Social scientists? And if there is a more scandal-ridden field in science today than theirs, we’ve not heard of it.
Creation-Evolution Headlines quotes examples of prescriptions for manipulating a doubtful public, and observes,
None of these papers suggest that scientists might be terribly wrong in their consensus views. None of them leave room for maverick scientists to buck the consensus. The “information delivery” is always assumed to be necessarily one-way: from scientist to “nonexpert.” The focus is on how to nudge the public toward the scientists’ view, even if it “raises ethical considerations.” It may be necessary, for instance, to dumb down the message in storybook format with lots of pictures. Prime examples of subjects needing effective information delivery to a resistant public are (1) the teaching of evolution and (2) gaining political support for action on climate change.
A similar attitude was expressed in Nature in a book review of Naomi Klein’s new book with the chilling title, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs the Climate. Reviewer Nico Stehr thinks Klein overstated her case a bit, but agrees substantially: “The special appeal of Klein’s position is her insight that any successful effort to curb emissions or adapt to climate change demands popular, pragmatic and sensible transformative goals that go well beyond mere fencing in” (i.e., well beyond merely blocking capitalist attempts to increase energy production or continue “business as usual”). Klein and Stehr are looking at bigger goals: “the potential catalyst that will bring about an alternative future” More.
Alternative future: A future only a pressure group wants
See also: You? A guru effect victim? (Dan Sperber: he Guru Effect – the tendency for people to “judge profound what they have failed to grasp.”)