Houston: We Have a Narrative by Randy Olson

Periodically I review books related to science communication. This is a review of Houston, We Have a Narrative: Why Science Needs Story by Randy Olson (2015, University of Chicago Press, 256 pp).

Randy Olson is a former marine biologist who gave up his tenured professorship to move to Hollywood and become a film-maker. With "Houston," he builds on his earlier book ("Don't Be Such a Scientist") and the experience he has gained from the story-telling world of movies. The book has a simple message for scientists - you need a narrative. 

It's not that simple, of course, and Olson does a great job of introducing some simple methods scientists can use to communicate their science to other scientists and to the public. He emphasizes that the key to storytelling is to find the narrative core - the message people will take away. He employs what he calls a WSP Model, the shrinking down of the core message to one word, one sentence, and one paragraph. Two principle techniques are what he calls the Dobzhansky Template ("Nothing in _______ makes sense except in the light of ______.") and ABT.

ABT really is the central point of the book. The story should follow an AND, BUT, THEREFORE structure. Much of the book discusses what this is, how to develop it, and techniques for using it to communicate your story. It's simple, but powerful. 

There is much more: the Heroes Journey, the Logline maker, the story templates. And let's not forget McKee's Triangle of three pure story forms - antiplot, miniplot, and archplot. The archplot is the key. Study it, learn it, use it.

As examples he explains how the communication of climate change is "Bo-ho-horing" and fits a classic "miniplot" storyline. The combination creates a communications mess that explains why the public still doesn't understand the urgency. That's a problem. 

Olson's writing style is mostly fluid and with a wisp of humor threading through it. He leans a lot on his own experiences, both in the science world and the film making world. I would highly recommend all scientists to read the book and practice the techniques. Your colleagues and the public will understand you a lot better. 

Science Communication: Taking Control of Your Message

Communicating your research to the public is perhaps the most critical aspect of science today, but one most scientists haven’t spent much time thinking about. After years of laboring over a lab bench or mucking in the mud or ducking osprey talons, you’ve diligently checked your spreadsheets, run your models, performed your statistics, and written your technical papers for submission to scientific journals. Your research is published! Now the real work begins. 

Gone are the days where scientists could publish their results then move on to the next experiment. Sure, you attend conferences, read other scientists’ work, and chat chirality over cappuccinos. But we live in an interconnected world where we as scientists have the opportunity- and whether we like it or not, the obligation - to communicate directly to policymakers and the public.  

Face it: There are people out there whose goal is not the same as yours. Scientists can’t assume the facts of their research will be communicated accurately. Newspapers have eliminated most of their in-house science reporting; cable TV thrives on sensational sound-bites, not scientific veracity; and people read fewer books and magazines in this age of Facebook and Twitter. If your work is in an area that is considered controversial (e.g., climate change or clean drinking water or pollution or pretty much anything), there are lobbyists, politicians, and internet trolls who will actively misrepresent your work. 

It is now imperative that we scientists take responsibility for the accurate communication of our science to the public. How do we do that? When we write a journal article we follow a prescribed format for communication: introduction, methods, results, analysis, discussion, conclusions. To communicate to the public we need to do the same, but drop the jargon and dramatically change the emphasis of the writing. 

Instead of burying the lead, state it up front. Start with the main message you want your reader to take away. State the method in one sentence (just say it’s a survey; don't describe the details). Mention key facts that drive the analysis, but don’t rattle off statistics. Put the results in the context of the public’s day to day reality. Mention any uncertainties if they are critical to a broad understanding, but don't overwhelm the public with them. Have you ever seen those drug advertisements in magazine ads? Notice how the one page ad has 2 or 3 pages of small print listing every possible side effect, even the most highly improbable ones. These are not meaningful communication. People tune them out, so don’t hide the real risks with facts that are meaningless to your audience. Be honest always, but be concise. 

When you finish your scientific papers, think about how you can communicate your research to a broader audience.

1) Write a common language summary in addition to your technical abstract.

2) Frame your results within the public's context. If your research shows high pollutant levels in osprey eggs, tell the public how it affects them.

3) Provide the summary to the media. Yes, some labs or agencies provide press releases, but it’s your responsibility to make sure they get it right (and they often don’t).

