popular account, modern historians have been conflicted as to whether his reputation is entirely merited. Science historian and philosopher Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent goes so far as to describe Lavoisier’s public image as a “cult” based on political interests and national pride (8). Despite criticisms of Lavoisier’s reputation and contributions to the field of chemistry, he was indisputably effective at making himself, and his science, publicly known. Lavoisier was conscious of a perceived gap between the humanities and the sciences, between public functions (fonctions publiques) and mechanical arts (arts méchaniques), but he described underlying ties between these camps, making them equally accessible to an educated public. The Age of Enlightenment, a European intellectual movement during the late 17th and the 18th centuries, promoted faith in human reasoning as opposed to faith in tradition. This movement was based on the works of numerous influential philosophers, but Lavoisier was particularly influenced by Étienne Bonnot de Condillac’s empiricist philosophy. Condillac argued that knowledge should emerge from simple factual data, as opposed to complex descriptions of history or philosophy (9). Lavoisier’s efforts to publicize chemistry among Parisians were heavily influenced by these Enlightenment ideals. His public demonstrations, seminal textbook, and a speech near the end of his life advocating public education in the sciences were based on a fundamental faith in human reasoning and the belief that if given the right tools and basic principles, the public could both understand more-complex concepts of chemistry and engage themselves in the practice of chemical experimentation. 108 Peterman et al.; Global Consensus on Climate Change: Paris Agreement and the Path Beyond ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.

Although Lavoisier sought to publicize science and to educate a reasoning and discerning public as participants in scientific progress, today, his life and accomplishments are predominantly popularized. The distinction between publicization and popularization is important to note. While publicization involves teaching and discussing complex ideas with the goal of public understanding and engagement, popularization sells ideas with the goal of public consumption. This distinction has ramifications for the way the public understands, misunderstands, trusts, and mistrusts the process of science and scientific discovery today. Particularly in the area of climate science and policy, the consequences are critical. History of science Professor Peter J. Bowler describes popularization as a one-way relation between producers and consumers of science, which “all went terribly wrong as the problems of nuclear power, pollution, and the environment convinced the public that the expansion of science and technology was not an unmixed blessing (10).” Public distrust toward science and scientists invites inquiry into the relationship between science and the public. Lavoisier’s life and works provide examples of scientific publication in the past as ways to consider and critique the role of science communication today, especially the distinction between publicization and popularization. The work of Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent, professor of history and philosophy of science at the University of Paris, focuses on the anthropology of new technologies, as well as on the relationship between science and the public, including concepts of publicization and popularization. In her 1995 work entitled “The Savants and the Rest,” Bensaude-Vincent describes the “void” between scientists and laypeople and how efforts in “the popularization of science” have developed over time (11). She is particularly critical of the tradition of science popularization as it has reinforced the gap between scientists and the public. Traditional popularization elevates the work of scientists while demeaning public consumers treated as “[a] vague, supposedly inert mass, a passive repository of messages imprinted upon it by those who make it or pass on knowledge (11).” Bensaude-Vincent concludes that this strategy and philosophy of science communication is not only ineffective but also may reinforce the very gap it intends to bridge. Although we may view the separation between professional scientists and the general public as “natural and necessary,” it developed slowly and “sometimes rather haphazardly” over time. As she lays out in further detail in “A Genealogy of the Increasing Gap between Science and the Public,” The Enlightenment political notion of public opinion…blurred the distinction between science and the public by encouraging everyone to the practice of science. The nineteenth century more sociologic notion of the public as a mass of consumers encouraged the distinction between science producers and science consumers. Yet, it maintained continuity between them. It is only in the twentieth century that a depreciative image of the public emerged. Never before had the public been disqualified and deprived of its faculty of judgement to such an extent (12). Although developed recently, the divide today between science and the public is entrenched to a problematic extent. In 1894, H.G. Wells, an English writer best known for his science fiction novels, warned that if the public remains disinterested in scientific investigation, “[t]here is not only the danger of supplies being cut off, but of their being misapplied by a public whose scientific education is being neglected (13)…” Scientists need clear communication to ensure funding for their projects and to ensure against misuse or misrepresentation of their work. Genomic research in indigenous communities is an example of scientific research with both a past and potential future of scientific misconduct and ethical challenges. In a 2010 work titled “Bridging the Divide between Genomic 109 Peterman et al.; Global Consensus on Climate Change: Paris Agreement and the Path Beyond ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.

