Some Candid Responses to Four Questions about Communicating Science

medical communication, medical writing, science communication, scientific writing, scientific communicationWhen I attended the 2014 Conference on Small Molecule Science (CoSMoS) as a budding scientist, I was amazed at the reactions I got from people who were curious about my curiosity about them and genuine desire to help them see the value in adjusting their method and style of communicating science in order to improve their reach, impact and reputation. Some were open, but many were reticent. Others were downright resistant, and that’s understandable. The profession of science has evolved over many decades to embrace not only a method for studying the universe, but a culture to match, and any suggestion to change to that is often going to be met with suspicion. This is particularly true in the forensic sciences, where a person could be sent to prison or even sentenced to death based on how scientific findings are communicated. Given this little conundrum,

  1. How should scientists and engineers talk to the public?
  2. Should they just stick with relating the facts?
  3. Are some scientific topics just too difficult for the general public?
  4. How do they know when they’ve succeeded?

In April 2012, six hundred experts from around the world were in Florence, Italy to attend the 11th International Public Communication of Science and Technology Conference. Four of them were asked these same four questions. Their candid answers directly or indirectly led to the following advice and conclusions:

Know Your Audience

Steve Miller, Professor of Science Communication and Planetary Science at University College London, readily acknowledged that there are old ways of communicating science that still proliferate today based on, I’m the scientist. I know best. I will tell you what you need to know.”

He recalled a time when he had encountered such an attitude when working with the Royal Observatory in Greenwich. The Observatory had been updating its astronomy galleries and the scientists were presented a script that it wanted used, which said things like, “Planets are very small” and, “they don’t really shine.” Miller’s response to the direction was, “Well, who’s your audience going to be? Your audience is going to be very often kids with their parents, and for kids with their parents, mum and dad are ‘big.’ You can fit six billion mums and dads on this planet, so how on Earth do you reach a kid by just saying, ‘Oh, planets are very small’?”

The fact is, as a scientist, while we may very well know a LOT about our particular area of expertise, we don’t know about everything that our work touches or may affect. For this reason, it’s critical to understand what our audience or science and technology “consumer” actually wants or needs, or at least have an idea of their general perspectives (e.g. as a parent, child, high school or graduate student, government program manager, etc.). Otherwise, your message may become lost in transmission.

Some Issues Require more Public Involvement than Others

In the case of GMOs, Massimiano Bucchi, Professor of Science, Technology and Society at the University of Trento in Italy, made it clear how divisions can occur between science and society on that have potentially broad implications issues.

“For several years, actors in the field thought they could apply this uni-linear, paternalistic, top-down model to an issue that, by definition (since it touched on food, equity, diversity, globalization, patenting and property rights, and biodiversity), couldn’t be amenable to a passive process.”

There can be an equal tendency for haughty scientists to get defensive and for ill-informed, but well-intentioned activist movements to gather momentum (especially when it comes to commercial and government activities related to S&T). Getting to the “truth” regarding any issue requires an effort by both parties to first recognize that each has a different perspective that is equally valid. Science is but one path to knowledge, and discernment is a virtue few seem to adopt. Styles of communicating science must therefore be adapted and answers to complex issues sought continuously, critically and holistically to solve the problems we face in this age. Many areas of S&T have the potential to affect people’s lives, and not always in the positive way that researchers may intend.

Jenni Metcalfe, Director of eConnect Communications in Australia, made a specific suggestion empower those with whom you are trying to communicate.

“I think when we speaking with, rather than to, various and different groups, it’s about finding out what they want to know, and in many ways it’s about giving them the power to direct the conversation”

Not Everything in Science Communication Requires Explanation

Bruce V. Lewenstein, Professor of Scientific Communication at Cornell University in the United States had been reading something one of his graduate students had written. It was a research proposal for studying communication about biotechnology, and the student had gone into a two-paragraph explanation of genetic code and genetics. He noted, “I thought, that’s too much. Actually for this audience, they really don’t need to know that. It’s not that it’s talking down to them, it’s that it’s irrelevant.”

On a similar note, scientists and science communicators should not shy away from speaking or writing just because their subject happens to be deeply complex.