4) Network with the media, especially the local or regional papers, broadcast media, and influential science communicators. Let them know who they can call.

5) Network with political representatives at the local, regional, national, and international levels. Keep in mind SETAC’s global and tripartite representation. Your job is to make sure all policymakers base their policy-making on accurate science no matter what the party.

6) Watch for misrepresentation of your work by the media, lobbyists, or online fora. Again, it’s your responsibility to rebut those who, intentionally or unintentionally, mislead the public based on your work. [But see below for an important caveat]

7) Present the big picture to the local public at libraries, churches, community centers. Keep it broad and meaningful; don’t bore people with the details of one narrow experiment.

8) Start a blog. This might be the most useful tool for many scientists. Not all of us are Neil deGrasse Tyson with a national television and Twitter following. Our reach is limited, but we can expand that reach by producing a blog that communicates science to a broader audience.

  

Facebook and Twitter are now where a large percentage of Americans get their “news.” But be careful. Science isn’t done on Facebook, and you aren’t going to change anyone’s mind. People are there for entertainment and proselytizing. Instead, set up a Facebook page to transmit information, but don’t waste time arguing with the trolls. 

If you do respond to false statements or myths on the internet – Facebook, blogs, whatever – the first rule is: Don’t put the myth first. Studies have shown that when you debunk myths by first stating the myth, followed by a long explanation of its faults, most people remember the myth and not the debunking. Instead, first provide the take-away fact, then a short statement of the myth, followed by a longer, but still relatively brief, explanation of why the myth is faulty and why the fact is supported.

The bottom line is that you must be prepared to communicate the science to non-scientists after your scientific papers are completed. Follow three basic rules, as noted by John Cook, a science communicator at George Mason University:  

1                         > State clearly your main point/take-home message, and repeat it often.

2              > Avoid back and forth arguments with non-scientists/deniers; it just confuses anyone who is   watching/reading.

3              > Inoculate people against “alternative facts” (i.e., falsehoods) by exposing the tricks used by misinformers, e.g., fake experts, logical fallacies, impossible expectations, cherry picking, and conspiracy theories.

I try to do the latter here on The Dake Page, a blog about science communication. Feel free to set up your own blog to correct misconceptions, or seek out other communication opportunities. The important point is that you, as the scientist, must take control of your message. And that means reaching out to the public and policymakers.

[This article was recently published in the CPRC Newsletter. For more on CPRC, check out their website.]

Clarifying Recent Press Coverage Misrepresenting a '1.5 degrees' Paper in Nature Geoscience

The media and anti-science lobbyists have once again grossly misrepresented a scientific study. The authors of that study have issued a statement to clarify:

A number of media reports have asserted that our recent study in Nature Geoscience indicates that global temperatures are not rising as fast as predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and hence that action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is no longer urgent.

Both assertions are false.

This sort of misrepresentation is common in the mass media. Lobbyists lie about the study, and the science-deficient reporting staffs of mainstream media focus more on creating sensational headlines than on getting the science right. These misrepresentations - both intentional and unintentional - then get saturated across the blogosphere, thus spreading the false information wider than the original study.

Which is why scientists have to always be sure to keep control of their message.

The authors go on to state that their results confirm the IPCC prediction. When media and blogs claim it doesn't, they are either unintentionally misleading the public or, sadly, outright lying.

Our results are entirely in line with the IPCC’s 2013 prediction that temperatures in the 2020s would be 0.9-1.3 degrees above pre-industrial....

Their study looked at the project CO2 emissions based on the goals set in the recent Paris agreement. They clearly state that to meet that goal "emission reductions would need to begin immediately and reach zero in less than 40 years’ time."

To repeat, to meet the goals set by the Paris agreement, emissions reductions would have to start NOW and emissions would have to be completely eliminated no later than 40 years from now. That's an ambitious goal, and actions to reach it must begin immediately if it is to be accomplished.

...to suggest that this means that measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are now unnecessary is clearly false.

Indeed, action to reduce - and then eliminate - carbon emissions is required to start immediately.  Those arguing that the study suggests we can sit around and do nothing are at best misrepresenting, and often intentionally lying, about the study. Clearly, we must take substantial action, and take that substantial action now and for decades to come.

