freeze frame

I've been known to poke fun occasionally at the high technical level of the supposedly "general" press conferences organized at APS meetings -- and because the folks who organize them have been my colleagues for more than 10 years, they're very good-natured about enduring my teasing comments. Alternatively, when a press conference hits the ball out of the park, it's only fair that I give credit where credit is due. The three physicists who showed up in the press room at the APS April meeting in Jacksonville on Monday afternoon to talk about the experimental results from MiniBooNE -- officially announced the week before -- hit an unqualified home run. That press conference has become my new gold standard for just how good scientific communication with the press can be.

For those who find the vast array of clever acronyms for esoteric physics experiments confusing, MiniBooNE is short for Mini Booster Neutrino Experiment -- mini because they reduced the number of detectors originally planned from two to one. It's housed at Fermilab, and the centerpiece of the equipment is a stunning array of photodetectors just crying out for a closeup (hence the photo). As high-energy experiments go, it's pretty much just like every other particle collision, barring a few tweaks here and there. A bunch of protons smash into a fixed target, thereby creating a horde of scattered mesons, which last for fractions of a second before decaying into a bunch of neutrinos (of the muon variety; more on this below). The detector, about 500 meters away, picks up the telltale "signatures" of these decay patterns and records them. The subsequent analysis is all-important, because it's easy to confuse the signatures of the events of interest with background noise or an entirely different kind of event altogether.

The above is a pretty straightforward description of the nature of the experiment itself, provided one has a bit of scientific background. It's less informative for someone who hasn't been following the epic Tale of the Neutrino over the years it's been unfolding. I think one of the reasons why MiniBooNE's results have been (to date) mostly discussed among scientists and what one might call the "science trade press" -- which these days includes the scientific blogosphere -- is that it's really tough to sum up exactly what the project was testing and why, in a short and snappy sound bite. And mainstream media, like it or not, is all about the snappy sound bite.

For starters, you've got to define neutrinos, and establish where they fit in the Standard Model of particle physics -- which, depending on how savvy your audience is, might involve defining the Standard Model, too. Then you've got to describe the experiment, how it was set up, and what it found. Finally, you've got to drive home the implications of those results in clear, concise, and relatively jargon-free language. It's easier said than done, especially when you're dealing with a fairly arcane topic like neutrinos, but Janet Conrad, Eric Zimmerman, and Heather Ray (who also wrote an excellent guest post over at Cosmic Variance last week outlining the more technical details from the MiniBooNE experiment) pulled off that nifty hat trick with ease.

First, that all-important definition: Neutrinos are tiny subatomic particles that travel very near the speed of light. Because it's still technically Poetry Month (or Week, or Nanosecond), we feel obliged to mention that John Updike’s 1959 poem, “Cosmic Gall,” pays tribute to the two most defining features of neutrinos: they have no charge and, until quite recently, physicists believed they had no mass. They are extremely difficult to detect, because they very rarely interact with any type of matter, even though they're the most abundant type of particle in the known universe. (They react solely through gravity or via the weak nuclear force, and the latter only kicks in at very short range distances at the atomic level.) Only one out of every 1,000 billion solar neutrinos would collide with an atom on its journey through the earth. Isaac Asimov dubbed them “ghost particles.”

There's a long, rich history filled with fascinating personalities and pivotal experiments concerning these tiny ghost particles, but to fully grasp the significance of what MiniBooNE found, you mostly need to know about neutrino oscillations. See, the current Standard Model posits three different kinds of neutrinos (electron, muon and tau); the most common are the solar (tau? I can never remember which is which) neutrinos that come from our own Sun -- specifically, the nuclear processes taking place at its core. When a neutron inside an atom decays, it produces a proton, an electron, and a neutrino. This occurs hundreds of billions of times every second in the core of stars like our sun, as hydrogen is converted into heavier elements like helium, releasing huge amounts of energy in the process (i.e., sunshine). Trillions of neutrinos are produced by the sun every day.

But for decades, experiment after experiment showed far fewer solar neutrinos than predicted by theory, and it wasn't until the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory announced its results a few years ago that physicists realized those neutrinos weren't really "missing," but were merely in disguise. Solar neutrinos are sneaky little particles: they can actually change into another kind of neutrino as they shoot through space on their way to Earth -- a phenomenon called “neutrino oscillation.” In the past I've employed the analogy of piano strings, which are tuned to specific notes: let’s say G, E and C (notes that comprise the C Major chord). Scientists previously assumed that if a neutrino was born as a G, it would always be a G. But neutrinos can “de-tune” over time, just like the strings on a piano. So a G can gradually become a E, or a C.