Science and Indigenous Peoples,” Bette Jacobs, professor and co-founder of the Georgetown University O’Neil Health Law Institute, and her colleagues describe these ethical implications as well as strategies to conduct genomic research more ethically. As they put it, “[…] the history of biomedical research among people in indigenous and developing nations offers salient examples of unethical practice, misuse of data and failed promises (14).” Genomic research in these communities must develop in a more collaborative fashion, including improved communication practices from researchers. “This may mean the difference between success and failure in genomic science, and in improving health for all peoples (14).” It is easy to consider a similar argument in the case of climatechange research, in which the fate of our planet is at stake. When it comes to solutions, Bensaude-Vincent argues the first and most important step is overcoming the perception of the public as deficient in scientific aptitude in the presence of professionals who graciously condescend to share their superior knowledge and expertise. Despite the perceived chasm between “the savants and the rest,” “[…] ignorance is what humanity has most in common (11).” Not to say that scientists and communicators should encourage ignorance, promoting an end to the pursuit of knowledge, but, as we continue to seek answers, scientists must find ways to make public how much we still do not know and to what extent we are uncertain of what we do. Science historian Naomi Oreskes makes a similar argument at the close of a 2014 talk sponsored by Technology, Entertainment, and Design Conferences. She explains that trust in science should not be based on the credentials or expertise of any individual scientist but on the experience and knowledge accumulated over hundreds of years by tens of thousands of people. “Our trust in science, like science itself, should be based on evidence, and that means that scientists have to become better communicators. They have to explain to us not just what they know but how they know it […] (15).”

Current Science of Science Communication Scientists and the public do not see things in the same way. In fact, a recent Pew Research Center study identified a significant “agreement gap” for several controversial issues including climate change. Whereas 87% of scientists agreed that climate change is primarily due to human activity, 50% of U.S. adults held the same opinion, an agreement gap of 37% (15). The problem extends beyond climate change. In the United States, scientific consensus on issues from the moon landing to the safety of vaccinations and genetically modified foods faces furious opposition (16). Regarding climate change, however, this controversy has especially dangerous potential. The more politicians perceive (accurately or otherwise) that climate change is not a priority for their constituencies, the less likely they will be to support initiatives to decrease carbon emissions, increase investment in renewable energy, and support other measures to combat a changing climate. So what do we do to close this consensus gap? I argue that the answer lies in part with how scientists communicate with and relate to the public. The work of social scientists today corroborates Bensaude-Vincent’s arguments against popularizing science by treating the public as deficient in scientific capacity. Dan M. Kahan of the Yale Law School describes this line of reasoning as the “public irrationality thesis,” which “attributes public controversy over climate change, in effect, to a deficit in public comprehension (17).” Contrary to the public irrationality thesis, Kahan’s science comprehension measurements were not positively correlated with climate-change risk perception. Thus, they found that a more scientifically literate person was not more likely to interpret climate change as an extreme risk (17). In addition to this key study, Kahan’s group tested the hypothesis of “cultural cognition,” the idea that people interpret risks in a way that connects them more closely 110 Peterman et al.; Global Consensus on Climate Change: Paris Agreement and the Path Beyond ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.

