Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This essay describes the ethos (i.e. the character projected to specific audiences) of the 25 Nobel Lectures in Physics, Chemistry, and Physiology or Medicine given in 2013–2015 and the 15 Presentation Speeches given at the Nobel Banquets between 2011 and 2015. A thematically focused qualitative analysis grounded in theories of epideictic discourse indicates the Nobel speakers demonstrated a range of strategies for and degrees of success in negotiating the tensions created by the implicit demands of ceremonial speeches, the scientific emphasis on didactic style and research content, and the different potential audiences (scientific experts and interested publics). Relatively few speeches explicitly displayed goodwill toward humanity instead of primarily toward the scientific community. Some speakers emphasized qualities of goodness in line with social values shared by broad audiences, but some reinforced stereotypes of scientists as anti-social. Speakers were variable in their ability to bridge the substantial gaps in resources for shared good sense.

Keywords

discourses of science interaction experts/ publics media and science media representations popularization of science public understanding of science representations of science science and popular culture science attitudes and perceptions science communication

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aristotle (350 BCE) The Rhetoric (trans. Roberts

Rhys

). Available at: http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric.1.i.html (accessed 17 March 2017).

Baram-Tsabari

Segev

(2015) The half-life of a “teachable moment”: The case of Nobel laureates. Public Understanding of Science 24(3): 326–337.

Beardslee

O’Dowd

(1961) The college-student image of the scientist. Science 133(3457): 997–1001.

Black

(1970) The second persona. Quarterly Journal of Speech 56(2): 109–119.

Burke

(1969) A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Casper

(2007) In praise of carbon, in praise of science: The epideictic rhetoric of the 1996 Nobel Lectures in chemistry. Journal of Business and Technical Communication 21(3): 303–323.

Castell

Charlton

Clemence

et al . (2014) Public attitudes to science 2014. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-attitudes-to-science-2014 (accessed 10 March 2017).

Ceccarelli

(2011) Manufactured scientific controversy: Science, rhetoric, and public debate. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 14(2): 195–228.

Condit

(1985) The functions of epideictic: The Boston Massacre Orations as exemplar. Communication Quarterly 33(4): 284–299.

10.

De Velasco

Campbell

Henry

(eds) (2016) Rethinking Rhetorical Theory, Criticism, and Pedagogy: The Living Art of Michael C. Leff. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.

11.

Evans

(2014) Faith in science in global perspective: Implications for transhumanism. Public Understanding of Science 23(7): 814–832.

12.

Funk

Rainie

(2015) Public and scientists’ views on science and society. Pew Research Center. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/ (accessed 6 March 2017).

13.

Hansson

Moll

Schultheiss

et al . (2016) Remembering Charles B. Huggins’ Nobel Prize for hormonal treatment of prostatic cancer at its 50th anniversary. European Urology 69: 971–972.

14.

Hartelius

(2011) The Rhetoric of Expertise. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

15.

Haynes

(2016) Whatever happened to the “mad, bad” scientist? Overturning the stereotype. Public Understanding of Science 25(1): 34–144.

16.

Hmielowski

Feldman

Myers

et al . (2014) An attack on science? Media use, trust in scientists, and perceptions of global warming. Public Understanding of Science 23(7): 866–883.

17.

Kahan

(2015) Climate-science communication and the measurement problem. Political Psychology 36(Suppl. 1): 1–43.

18.

Kinder

Kam

(2009) Us Against Them: Ethnocentric Foundations of American Opinion. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

19.

Kline

Lamb

Ponds

(2006) Public expectations about access fees and road closures on public lands. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 49(2): 227–240.

20.

Knopf

(1998) How rational is “the rational public”? Evidence from U.S. public opinion on military spending. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 42(5): 544–571.

21.

Konig

Børsen

Emmeche

(2017) The ethos of post-normal science. Futures 91: 12–24.

22.

Krippendorff

(2004) Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

23.

Lagerkvist

(2003) Microbiology and the Nobel Prize. River Edge, NJ: World Scientific Publishing.

24.

Lauer

(2015) Epideictic rhetoric. Communication Research Trends 34(2): 4–18.

25.

Lindlof

Taylor

(2002) Qualitative Communication Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

26.

Lovrich

Jr Pierce

(1986) The good guys and the bad guys in natural resource politics: Content and structure of perceptions of interests among general and attentive publics. The Social Science Journal 23(3): 309–326.

27.

McCroskey

Teven

(1999) Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communication Monographs 66: 90–103.

28.

May

(1988) Trials of Character: The Eloquence of Ciceronian Ethos. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press.

29.

Merton

(1973 [1942]) The normative structure of science. In: Merton

(ed.) The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 267–285.

30.

Merton

Barber

(2004) The diverse significance of serendipity in science. In: Merton

Barber

(eds) The Travels and Adventures of Serendipity: A Study in Sociological Semantics and the Sociology of Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 158–198.

31.

Miller

(2003) The presumptions of expertise: The role of ethos in risk analysis. Configurations 11: 163–201.

32.

Miller

(2004) Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know. Public Understanding of Science 13: 273–294.

33.

Miller

Maner

Becker

(2010) Self-protective biases in group categorization: Threat cues shape the psychological boundary between “us” and “them.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 99(1): 62–77.

34.

Nobel

(1895) Full text of Alfred Nobel’s will. Available at: https://www.nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/will/will-full.html (accessed 17 March 2017).

35.

Nobel Foundation (n.d.) Available at: https://www.nobelprize.org (accessed 17 March 2017).

36.

Okamura

(2016) Dynamic development of public attitudes towards science policymaking. Public Understanding of Science 25(4): 465–479.

37.

Oravec

(1976) “Observation” in Aristotle’s theory of epideictic. Philosophy and Rhetoric 9(3): 162–174.

38.

Pardo

Calvo

(2002) Attitudes toward science among the European public: A methodological analysis. Public Understanding of Science 11: 155–195.

39.

Perelman

Olbrechts-Tyteca

(1969) The New Rhetoric: A Treatise in Argumentation (trans. Wilkinson

Weaver

). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

40.

Pew Research Center (2013) Public esteem for the military still high. Available at: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/07/11/public-esteem-for-military-still-high/ (accessed 6 March 2017).

41.

Pornpitakpan

(2004) The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 34(2): 243–281.

42.

Prewitt

(1982) The public and science policy. Science, Technology and Human Values 7(39): 5–14.

43.

Public Perceptions of Science, Research and Innovation (2014) European Commission. Special Eurobarometer 419. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_419_en.pdf (accessed 6 March 2017).

44.

Rothman

(2013), “The Principle of Membrane Fusion in the Cell,” Nobel Lecture 7 December 2013. Noble.org.

45.

Schinske

Cardenas

Kaliangara

(2015) Uncovering scientist stereotypes and their relationships with student race and student success in a diverse, community college setting. CBE Life Science Education 14: 1–16.

46.

Statutes of the Nobel Foundation. Available at: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_organizations/nobelfoundation/statutes.html#par9 (accessed 12 March 2017).

47.

Steel

Lach

Satyal

(2006) Ideology and scientific credibility: Environmental policy in the American Pacific Northwest. Public Understanding of Science 15: 481–495.

48.

Tsabari

(2017) Nobel Prizes as a teachable moment: Public information seeking of Laureates and their scientific work following Nobel Prize announcements. Presentation at the symposium on “The Nobel Prizes and the Public Image of Science,” Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, 12 May 2017.

49.

Zappen

(1989) Francis Bacon and the historiography of scientific rhetoric. Rhetoric Review 8(1): 74–88.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.07 MB

0.13 MB

0.00 MB