tag:theconversation.com,2011:/au/topics/scientific-understanding-8236/articles
Scientific understanding – The Conversation
2019-04-16T10:46:25Z
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/111147
2019-04-16T10:46:25Z
2019-04-16T10:46:25Z
What it means to ‘know your audience’ when communicating about science
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267853/original/file-20190405-180036-19aamqc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=1625%2C745%2C4365%2C3206&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">You have a lot of work to do before you step up to the mic.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/microphone-voice-speaker-seminar-classroom-lecture-534042616">Chinnapong/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Communication experts love to tell people to know their audience, but it is not always clear what they’re meant to know.</p>
<p>Knowing someone’s age, education and gender is nice. So too is knowing context about economic, educational, cultural and ideological background. These are typically what the two of us hear when <a href="http://strategicsciencecommunication.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Landscape-Overview-Website-Discussion-Final.pdf">we’ve asked science communication trainers</a> what they think the expression means. </p>
<p>Knowing such things are helpful, but there’s a lot more a strategic communicator might want to know.</p>
<p><a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=0ssM57wAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">Our own</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=WHQF1CUAAAAJ&hl=en">ongoing research</a> on <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662517728478">strategic science communication objectives</a> suggests some more targeted pieces of information that could help communicators – whether scientists or anyone else – effectively share their message.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/266172/original/file-20190327-139356-a7cv19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/266172/original/file-20190327-139356-a7cv19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/266172/original/file-20190327-139356-a7cv19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266172/original/file-20190327-139356-a7cv19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266172/original/file-20190327-139356-a7cv19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266172/original/file-20190327-139356-a7cv19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=463&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266172/original/file-20190327-139356-a7cv19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=463&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266172/original/file-20190327-139356-a7cv19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=463&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Choosing to take part in a particular event suggests certain things about attendees.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/nrcs_south_dakota/8267472111">USDA NRCS South Dakota/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Know your audience by picking your audience</h2>
<p>To start, if you’re being strategic, you should know something about your audience because you should have picked who you’re communicating with based on your goals.</p>
<p>In general, the hope is that experts like the scientists we study would have shifted valuable time or resources from their regular work to communication because there’s some sort of behavior they want to see in some specific group or groups. The behavior could be individual – things such as drinking less, buying greener products, choosing a science career – or civic – behaviors such as supporting, opposing or disregarding an issue.</p>
<p>No communicator – including scientists – should spend limited time, money and opportunity on audiences that aren’t a priority given their goals. It will rarely make sense to spend resources trying to get an arch-liberal to donate to the National Rifle Association or a diehard lover of science to embrace science even more.</p>
<p>Once you know what you want to accomplish and who you want to accomplish it with, you’re a lot closer to figuring out what you need to know about your audience.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267855/original/file-20190405-180036-1xvklaf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267855/original/file-20190405-180036-1xvklaf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267855/original/file-20190405-180036-1xvklaf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267855/original/file-20190405-180036-1xvklaf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267855/original/file-20190405-180036-1xvklaf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267855/original/file-20190405-180036-1xvklaf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267855/original/file-20190405-180036-1xvklaf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267855/original/file-20190405-180036-1xvklaf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Audiences aren’t obligated to hang on your every word.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/microphone-voice-speaker-seminar-classroom-lecture-534042616">Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What does your audience think and feel?</h2>
<p>The next step is figuring something out about the target audience’s beliefs, feelings or way of framing a topic. It is these beliefs, feelings and frames that can change and it is these changes that will increase the odds an audience will meaningfully consider your hoped-for behavior.</p>
<p>The most common types of beliefs that the scientists we study like to share are those related to the knowledge they’re creating through their research. This might be something about new evidence connecting how rising greenhouse gases are changing the climate, a lack of connection between vaccines and risk, or any other new finding. This preference seems to stem from scientists’ belief that their audience has a crucial gap in its knowledge or way of thinking.</p>
<p>Increasing basic knowledge sometimes gets dismissed in science communication circles; there’s little evidence that <a href="https://www.nap.edu/read/23595/chapter/1">information-focused initiatives</a> work very well. More and more facts rarely produce substantial behavioral changes. Worse, although researchers haven’t carefully tested it, anyone who’s sat through a boring lecture can probably attest to the fact that sharing too much technical detail can turn an audience off.</p>
<p>On the other hand, most audiences probably expect to hear about experts’ work and so experts likely need to share some information about what they’re finding or they risk failing to meet people’s expectations.</p>
<p>Just as importantly, there are many other facts beyond those associated with technical knowledge that communicators could ethically want people to come to believe.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/266175/original/file-20190327-139349-p135i5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/266175/original/file-20190327-139349-p135i5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/266175/original/file-20190327-139349-p135i5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=687&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266175/original/file-20190327-139349-p135i5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=687&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266175/original/file-20190327-139349-p135i5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=687&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266175/original/file-20190327-139349-p135i5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=863&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266175/original/file-20190327-139349-p135i5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=863&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266175/original/file-20190327-139349-p135i5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=863&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Expressing shared values can help build trust and connection.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dvids/5447684077">DVIDSHUB/Spc. Tobey White/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For the topics we study, it might be helpful to really know, for example, if an audience believes the research team is <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119206422.ch21">competent, honest, caring</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2015.1118149">open</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.216173">similar to them</a> when it comes to values. If this is not how the scientists are perceived, it’s important to know so the communicator can make communication choices that give the audience a chance to learn a bit more about the team – assuming they do embody these characteristics.</p>
<p>This might mean sharing a bit about their credentials and the sophisticated effort that went into the pertinent research, the motives that drive the team or what they do to make sure they’re always listening to others’ views.</p>
<p>These trust-related communication objectives may be particularly important for making it more likely that someone <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1952-5_10">will pay attention and think about what you have to say</a>. For example, audience members may lack the motivation to truly listen to someone that they believe is dishonest or incompetent.</p>
<p>Similarly, if the goal is to promote behaviors, it helps to know what the audience thinks about those behaviors. Do they believe in the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2016.01.003">risks or benefits</a> of what the research suggests? Which do they think about most? And what do they <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.11.012">think their family and friends think and do</a> – what social psychologists call subjective and descriptive norms? Do they think they even have the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515595348">ability to do what’s being suggested</a> or believe that doing so will make a difference?</p>
<p>It may also be important to know <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.04.006">how the audience feels</a>, what <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13282">emotions are driving behavior</a> and how they <a href="https://doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.51.2.12-23">mentally frame the issue</a>.</p>
<h2>You can’t know everything about your audience</h2>
<p>Of course it’s impossible to know everything about your audience. You can make educated bets – and you can also ask for help from a communication expert or longtime leader in your organization or a group you belong to. In our area of study, these might be the public information officers at universities or scientific societies. They want to help and the good ones are constantly tracking stakeholder views on various issues you might want to address.</p>
<p>There are also many things you probably can’t change about your audience through communication – like an individual’s core values – although these can affect how what you communicate gets interpreted. And that’s why you have to prioritize by being clear on your goals and starting with an understanding of your audience. Communication theory and formative research are meant to <a href="https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/public-communication-campaigns/book234975">help with such strategizing</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/111147/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John C. Besley receives or has received funding from the National Science Foundation (AISL 1421214-1421723), the United States Department of Agriculture (MICL02468), the Albert and Mary Lasker Foundation, the John Templeton Foundation, the Rita Allen Foundation, the David & Lucile Packard Foundation, and the Kavli Foundation for research related to this article. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of these organizations.
