Foundation Essay — Getting certain points across can be difficult. And yet democracies don’t function properly in the absence of broad, public discussion based on well-sourced information.
Especially when it comes to complex ideas based in science, providing such information in ways that are both accessible and comprehensible presents major challenges.
Of course, distinguishing between statements based in painstakingly acquired data, statistically valid analysis and probing discussion versus commercially, ideologically or emotionally driven opinion can be extremely difficult for even the educated among us.
Most of us are not trained to approach the world through the prism of probability and relative risk, the central philosophy underpinning all primary research and scientific consensus.
The human condition is such that, while our “immediate”, lower-brain “fight and flight” instincts are well-honed, science-based warnings of long-term threats are harder for us to take seriously, especially when the necessary counter-measures require a degree of behavioural change now.
Also, science is increasingly up against deliberate disinformation.
We see this currently with issues such as climate change and childhood vaccination, where committed organisations and individuals will, for whatever reason, seek to discredit the reasoned scientific consensus reached by active researchers and responsible professionals.
We see information sources that should be reliable, including “quality” newspapers, increasingly failing to report major news items and well-developed analysis that could throw doubt on their particular editorial “spin”.
Then there’s the problem of the scientists themselves. Most are dedicated to what they do in the field or in the laboratory. While they might like to get this or that general message across to a broader public, they have little idea how to go about it.
When active researchers talk on radio, for instance, they often use words such as “abrogate”, “rigorous”, “systematic”, “probabilistic” and so forth that, while central to the way they think, are simply not in the general vocabulary.
Listen to any real scientist talk and you will get an opinion that is reasoned and nuanced, whereas journalists want to tell a straightforward story that isn’t laced with “ifs” and “buts”.
Science communication just isn’t easy, and there are issues at every level.
Some strategies do work. Narrated by people such as David Attenborough, well-produced TV nature documentaries are watched by the type of viewer that tunes in to the Discovery Channel or National Geographic.
But the focus on what is visually stunning often detracts from the underlying scientific message. We remember something but, unless we buy the DVD, the nature of TV viewing is such that we retain impressions and forget the complexities, even if they do surface in the narration.
That’s why the written word, whether encountered in a book, a newspaper or an online blog is so important. The record is there, and we can go back over and reflect on what is being said.
After a decade and a half spent trying to get some science-based ideas across to a broader public while still practising as a research investigator, I’ve come to the somewhat depressing view that the only safe form of communication is via direct-to-air TV or radio; or to write books and opinion pieces that (if edited) can be scrutinised before publication.
Otherwise the results can be disastrous. After talking on the telephone to a print journalist, I customarily approach the paper the next morning with a sense of what too often proves to be well-justified dread.
It’s not that I blame the journalist, or the sub-editor for that matter; it’s just that I’m left feeling personally compromised. Was I so unclear? Did I really say that?
This is not, I think, an uncommon sensation for scientists who try to interact with the media. The two cultures are fundamentally different, and competent science journalists are an increasingly threatened species.
That’s why I think that the idea behind The Conversation is terrific. Whether in science, history or the arts, those who have the capacity to discuss complex issues from the basis of evidence rather than opinion tend to be found in Australia’s universities and scientific research institutes.
It is essential they are neither silenced nor discouraged from speaking out, particularly when it comes to matters of vital, immediate interest.
This Foundation Essay is part of a series of articles to mark the launch of The Conversation. Others in the series are:
Better connecting the university to the public debate by Glyn Davis
When the science is so clear, why is the argument so clouded? By Ross Garnaut
What’s the point of universities? It’s the ideas, stupid By Patrick McCaughey
The science of reporting climate change By Brian McNair
How universities learnt a lesson in humility — and are all the better for it By John Keane
The modern university must reinvent itself to survive By Simon Marginson
Join the conversation
Comments (6)
Wendy Joy
(logged in via Facebook)
I am a bushcarer, that is I volunteer my time to assist a large area of coastal vegetation (including endangered ecological communities) to regenerate by removing weeds, limited planting, and any other actions necessary. Trying to get hold of research that might assist is extremely difficult. Being on a carer's pension makes it impossible to purchase theses or science magazines. I do purchase books (often from CSIRO) by putting them on layby and paying them off at $5 or $10 each fortnight. So…
show full comment
Stephen Lark
(logged in via Twitter)
Relevent SMBC & PhD comics:
How Science Reporting Works
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1623
The Science News Cycle
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174
Symon Smith
(logged in via Facebook)
I agree very much with this and like what I've seen so far of the site. My interest in science was initially piqued by reading science writing (in books, although how long books will continue to exist is an open question...). By having a forum where scientific ideas can be expressed in an accessible non-specialist setting it could help people be better-informed, and the more people see the value in science the better for science.
With the proliferation of opinions on the internet I think this site could provide some kind of filter: Not so much the negative filter of censorship, but its opposite, a positive filter that brings ideas in a direct fashion from places with (ideally) ideas as their central basis.
Chris Lloyd
(logged in via Facebook)
Peter, Another roadbloack for academics in general (rather than scientists specifically) being more media engaged is the short news cycle. Even an expert in the field will often not be able to give a fully researched view with half a day's notice. And thsi si what the MSM often require. TheConversation will not solve this. But having the assistance of good writers/editors who are not totally driven by the news cycle will help.
bobby cerini
(logged in via Twitter)
Peter, you touch on a wide range of issues in this article. My current research, which investigates living heroes of science and their experiences of public communication, suggests that many scientists have mixed feelings about communicating through the media. Yet in some ways, what choice do they have but to do so?
Like other human beings, scientists are emotionally vulnerable to criticism and in some fields face concentrated opposition to their work; they cop it in fields such as climate science…
show full comment
stangudgeon
(logged in via Twitter)
Peter, I am glad to see the common-sense approach you epitomise has been honed to a sharper edge since I last heard you speak. Fact is, you are right. When we use words like “abrogate”, “rigorous”, “systematic” and “probabilistic” the sad truth is that those terms are are beyond the public's limited ken. Yet it is vital that these cutting edge concepts be conveyed to the people whom we expect to undeerwrite solutions. In this respect, The Conversation is a vast step forward -- a way to tell "our…
show full comment