National Research Council Group Develops “Take Home Messages” For
Scientists Interfacing With The Public
Societal debates about
scientific matters are an ongoing occurrence. Examples includes those
on climate change, stem cell research, genetically modified foods,
synthetic biology, and nanotechnology. In public health, these debates
have revolved around vaccines and autism, tobacco control, cell phones
and brain cancer, gun control, asbestos, screening guidelines, and
many other topics where epidemiologic data have been central to the
discussions.
Key Quotes
“I want to assure you that the public is not
irrational”,
“There is no unframed information”,
“Sometimes science plays a very small role in the decisions
that we make involving scientific topics”
“Where there is respectful discourse, it is my experience
that we get better-quality outcomes in the public interest.”
These are some of the quotes used by rapporteurs of a
workshop on science communication sponsored by the National Research
Council earlier this year. The workshop was focused on the topic of
genetically modified organisms and the challenges and lessons learned
from interfacing with the public on this issue, however much of the
content of the report and the conclusions reached are applicable
across many scientific disciplines, especially epidemiology.
The “science of science communication” has learned a
great deal about how people process information, make decisions, and
engage with the world, according to the report, and these lessons
apply to scientists as well as laypersons.
Key Conceptual Points
Some of the key conceptual points presented at the
workshop included:
·
The
deficit model is the idea that if people had more information, they
would agree with scientists and make better decisions. But that is not
how people make decisions. Better explanation by scientists and better
listening by the public is not the answer to the science communication
problem.
·
People
use mental shortcuts to make sense of excessive and complex
information.
·
Bringing
people with diverse viewpoints together is one way to resist
confirmation bias , the tendency to look for information that supports
what people already believe and to dismiss disconfirming information.
·
All
information is framed, regardless of intent to frame.
·
Scientists can assume various roles in a policy discussion—pure
scientist, science arbiter, issue advocate, and honest broker—and all
the roles are needed in a robust society.
·
The pure
science communicator, uninvolved in politics, does not exist.
Take Away Ideas
Flowing from these findings, participants at the two
day workshop also developed actions to help scientists and their
supporting institutions to prepare for and conduct public engagement.
Among the “take away” ideas were the following:
1. Understand the
controversy.
By this participants mean that scientists should take the time to
study and identify the true issues and to develop a strategy. This is
a better approach than automatically assuming that simply getting out
more information to the public is the right approach. Scientists were
encouraged to foster a science communication environment that supports
basing decisions on diverse values and interests while gaining access
to the best information available.
2. Manage the
communication process.
As one member explained, “if you don’t just try to impose something on
people, if you enter into their lives in a way that shows that you are
respectful of and solicitous about their stake in what you are doing,
you will have a community that is less likely to be vulnerable to
being misinformed.”
3. Draw from social
science evidence to inform public engagement practice.
The idea here is to help scientists to avoid missteps and to avoid
reinventing the wheel by ignoring what has been and is being learned
about how people come to know what they know.
4. Get communication
training.
5. Examine your
biases.
As one member clarified, “…recognizing that bias is part of the human
condition rather than a shortcoming can advance how we engage with
others about science in a rational way.”
6. Public engagement
is not the same as persuasion.
Simply stated, one member noted that you need to be able to put
yourself at intellectual risk to have true engagement with other
parties. Stated another way, this suggests you need to be prepared to
change your mind.
7. Common ground
encourages respectful discourse.
This was expressed as follows—“the quality of the fight
is better when we can acknowledge some shared commitments before we
begin the really difficult conversation.” ■
|