|
Reprint from the October 2013 Epidemiology Monitor
The Science of
Science Communication Discussed At National Academies Colloquium
[Editor’s Note:
This
month's feature, the conversation with William Schaffner,
prompted us to reprint the article below from eight years ago. The
report on a Science Communication meeting contains many insights that
should be considered in bringing about effective public communication
and is a useful adjunct to the concepts discussed by Dr Schaffner.]
“You can’t persuade
someone you don’t respect.” That attention-grabbing statement was only
one of many uttered by Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Professor of
Communication and Director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at
the University of Pennsylvania, speaking at a colloquium held at the
National Academy of Sciences in September in Washington DC. According
to the Science Academies, the colloquium was organized because topics
critical to the welfare of society are suffering from ineffective
communication.
Keynote Talk
Social, behavioral,
and decision scientists presented on “The Science of Science
Communication” to help attendees better understand the complexities of
successful science communication. The keynote address entitled
“Responding to the Attack on the Best Available Evidence” was given by
Jamieson who tried to help her audience understand how scientists can
communicate with the public in situations where trust has been lost,
scientists are accused of not being impartial, and the public itself
has come to see the facts through a partisan lens.
Topics such as
communicating uncertainty, belief and attitude formation about science
topics, and social networks were also discussed. On the third day,
participants had the option to attend concurrent workshops on climate
change, evolution, obesity/nutrition, and nanotechnology.
Prescription
Jamieson’s
prescription for improved communication involves efforts to breakdown
the partisan filters that prevent persons from being able to see
evidence more objectively. Techniques useful for this purpose include
the use of evocative narratives and the use of clarifying metaphors.
The “Lock-Down”
Metaphor
Jamieson’s example of
such a “lock-down” metaphor is likening global warming to a driver in
a car in the habit of traveling slightly above the speed limit. It
does not mean that the speed itself will be the cause of a future
accident, but it suggests that speeding makes it more likely that
something else encountered such as an oil spot on the road will cause
an accident. And if so, the accident will be more calamitous. This
helps explain the difficult concept to grasp that because of global
warming, the number and severity of weather events will increase,
though not all such events will be caused by global warming. Not an
easy concept to get across without an effective or “lock-down”
metaphor, according to Jamieson.
More Prescription
Her prescription also
includes speaking with a respectful voice, using impartial rhetoric,
and envisioning the audience as an intelligent one worthy of engaging.
This is the section of her talk where she stated “you can’t persuade
someone you do not respect”.
Common Premise
She noted the
importance of finding common ground with the audience, finding a
common premise on which to build communication. Without this common
premise she said, effective communication is not possible. “The
audience has to invest meaning for the communication to work,” said
Jamieson.
By way of summary,
Jamieson repeated that effective communication requires establishing
that scientific consensus exists on an issue, establishing the
credibility of experts based on past successes, and countering the
partisan filter. This latter achievement requires explaining what we
know and how we know it, employing evocative narrative, and using
clarifying metaphors. Succeeding in communication, according to
Jamieson, means we as a society will be more likely to lead the kind
of lives that are compatible with good science.
Scientists and Policy
World
During the question
and answer period, Jamieson was asked if scientists should become more
conversant with values so as to be more effective in disputes about
evidence. She made a distinction between scientists operating in the
world of science trying to describe what we know and how we know it
from the world of policy where participants are debating alternatives
for action. She said the expertise in these two worlds was different,
and appeared to be discouraging scientists from entering the policy
world because it risks the credibility of the scientists.
A second questioner
followed up to ask if Jamieson was really saying that making
recommendations on the basis of evidence such as might occur for
vaccines known to be effective was off limits for scientists. She said
this was a “fuzzy area”, but said the case for vaccines should be made
on the merits of evidence for safety and efficacy. Whether or not the
government should mandate vaccines or pay for vaccines is another
matter, she said, and appeared to call that off limits for scientists.
Minority Views
Another provocative
question was asked about when it was appropriate or acceptable to
ignore minority views since it is widely accepted that there will
always be such a minority in a democracy. Jamieson answered that in a
democracy we can resolve disputes or get consent by counting votes.
She did not answer directly the question of what to do about minority
views. She added that very often the goal may be to persuade one
person with the power to decide and not 51% of any group since the
power may actually reside in that president, governor, or other
official.
■
|