</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anthony Dudo receives funding or has received funding from the National Science Foundation (AISL 1421214-1421723), the Albert and Mary Lasker Foundation, the John Templeton Foundation, the Rita Allen Foundation, the David & Lucile Packard Foundation, and the Kavli Foundation for research related to this article. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of these organizations. </span></em></p>
Connecting with an audience in a productive way can mean first figuring out what they think, feel and believe before you start sharing your message.
John C. Besley, Ellis N. Brandt Professor of Public Relations, Michigan State University
Anthony Dudo, Associate Professor of Advertising and Public Relations, The University of Texas at Austin
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/96574
2018-05-25T12:22:24Z
2018-05-25T12:22:24Z
We’re not prepared for the genetic revolution that’s coming
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220458/original/file-20180525-51135-qvxam5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/close-businessman-holding-glowing-dna-helix-683382997?src=XtIrmtlLbNh-UD32uwMXmQ-1-6">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>When humans’ genetic information (known as the genome) was mapped 15 years ago, it promised to change the world. Optimists anticipated an era in which all genetic diseases would be eradicated. Pessimists feared widespread genetic discrimination. Neither of these hopes and fears have been realised.</p>
<p>The reason for this is simple: our genome is complex. Being able to locate specific differences in the genome is only a very small part of understanding how these genetic variants actually work to produce the traits we see. Unfortunately, few people understand just how complex genetics really is. And as more and more products and services start to use genetic data, there’s a danger that this lack of understanding could lead people to make some very bad decisions.</p>
<p>At school we are taught that there is a dominant gene for brown eyes and a recessive one for blue. In reality, there are almost no human traits that are passed from generation to generation in such a straightforward way. Most traits, <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/jhg2010126">eye colour</a> included, develop under the influence of several genes, each with its own small effect.</p>
<p>What’s more, each gene contributes to many different traits, a concept called pleiotropy. For example, genetic variants associated with autism have also been <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4511766/">linked with schizophrenia</a>. When a gene relates to one trait in a positive way (producing a healthy heart, say) but another in a negative way (perhaps increasing the risk of macular degeneration in the eye), it is known as <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms7063">antagonistic pleiotropy</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220460/original/file-20180525-51102-1ymb73h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220460/original/file-20180525-51102-1ymb73h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=342&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220460/original/file-20180525-51102-1ymb73h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=342&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220460/original/file-20180525-51102-1ymb73h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=342&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220460/original/file-20180525-51102-1ymb73h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=430&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220460/original/file-20180525-51102-1ymb73h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=430&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220460/original/file-20180525-51102-1ymb73h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=430&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">There’s no single gene for eye colour.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/closeup-blue-eyes-woman-without-makeup-326171174?src=FdLfJZAe9ecP0M7kAff_bg-1-42">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As computing power has increased, scientists have been able to link many individual molecular differences in DNA with specific human characteristics, including behavioural traits such as <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/mp2016107">educational attainment</a> and <a href="https://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/S0006-3223(16)32664-6/fulltext">psychopathy</a>. Each of these genetic variants only explains a tiny amount of variation in a population. But when all these variants are summed together (giving what’s known as a characteristic’s <a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/whats-your-polygenic-score/">polygenic score</a>) they begin to explain more and more of the differences we see in the people around us. And with a lack of genetic knowledge, that’s where things start to be misunderstood.</p>
<p>For example, we could sequence the DNA of a newborn child, calculate their polygenic score for academic achievement and use it to predict, with some degree of accuracy, how well they will do in school. Genetic information may be the strongest and most precise predictor of a child’s <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/mp2016107">strengths and weaknesses</a>. Using genetic data could allow us to more effectively personalise education and target resources to those children most in need.</p>
<p>But this would only work if parents, teachers and policymakers have enough understanding of genetics to correctly use the information. <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-biosocial-science/article/genes-and-gini-what-inequality-means-for-heritability/FD7C2DEA0A89346708A193B5CB23B0CF">Genetic effects can be prevented or enhanced</a> by changing a person’s environment, including by providing educational opportunity and choice. The misplaced view that genetic influences are fixed could lead to a system in which children are permanently separated into grades based on their DNA and not given the right support for their actual abilities.</p>
<h2>Better medical knowledge</h2>
<p>In a medical context, people are likely to be given advice and guidance about genetics by a doctor or other professional. But even with such help, people who have better genetic knowledge will benefit more and will be able to make more informed decisions about their own health, family planning, and health of their relatives. People are already confronted with offers to undergo costly genetic testing and gene-based <a href="https://www.oncologica.com/dynamic-cmp-routing/?pg=sp6&vn=dbs&cmp=adw&lng=en&ch=google&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIxpb5gN7u2gIVxITVCh04BgSSEAAYASAAEgIxn_D_BwE">treatments for cancer</a>. Understanding genetics could help them avoid pursuing treatments that aren’t actually suitable in their case.</p>
<p>It is now possible to edit the human genome directly using a technique called <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-crispr-gene-editing-and-how-does-it-work-84591">CRISPR</a>. Even though such genetic modification techniques are regulated, the relative simplicity of CRISPR means that biohackers are already using it to edit their own genomes, for example, to <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/stephaniemlee/this-biohacker-wants-to-edit-his-own-dna?utm_term=.jjYRlLwxmA#.tsqoROD5xA">enhance muscle tissue</a> or <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41990981">treat HIV</a>.</p>
<p>Such biohacking services are very likely to be made available to buy (even if illegally). But as we know from our explanation of pleiotropy, changing one gene in a positive way could also have catastrophic unintended consequences. Even a broad understanding of this could save would-be biohackers from making a very costly and even potentially fatal mistake. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220461/original/file-20180525-51121-gocrpk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220461/original/file-20180525-51121-gocrpk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220461/original/file-20180525-51121-gocrpk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220461/original/file-20180525-51121-gocrpk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220461/original/file-20180525-51121-gocrpk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=454&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220461/original/file-20180525-51121-gocrpk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=454&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220461/original/file-20180525-51121-gocrpk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=454&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Biohackers may try to enhance their bodies with altered DNA.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/heroin-addiction-young-manteen-finding-vein-88931419?src=gdauW8rYfTzlMoSTuISRDA-1-39">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>When we don’t have medical professionals to guide us, we become even more vulnerable to potential genetic misinformation. For example, <a href="https://www.marmite.co.uk/geneproject">Marmite</a> recently ran an ad campaign offering a genetic test to see if you either love or hate Marmite, at a cost of £89.99. While witty and whimsical, this campaign also has several problems.</p>
<p>First, Marmite preference, just like any complex trait, is influenced by complex interactions between genes and environments and is far from determined at birth. At best, a test like this can only say that you are more likely to like Marmite, and it will have a great deal of error in that prediction.</p>
<p>Second, the ad campaign shows a young man seemingly <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjivUDIawLI">“coming out”</a> to his father as a Marmite lover. This apparent analogy to sexual orientation could arguably perpetuate the outdated and dangerous notion of “<a href="https://theconversation.com/gay-genetics-research-still-causes-irrational-fears-23284">the gay gene</a>”, or indeed the idea that there is any single gene for complex traits. Having a good level of genetic knowledge will enable people to better question advertising and media campaigns, and potentially save them from wasting their money.</p>
<p><a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12687-018-0363-7">My own research</a> has shown that even the well-educated amongst us have poor genetic knowledge. People are not empowered to make informed decisions or to engage in fair and productive public discussions and to make their voices heard. Accurate information about genetics needs to be widely available and more routinely taught. In particular, it needs to be incorporated into the training of teachers, lawyers and health care professionals who will very soon be faced with genetic information in their day-to-day work.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>To test your genetic knowledge and see how ready you are to make informed decisions in the genomic era visit <a href="http://www.tagc.world/iglas">The International Genetics Literacy and Attitudes Survey</a> and contribute to our ongoing research.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/96574/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert Chapman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
Genetics is influencing more and more of our decisions, but we can’t make the right choices if we don’t understand it.
