Science was "Framed" I Tell Ya!

ScienceBlogs... has long been abuzz with Matt Nisbet and Chris Mooney's impassioned pleas to the scientific community that scientists begin "framing" their subject matter. PZ Myers of Pharyngula has been one of their greatest critics. The debate has gone so far that Prof. Myers' expulsion from a showing of the latest creationist argumentum ad Hitlerum has been "framed" by Mr. Nisbet as "[r]eally, [r]eally bad for science." In Mr. Nisbet's words:

The simplistic and unscientific claim that more knowledge leads to less religion might be the particular delusion of Dawkins, Myers, and many others, but it is by no means the official position of science, though they often implicitly claim to speak for science.

I am not an experienced exegete of the Pharyngulaic word, but I don't recall Prof. Myers ever claiming he was, as it were, the Voice of Science.

What's worse, I haven't seen or heard Mr. Nisbet on his blog or his recent Point of Inquiry appearance address a concern which for me is core to my own hesitations about "framing science." James Hrynyshyn of Island of Doubt, puts it best (thx to PZ for the link):

Science does embrace simplicity over unnecessary complexity, insofar as parsimony is a useful tool. But scientists are not trained to simplify as an exercise in communications. And they are certainly not trained to emphasize certain elements of their studies at the expense of others just to suit the biases of an audience. (Well, maybe an audience that's reviewing a grant application...) They are trained to do the precise opposite: prioritize according to genuine importance, regardless of who's paying attention.

Indeed, the whole point of science is the pursuit of objectivity, is it not? Framing, by contrast, seems to embrace subjectivity.

So to the scientist, if framing is anything of consequence, then it's contrary to good science. I don't think anyone objects to dressing up science to attract attention. To many scientists, anything more substantial amount to "spin."

This same objection occurred to me after the enthusiam for Lakoff's "Don't Think of an Elephant!" wore off... Isn't this the same crap that Fox News foists upon its audience every day? What's the difference between the "false spin" of the typical FN broadcast and "framing" away the boring, distrubing, or just plain weird aspects of scientific discoveries. I grant the point that repeating over and over again that "science = atheism" is like gift-wrapping your t***icles and sending them to your enemy but where do you draw the line between the personal opinion of one scientist and the "Voice of Science" ? Mr. Nisbet doesn't clearly show us where this line is or even a range where it might be found. I'm not sure there is a clear line between "marketing" and "propaganda," "false spin" and "framing."