with those who share their cultural values. They asked a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults whether they viewed particular scientists as “knowledgeable and credible experts” on climate change, nuclear waste, and gun control based on their credentials and arguments. The credentials of each scientist were described identically. Then for each scientist, participants were shown a sample of writing with either an extreme, “high-risk” position or a more moderate, “low-risk” position on their issue (17). In support of the cultural cognition hypothesis, they found that people were more likely to identify scientists as experts when their written positions aligned with the participants’ own cultural groups. This work suggests that, when it comes to contentious issues such as climate change, people reason primarily based on their cultural worldview, not, as is often assumed, on an objective understanding of scientific concepts. This is not to say that people do not understand the science or that they are rationally deficient. On the contrary, Kahan’s work suggests that individuals are extremely rationally proficient at taking from science communication the information about climate change that is most relevant to their everyday lives. That is, while climate change is an extreme risk in the long term, the risks associated with an individual dissociating from their peers is considerably greater in the short term. In a more detailed study of cultural worldviews, values, and practices that contribute to public denial and apathy around climate change, Kari Marie Norgaard, professor of sociology at the University of Oregon, conducted interviews in Bygdaby, the fictional name of an actual rural community in western Norway. In 2000–2001, a highly publicized, unusually warm winter brought severe flooding and negative effects to the local ski area and ice fishing in Bygdaby. Norgaard found “[…] despite the fact that people were clearly aware of global warming as a phenomenon, everyday life in Bygdaby went on as though it did not exist (18).” Her eventual justification for this confusing phenomenon is “socially organized denial.” Similar to arguments from Kahan (although in reference to a different population), the problem with public apathy about climate change is not that people do not know enough about the science or care enough about the planet and human neighbors, but that “[…] these qualities are acutely present but actively muted in order to protect individual identity and sense of empowerment and to maintain culturally produced conceptions of reality (18).” Although it would be logical for a community so directly affected by climate change to take immediate action, modifying daily life in ways that would reduce risk of future climate change, Norgaard found social and cultural barriers to such action. Andrew Hoffman, professor in both the School of Business and the School of Environment and Sustainability at the University of Michigan, has published extensively in the areas of institutional and cultural change, organizational theory, and corporate environmental strategies. In his 2015 book How Culture Shapes the Climate Change Debate, Hoffman cites both Kahan and Norgaard among many others in an overview of social science research in climate science communication and risk perception. He adamantly concludes… More science, though important, will not by itself change people’s minds and create the collective will to act […] The debate over climate change is not about greenhouse gasses and climate models alone. It is about the competing worldviews and cultural beliefs of people who must accept the science, even when it challenges those beliefs. When engaging the debate, we must think not only of the science of climate change, but also about the sociopolitical processes and tactics necessary to get people to hear it (19). It is increasingly apparent that closing the “agreement gap (15)” between scientists and the general public over climate change must involve careful consideration of the social sciences of science 111 Peterman et al.; Global Consensus on Climate Change: Paris Agreement and the Path Beyond ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.

communication and risk perception as well as further studies in the tactics and strategies that science communicators can employ to overcome cultural cognition, competing worldviews, and socially organized denial. We need communication strategies that not only share accurate science but also those that make this evidence compatible with a diverse array of cultural groups and worldviews. What are those strategies? How can scientists better communicate their work with policymakers and other decision-makers? These were the questions I considered most closely during my week at COP22 in November 2016.

Science Communication and the COP22 Experience The international body tasked with global climate-change solutions is the UNFCCC. The yearly COP brings together politicians, diplomats, policymakers, activists, scientists, and public observers to negotiate, call attention to emerging issues, and network. With so many intersecting backgrounds, agendas, and ideas, the COP was a particularly rich environment to consider the dynamics of science communication. There were daily, large formal meetings in the huge main auditorium with seats for each party’s (each country’s) representatives, large monitors projecting the current speaker, and seats for observers at the back of the room. Also ongoing were many smaller official meetings, closed-door meetings, press conferences, and less-formal side events, including a wide variety of panels and presentations with speakers from all over the world. Protests and demonstrations also occurred frequently, especially in the public Green Zone. During my week at COP22, I listened to professionals, activists, and scientists discuss current climate research and projections as well as questions of human rights, equity, and best practices for community-based research and adaptation. Key barriers scientists face in communication include gaps in communication skills, the freedom to make errors and disagree, maintaining objectivity, and time. In conversation, one woman working in both science and policy held that the “ivory tower” separating scientists from the rest of society is there for a reason. She argued that scientists need space and freedom to conduct their work without worrying about politics. Scientists need room to make errors and disagree with each other; this process is especially difficult to communicate to the public in an accurate, understandable way. Many scientists worry that engaging with the public or policymaking will damage their objectivity and credibility. Effective communication involves trust, relationships, and significant investment of time. Many scientists are simply overburdened with other time commitments. Despite these weighty challenges, it is also increasingly clear that better communication of scientific data around climate change is crucial. Communication and education were frequently identified as areas needing growth in the sessions I attended. In a panel organized by the research and independent nongovernmental organizations, panelists called for increased collaboration both internationally and across disciplines. One speaker remarked that the Paris Agreement marks a paradigm shift toward more long-term capacity building goals including education and research. Panelists also commented on the need for scientists to consider their role in climate policy and find ways to engage in activism, pursuing more research thinking beyond our journals and the academic bubble. While at COP22, I came to recognize that climate science communication issues are also wrapped up in questions of equity and the larger role of science in society. Panelist Sander Chan from the German Development Institute remarked on the need for more collaborative research, especially between the global north and global south. Saleemul Huq, director of the International Centre for Climate Change and Development, called for increased efforts in community-based adaptation, connecting scientists directly with communities to develop more effective research questions and 112 Peterman et al.; Global Consensus on Climate Change: Paris Agreement and the Path Beyond ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.

