Connectivity in our society has increased exponentially since the rise of the internet, but effective, honest communication, especially when it comes to science, is still lacking. Photo credit: Mario Caruso
Scientific communication is failing.
And at a wildly inconvenient time, considering the firestorm that has been 2020. Science continues to provide us with answers to questions that keep us safe - can CoVID-19 be transmitted by Amazon packages? How bad are hurricanes expected to be this year? But in a socially and politically divided world communication lines have broken down, and useful information isn’t making it to the public where it could help people make better decisions. In a society where misinformation spreads like a virus, productive communication between scientists and the rest of the world should be paramount. But it’s not. We’re not doing a good enough job yet, and it shows.
Human society is complex, and it turns out simply “presenting findings” from scientific research isn’t helping people come to a consensus on issues like CoVID-19, GMOs, evolution, and climate change. Simply continuing to publish more data does not seem to be the way forward, either; research in recent years has shown that more information alone does not convince people of the conclusions that are widely accepted by most scientists. It seems that many people are, for reasons we will explore, unreceptive to cold, hard scientific findings and data. To make matters more challenging, scientists are rarely trained to communicate their research in any way other than cold, hard scientific findings and data. And so an unstoppable force meets an immovable object. And so communications fail.
We need to rethink how we communicate science. We need to discuss our results in ways that help the scientific information rise up above the falsehoods, a beacon in a sea of misinformation, and steer people in the right direction. A society that has access to scientific knowledge can make better choices to support the health of its people, the financial prosperity of its communities, and the longevity of the environment surrounding it. One of our goals at PassioInventa is to develop new means of doing this: to change the paradigm of how we communicate, as scientists and as people. First, though, we have to first understand why communications fail in the first place.
The resistance to productive scientific communication is everyone’s fault: scientists aren’t typically trained to break down their research and explain it to non-scientists, and the public isn’t typically trained to be receptive to the information. This has to change, and the adjustment needs to come from both sides. In my last article, I discussed pseudoscience and the challenges of finding accurate scientific information in a world of misinformation. In this article, I’d like to discuss the barriers that still stand between us and a more informed future.
Scientists – A Passionate, but not empathetic, Breed
Most scientists are inherently curious and extremely excitable, often jumping at the opportunity to learn about new discoveries and discuss their own. This is one of the things I love about being part of the scientific community; the people I work with are as full to the brim with passion as a New England Superbowl party where the Pats come back for the win in the last eight minutes.
The problem is that scientists assume everyone else will get just as excited about these discoveries as they do. By projecting their own values onto non-scientists, scientists end up communicating to others the way they would want the information communicated to them. And honestly, this doesn’t work. The difference here is training: scientists have been extensively trained to think in certain ways - understanding the world through the refined lens of observable evidence, reasoning, and repeated testing. People without that training often don’t – and can’t be expected to – think like that.
A person’s hierarchy of values is shaped by their unique life experiences, and often determines how they will make decisions. Understanding these values is key to productive communication. Photo credit: Sean Stratton
Scientific communication fails when scientists don’t identify or understand the values of the people they are trying to communicate to. If I read a series of scientific papers that show evidence that spinach, genetically modified to be frost tolerant, does not cause adverse health effects, this is enough to satisfy my choice to buy spinach next time I’m at the supermarket. This is because data and evidence are something I value when making decisions. But my deep trust in the scientific institution belongs to me, and science isn’t the only factor other people consider when making decisions. When it comes to those choices that impact the safety of their loved ones, the sanctity of their routine, and their convenience, many people might not consider scientific evidence first, if at all.
The issues we face today are multifaceted and each carry multiple different voices: political, social, ethical, religious, corporate. Science is just one of those voices.
What fuels someone more: a fear of unknown chemicals in a vaccine, or fear of the virus that the vaccine prevents? Loyalty to their political party, or believing claims that the environment is degrading from a group they consider their values to be at odds with? A lifetime of creationist teachings, or the value of a well-rounded education (including evolutionary teachings) in public schools? Losing their job and way of life at a coal mine, or taking action to help mitigate a changing climate? The ethical implications of “playing god” through genetic editing, or fixing a genetic ailment in a loved one?
