The controversy surrounding the release of a paper denying significant global warming just prior to the Copenhagen climate round in December is indicative of the extent to which science is politicized in public discourse. According to The New York Times, “...in a 1999 e-mail exchange about charts showing climate patterns over the last two millenniums, Phil Jones, a longtime climate researcher at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, said he had used a “trick” employed by another scientist, Michael Mann, to “hide the decline” in temperatures.’”

The current attempt to undermine the credibility of the UN IGPC and its head, Rajendra Pachauri, the Noble Prize winner, is a real set back to those seeking scientific consensus on the reality of climate change. Climate deniers are trying to undermine the entire body of the IGPC work by finding needle-in-haystack mistakes among the reams of data that were assembled, reviewed and validated. Scientists in the Climate debate must evolve from merely playing “Paul Revere,” raising awareness and refuting mis-information. They have to adopt a more disciplined approach regardless of the implications for the battle lines of the debate.

I spoke this morning with Howard Schneider, dean of the journalism school at Stony Brook University in Long Island, about their innovative program to improve scientists’ ability to communicate on matters of public interest. The Center for Communicating Science was conceived by actor Alan Alda, formerly of MASH and host of Scientific American Frontiers on PBS, and former Stony Brook President Shirley Kenney, in cooperation with Cold Spring Harbor and Brookhaven Labs.

Alda told Schneider that in the course of his 13 year run as host of the PBS show, “he met superb scientists with great stories about their research. But they were just not equipped to tell those stories.” Schneider, a former Newsday journalist and editor, continued, “so many critical public policy issues, from climate change to stem cell research, depend on scientific acuity. But scientists also have the obligation to communicate their findings effectively.” Many journalists are also not equipped to tell scientific stories, according to Schneider. “We will offer graduate programs in journalism specializing in science writing. These will be open to PR people.”

Alda has employed teaching methods from the theater to improve scientists’ delivery of accurate and compelling information. In addition to Alda, instructors at the Center will include Andrew Revkin, former NY Times climate reporter, Carolyn Porco, director of the NASA Saturn project, and Jack Marburger, former national science advisor to the Bush Administration.

Those of us in PR must be careful to work with the scientists not simply to bestow credibility but also to explain the findings in a factual, not biased, manner. It is the role of those who can stand behind data to provide a hypothesis on what it means, and for those in the policy realm to debate the government actions. To conflate the two roles is a recipe for disaster. We can also ensure there is transparency behind research funding, and relationships between clients, scientists and third party organizations.