adaptation strategies. Establishing these connections and partnerships requires effective communication and continuous engagement, which can also result in better science as well as better public understanding of its goals, processes, and conclusions. In search of communication solutions, I made note of examples throughout the week. The conference venue was saturated with professionals sharing strategies, emerging concerns, and official UNFCCC business with an array of conference participants representing environmental interests, scientific research, business and industry, and—to a lesser extent—farmers, women, and gender interests, youth, trade union interests, indigenous peoples, local government, and municipal authorities. Many attending parties (countries) host booths with presentations highlighting their countries’ efforts including interactive displays and paper handouts and booklets for conference attendees. The U.S. Center, for example, shared climate science from the federal science agencies and their partner organizations throughout the week through presentations, panel discussions, and interactive displays. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) provided a large interactive digital video globe known as “Dynamic Planet” (Figure 1) and visualizations on a giant screen, the “Hyperwall,” displaying a map of the world cycling through various climate measurements from NASA satellite data. Staff sought to engage an audience outside the COP venue by livestreaming all U.S. Center presentations at the U.S. State Department website and inviting questions from the public on Twitter with the hashtag “#askuscenter.”

Figure 1. “Dynamic Planet,” an interactive display of NASA satellite data at the U.S. Center during COP22. Photo courtesy of Alice Henderson. 113 Peterman et al.; Global Consensus on Climate Change: Paris Agreement and the Path Beyond ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.

While each country organized their own set of presentations, the hosting country, Morocco, designed the entire conference venue to highlight a mission of climate action. The main walkway through the formal “Blue Zone” was lined with sculptures from local artist Nordine Znati, created from discarded pieces of metal. I spoke with Znati, and he described the messages he hoped to convey to policymakers and the rest of the world, including the severe risks of climate change as well as potential solutions. One piece presented the plight of climate refugees— metal birds with heads bent carry with them the front door from their home, which reads, “Dr. Typhoon Iceberg has changed his address” (Figure 2). Another displays a brother and sister happily walking while the sister carries a platter of bread to be baked (Figure 3). The sculpture represents new energy sources including wind and solar, represented by a pinwheel and a bright yellow skirt and plastic panel. Art is a powerful communication tool often overlooked in the sciences. Znati’s sculptures seek to influence reality and communicate a clear message to conference participants and a global audience following conference proceedings.

Figure 2. Climate Refugees, sculpture by Nordine Znati displayed at COP22. Photo courtesy of Alice Henderson. In addition to noticing communication strategies at COP22, I heard many suggestions for improvement during side events and conversations. One key suggestion was to find ways to engage policymakers in scientific conferences. Developing new spaces and platforms to integrate science and policy would help to bridge divides between these fields. Promising examples include the International Conference on Community-Based Adaptation, where attendees spend the first 2 days visiting a local community (20), and the National Adaptation Forum, an organization that engages multiple perspectives across sectors, geographies, or stakeholders to address adaptation needs. Another theme for improvement discussed during the COP was increased research partnerships across geopolitical boundaries, especially between countries with differing scientific enterprises (21). Encouraging study abroad opportunities for students in the sciences could help develop such partnerships. Programs such as Fulbright, offering research, study, and teaching opportunities abroad to U.S. students (22); DIVERSITAS, an international program of biodiversity science (23); and START International, a program providing opportunities that advance solutions to sustainability challenges (24) all provide opportunities for international research collaboration, which can lead to long-term engagement across borders. I also heard calls for improved communication training for students of the sciences. Universities simply have not trained scientists to be strong communicators, especially not to general audiences. Although we are trained to use specific technical vocabulary and formatting conventions for official publications, we are not often encouraged to communicate our work in less formal settings and formats or to make academic connections with those studying 114 Peterman et al.; Global Consensus on Climate Change: Paris Agreement and the Path Beyond ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.

fields different from our own. Communication platforms have widely expanded in recent decades from blogs and vlogs to an array of social media networks. Scientists, on the other hand, have struggled to make this transition effectively and still communicate their work primarily through peerreviewed journal articles that are lengthy and highly technical. Although many scientists—especially younger generations—are actively pursuing more publicly accessible methods of publication and communication, we have a long way to go.

