Science Seminar Report - Science and the media

In today’s society, where science is often at the forefront of the advancement of 'civilisation', scientists have a key role to play. Ir Simon Rozendaal, a science writer with the publishing group Elsevier, pointed out that scientists have been given the power by politicians and the media to shape policies, and that although this involvement can be very useful, power can be both addictive and corrupting. Scientists may be flattered into thinking that they know more than they actually do, and as ambiguous answers are never welcome, the uncertainty inherent in most scientific results may be lost for the sake of impact. In communicating science, sometimes a decision has to be made between being effective or honest, and it is easy to slip when one believes firmly in both the science and the politics behind it. However, in order to effectively communicate the science, to both politicians and the general public, it is often necessary to resort to either 'sexing up' or 'dumbing down' and the ethics involved in this process were discussed on the second day of the meeting.

"There are only 3 problems with the public understanding of science...What is the public, what is understanding and how do you define science?" — Steve Miller and Jane Gregory. Science in Public: communication, culture and credibility. Perseus Books, 2000.

Dr Daniel Glaser a neuroscientist from University College London and formerly scientist in residence at the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London gave an opening address about science in society. One hurdle encountered is the problem of trust – people trust scientists differently, depending on whom they work for and what their research actually says. An example of this is ecological activists who trust scientists who work on global warming, as the general consensus is that this is a problem which needs to be addressed; yet they do not trust scientists working on GM (genetic manipulation) as the views of the activists are not reflected by the majority of these scientists. This situation is difficult to avoid, as people often believe whatever supports their personal values. However the active engagement of the public in science would enable individuals to decide more objectively whom they chose to support. In addition the interaction between scientists and non-scientists could p rove very fruitful as when science is approached from a different perspective this could generate new and innovative ideas.

Science and the public – who does the engaging?

Dumbing down and sexing up
As science is undertaken by academic, commercial and governmental organisations, often with interplay between these, the public is confronted by reports of science from many different origins. There are therefore different motives for the communication, with different eventual goals, be they political, commercial or educational. Even when the motive is purely honourable, scientists engage the public for various reasons. Some wish to spread enlightenment and generate interest in their subject. Others may be trying to justify their research to the taxpayers who ultimately fund them.

With the various motives for public engagement in science, it is hard to see where the responsibility for communication should lie. Perhaps the best solution is to have input from all sides, and also, importantly, from the grass roots researchers, who are not out for fame but would just like their research understood and appreciated by the world at large.

Whoever does the engaging has to face a number of problems. The first is that communicating science effectively to the general public is not a trivial undertaking. Scientific research abounds with jargon and technical terms, which are often difficult to render into clearer, more digestible phrases. This adaptation of scientific language into layman terms, along with the sometimes essential loss of some of the complexity of research, is commonly referred to as 'dumbing down'. Here we encounter another problem, which is that of respect. In order to communicate effectively there must be a mutual trust and respect, a respect that is not obviously apparent when scientists talk of 'dumbing down'. It implies a hierarchical structure, where the scientist is superior simply because he understands what 'phenotypic suppression' means. In this respect, the communication between scientists of different disciplines is just as 'dumbed down' as that between scientists and the 'general public'; phy sicists and biologists may have serious difficulties conversing together about their work.

Another problem is interpretation – it is hard to be sure that your words will be interpreted by the media as you originally meant them to be. Journalists also often have their own agendas, and may listen only to the ideas that fit their angles. However, the general view was that this is heavily dependant on the forum, with some journalists being more responsible than others.

"If research can’t be made accessible to the general public, maybe the public should not fund it." — Professor David VandeLinde

Although the problems with public engagement of science are numerous, there are ways of improving this, and these were discussed at length. The most fundamental was to try to change the attitudes of scientists, and to foster a respect for the public, so that scientists do not see the communication of their results in simple terms as 'dumbing down'.