It's an admittedly overly broad, imperfect analogy that misses some of the more intriguing subtleties of neutrino oscillations, namely, that the oscillations happen precisely because neutrinos have the tiniest bit of mass. So I was pleased when, at the APS press conference, Janet Conrad came up with a nifty device to illustrate how a small amount of mass can affect neutrinos. She brought in a couple of tuning forks, tuned to the same frequency, except one had a tiny bit of mass added to one of its tines. Then she struck one, then the other, producing a "wah-wah-wah" kind of sound. (The reporter from German Public Radio was thrilled, because that's the kind of thing that's just made for radio.)

It was an excellent demonstration. Like most elementary particles, neutrinos also have a wavelike nature, and waves oscillate back and forth. Add two waves together and you get a new composite wave. And when two very similar notes are played together, there's an interference effect that causes the sound to wobble between loud and soft, producing "beats." Similarly, oscillating neutrinos are comprised of three different waves that combine in different ways as they travel through space. The "beats" are caused by small physical differences in mass that lead to those telltale interference effects. Except neutrinos aren't supposed to have mass. If, indeed, neutrinos oscillate -- as seems to be the case, per experimental results from Japan's  Super-Kamiokande collaboration announced in 1998 -- then they are not the massless particles assumed by the Standard Model. (This doesn't mean the entire Standard Model is wrong, mind you, just that it's imperfect and incomplete -- which we already knew.)

So okay, we've defined neutrinos and their place in particle physics theory, and we've described one of their key properties, this ability to oscillate back and forth between three different species. About 10 years ago, an experiment at Los Alamos threw another unexpected wrinkle into the mix: the possibility of a fourth kind of neutrino, a "sterile" neutrino that would only interact through gravity (apparently the weak nuclear force just isn't good enough for a sterile neutrino, which has a very high opinion of itself). This totally throws off the neat symmetry of the Standard Model, so it was a Very Big Deal (VBD) in particle physics, especially since the level of observed oscillations suggested very different values for neutrino masses than those inferred from prior studies of solar neutrinos and other accelerator-based experiments. MiniBooNE was conceived to test the results of that earlier Liquid Scintillator Neutrino Detector (LSND) experiment. Replicate the same findings, and you'd have solid, experimental confirmation of a fourth kind of neutrino, ergo, potentially exciting new physics beyond the Standard Model.

Of course, once you collect the data, you've got to be able to interpret it correctly, and also ensure that the resulting analysis is free from bias. Now, I'm one of those people who can quickly become catatonic in the face of detailed discussions of data analysis methods, particularly when it comes to the complexities of accelerator data. It doesn't help that said data is usually conveyed in grainy, hard-to-read charts with blurred data points . MiniBooNE's official data chart seems to be a model of clarity in that respect (or maybe it's my new glasses); it's pretty straightforward.

And it's to Heather Ray's considerable credit that not only did I stay awake during her entire presentation, but I was genuinely interested in the unusual approach they used to guard against bias when analyzing MiniBooNE's data. They took a "blind box" approach, meaning that as they were collecting the neutrino data, they didn't even look at any of the data in the "region of interest" (they had a pretty good idea where those telltale oscillation signatures were likely to be from the recorded LSND results). They didn't "unblind" the data and open the box until three weeks before the official announcement. Talk about pressure! But it does ensure against involuntarily tweaking the data points to fit one's expectations.

And what did they find at the great unveiling? There was no telltale oscillation signature, contradicting the LSND findings from 1995. So MiniBooNE's results pretty much rule out that fourth sterile neutrino, thereby verifying the current Standard Model with its three low-mass neutrino species. But it wasn't quite a slam-dunk; a new anomaly presented itself. There were some electron neutrino events detected at low neutrino energies, which means more experiments are needed, this time using a beam of anti-neutrinos. It's a tiny subset of the overall data, but physicists are very detail-oriented, and that tiny bit of data must be explained and accounted for.