Figure 3. New Energy, a sculpture by Nordine Znati displayed at COP22. Photo courtesy of Alice Henderson.

The Path Forward Climate change is not only a technological problem but also a social problem. Although most attendees of the COP agree that climate change is an urgent concern, they have been largely unable to implement lasting, aggressive, specific solutions, primarily due to minimal political will and general public apathy. The Paris Agreement, culmination of COP21, the 21st Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC represented a huge step forward, the first universal and strongest agreement yet, requiring each country to develop their own plans to reduce carbon emissions as well as plans to ratchet up their commitments every 5 years. Countries signed on at an unprecedented rate, enabling the agreement to enter into force November 4, 2016, just 1 year after the document’s completion. Today, all 197 parties of the UNFCCC have ratified the agreement (25), despite the U.S. president’s announcement that the United States would withdraw from the agreement. It might be a big deal, but some worry it is too little, too late (26). Without changes to public opinion, the political will to effectively limit carbon emissions and pursue other measures in climate-change mitigation will not materialize suddenly from any highlevel diplomatic negotiation. Science communication and messaging strategies are essential tools to influence public opinion. 115 Peterman et al.; Global Consensus on Climate Change: Paris Agreement and the Path Beyond ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.

Furthermore, equity of climate solutions requires many different players to be at the table. Naomi Klein’s article in The Nation, “Why #BlackLivesMatter Should Transform the Climate Debate” begins with the simple question, “What would governments do if black and brown lives counted as much as white lives (27)?” It is well established that damages associated with climate change have already occurred and will not be distributed evenly (28, 29). Article 8 of the Paris Agreement “recognize[s] the importance of averting, minimizing and addressing loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change” and highlights areas of cooperation for dealing with these issues. Furthermore, the agreement “[…] recognize[s] the specific needs and special circumstances of developing country Parties, especially those that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change […] (29)” By engaging communities vulnerable to climate change in the scientific processes measuring changes and developing adaptation strategies, equity of both science and the solution developed increase. Successful communication requires time, trust, relationships, respect, and knowledge. This general conclusion involves immense nuance depending on scientific discipline, location, individual preferences, and audience. No one-size-fits-all template exists. Specific, effective communication strategies will look different in different scientific disciplines and between different individuals. I argue such strategies can improve the effectiveness of communication efforts as well as the quality and equity of scientific inquiry. Better science communication must stem from efforts to bridge, fill in, and cross traditional boundaries between scientists and the public, among scientists around the globe, between natural scientists and social scientists, between scientists and other academics in the humanities, and among scientists, artists, blue-collar workers, millennials, and baby boomers. Especially in the area of climate science, the very future of our planet is at stake.

References 1.

2.

3.

4. 5.

6. 7.

Khullar, D. What Can We Do About the Science Communication Crisis? Scientific American Blog Network [Online], Oct 28, 2015. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/whatcan-we-do-about-the-science-communication-crisis/ (accessed Aug 3, 2018). Czerski, H. A. Crisis of Trust Is Looming Between Scientists and Society—It’s Time To Talk. The Guardian [Online], Jan 27, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2017/ jan/27/a-crisis-of-trust-is-looming-between-scientists-and-society-its-time-to-talk (accessed Aug 2, 2018). Perkins, N. I. Tackling the Real Crisis in Science Communication. Sci. Dev. Net. [Online], April 4, 2012. https://www.scidev.net/index.cfm?originalUrl=/global/influencing/editorials/ tackling-the-real-crisis-in-science-communication-1.html& (accessed Aug 2, 2018). Strategic Plan for 2018 and Beyond. American Chemical Society. https://www.acs.org/ content/dam/acsorg/about/strategicplan/sp18.pdf (accessed Aug 3, 2018). Public Policy Statement 2016–2019: Climate Change, 2016. American Chemical Society. https://www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/policy/publicpolicies/sustainability/ globalclimatechange/climate-change.pdf (accessed Aug 3, 2018). History of the Climate Talks. Students on Climate Change. http://www.studentsonclimatechange. com/history-of-the-program.html (accessed Aug 3, 2018). American Chemical Society International Historic Chemical Landmarks. Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier: The Chemical Revolution. http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/education/ whatischemistry/landmarks/lavoisier.html (accessed Oct 13, 2015). 116 Peterman et al.; Global Consensus on Climate Change: Paris Agreement and the Path Beyond ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

15.