This is yet another example of how the media often fails to communicate the science accurately, and how some ideological and lobbying outlets intentionally misrepresent studies. This is why scientists, whether we like it or not, must always be aware of how our science is being communicated - and miscommunicated - by others in the real world.

To Communicate Science, First Lose the Jargon. Here's how.

Effective communication of science requires that scientists reach out to a variety of audiences. First we need to communicate our research to other scientists, both in and out of our fields of study ("scientific communication"). But we also need to communicate to policymakers, to the media, and to the public ("science communication"). For these latter three, one of my previous suggestions was to "drop the jargon." Now there is a tool to help you do that.

The term "jargon" is in itself jargon. Jargon is defined as "special words or expressions that are used by a particular profession or group and are difficult for others to understand." Both astronomers and oncologists use their own jargon, much of which sounds like gibberish to the other professional. Just think how it sounds to the general public.


Scientists at two Israeli universities have come up with something they call a De-Jargonizing program. In a nutshell, it automatically identifies words that are jargon, that is, that are likely to be unknown by the general population. Once identified, the buzz words can be replaced with more comprehensible language. 

The best part about the de-jargonizer is that it is freely available to anyone at no charge. Go to this URL:

scienceandpublic.com 


Upload your file or manually type in your passage. Press "Start" and you'll see what terms you'll have to edit. 

The importance of de-jargonizing cannot be stressed enough. The study concluded that no more than 2% of the words in summaries should be classified as "jargon" if you want non-experts to understand. But the average abstract in PLOS Computational Biology, a peer-reviewed but open-access journal available online to the public, contained 10% jargon. Even the summaries intentionally written to communicate the study to non-expert audiences averaged 8% jargon, far above the recommended 2%. Other journals were even worse.

Using jargon in journal articles intended for other experts in the same field is both appropriate and necessary for precise communication of study details. But scientists today must also consider how the results of their study fit into the overall communication of important issues to the public. As this page has repeatedly noted, there are people and organizations who intentionally mislead the public by misrepresenting scientific research. Therefore, it is critical that all scientists ensure their study findings and methods are accurately reported. And for the policymakers, the media, and the public that means losing the jargon that confuses more than informs. The de-jargonizer can help you do that.

more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-08-de-jargonizing-decode-science.html#jCp

esearchers at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology and HIT–Holon Institute of Technology have created a program that automatically identifies terms the average person may not know. In a recent paper published in PLOS One, the free of charge and scientist-friendly De-Jargonizer hosted at scienceandpublic.com is introduced.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-08-de-jargonizing-decode-science.html#jCp

esearchers at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology and HIT–Holon Institute of Technology have created a program that automatically identifies terms the average person may not know. In a recent paper published in PLOS One, the free of charge and scientist-friendly De-Jargonizer hosted at scienceandpublic.com is introduced.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-08-de-jargonizing-decode-science.html#jCp

If I Understood You, Would I Have This Look on My Face? by Alan Alda [Book Review]

Next in my periodic series of book reviews is Alan Alda's newest book on science communicating, If I Understood You, Would I Have This Look on My Face? My Adventures in the Art and Science of Relating and Communicating, published in June 2017.

As a scientist and author concerned about how we communicate with the general public, I was eager to read this book by revered actor Alan Alda. The book reiterates and expands on a lecture I saw him give a few days ago. Between the two I learned a lot about improving communication. Alda mixes anecdotes and stories from his own experience, both as an actor (M*A*S*H, West Wing, movies, etc.) and his lifelong interest in science that led to him hosting Scientific American Frontiers for 11 years. Recently he helped establish the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science at Stony Brook University, where many of the techniques discussed in the book were developed and are currently used to teach communication skills to scientists.

The first of two parts includes eleven chapters and primarily focuses on laying the groundwork for communication. He emphasizes the importance of empathy and "theory of mind." The ten chapters in the second part delve more deeply into the scientific studies conducted to investigate the skill sets being taught.

Much of the training incorporates the concept of improvisation, or Improv. This is a technique often used by actors (and more famously by comedians) to entertain without a script. In this case, the technique is used to help scientists and others to learn how to "read" the person they are trying to communicate with. Games such as "the mirror exercise" help participants learn empathy, a mutual understanding of the person you're speaking to.