Robert Chapman, PhD Candidate, Goldsmiths, University of London
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/70244
2016-12-13T17:28:10Z
2016-12-13T17:28:10Z
What does research say about how to effectively communicate about science?
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149954/original/image-20161213-1594-1dl3zpm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=1383%2C287%2C4616%2C3260&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Taking stock of what we know works... or not.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=299110817">TV head image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Truth seems to be an increasingly flexible concept in politics. At least that’s the impression the Oxford English Dictionary gave recently, as it declared “post-truth” the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/16/post-truth-named-2016-word-of-the-year-by-oxford-dictionaries/">2016 Word of the Year</a>. What happens when decisions are based on misleading or blatantly wrong information? The answer is quite simple – our airplanes would be less safe, our medical treatments less effective, our economy less competitive globally, and on and on.</p>
<p>Many scientists and science communicators have grappled with disregard for, or inappropriate use of, scientific evidence for years – especially around contentious issues like the causes of global warming, or the benefits of vaccinating children. A <a href="https://theconversation.com/six-myths-about-vaccination-and-why-theyre-wrong-13556">long debunked study</a> on links between vaccinations and autism, for instance, cost the researcher his medical license but continues to keep vaccination rates lower than they should be.</p>
<p>Only recently, however, have people begun to think systematically about what actually works to promote better public discourse and decision-making around what is sometimes controversial science. Of course scientists would like to rely on evidence, generated by research, to gain insights into how to most effectively convey to others what they know and do. </p>
<p>As it turns out, the science on how to best communicate science across different issues, social settings and audiences has not led to easy-to-follow, concrete recommendations.</p>
<p>About a year ago, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine <a href="http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/CurrentProjects/DBASSE_168731">brought together a diverse group of experts and practitioners</a> to address this gap between research and practice. The goal was to apply scientific thinking to the process of how we go about communicating science effectively. Both of us were a part of this group (with Dietram as the vice chair). </p>
<p>The public draft of the group’s findings – “<a href="https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23674/communicating-science-effectively-a-research-agenda">Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda</a>” – has just been published. In it, we take a hard look at what effective science communication means and why it’s important; what makes it so challenging – especially where the science is uncertain or contested; and how researchers and science communicators can increase our knowledge of what works, and under what conditions.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149935/original/image-20161213-1610-1emkkfm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149935/original/image-20161213-1610-1emkkfm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149935/original/image-20161213-1610-1emkkfm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149935/original/image-20161213-1610-1emkkfm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149935/original/image-20161213-1610-1emkkfm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149935/original/image-20161213-1610-1emkkfm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149935/original/image-20161213-1610-1emkkfm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149935/original/image-20161213-1610-1emkkfm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Bacteriologists engage with kids at the Wisconsin Science Festival, one way of communicating science to the public.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://photos.uc.wisc.edu/photos/21060/view">Bryce Richter / UW-Madison</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Evidence for effective approaches</h2>
<p>As we discovered, effective science communication – including listening to and engaging with audiences – is particularly complex, and far from simple to study. It’s highly dependent on what is being communicated, its relevance to who’s participating in the conversation and the social and media dynamic around the issues being addressed (especially if those issues or their policy implications are contentious). But it also depends on what people feel and believe is right and the societal or political contexts within which communication and engagement occur. And this makes getting it right and deriving lessons that can be applied across issues and contexts particularly challenging.</p>
<p>Because of this complexity, the practice of science communication (and there are many great practitioners) is currently more of an art than a science. Good communicators – whether reporters, bloggers, scientists or people active on social media and platforms like YouTube – typically learn from others, or through professional training, and often through trial and error. Unfortunately, the social sciences haven’t provided science communicators with concrete, evidence-based guidance on how to communicate more effectively. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/110/Supplement_3">Two</a> <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/111/Supplement_4">earlier</a> NAS meetings identified how diverse the areas of expertise are when it comes to research on science communication. Research spans behavioral economics and sociology along with media and communication studies. They also began to map out what we do and don’t know about what works.</p>
<p>For instance, it’s becoming increasingly clear that the “deficit model” of science communication – the assumption that if we just “fill people up” with science knowledge and understanding, they’ll become increasingly rational decision-makers – <a href="http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1213275110">simply does not work</a>. This is not because people are irrational; rather, we all have our own built-in psychologies of how we make sense of information, and how we weigh different factors when making decisions.</p>
<p>We also know all of us are predisposed to accept, reject or interpret information based on a plethora of mental shortcuts, including a tendency to take on face value information that <a href="https://theconversation.com/confirmation-bias-a-psychological-phenomenon-that-helps-explain-why-pundits-got-it-wrong-68781">seems to confirm our worldview</a>.</p>
<p>And we know how information is presented, or framed, can have a profound impact on how it is interpreted and used. The power of the “<a href="https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/02/10/the-original-frankenfoods/">Frankenfood</a>” frame, for example, used with genetically modified foods, has nothing to do with providing new information. Instead, the term subconsciously connects genetically modified organisms to mental concepts we all share – worrisome ideas about scientists creating unnatural organisms with unintended consequences – and raises moral questions about science going too far.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149956/original/image-20161213-1600-vqcdqw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149956/original/image-20161213-1600-vqcdqw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149956/original/image-20161213-1600-vqcdqw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149956/original/image-20161213-1600-vqcdqw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149956/original/image-20161213-1600-vqcdqw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149956/original/image-20161213-1600-vqcdqw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149956/original/image-20161213-1600-vqcdqw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149956/original/image-20161213-1600-vqcdqw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Grasping scientific evidence has important real-world implications, as when making medical decisions.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=284499956">Waiting room image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Decisions factor in more than facts</h2>
<p>Science communication may involve communicating scientific consensus about, for instance, the benefits and risks of vaccines to patients. Or it may encompass much broader societal debates about the ethical, moral or political questions raised by science.</p>
<p>For example, our ability to edit the genetic code of organisms is developing at breakneck speed. Over the next decade, <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/crispr-15704">CRISPR</a> and similar technologies will have a profound impact on our lives, from how we modify plants and animals and control disease, to how we produce our food, and even how we change our own genetic code as human beings.</p>
<p>But it will also present all of us with questions that cannot be answered with science alone. What does it mean to be human, for instance? Is it ethical to edit the genome of unborn embryos? If people involved in those decisions don’t have the opportunity to grasp the evidence-informed implications of the technology and make informed choices about its development and use, the future becomes little more than a lottery.</p>
<p>For those communicating the science, then, the endeavor comes with some degree of responsibility. Even deciding what information to share, and how to share it, involves personal values, beliefs and perspectives, and can potentially have far-reaching consequences. </p>
<p>There’s an especially high level of ethical responsibility associated with communication designed to influence opinions, behavior and actions. Scientists are well equipped to document the public health risks of lowered <a href="https://theconversation.com/vaccines-back-in-the-headlines-heres-what-the-experts-say-47815">vaccination rates</a>, for example. The question of whether we should mandate vaccinations or <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-mississippi-hasnt-had-measles-in-over-two-decades-37075">remove belief-based exemptions</a>, however, is an inherently political one that scientists alone cannot answer. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ECic_pHHJIc?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>Mapping out a better way</h2>
