A Hint about Communicating Scientific Results

February 26th, 2008

The public isn’t as well educated about science as they should be.   That’s pretty much always been true, and will likely remain true given the quick pace of science and its effect on our lives, but we can do a lot better than we are now.   But there’s also been growth in the spread of false or misleading information (internet, anyone?) on a whole range of topics, ranging from global warming to immunization, that have potentially several personal consequences for each of us.

I came across this article today about “Getting the Public to Pay Attention to Good Science.”

Apparently people will take experts at face value if they don’t have a personal stake in the matter.   If they do, the way the information is delivered is critical.   According to the conclusion of the article:

“…Simply speaking from a position of authority isn’t enough, Schuchat argued. She cited surveys indicating that, for credibility assessments in areas of “low concern” (she suggested Tsunami risk in foreign countries as one example), US citizens are happy to defer to expertise, rating it as accounting for 85 percent of their assessment. When the topic shifts to areas of personal concern like family medicine, the importance of expertise vanishes. Schuchat said that it drops to where it accounts for only 15 percent of the decision, equal to a sense of honesty and openness, and far below the value of empathy, which accounts for roughly half of the decision. The message was pretty clear; for the public, how decent medical information is conveyed counts for more than the quality of the information itself.

The clear message of the session was that a command of facts is never going to be good enough to convince most segments of the public, whether they’re parents or Congress. How the information is conveyed can matter more than its content, and different forms of communication may be necessary for different audiences. As became clear in the ensuing discussion, most of the public act as consumers of information, with journalists acting as middlemen.   To connect with the public, scientists have to work with the press to ensure that two things happen. Reporters have to overcome their ingrained aversion to the uncertainties of science, and have to avoid presenting uncertainties as a matter of balance that’s addressed via material from crackpots with credentials.”

This is very interesting to me, and suggests some additional training both scientists and journalists should have.   I’m going to give it more thought when I’m involved and try to keep these lessons in mind.     I have a tendency to be more than a little authoritarian on some topics, which results from having the same discussions over and over again with different poorly informed people, but I should trust my honesty and knowledge without pushing it and focus on being more ephathetic.   That’s probably good advice for any of us trying to convince anyone of anything.

Share/Bookmark

Tags: ,

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.