The deficit model of science is the idea that the public has a "knowledge deficit" that affects perceptions of science and scientists. The model thus assumes that science communicators can change attitudes towards science, environmental issues, etc and affect by providing more information. The session would begin with an explanation of what the the deficit model is and the current thinking about it's validity. We would then explore what it all means for science communicators. The goal of the session is not to make a case that science education is pointless, but rather to think about what it can realistically achieve and why we are doing it? Lets make sure the outcomes match the goals.
Questions: What is the deficit model, and what are examples of how it shapes outreach efforts? If we all know better, why do we still fall victim to fallacies of deficit model thinking about science communication? What are the valid models of effective information transfer and behavior change? What, EXACTLY, are the best practices in science communication right now?