<p>At some level, all science communication has embedded values. Information always comes wrapped in a complex skein of purpose and intent – even when presented as impartial scientific facts. Despite, or maybe because of, this complexity, there remains a need to develop a stronger empirical foundation for effective communication of and about science.</p>
<p>Addressing this, the National Academies draft report makes an extensive number of recommendations. A few in particular stand out:</p>
<ul>
<li>Use a systems approach to guide science communication. In other words, recognize that science communication is part of a larger network of information and influences that affect what people and organizations think and do.</li>
<li>Assess the effectiveness of science communication. Yes, researchers try, but often we still engage in communication first and evaluate later. Better to design the best approach to communication based on empirical insights about both audiences and contexts. Very often, the technical risk that scientists think must be communicated have nothing to do with the hopes or concerns public audiences have. </li>
<li>Get better at meaningful engagement between scientists and others to enable that “<a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/299/5609/977">honest, bidirectional dialogue</a>” about the promises and pitfalls of science that our committee chair <a href="https://www.aaas.org/person/alan-i-leshner">Alan Leshner</a> and others have called for.</li>
<li>Consider social media’s impact – positive and negative.</li>
<li>Work toward better understanding when and how to communicate science around issues that are contentious, or potentially so.</li>
</ul>
<p>Addressing these and other areas is going to take focused research efforts that draw on expertise across many different areas. It’s going to need strategic and serious investment in the “science” of science communication. It will also demand much greater engagement and collaboration between those who study science communication and those who actually do it. And it’ll require serious thinking about why we communicate science, and how we can work respectfully with audiences to ensure that the science we do communicate about is of value to society.</p>
<p>This will not be easy. But the alternative – slipping further into a post-truth world where disdain for evidence creates risks that could be avoided – gives us little option but to dig deeper into the science of science communication, so that science and evidence are more effectively incorporated into the decisions people make.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/70244/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Maynard is a member of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on The Science of Science Communication, and is a co-author on the report "Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda."
</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dietram Scheufele is vice-chair of the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine's Committee on The Science of Science Communication, and is a co-author on the report "Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda."</span></em></p>
Now that we’re in a post-truth world, a timely report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine highlights evidence for what works and what doesn’t when talking about science.
Andrew Maynard, Director, Risk Innovation Lab, Arizona State University
Dietram A. Scheufele, Professor of Life Sciences Communication, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/65117
2016-09-14T20:15:31Z
2016-09-14T20:15:31Z
What exactly is the scientific method and why do so many people get it wrong?
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/137030/original/image-20160908-25237-l96xeb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Science works in ways that reflect our rationality. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://flic.kr/p/omHUa4">armymaterielcommand/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Claims that the “the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/sep/04/andrew-bolt-fails-to-electrify-at-festival-of-dangerous-ideas-libertarian-love-in">science isn’t settled</a>” with regard to climate change are symptomatic of a large body of ignorance about how science works. </p>
<p>So what is the scientific method, and why do so many people, sometimes including those trained in science, get it so wrong?</p>
<p>The first thing to understand is that there is no one method in science, no one way of doing things. This is intimately connected with how we reason in general. </p>
<h2>Science and reasoning</h2>
<p>Humans have two primary modes of reasoning: deduction and induction. When we reason deductively, we tease out the implications of information already available to us.</p>
<p>For example, if I tell you that Will is between the ages of Cate and Abby, and that Abby is older than Cate, you can deduce that Will must be older than Cate. </p>
<p>That answer was embedded in the problem, you just had to untangle it from what you already knew. This is how Sudoku puzzles work. Deduction is also the reasoning we use in mathematics.</p>
<p>Inductive reasoning goes beyond the information contained in what we already know and can extend our knowledge into new areas. We induce using generalisations and analogies. </p>
<p>Generalisations include observing regularities in nature and imagining they are everywhere uniform – this is, in part, how we create the so-called laws of nature. </p>
<p>Generalisations also create classes of things, such as “mammals” or “electrons”. We also generalise to define aspects of human behaviour, including psychological tendencies and economic trends.</p>
<p>Analogies make claims of similarities between two things, and extend this to make new knowledge. </p>
<p>For example, if I find a fossilised skull of an extinct animal that has sharp teeth, I might wonder what it ate. I look for animals alive today that have sharp teeth and notice they are carnivores. </p>
<p>Reasoning by analogy, I conclude that the animal was also a carnivore.</p>
<p>Using induction and inferring to the best possible explanation consistent with the evidence, science teaches us more about the world than we could simply deduce.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/137169/original/image-20160909-13379-r1mnui.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/137169/original/image-20160909-13379-r1mnui.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/137169/original/image-20160909-13379-r1mnui.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/137169/original/image-20160909-13379-r1mnui.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/137169/original/image-20160909-13379-r1mnui.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/137169/original/image-20160909-13379-r1mnui.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/137169/original/image-20160909-13379-r1mnui.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/137169/original/image-20160909-13379-r1mnui.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Saber tooth cat skull: just look at the fangs.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/badlandsnationalpark/7468302686/">Flickr/Badlands National Park</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Science and uncertainty</h2>
<p>Most of our <a href="https://theconversation.com/listen-and-learn-the-language-of-science-and-scepticism-6633">theories</a> or models are inductive analogies with the world, or parts of it. </p>
<p>If inputs to my particular theory produce outputs that match those of the real world, I consider it a good analogy, and therefore a good theory. If it doesn’t match, then I must reject it, or refine or redesign the theory to make it more analogous.</p>
<p>If I get many results of the same kind over time and space, I might generalise to a conclusion. But no amount of success can prove me right. Each confirming instance only increases my confidence in my idea. As Albert Einstein <a href="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins100017.html">famously said</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Einstein’s general and special theories of relativity (which are models and therefore analogies of how he thought the universe works) have been supported by experimental evidence many times under many conditions.</p>
<p>We have great confidence in the theories as good descriptions of reality. But they cannot be proved correct, because proof is a creature that belongs to deduction.</p>
<h2>The hypothetico-deductive method</h2>
<p>Science also works deductively through the hypothetico-deductive method.</p>
<p>It goes like this. I have a hypothesis or model that predicts that X will occur under certain experimental conditions. Experimentally, X does not occur under those conditions. I can deduce, therefore, that the theory is flawed (assuming, of course, we trust the experimental conditions that produced not-X).</p>
<p>Under these conditions, I have proved that my hypothesis or model is incorrect (or at least incomplete). I reasoned deductively to do so.</p>
<p>But if X does occur, that does not mean I am correct, it just means that the experiment did not show my idea to be false. I now have increased confidence that I am correct, but I can’t be sure. </p>
<p>If one day experimental evidence that was beyond doubt was to go against Einstein’s predictions, we could deductively prove, through the hypothetico-deductive method, that his theories are incorrect or incomplete. But no number of confirming instances can prove he is right.</p>
<p>That an idea can be tested by experiment, that there can be experimental outcomes (in principle) that show the idea is incorrect, is what makes it a scientific one, at least according to the philosopher of science <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/">Karl Popper</a>.</p>
<p>As an example of an untestable, and hence unscientific position, take that held by Australian climate denialist and One Nation Senator <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian?MPID=266524">Malcolm Roberts</a>. Roberts maintains there is <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2016/s4514518.htm">no empirical evidence</a> of human-induced climate change. </p>
