A much needed book for scientific and
non-scientific communities alike. Written by science writer (and former
New York Times editor) Cornelia Dean, the book makes the case that
scientists need to make “their work more accessible to the media, and
thus to the public.” This doesn’t come naturally to most scientists, and
so the book gives some practical tips on how scientists can accomplish
this goal.
Dean starts with “an invitation to
researchers” to put aside their natural reticence and distrust of the
media and help themselves and journalists get the key messages of their
science across to the public. Because there are plenty of people out
there who don’t hesitate to misinform the public about the science in
order to protect their own interests (e.g., the climate change debate).
In ensuing chapters she provides some insights into how scientists can
better “know your audience,” help educate and work with journalists, and
how to get the message across on radio and TV, online, and in the
courtroom. She also offers tips on writing books, writing Op-Eds and
letters to news outlets, and writing about science and technology in
other venues.
Two of the most valuable chapters
actually have to do with how journalists cover science issues. In
“Covering Science,” Dean notes some of the differences in style and
communication between journalism and scientific writing. These
differences set up an inherent conflict. Scientific researchers view
journalists as being superficial, insufficiently concerned with
accuracy, focused on controversy, and even “ignorant.” In turn,
journalists view researchers as boring, “caveating things to death,”
prone to incomprehensible jargon, and incapable of drawing a definitive
conclusion. In “The Problem of Objectivity,” Dean discusses the
limitations of journalistic “balance” in which one opposing voice is
given equal weight to the thousands of proponent voices because both
sides are represented. This journalistic trait is exploited by, for
example, climate change deniers, who know that TV interviews with one
scientist and one naysayer (even if he is a non-scientist) looks to the
public like “two sides” of a debate, even when the science is
overwhelmingly in favor of one view. Given that it is often difficult
for a journalist to know the state-of-the-art of the science, this opens
the door for imbalance in an effort to provide balance.
Perhaps
the most valuable chapter to scientists is “The Scientist as Source.”
Here Dean provides some practical hints as to how scientists can best
interact with journalists. Again she encourages scientists to put aside
their hesitations to speak to the press and to embrace the opportunity
to get out a message that accurately reflects both the research itself
and the ramifications of that research to the public.
“Am
I Making Myself Clear?” is quite readable, as one might expect from a
science journalist. I recommend reading this book along with Chris
Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum’s Unscientific America and Randy Olson’s Don’t Be Such a Scientist. All three books are
useful to the scientist to help him or her relate better to the public,
and to the public at large to better understand how science works.