Bucchi essentially contends that there needn’t be a requirement to satisfy a list of conditions to determine whether or not a difficult scientific subject is worthy of being communicated. Einstein’s Theory of Relatively is a perfect example of this. “In 1919 when the confirmation of relativity came,” he noted, “the New York Times and the London Times had on the front page: ‘Revolution in Science: Newtonian Ideas Overthrown’.” Einstein commented on the excitement and said he was very surprised because there were probably only a dozen people in the world at the time could actually understand the theory!”

Traditionally, the only way scientists have been trained—or rather, expected—to communicate is for the purpose of conveying the evidence behind scientific theories and facts related to their research. Learn to identify what is actually relevant to your audience or the objective you are trying to reach, and you will develop a skill that will also serve you in other careers or aspects of your current career that require you as an expert to advise clients, managers or leaders who are busy with multiple projects and programs and only need or have time for the “bottom line.”

Scientists Should Not be Afraid to Give Their Opinions

Again – learn to discern. We have a greater chance of tackling tough challenges when we take personal responsibility for the beliefs we too often hold other people accountable for. When a scientist provides a disclaimer about the information being presented, the onus then on the receiver to take what is said with a grain of salt, acknowledge its limitations, and otherwise seek validation of any perceived claims of fact.

Miller has no qualms about saying to people, “Look, this is my view, and I can’t prove it from the work that’s coming across and what I can tell you about it. This is the way that I think the research is going to go; this is the way that I think the discoveries are going to go.” In the grand scheme of things, he is absolutely confident that anybody he’s talking to will be able to distinguish between presented facts and his own personal preferences and biases.

Metcalfe agrees about the importance of an editorial, not just from science communicators, but from scientists, too. “Let’s hear about their opinions. Let’s hear about their thought processes. They’re people just like everyone else.”

Focus on the Big Picture

Bruce highlights another reason why discernment is important.

“If you communicate only the facts, you will fail. That’s the first point. Now, does that mean editorializing or being subjective? That’s not quite the same thing. I think that what we have to do is put information, those facts, in a social context, both the social context of how it’s useful for the audience, but also the social context of how that knowledge came to be. What were the questions, what were the kinds of questions—the big conceptual questions— that you are asking that led you to this kind of issue?”

“A lot of scientists are what I call ‘splitters,’” says Metcalfe. “They want to talk about the ifs, buts and wherefores of their science, whereas most people are ‘lumpers.’ We want to know the implications and the bigger picture of what that means, particularly the relevance to ‘me’ personally or to ‘my’ community about what something means. You can do that with any science, with any research.”

Miller makes an important point about how scientists are dealing with a general public that’s used to getting a yes or no answer, the type who is going to click on a web link, and if it the answer is not on the first page, is not going to scroll through to the next page. “They’re not going to click through the links,” he confidently states. “So, we’re dealing with an audience that is not looking for subtlety. I’m not sure that I know yet how to recommend that you speak in sound bites—as I’m not doing well enough at—and explain something complicated in a world where people are looking for really simple answers.”

Success in Science Communication is about Expressing Shared Values

“If you buy into this narrow vision,” notes Bucchi, “you will have some problems because you define success by the people embracing a certain vision that GMOs are the best thing the world, that nanotechnologies will solve any problem [etc.]. That is, again, very limited, but if you have a vision of science communication as a process, [you] immediately realize that this is a very important thing, at least in democratic society; that nobody—not even the most powerful actor—is fully able to control the process of science communication because it’s an interactive process.”

Successful science communication is thus measured over the long term.

Metcalfe thinks that everyone involved in the communication of science has values that they bring, and will accordingly have different measures of success. “[T]o me, something that is successful is something that connects with those values, and with as many of those different values as possible in achieving something that they felt was important.”

…and when the Public wants an Encore

Miller believes that, ultimately, what science writers and communicators want to do is engage people in a conversation. Whether or not your current methods are effective is something that can easily be gauged, even if not quantifiably measured. “Have people come back for a conversation? Do they return to you or your organization or your subject to find out more…?

What are your answers to the four questions? Please leave a comment below, and Like, Share or Subscribe if you enjoyed this topic and want to hear more.

You may also like...

Leave a Reply