<p>When presented with authoritative evidence during an episode of the ABC’S Q&A television debating show recently, he <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-16/professor-brian-cox-vs.-senator-malcolm-roberts/7746576">claimed that the evidence was corrupted</a>. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/LxEGHW6Lbu8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Professor Brian Cox explains climate science to senator Malcolm Roberts.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Yet his claim that human-induced climate change is not occurring cannot be put to the test as he would not accept any data showing him wrong. He is therefore not acting scientifically. He is indulging in <a href="https://theconversation.com/where-is-the-proof-in-pseudoscience-22184">pseudoscience</a>.</p>
<h2>Settled does not mean proved</h2>
<p>One of the great errors in the public understanding of science is to equate settled with proved. While Einstein’s theories are “settled”, they are not proved. But to plan for them not to work would be utter folly.</p>
<p>As the philosopher John Dewey pointed out in his book <a href="https://archive.org/stream/JohnDeweyLogicTheTheoryOfInquiry/%5BJohn_Dewey%5D_Logic_-_The_Theory_of_Inquiry_djvu.txt">Logic: The Theory of Inquiry</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In scientific inquiry, the criterion of what is taken to be settled, or to be knowledge, is [of the science] being so settled that it is available as a resource in further inquiry; not being settled in such a way as not to be subject to revision in further inquiry. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Those who demand the science be “settled” before we take action are seeking deductive certainty where we are working inductively. And there are other sources of confusion.</p>
<p>One is that simple statements about cause and effect are rare since nature is complex. For example, a theory might predict that X will cause Y, but that Y will be mitigated by the presence of Z and not occur at all if Q is above a critical level. To reduce this to the simple statement “X causes Y” is naive. </p>
<p>Another is that even though some broad ideas may be settled, the details remain a source of lively debate. For example, that evolution has occurred is certainly settled by any rational account. But some details of how natural selection operates are still being fleshed out. </p>
<p>To confuse the details of natural selection with the fact of evolution is highly analogous to quibbles about dates and exact temperatures from modelling and researching climate change when it is very clear that the planet is warming in general.</p>
<p>When our theories are successful at predicting outcomes, and form a web of higher level theories that are themselves successful, we have a strong case for grounding our actions in them.</p>
<p>The mark of intelligence is to progress in an uncertain world and the science of climate change, of human health and of the ecology of our planet has given us orders of magnitude more confidence than we need to act with certitude.</p>
<p>Demanding deductive certainty before committing to action does not make us strong, it paralyses us.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/65117/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Ellerton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
There’s a big difference between science and pseudoscience. But if people don’t understand how science works in the first place, it’s very easy for them to fall for the pseudoscience.
Peter Ellerton, Lecturer in Critical Thinking, The University of Queensland
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/48722
2015-10-07T19:08:45Z
2015-10-07T19:08:45Z
They won a Nobel for what? Why good science communication counts
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97653/original/image-20151007-7352-14yyfu7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Um, you figured out what by doing which?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-145597057/stock-photo-middle-aged-woman-reading-newspaper.html">Woman image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>When I was a newspaper science editor, I approached Nobel Prize season with mixed glee and anxiety. Glee, because I knew that, without even an argument, I would get space in the paper for stories about research too arcane to <a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/remember-newspaper-science-sections-theyre-almost-all-gone-1005680">make it into print</a> the other 51 weeks of the year. Like the Academy Awards, the Nobels always get covered, and obscure topics like <a href="http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2015/popular-physicsprize2015.pdf">neutrino metamorphosis</a> and <a href="http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2015/popular-chemistryprize2015.pdf">DNA excision repair</a> get their moment to shine, like the folks who win Oscars for sound mixing.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97631/original/image-20151007-7349-1xcy73t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97631/original/image-20151007-7349-1xcy73t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97631/original/image-20151007-7349-1xcy73t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97631/original/image-20151007-7349-1xcy73t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97631/original/image-20151007-7349-1xcy73t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97631/original/image-20151007-7349-1xcy73t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97631/original/image-20151007-7349-1xcy73t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97631/original/image-20151007-7349-1xcy73t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Academy Award winner or 2014 Nobel Laureate in Medicine?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.nobelprize.org/press/">© Nobel Media AB/Alexander Mahmoud</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But I felt anxious, too, because my job – as a journalist with no science background – was to make sure those stories would be clear and comprehensible to any reader, and fascinating to more than a few. I wanted them to be stories that would make someone pick up the phone – this was back in the day when people did that – and say, “You’ve got to hear about this.” But journalists are just one leg of the sometimes shaky triangle of science communication, with scientists and the public carrying the other two sides. </p>
<h2>Training scientists in the art of communication</h2>
<p>These days, Nobel season is pure pleasure for me. I’m still a professional nonscientist, but now I work helping scientists learn to communicate better about their research and why it matters with people outside their field. Here at the <a href="http://www.centerforcommunicatingscience.org/">Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science</a>, we teach graduate students and give workshops for hundreds of scientists around the US (including at least a couple of Nobel Prize winners, so far).</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97651/original/image-20151007-7333-1i5hpfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97651/original/image-20151007-7333-1i5hpfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97651/original/image-20151007-7333-1i5hpfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97651/original/image-20151007-7333-1i5hpfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97651/original/image-20151007-7333-1i5hpfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97651/original/image-20151007-7333-1i5hpfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97651/original/image-20151007-7333-1i5hpfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97651/original/image-20151007-7333-1i5hpfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Young scientists at Stony Brook University are including communication courses in their training.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dan Levitan</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>And I know that in Nobel season, I will find plenty of examples of how hard it is to explain complicated science to people like me – and also how well it can be done. Some will tell us that neutrinos have mass long before they tell us what neutrinos are, or why we should care if they have mass or not. Others will paint a vivid picture of these mysterious elementary particles, which exist everywhere yet are almost impossible to detect. Some will fall back on dehydrated jargon. Others will tell us juicy stories about real human people, engaged in difficult, idiosyncratic quests to learn something important about the world we all share.</p>
<p>Why is communicating science a challenge for many scientists? Blame “the curse of knowledge,” as described in the book <a href="http://www.randomhousebooks.com/books/77687/">Made to Stick</a> by Chip Heath and Dan Heath. The idea is that when you know something very well it becomes hard to remember what it was like not to know it. You no longer recognize what is amazing or mysterious or funny or confusing about your work. You no longer can tell jargon – the specialized language of your field – from everyday talk.</p>
<p>At the Alda Center, we’ve come up with tools to fight the curse of knowledge. But it takes practice and empathy – a leap of imagination.</p>
<h2>What does it matter for the public?</h2>
<p>As long as they’re effective at actually doing their research, should we care whether scientists can explain that work to the public?</p>
<p>The short answer is yes. Nearly every aspect of our lives – what we eat and wear, how we work, face illness and share information – rests on scientific research. To make well-founded decisions about our future, both as societies and as individuals, we need a basic understanding of the way science works. We need politicians and policymakers and media figures to understand that, too. </p>