There is much more to the book than one might expect from an actor. Alda has taken his goal of helping scientists communicate seriously, proposing and participating in studies to determine the best methods for teaching others. He provides a strong scientific basis from the studies he describes and has worked with or interviewed professors and practitioners of these methods.

Based on my own experience (it's part of the reason I left a scientific consulting career to pursue writing and expanding public knowledge of science and history), the book is both scientifically robust and entertaining to read. While the focus is on helping scientists to better communicate, the lessons imparted will also be useful for all of us who wish to be better understood by - and to better understand - our fellow members of the public. Alan Alda should be commended for his contributions in this much needed area. 

Alan Alda on Communicating Science

Alda Alda is in the house. He is here to help communicate the science of communicating science.

I arrive a full hour before the lecture and 10 minutes before they open the doors, but the line is already wrapped around the side of the building. Alda is a paragon in the acting business, best known for his roles of Hawkeye Pierce on M*A*S*H and Arnold Vinick on The West Wing. He won an Oscar for his role in The Aviator (a movie about Howard Hughes). But Alda is also a lifelong science geek that found his dream when he hosted Scientific American Frontiers for 11 years. That show taught him how to help scientists communicate better with the public. When it ended, he helped found the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science at Stony Brook University.

I grab a seat five rows from the front. The auditorium holds 1500 seats, more than three-quarters of which are filled by the time he struts on stage. At 81 years old he looks a little bedraggled at first, but quickly warms up and has the audience laughing and cheering. His long career in acting is put to good use - he becomes a storyteller. And the stories he tells are how to communicate science.

He tells us that the beginnings of this crusade came when he was about 50 years old and laid back in a dentist's chair. Just as the scalpel was about to touch his gums the surgeon says, "There will be some tethering." Wait, what? Alda asks him to explain what tethering is and the reply is a frantically impatient "Tethering! Tethering!" with no further explanation. Two weeks later Alda is posing for a close up on a movie set and the cameraman asks him why he is sneering. It turns out that the dental operation left him with reduced mobility such that his intended smile came off as a sneer. The incident brought home the importance of proper communication from doctor to patient, though Alda admits the artifact now lets him play villains more credibly. The ensuing laughter sets the story in our minds.

His long experience interviewing scientists helped him understand what communication works...and what doesn't. Most scientists talk over the heads of their non-science audiences, making the science inaccessible. Throughout his lecture Alda offered tips on how to communicate better. He also conducted practical examples of the kind of training he and his Stony Brook colleagues teach at the Center for Communicating Science.

Much of that training relies on what actors and comedians call improvisation, or Improv. Simple exercises like "mirroring" help build empathy and relating of the scientist to the non-scientist. The communicator is responsible for guiding the other person to make sure they are following. Paying more attention to how and whether the other person is understanding you allows you to see where you are losing them and change tack. Improv helps scientists learn how to reach people, to learn empathy. The concept of empathy is intriguing. Practicing paying attention leads to better reading of the emotions the person is feeling, which he says is a tremendous tool for communication.

If you can't attend Improv training, he suggests reading literary novels that delve into the thoughts and emotions of the characters. Or watch a movie with the sound turned down and try to figure out the emotions of the actors. He likes watching Scandinavian movies since he doesn't know the language. Another option is try to figure out the emotions of people you meet during the day, something you do every time you go to Starbucks or buy groceries. Paying attention heightens your awareness, which can make you a better communicator.

He also warns about overuse of jargon, something I've talked about before on these pages. Scientists must fight the "curse of knowledge," where they understand their field of work so well they forget that others don't know these things. This holds true for the general public as well as other scientists in different fields.

In another exercise he had a volunteer from the audience tap out the tune of a well-known song. Because the tapper could run the tune in his head while tapping he assumed everyone would recognize the song, but only a few hands went up. [The song was the national anthem] This emphasized the importance of story, or in the tappers case, melody. People need the context, the story along with the facts. Tell a story. Provide the melody that gives the notes context.

Alda made many other points in his hour presentation and the Q&A period that followed. The time was filled with laughs (humor is another communicating tool) and applause. There clearly was a tremendous amount of respect for him in the room, both as an actor and in appreciation for what he is doing to improve scientific communication. He received a well-deserved standing ovation at the conclusion, and the chatter exiting the room was electric as each of us anticipated putting his tips into practice.