Scientific evidence, such as in the case of climate change, is often in direct conflict with the values or activities that members of society engage in. Photo credit: Jens Johnsson
There are countless other examples in which the scientific way of thinking is in direct conflict with non-science values, and the spectrum of answers to these questions will determine how people make decisions; often despite plenty of scientific evidence stating the contrary. Understanding that the values that drive others are shaped by their unique experiences, and realizing that they will act in accordance with these values, is called empathy.
Scientists go wrong in limiting themselves to the scientific perspective and ignoring the other voices – and therefore the values – of the people they are trying to communicate with. As people living in society, scientists are allowed to engage in the wider conversation about social, political, and ethical implications of their discoveries. But they rarely do this. This is due in part because scientists are trained to place their confidence in what they can observe and, in essence, producing data is where they feel their capacity ends. But if scientists, the real experts on the data being released, don’t discuss their findings in the context of the other voices on the table, someone else will. Unfortunately, they often don’t do a very good job and, as is the case with the current pandemic, these poor communications can even be dangerous.
By focusing too intensely on the technical answers, scientists are silencing themselves: the community already knows it’s possible to manipulate genes using technology like CRISPR. In a way, they’ve received just about all they need from the scientific perspective. The general population may very well be ‘scientifically satisfied’ simply knowing a technology exists; what they need to know now is how to use that information to make a decision. Should we be able to use genetic editing on humans? Even if it could fix fatal mutations and drastically improve the livelihood of the people we wouldn’t want to live without?
If scientists want to stay in that conversation, they have to focus on communicating their science in the context of its impact on society. This fundamentally boils down to understanding the values of the people around them, because what those people value will dictate how they use the information science provides.
“No layperson could understand all of the relevant sciences to any depth. Indeed, neither could any scientist. Nor need they have such vast knowledge. Rather, people need to know the facts that are “material” to their choices. Thus, the first science of communication is analysis: identifying those few scientific results that people need to know among the myriad scientific facts that it would be nice to know.”
In order for the public to better access and use scientific knowledge to make informed decisions, scientists need to communicate their results in the context of other human values. Photo credit: Markus Spiske
Poor communications happen when people aren’t given the tools to use available scientific knowledge, and aren’t given the direction to see what it could mean. Scientists need to understand what the ethical, social, and political implications of their research are, and communicate those along with their results.
This may be improved by adding a commentary section onto scientific papers that discusses these implications within the scientific community, or the creation of an entirely new body of literature that focuses on discussing scientific discoveries in the context of the surrounding social and political climate. This could be written either by the principal investigators or by a third party of scientists (complete with a committee or panel to remove bias) whose job is to connect these discoveries to current events and make educated predictions about how the information can best be used. Some scientific journals, like Nature, are already doing this, but scientific journals are generally not accessible to non-science audiences. We should focus on the development of media outlets built by scientists for people, emphasizing the importance of scientific discoveries and providing context for how they shape, and will continue to shape, our society.
Effective science communication first requires dialogue, which enables the two parties to understand each other’s values, and then empathy, which allows them to communicate within the context of those values. Photo credit: Dima Pechurin
Unfortunately, the training required to encourage this type of communication is not yet widespread in the scientific community. The prevailing attitude in academia is still that dedicating time to scientific communication gets in the way of productive research, and there is therefore little engagement with the community. Many scientists argue that communication and outreach are not part of the job description, and even if they agree it is important, it is low priority. At the end of the academic day, scientific communication is still an effort that is completely optional, when it needs to be mandatory.
Further, the scientific communication training that does exist tends to focus on clichéd and overused commandments: limit jargon, use analogies, speak in shorter sentences, etc. While these can definitely help break down information, they are small pieces of the puzzle that ensure the bare minimum but do not guarantee good communication. Productive scientific communication requires empathy: an appreciation of the values that others use to make decisions, and an understanding of how that information can be communicated in a way that the listener can actually utilize it.
Developing better methods for engaging in empathy-driven communication should be a primary focus of the scientific community in the coming years. However, communication is two-sided, and not all of the barriers to productive science communication lie on the side of the scientists. In the second part of this article, read about the challenges facing science communication outside the scientific community, and how media, social networking, and society as a whole have prevented access to and use of science in our everyday lives.
-Jason
Photo credit: Karl Lee