<p>And researchers owe it to us. Almost every scientist receives some support from the public, including subsidies for graduate education or grants. So scientists have a responsibility to share their work with the public that funds them. That may mean opening themselves to criticism, as well as appreciation. But if the public doesn’t understand science, they won’t support funding for research.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97652/original/image-20151007-7345-voy3pv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97652/original/image-20151007-7345-voy3pv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97652/original/image-20151007-7345-voy3pv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97652/original/image-20151007-7345-voy3pv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97652/original/image-20151007-7345-voy3pv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97652/original/image-20151007-7345-voy3pv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=532&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97652/original/image-20151007-7345-voy3pv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=532&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97652/original/image-20151007-7345-voy3pv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=532&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">We’re all scientists here… but what the heck are you talking about?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/iita-media-library/4742714388">International Institute of Tropical Agriculture</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Clear communication benefits the scientists too</h2>
<p>As science gets more specialized, colleagues in neighboring fields become a lot like the public. They <a href="http://arstechnica.com/staff/2013/04/two-sciences-separated-by-a-common-language/">speak different languages</a>, with different knowledge bases. Words like “transformation,” “activation” and even “theory” <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eEBFGRO1UgA6OYoUF9XgRpwgXdliWIYB4J07qElEv-Y/edit?pli=1#gid=0">mean different things</a> in different fields (and something else again in everyday English). Does AI mean artificial intelligence, or artificial insemination?</p>
<p>Scientists often tell us that at meetings in their own field, they don’t understand 60%-80% of the lectures they hear. (“I want those hours of my life back.”) Yet, the world’s big challenges – from climate change to brain disease – increasingly require chemists, biologists, physicists, computer scientists, material scientists, earth scientists and others to collaborate. </p>
<p>And when scientists distill their message for lay audiences, they can actually gain insight that improves their science. Neurobiologist Nicholas Spitzer, co-director of the Kavli Institute for Brain and Mind at UC San Diego, <a href="http://www.kavlifoundation.org/science-spotlights/ucsd-communications-nicholas-spitzer">put it this way</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… when I talk publicly, I appreciate the need to step back and present the big picture, and in so doing put details into a larger context that is much more accessible – and much more memorable – for an audience. This has stimulated me to think about larger questions over the years and has influenced the directions of my research.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Science appreciation broadens our world</h2>
<p>Like art or music, science is a great human endeavor that can provide joy, beauty, entertainment and a sense of wonder to many more people than those who practice it. When scientists invite us into their world, paying attention to our needs the way good hosts do for their guests, they enlarge our lives.</p>
<p>So, thanks to the Nobel Prize for Physics, and all those who are trying to explain it. Not only do I now know a <a href="http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2015/mcdonald-interview.html">little more about neutrinos</a> – and why someone might want to put a 10-story neutrino detector a mile underground in a nickel mine in order to study elementary particles from the core of the sun – but the whole world looks a little wilder to me. And that’s before they even got to the prize for chemistry.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/48722/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Elizabeth Bass works for the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science at Stony Brook University.</span></em></p>
Nobel Prize-winning science is almost by definition arcane and complex. While these esoteric fields have their moment in the spotlight, does it matter if the rest of us understand?
Elizabeth Bass, Director Emerita of the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science, Stony Brook University (The State University of New York)
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/34111
2014-12-17T10:34:58Z
2014-12-17T10:34:58Z
To seek common ground on life’s big questions, we need science literacy
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/67305/original/image-20141216-24303-1pqvmhz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Everyone needs to understand the basics of science to participate fully in the democratic process.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=190521203&src=1GnCyj_w546thb1spWMkUg-1-35">Conversation image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Science isn’t important only to scientists or those who profess an interest in it. Whether you find fascinating every new discovery reported or you stopped taking science in school as soon as you could, a base level understanding is crucial for modern citizens to ground their engagement in the national conversation about science-related issues.</p>
<p>We need to look no further than the Ebola crisis to appreciate the importance of science literacy. A recently elected <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/10/10/from-the-right-ebola-is-the-latest-rallying-cry-for-closing-the-mexican-border/">senator</a> has linked sealing the US-Mexican border with keeping Ebola out of the US, even though the disease is nonexistent in Mexico. Four out of 10 Americans <a href="http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/poll-finds-many-in-us-lack-knowledge-about-ebola/">believe</a> there will be a large scale Ebola epidemic here, even though there have been just four cases in the US and only one fatality. Flu, on the other hand, which <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/flu/pastseasons/1314season.htm">killed</a> over 100 children here last winter, barely registers in the public consciousness.</p>
<p>Increasingly we must grapple with highly-charged and politicized science-based issues ranging from infectious diseases and human cloning to reproductive choices and climate change. Yet many – perhaps even the majority – of Americans aren’t sufficiently scientifically literate to make sense of these complicated issues. For instance, on one recent <a href="http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/index.cfm/chapter-7/c7h.htm">survey</a> of public attitudes and understanding of science and technology, Americans barely got a passing grade, answering only 5.8 out of 9 factual knowledge questions correctly.</p>
<p>Without a solid understanding of the underlying science and its implications for our daily lives, we can neither respond intelligently on a personal level nor hold our public officials accountable for sound policy decisions. Moreover, we risk falling prey to the tremendous power of fear and partisan political rhetoric. By grounding our understanding of issues in knowledge, we can gain the confidence to participate in the science conversation in a thoughtful way. Science literacy is a path to that knowledge.</p>
<h2>What’s needed to be scientifically literate?</h2>
<p>Science literacy is a foundational knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts and processes. For example, scientifically literate people should know that science is reproducible, evidence-based information that is fact and not opinion. They should have a working knowledge of the basic terminology needed to interpret the processes and outcomes of science. With this vocabulary in hand, they can engage in the critical thinking needed to apply healthy skepticism and to discern the grey areas and uncertainties inherent in science-based information. </p>
<p>As a <a href="http://sackler.tufts.edu/Faculty-and-Research/Faculty-Research-Pages/Jonathan-Garlick">stem cell scientist</a>, I have spent my life tackling elusive questions such as “what is personhood” or “when does life begin.” Recently, my interest has shifted to <a href="http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/summer2014/features/science.html">helping the public engage</a> in open-minded discussions about these types of questions.</p>
<p>The goal isn’t to move public opinion towards one side or another of the stem cell or any other debate, but rather to create a forum in which all sides are armed with basic scientific knowledge and have a legitimate voice in the conversation.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/67306/original/image-20141216-24285-xxt8sd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/67306/original/image-20141216-24285-xxt8sd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/67306/original/image-20141216-24285-xxt8sd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=599&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/67306/original/image-20141216-24285-xxt8sd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=599&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/67306/original/image-20141216-24285-xxt8sd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=599&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/67306/original/image-20141216-24285-xxt8sd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=753&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/67306/original/image-20141216-24285-xxt8sd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=753&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/67306/original/image-20141216-24285-xxt8sd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=753&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Get your head around some science basics and you’re ready for the big questions.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/davidyuweb/4446734924/in/photolist-53qx81-7LWFnw-7NsswK-bV5yBH-nwCT4Y-dsMTFL-oVqkJG-a4mMxm-9j4sda-aEbgtN-aiJBLc-jd2m45-98KpHe-ocei3-jdKejY-9dPysE-4vgY28-f9gtpD-cVAPkG-4T6Wjr">David Yu</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>How to get literate</h2>
<p>I teach a freshman seminar class at Tufts University called “Science and the Human Experience” that is largely populated with students whose interests are in the humanities and social sciences. The curriculum encourages these not-necessarily-science-lovers to explore the ways science affects their everyday lives. We talk about stem cells and abortion, right-to-die and drug treatment. We question when does life begin? What can our genome tell us? How do we experience pain? What does it mean to grow old? Students confront the emotional and personal consequences of science and its relationship to their lives.</p>
