National Academy Releases Report on Effective Science Communication
“Science
and technology are embedded in virtually every aspect of modern life.”
As a society, we are
frequently faced with decisions that can and should be guided by
sound, scientific information, and yet all too often, the scientific
community’s message is lost or worse still, overshadowed by
misinformation. A new report from the National Academies of Science,
Engineering and Medicine entitled, Communicating Science
Effectively: A Research Agenda seeks to change this paradigm.
Compiled by a
multidisciplinary committee chaired by Alan Leshner, Chief
Executive Officer Emeritus of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, the report reviews the existing research on
effective science communication and lays out a research agenda to
continue to improve science communication specifically in the face of
controversy. Dr.
Leshner explained in a press release, “Science communication is a
complex task and acquired skill. There is no obvious approach to
communicating effectively about science, particularly when it is a
contentious issue such as climate change, stem cells, vaccines, or
hydraulic fracturing. More research needs to be conducted to
strengthen the science of science communication and work toward
evidence-based practices.”
Five Goals for
Communicating Science
Noting that the most effective methods for
communicating science will depend on the end goal, the committee
identified five goals for scientific communication. This diverse set
of goals needs diverse communication strategies, and the committee
believes that a major research effort is necessary to identify
effective approaches.
|
● |
Share the findings and
excitement of science |
|
● |
Increase appreciation
for science as a useful way of understanding and navigating the
modern world |
|
● |
Increase knowledge and
understanding of the science related to a specific issue |
|
● |
Influence people's
opinions, behavior, and policy preferences |
|
● |
Engage with diverse
groups so that their perspectives about science related to
important social issues can be considered in seeking solutions to
societal problems that affect everyone |
The Deficit of the
“Deficit Model”
One key finding of the report centers around mounting
evidence that the widely held “deficit model” of scientific
communication is wrong. In this model, it is assumed that skepticism
or disbelief of scientific fact stems from a lack of scientific
understanding. The research suggests, however, that individuals may
fully understand the science on an issue, but still act in a
dismissive manner. They choose instead to behave in a way that is
consistent with their own knowledge, needs and/or values. As a result,
increasing scientific knowledge in the public alone will not solve the
existing communication problems. Additionally, because scientific
communication is complicated and consists of many dynamic,
interrelated elements, the authors of the report stress that a systems
approach is necessary to guide research to develop a deep
understanding and advance scientific communication.
Building a Coherent
Science Communication Research Enterprise
The report identifies
four keys to building a science communication research enterprise.
|
● |
Form partnerships to
translate what is learned through communication research into
practice and to develop detailed research agendas for testing
hypotheses |
|
● |
Build bridges across
the diverse disciplines that study aspects of science
communication and controversies |
|
● |
Recruit new
scientists, particularly those with social and behavioral science
backgrounds |
|
● |
Have mechanisms for
the rapid review and funding of certain science communication
research |
Scientific
Controversy and the Media Environment
Already inherently complicated, scientific
communication becomes even more nuanced in the face of scientific
controversy. Scientific controversies have three key features: 1) they
typically involve conflicts of beliefs, values and interests that
overshadow a need for basic knowledge, 2) public uncertainty is bred
from the communication of different, at times contradictory messages,
and 3) the loudest voices are not always the ones backed by scientific
truth. To address these three features, the report calls for research
into communicating science effectively across diverse social issues
and science-related controversies, research into the development of
large-scale processes for understanding the public’s response to
perceived uncertainty, and research into how to correct scientific
misinformation. All this must happen in a complicated, vacillating
media environment where differentiation between accurate and
inaccurate scientific information is difficult.
Future Directions
“Most people do not pay attention to science
regularly.” Instead, their scientific interest is motivated by the
sudden need to make a decision (i.e. Should I vaccinate my children?).
This decision can be influenced by the complex nature of scientific
information and how individuals process that information (i.e. Do I
truly understand the risks around vaccinating or not vaccinating my
children?) as well as through social influences. Additional research
is needed to understand whether and how these factors relate to best
practices for science communication. We must also improve our
understanding of the role of science communication in influencing
policy makers and how to best formally engage a diverse public. In the
end, the committee calls for commitment from both science
communicators and and scientists to aid progress. “The need to
communicate science effectively - for the sake of the public, policy
makers, and the science community itself - lends urgency to the
implementation of the research agenda proposed.”
Read the full report
here:
https://tinyurl.com/hlvnjmz
■
|