This post turned out to be much longer and technically detailed than I'd intended. If you're not feeling a bit mentally muddled right about now, you're probably a physicist. Neutrinos are a tough topic to cover in the general public arena. That's why it's so important to present these kinds of results in the appropriate context, or -- dare I say it? -- framework. I've stayed out of the ongoing "Framing War" in the science blogosphere -- framing is the new "F" word; use it today! -- mostly because there's very little I could add to what's already been said. I'm pretty "pro-framing," though. I've been doing it instinctively for much of my science writing career, without even realizing there was a bona fide term for it. So I know that framing is not the equivalent of "spin", does not require a squelching of "truth," and that, when done properly, it is a powerful tool for communicating scientific research to the general public, and (one hopes) fostering more appreciation for the fact that science is as much a central part of our culture as art, music, or literature.

What is an effective press conference, after all, if not a successful framing of the research result du jour? A month ago, at the APS March Meeting in Denver, I attended a press conference on the latest research on metamaterials, a.k.a., "left-handed materials," because they have a negative index of refraction. It's a cool topic, especially the "superlensing" achieved by Purdue University's Vladimir Shalaev. But the reporters struggled mightily to make sense of the jargon-laded technical presentation; the speaker pretty much showed the same material as he did during his session talk -- an entirely different audience, comprised of his peers. Only during the Q&A did he strike gold, when asked for an analogy that might explain why left-handed materials are so special. He said (and I paraphrase): "Imagine if you dropped a pebble in a pond and the ripples traveled inward instead of outward.... it's just not something that happens in nature."

Bingo! Metaphorical light bulbs lit up in the brains of the assembled reporters. He should have opened with that analogy, thereby providing a solid context for the elaborate technical detail that followed. Compare that rather muddled approach to the simple, well-ordered clarity of the MiniBooNE press conference, with its nifty live demonstration of oscillating effects and carefully structured framework to make sense of a complicated scientific topic. If you were a frazzled journalist on a tight deadline, which press conference would you rather attend? That's the real power of framing.

Comments

[coturnix]

Bingo!

And nobody could frame this better than you!

[Colst]

Except that that doesn't seem to be what framing is.

Ok, before I veer totally off topic, I should say that I enjoyed the post, as usual. I'm not a physicist, but it certainly didn't leave me mentally muddled.

Framing isn't about clear explanations or metaphors. They're used in it, to be sure, but they seem fairly noncontroversial. There's always the debate about whether *particular* metaphors have enough in common with the nitty-gritty version and what details are vital, but that isn't framing as defined by Nisbet & Mooney.

Framing isn't about conveying understanding, it's about getting people to agree with you. "Faced with a daily torrent of news, citizens use their value predispositions (such as political or religious beliefs) as perceptual screens.." Framing, as far as I can make out, is appealing to those value dispositions. The metaphors passed along in this post are great, but I don't see how they "defin[e] a controversy to resonate with core values and assumptions." (both quotes from Nisbet & Mooney's Science piece)

Scientific uncertainty, unfair economic burden, creation stewardship, public accountability, teach-the-controversy, economic development, social progress, and economic competitiveness are all cited as frames by Nisbet & Mooney. Tuning forks and waves in ponds hardly seem to fit on this list.

After that, you may think I reject framing. I don't. For example, I think environmentalism as creation stewardship and a field for economic developments are both great strategies. On the other hand, I am having trouble figuring out how "a special point of view, emphasis, or interpretation presented for the purpose of influencing opinion" is so vastly different from "par[ing] down complex issues by giving some aspects greater emphasis" and "resonat[ing] with core values and assumptions." Since my post on Thursday on Nisbet's blog never made it, I doubt I'll get my answer.

But enough of the off-topic junk.

Good post. I may make use of that tuning fork demonstration next time I teach about beat frequencies.

[Jennifer Ouellette]

I'm actually well aware of that element of framing, and like you, it doesn't change my mostly positive opinion of it. But I'd argue that using metaphor/analogy, conceiving of a well-ordered press conference with a focused, targeted message, are absolutely part and parcel of good framing, essential elements of bringing others around to your point of view. Scientists rather naively think that all they have to do is present "facts" and the public will come around to their way of thinking. They're loathe to admit that it's not enough -- the public rarely finds mere statement of fact to be a persuasive argument, which is why "spin" -- the misuse/abuse of framing, turning communication of facts to make a point into manipulative propaganda -- has proven so effective in the political arena.