<p>Grappling with these issues is empowering. One student understood, for the first time, that her personal investment in science was connected to a loved one’s struggle with addiction. Another freshman planning on an English major discovered that she was, to her own surprise, “just as capable as anyone else of understanding and applying scientific material to my life.” Students uncover their own, personal rationales for engaging in these issues and then, most importantly, ask themselves, “Why does this matter to me?" They report that to learn the value of science, and to engage deeply in it, is to learn what it means to be human.</p>
<p>While knowledge is fundamental to addressing civic, science-based questions, our beliefs and values play an equally important role. As Yale law professor <a href="http://www.culturalcognition.net/kahan/">Dan Kahan</a>, who studies science and civic engagement, <a href="http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/4/23/what-you-believe-about-climate-change-doesnt-reflect-what-yo.html">says</a> "What people ‘believe’ about global warming doesn’t reflect what they know; it expresses who they are.” In fact, understanding the science is perhaps the easier part of the equation. The greater struggle is for people with diverse views on science-related issues to wrestle with these conflicting values. This is a messy but necessary part of a healthy civic dialogue. Therefore, any program to increase science literacy must equally embrace the goals of promoting a respectful, civic conversation that will work towards shared understanding.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/67307/original/image-20141216-24306-1e3lsem.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/67307/original/image-20141216-24306-1e3lsem.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/67307/original/image-20141216-24306-1e3lsem.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/67307/original/image-20141216-24306-1e3lsem.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/67307/original/image-20141216-24306-1e3lsem.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/67307/original/image-20141216-24306-1e3lsem.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/67307/original/image-20141216-24306-1e3lsem.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/67307/original/image-20141216-24306-1e3lsem.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">You deserve to contribute meaningfully to debate about important issues.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Obama_Health_Care_Speech_to_Joint_Session_of_Congress.jpg">Lawrence Jackson</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Informed citizens = productive dialogue</h2>
<p>So what’s a responsible citizen to do? First, become sufficiently science literate to understand the nuances of the important science-based issues of our day. Next, be prepared to engage in difficult conversations with fellow citizens with different opinions so that dialogue is valued over doctrine, as we work together to balance self-interest with compassion.</p>
<p>If everyone comes to the table with a base level of information and a willingness to listen to each other’s concerns, we can replace the polarization of our current public discourse with productive public problem solving. We can then approach each other with a genuine curiosity to build a science conversation that is enlivened by a search for mutual understanding regardless of a position held on an issue. We need not hold the same beliefs or values to find common ground on the important science-based issues that face us today and will only become more urgent in the years ahead.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/34111/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jonathan Garlick receives funding and provides histology and scientific consulting services for Organogenesis Inc and HSRL Inc. These companies and my services are not related to the content of the article.</span></em></p>
Science isn’t important only to scientists or those who profess an interest in it. Whether you find fascinating every new discovery reported or you stopped taking science in school as soon as you could…
Jonathan Garlick, Director of the Division of Cancer Biology and Tissue Engineering at the School of Dental Medicine, Tufts University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/21130
2013-12-05T14:39:45Z
2013-12-05T14:39:45Z
The seven deadly sins of health and science reporting
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/36950/original/y27bydsh-1386178021.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C170%2C685%2C478&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Who said there was no elixir of youth?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Kelly B</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Benjamin Franklin said two things are certain in life: death and taxes. Another one we could add to this list is that on any given news website and in almost all print media there will be articles about health and nutrition that are complete garbage.</p>
<p>Some articles that run under the health and nutrition “news” heading are thought provoking, well researched and unbiased, but unfortunately not all. And to help you traverse this maze – alongside an <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/policy-twenty-tips-for-interpreting-scientific-claims-1.14183">excellent article</a> about 20 tips for interpreting scientific claims – we will look at seven clichés of improper or misguided reporting.</p>
<p>If you spot any of these clichés in an article, we humbly suggest that you switch to reading <a href="http://icanhas.cheezburger.com/lolcats">LOLCats</a>, which will be more entertaining and maybe more informative too.</p>
<hr>
<h2>1. “Scientists have proven that” or “it has been scientifically proven that”</h2>
<p><strong>Why?</strong>: In science we never prove something, we can only improve our confidence in a hypothesis or find flaws with it.</p>
<p><strong>Details</strong>: Sometimes it is possible to disprove something confidently, but that mainly works in domains like physics. Medicine is notoriously messy because it deals with changeable, complex and individual bodies. There are potential exceptions to nearly anything, and the link between two things is generally statistical, rather than clear-cut “if X then Y” relationships. </p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/36925/original/bzggqd4s-1386159686.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/36925/original/bzggqd4s-1386159686.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=633&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36925/original/bzggqd4s-1386159686.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=633&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36925/original/bzggqd4s-1386159686.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=633&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36925/original/bzggqd4s-1386159686.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=795&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36925/original/bzggqd4s-1386159686.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=795&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36925/original/bzggqd4s-1386159686.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=795&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">OMG they’ve done what?!</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Ninja M</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Health and nutrition is even worse because it deals with how we interact with our equally messy environment. We know about most of the big contributory causes of bad health such as starvation, disease, parasites and poisoning so arguably many new findings are smaller refinements that are hard to pick out from the “noise” of individual variation and habits. We know plenty of things, just beware of absolute certainty.</p>
<p><strong>Takeaway</strong>: Discount the findings of any health or nutrition article with “<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7896385/Scientists-prove-that-women-are-better-at-multitasking-than-men.html">scientists prove that</a>…” by 80%.</p>
<h2>2. X causes cancer, so it must be bad</h2>
<p><strong>Why?</strong>: There are no good or bad substances. Even <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-drinking-too-much-water-can-kill">water can kill</a> you if you drink too much of it.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/36926/original/ppnhrt4k-1386160021.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/36926/original/ppnhrt4k-1386160021.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36926/original/ppnhrt4k-1386160021.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36926/original/ppnhrt4k-1386160021.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36926/original/ppnhrt4k-1386160021.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36926/original/ppnhrt4k-1386160021.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36926/original/ppnhrt4k-1386160021.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Nutmeg: spice and poison.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Marxfoods</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>Details</strong>: There are <a href="http://dailymailoncology.tumblr.com/">a surprising number</a> of things associated with slightly increased or decreased risks of getting cancer. We tend to think of things as pure/good/healthy or impure/evil/harmful, but in practice there’s no distinction. Many medications are poisonous, but they are helpful because they are more poisonous to infections or cancer cells than to the rest of the body. </p>
<p>Sometimes it’s the dose that makes the poison. So sleeping a lot <em>or</em> a little <a href="http://www.journalsleep.org/viewabstract.aspx?pid=27780">is associated</a> with higher mortality (even when you control for depression and sickness, which of course also affect how much you want or can sleep). There can also be trade-offs between risks and benefits. Moderate alcohol intake <a href="http://www.bhf.org.uk/heart-health/preventing-heart-disease/alcohol.aspx">can be good</a> for heart health (in middle aged men, at least), but it increases the risk of pancreatic cancer and accidents. Whether something is good for you may depend on who you are, what you do and other risk factors.</p>
<p><strong>Takeaway</strong>: As Oscar Wilde said, “everything in moderation, including moderation”; it is probably better to eat a diverse diet than to try to only eat “good” things.</p>
<h2>3. [Insert natural product, spice or beverage here] cures cancer, diabetes or heart disease</h2>