16.

17.

18. 19. 20.

21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

Bensaude-Vincent, B. Une Mythologie Revolutionnaire Dans La Chimie Francaise. Ann. Sci. 1983, 40, 189. Bensaude-Vincent, B. Between History and Memory: Centennial and Bicentennial Images of Lavoisier. Isis. 1996, 87, 481–499. Bowler, P. J. Science for All: The Popularization of Science in Early Twentieth-Century Britain; The University of Chicago Press: Chicago and London, 2009; p 2. Bensaude-Vincent, B. The Savants and the Rest. Diogenes. 1995, 43, 133. Bensaude-Vincent, B. A Genealogy of the Increasing Gap between Science and the Public. Public Underst. Sci. 2001, 10, 99–113. Wells, H. G. Popularising Science. Obs. Mon. Rev. Astron. 1894, 218, 291–294. Jacobs, B.; Roffenbender, J.; Collmann, J.; Cherry, K.; Bitsói, L. L.; Bassett, K.; Evans, C. H. Bridging the Divide Between Genomic Science and Indigenous Peoples. J. Law Med. Ethics. 2010, 38, 684. Pew Research Center. Major Gaps Between the Public, Scientists on Key Issues. Pew Research Center [Online], July 1, 2015. http://www.pewinternet.org/interactives/public-scientistsopinion-gap/ (accessed Aug 22, 2018). Achenbach, J. Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science? National Geographic [Online], March 1, 2015. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2015/03/ science-doubters-climate-change-vaccinations-gmos/ (accessed Aug 4, 2018). Kahan, D. M. Making Climate-Science Communication Evidence-Based—All the Way Down. In Culture, Politics, and Climate Change: How Information Shapes our Common Future [Online]; Boykoff, M. T., Crow, D. A. , Eds.; Routledge Press: Abingdon, Oxon, and New York, 2014; Chapter 10, pp 203–220. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2216469 (accessed July 28, 2018). Norgaard, K. M. Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life; The MIT Press: Cambridge, 2011; pp xvi, 207. Hoffman, A. J. How Culture Shapes the Climate Change Debate; Stanford Briefs; Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA, 2015; p 89. The 11th International Conference on Community-Based Adaptation (CBA11). International Institute for Environment and Development. https://www.iied.org/11th-internationalconference-community-based-adaptation-cba11 (accessed Aug 25, 2018). National Adaptation Forum Vitals. National Adaptation Forum. https://www. nationaladaptationforum.org/ (accessed Aug 25, 2018). Fulbright Association. https://fulbright.org (accessed Aug 26, 2018). DIVERSITAS—International Programme of Biodiversity Science. Union of International Associations. https://uia.org/s/or/en/1100046157 (accessed Aug 26, 2018). About Us. START. https://start.org/about-us/ (accessed Aug 26, 2018). Paris Agreement—Status of Ratification. United Nations Climate Change. https://unfccc.int/ process/the-paris-agreement/status-of-ratification (accessed Aug 4, 2018). The Times Editorial Board. Is the Paris Climate Accord Too Little, Too Late? Los Angeles Times [Online], April 22, 2016. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-0422-climatechange-accord-20160422-story.html (accessed Aug 4, 2018).

117 Peterman et al.; Global Consensus on Climate Change: Paris Agreement and the Path Beyond ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.

27. Klein, N. Why #BlackLivesMatter Should Transform the Climate Debate. The Nation [Online], Dec 12, 2014. https://www.thenation.com/article/what-does-blacklivesmatter-have-doclimate-change/ (accessed Aug 4, 2018). 28. Mogelgaard, K.; McGray, H. When Adaptation Is Not Enough: Paris Agreement Recognizes “Loss and Damage.” World Resources Institute [Online], Dec 24, 2015. https://www.wri.org/ blog/2015/12/when-adaptation-not-enough-paris-agreement-recognizes-loss-and-damage (accessed Aug 10, 2018). 29. Paris Agreement, 2015. United Nations Climate Change. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/ english_paris_agreement.pdf (accessed Aug 22, 2018).

118 Peterman et al.; Global Consensus on Climate Change: Paris Agreement and the Path Beyond ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.