A practical solution would be to provide better training, and incentives, for researchers to enable them to effectively communicate their research in layman terms. One important point was that scientists should react to bad reporting of their research, and not simply ignore this, as often happens. Here the responsibility lies with both the individual and the scientific community. Another positive step would be to encourage more simple, good quality, scientific programmes on the television, with more 'visible scientists' promoting science, particularly in the Netherlands, where these were considered to be lacking.

One technique suggested for effective communication was to use bait to get people interested, for example with the Hubble telescope programme, where beautiful pictures of space were used to hook people into learning more about the universe. Spin is undoubtedly useful in this context but the views of the participants were divided on whether this is really an ethical form of communication. Some were of the opinion that the research should be presented in its entirety without resorting to gimmicks, whereas others suggested that 'sexing up' and simplifying is essential to get the public interested. Finally it was suggested that perhaps a more effective way of engaging the public in science is at the local level, rather than via the media. Here there were examples of universities in both the Netherlands and the UK, which encourage their local communities to take an interest in scientific research, via open days and lecture series. It was felt that this type of interaction would benefit both the public and the researchers, provided the scientific atmosphere actively encouraged it.

Scientific risk and real world decisions

Many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip
As scientific research is becoming more accessible to society the often unforeseen impact and consequences of scientific reports are being felt. The case study for this workshop session gave the example of the research into the link between the MMR vaccine and autism, which despite showing no concrete evidence of this link, had a huge negative impact on the UK’s vaccination programme. The MMR case shows that when communicating science to the public, the way that it will be interpreted and the effect that it will have must be taken into consideration. It was suggested that risk can be portrayed in different ways, with different consequences. For example, if you were told that there was twice as much chance of getting cancer from potatoes than rice, then you might avoid potatoes for this reason. However, if the absolute risk was shown to be 1 in a million, as opposed to 1 in 2 million, then chips wo uld probably still be on the menu. This perception of risk is possibly different between the general public and scientists, who may be more used to the absolute terms and what they really mean. This becomes more and more important as people begin to use the Internet to research scientific topics and may be exposed to scientific results without the means to interpret them correctly. In some cases this could partly be solved by more education of the public in the scientific process and the inherent uncertainty that it entails. If people were more critical of research and listened to several different opinions, they would hopefully get a more balanced view of the topic. However it can also happen that parts of results are taken out of context or given an exaggerated importance, according to what the reader actually wants to believe.

In any communication of scientific research there are many places where the message can be twisted or changed, whether at the point of origin, the media of publication or the final interpretation of the individual. Therefore scientists must be increasingly vigilant to ensure that the 'slips 'twixt the cup and the lip' are kept minimal, particularly when the well-being of the general public is at stake.

Science Café

The evening programme of the meeting was held in the opulent surroundings of the British Ambassador’s residence in The Hague. After an excellent dinner the participants were exposed to the concept of the Science Café (more information at www.cafescientifique.org and British Council website). This is an innovative way of generating interest in and discussion about science, where a scientist is invited to talk for 20 minutes on a subject after which the generally non-scientific audience is encouraged to lead the discussion. It is designed to be a form of democratic empowerment, where people are encouraged to talk about things that they previously knew nothing about. In this sense, the composition of the audience this time was atypical, with most present having in depth knowledge of the subject and this is perhaps why the debate was not as heated as it cou ld have been over the sensitive subject of animal ethics. Despite this reserve, an interesting discussion was held. The speaker, Mr drs Jan Staman, Director of the Rathenau Institute and an ex-veterinarian, spoke on his personal experiences and his views on animal ethics. After a break for coffee and a certain degree of prompting, a lively discussion ensued, with radical viewpoints being aired, though not perhaps challenged as much as they would have been amongst a more general audience. What was very clear however was that even among scientists there are very different opinions on the use of animals in research and the format of the Science Café, which encourages non-hierarchical, inclusive discourse, helped to get some of these opinions aired.

Continue > Summing up