<p><strong>Why?</strong>: There are no “natural” or magic cures for cancer, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/cinnamon-diabetes-_b_839487.html">diabetes</a> or any diseases of ageing.</p>
<p><strong>Details</strong>: If these “<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4954/Is-garlic-cure-all.html">natural products</a>” actually worked, people consuming them would rarely, if ever, get the diseases of old age and die. The longest mean health and life spans of any sizeable population are in developed countries, and they are mainly attributable to antibiotics, vaccinations, reduction in smoking, improved sanitation, and public healthcare infrastructure. We don’t have artificial “silver bullets” either. </p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/36952/original/cwxm3zw6-1386178460.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/36952/original/cwxm3zw6-1386178460.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36952/original/cwxm3zw6-1386178460.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36952/original/cwxm3zw6-1386178460.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36952/original/cwxm3zw6-1386178460.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36952/original/cwxm3zw6-1386178460.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36952/original/cwxm3zw6-1386178460.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Enough said.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Nico Paix</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The reason is that most of these conditions are very complex and don’t have neat causes that can be fixed easily. Science is certainly working hard on the problem, but progress is generally piecemeal.</p>
<p><strong>Takeaway</strong>: We already have many drugs that were extracted from natural things or are based on them. When the <a href="http://www.cochrane.org/about-us">Cochrane collaboration</a>, an international network of thousands of researchers and organisations, compiles the results of large human trials involving natural products, then it is time to take notice. </p>
<h2>4. X gene causes you to smile/be grumpy/get diabetes</h2>
<p><strong>Why?</strong>: No single gene causes a behaviour trait or, except in rare cases, a complex disease.</p>
<p><strong>Details</strong>: When a single gene mutation causes something, we call it a monogenic disease. Monogenic diseases include cystic fibrosis, Huntington’s disease and sickle-cell anemia. Complex behavioural traits and diseases of ageing are polygenic and multi-factorial disorders, which depend on both genes and environment. No <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/shyness-gene-brought-out-into-open/">one gene</a> causes you to be happy, sad or diabetic.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/36927/original/z7xpmwn7-1386160397.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/36927/original/z7xpmwn7-1386160397.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36927/original/z7xpmwn7-1386160397.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36927/original/z7xpmwn7-1386160397.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36927/original/z7xpmwn7-1386160397.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36927/original/z7xpmwn7-1386160397.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36927/original/z7xpmwn7-1386160397.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A sad case of personality.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">aeu04117</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The same applies for brain areas and neurotransmitters: serotonin is involved in mood regulation, but it is also involved in regulating gut movement (<a href="http://themedicalbiochemistrypage.org/nerves.html#5ht">90% of it</a> is in the intestines). Adding more serotonin is unlikely to help either function. If you get happy by eating chocolate, it could be because you enjoy the taste and may not be due to chemical reactions within the brain. </p>
<p><strong>Takeaway</strong>: If you truly want to find reasons for your traits or propensity towards a complex disease, why not compile a detailed family history?</p>
<h2>5. <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2329152/Red-wine-helps-live-longer-energetic-lives-thanks-miracle-ingredient-claims-study.html">Red wine</a>, turmeric or yoga can help you live longer and be healthier</h2>
<p><strong>Why?</strong>: Unfortunately, there is no fountain of youth or elixir of life.</p>
<p><strong>Details</strong>: Articles that state eating something or doing something can help you live longer generally make their case using a long-lived or comparatively healthy population <a href="https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/events/pdf/expert/9/ogawa.pdf">such as Japan</a>. In these populations, the effects of eating or doing something can be explained by their homogenous genetics and environment. Even so, these people still live the normal maximum human lifespan, which is about 100 years.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/37023/original/73qnyst9-1386235989.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/37023/original/73qnyst9-1386235989.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37023/original/73qnyst9-1386235989.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37023/original/73qnyst9-1386235989.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37023/original/73qnyst9-1386235989.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37023/original/73qnyst9-1386235989.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37023/original/73qnyst9-1386235989.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">So innocent.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Public domain photos</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Science has figured out a lot about how ageing works, and some researchers work <a href="http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/02/21/drugs-to-slow-aging-are-a-matter-of-when-not-if/">on slowing it down</a>. However, there is still a vast step from what works on a small lab animal to a useful pill for humans. Stay tuned.</p>
<p><strong>Takeaway</strong>: If you want to <a href="https://theconversation.com/if-you-want-to-live-longer-do-nothing-14134">live longer</a>, don’t smoke, take recommended vaccinations, exercise and just <a href="https://theconversation.com/rumination-and-remedy-five-ways-to-improve-your-outlook-19527">try to enjoy</a> life.</p>
<h2>6. A new study from [insert elite university name here] …</h2>
<p><strong>Why?</strong>: Science, unlike religion, doesn’t work based on authority. Don’t assume that an experiment is well constructed and executed because it’s from an elite university.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/36953/original/83wnyycw-1386179293.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/36953/original/83wnyycw-1386179293.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36953/original/83wnyycw-1386179293.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36953/original/83wnyycw-1386179293.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36953/original/83wnyycw-1386179293.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36953/original/83wnyycw-1386179293.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36953/original/83wnyycw-1386179293.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Better croquet doesn’t mean better science.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Spartacus</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>Details</strong>: Less elite universities can of course do bad research but “brand names” apply in academia as they do elsewhere. Some universities have or can afford bigger press teams than others. Journalists are trained to provide accurate, nuanced and unbiased analyses to the public. This is regularly practised in the political domain with reports on political scandals and other investigative journalism. We <a href="http://xkcd.com/1295/">need the same</a> for science. </p>
<p><strong>Takeaway</strong>: Would you still read this article if the research was performed at the University of Never-heard-of-them in Where-in-the-world-is-this city?</p>
<h2>7. Just-so stories</h2>
<p><strong>Why?</strong>: In science, laboratory results seldom make simple stories. This is especially true when dealing with biology.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/36951/original/db7hfrvr-1386178292.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/36951/original/db7hfrvr-1386178292.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36951/original/db7hfrvr-1386178292.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36951/original/db7hfrvr-1386178292.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36951/original/db7hfrvr-1386178292.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36951/original/db7hfrvr-1386178292.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36951/original/db7hfrvr-1386178292.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Not 200,000 years ago.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Ell Brown</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>Details</strong>: It’s easy to believe a good story, such as how diet habits like those of your ancient ancestors are healthier for you or that women think in a certain way because they were gatherers rather than hunters. It sounds plausible. Unfortunately, sounding plausible often has almost nothing to do with actually being true.</p>
<p><strong>Takeaway</strong>: If you come across a neat little just-so story, it is likely over-simplified and stripped of its contextual underpinning, or just plain wrong.</p>
<hr>
<p>Our aim isn’t to undermine the value of science but to become more critical reporters and readers. The list is by no means exhaustive and if you feel we have missed an important cliché, please comment below, email or tweet us. In the meantime remember, if you want to live longer, have fun and <a href="https://theconversation.com/if-you-want-to-live-longer-do-nothing-14134">do nothing</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/21130/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
Benjamin Franklin said two things are certain in life: death and taxes. Another one we could add to this list is that on any given news website and in almost all print media there will be articles about…
Avi Roy, PhD student, University of Buckingham
Anders Sandberg, James Martin Research Fellow, University of Oxford
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.