[coturnix]

Yes, it's about getting people to agree with you. That is the final goal.

But, in some contexts, for some topics, for some audiences, the best way to reach that goal is to get them to unerstand what you are saying. Other scientists, your students, lay-people interested in science can be reached that way in most cases.

But getting them to understand you is not always necessary. Getting them to trust you is sufficient to reach your goal in some cases. For people who have no time or inclination to listen to you long enough, or to exert enough mental effort to meet you half-way in understanding you, all you want them to do is to accept your authority - to believe your words when you say that the sky is blue. This is a big deal, as those people may have thought, because of the spin by some other interest group, that sky is really pink. Or perhaps they never thought about the question before. But those are the people who will never think to look up and see for themselves what color the sky really is. If you manage to get them to believe that sky is blue, your goal is fulfilled - in the next election they will vote for the guy who says that the sky is blue and not for the guy who insists that the sky is pink. No understanding, but this kind of persuasion is sometimes necessary for a broader good (e.g., getting the people to pressure the government to do something about global warming, etc.).

[TBB]

-Colst said: Framing isn't about conveying understanding, it's about getting people to agree with you. "Faced with a daily torrent of news, citizens use their value predispositions (such as political or religious beliefs) as perceptual screens.." Framing, as far as I can make out, is appealing to those value dispositions.

That is well said. That's exactly how *framing* for the purposes of controversial science issues should be thought of. "Value dispositions" is right on.

-Colst said: The metaphors passed along in this post are great, but I don't see how they "defin[e] a controversy to resonate with core values and assumptions." (both quotes from Nisbet & Mooney's Science piece)

Jennifer isn't framing here in her post; in fact, I've read every post on this blog plus her first book and she doesn't frame - she's describing the picture, so to speak. And metaphors and analogies are *wonderful* for her purposes - to make science interesting, especially to the layperson, so they can "get the picture." As with art, the frame is how you hang the picture, how you accentuate it, and the frame you choose can greatly enhance or detract from the picture. Lots of work goes into picking the right frames to bring out certain qualities in the picture. So, I see that you both appear to have a grip on what has become a really boring topic to read in the Science Blogosphere now.

Coturnix and Orac have done much to make it sensible, which could have been easily avoided in the first place. And Coturnix gave some concrete examples, which is all that really matters now and should have been done from the get-go.

Nice posts lately, Jennifer, and I enjoyed your latest piece at 3QuarksDaily re Alice Cooper. Vincent Price's part on "Welcome to My Nightmare" could be a little lesson on arachnids. I know that one by heart. ;-)

[Jennifer Ouellette]

The example I used in the post, the press conference, is most definitely all about framing. as for what I do -- it's a part of framing, it's just a bit more subtle and less overtly political than the Mooney/Nesbit approach. The end goal is the same. The one aspect of the official definition of "Framing" I find uncomfortable is the fact that trusting the source trumps genuine understanding. But just because I find it unconfortable doesn't mean I can't recognize the reality of the public mind.

And that's all I'm gonna say about. :) Because TBB is right, it's been over-discussed in the blogosphere by this point. Besides, I'm moving to Los Angeles in two days, and there's much to be done, which leaves little time for writing blog posts or commenting on other blogs. But I'll be back in full force once I get settled!

[Stephen Uitti]

Framing is spin. Or, at least it's the original definition of spin. The trouble is that spin has been abused and now largely is synonymous with "lie".

Framing requires that you know your audience. That requires a skill, which i call "trailing". From Boy Scouts, you have "tracking" - following someone. And also "trailing" - which is going somewhere, but leaving clues so someone can follow you. To do "trialing", you have to guess what someone else is going to do with your clues. This isn't that common a skill. Can it even be taught? It is just a hair not-the-same as empathy.

So, that was pretty good on neutrinos. So how about that Standard Model? (Wiki does a pretty good job - and in a blog you really don't have to explain it. But if you're standing in front of a group - you might.)

So, you think your audience knows billion, but not trillion? I shy away from billion, because i half expect my audience to be from the UK or somewhere, and there's this ambiguity - a billion might be a million million, or just a thousand million. But you're talking about 10^12, right?

So, a G, an E-flat, and a C walk into a bar. And the bartender says "we don't serve minors here". (The rest of this joke has been omitted because it won't fit into the margin of this blog.)