The Science of Communicating Science - Why Facts Don't Matter

Facts don't matter.

Of course, facts do matter, but not as much as you might think. This is especially true in communicating science to the public and policy-makers. I previously addressed how to communicate climate science to the three pillars of community - other scientists, policy-makers, and the public. Now let's take a broader look.

First of all, what do I mean when I say "facts don't matter?" Obviously, facts are critical and scientists MUST stick to facts when communicating the science. They are our credibility. No "alternative facts" (aka, falsehoods) allowed. And that goes for using facts to intentionally mislead the public, such as is commonly done by the fake "experts" fed to the media by lobbying firms (the recent shameful inclusion of lobbyist William Happer in a recent CNN panel). No matter what the situation, we, as scientists, and as honest people, must always be factually in our communications.

But facts can only get you so far. The idea that countering ignorance or denial with more data is called the "information deficit model." "If only we scientists could simply communicate the science better to the public," says this model, "the public would 'get it' and take action."

It doesn't work. In fact, it may have the opposite effect. This may sound counter-intuitive, but it has been shown scientifically, over and over again. Piling on the facts can actually hurt the communication effort.

If you're into categorizing things, you could easily classify the anti-science crowd into four groups:

• Ignorant
• Willfully ignorant
• Actively deny
• Actively dishonest

Ignorance is a normal state. We are all ignorant of something, even many things. I've been educated, trained, and have years of expertise in science, but don't ask me to do your plumbing or taxes. We all don't know more than we do know. Most of the time it doesn't matter, and most people don't really care to learn about things that have no relevance to their day-to-day lives. So don't expect everyone to understand the science, nor even try to understand it. All of us relies on experts for nearly every phase of our lives, and science is no exception. If people don't want to learn, they won't.

The willfully ignorant are more difficult. These people seek out confirmation bias, that is, actively listen only to those sources that reinforce their preconceived notions, often tied to their political ideology.

Those that actively deny go a step further. They not only seek out sources confirming their biases, they actively deny all the science that conflicts with those biases. Deniers of climate science, for example, rationalize multigenerational global conspiracies involving all the world's climate scientists and organizations in order to dismiss 100+ years published, peer-reviewed science.

The actively dishonest are people such as the Happer example above. In the CNN segment, Happer gleefully repeats the false talking point that "CO2 is not a pollutant and therefore global warming is a hoax" even though he knows he is intentionally misleading the public. Happer isn't ignorant or stupid, he's being actively dishonest. There are others like him.

So simply providing more data to any of these groups is unlikely to have an effect. Those in the "ignorant" group might learn something new, but likely they won't care enough to do anything or even voice an opinion. Those in the "willfully ignorant" group simply won't listen. Those in the "actively deny" will rationalize their denial. And those in the "actively dishonest" already know the facts, they deny them because they are, either directly or indirectly, paid to do so.

Okay, so providing more factual information isn't going to be enough. How do I communicate the science?

More on that in following posts. Here are some previous tips to get you started.

Why I March for Science

I march for science because science is critical to our daily lives. I march because I've been a scientist all my life. I march because I am a science communicator. I march because our climate is changing and human activity is the cause.

And I march, unfortunately, because there are lobbyists who are willing to mislead humanity for profit.

Saturday, April 22, 2017 is the March for Science. Appropriately, it is also Earth Day.

For many years I provided scientific consulting services to companies, primarily the larger corporations and trade associations in the chemical, pesticide, and pharmaceutical industries. I ensured they conducted the required health and safety testing to demonstrate the safety of their products. When the science suggested their products were not safe for their specified use, I worked with the companies to either 1) modify them so they would be safe, or 2) keep them off (or remove them from) the market. All of my colleagues were honest and deeply cared about getting the science right. I was happy that if any client tried to be dishonest - a rare occurrence - I could fire them. For most of my career I felt confident that we were making the world safer.

Eventually it became clear that no matter what we did, the public still didn't trust the regulatory science community. The far left and the environmental/health advocacy groups didn't trust the corporations and were prone to jump on conspiracy theories. The far right and the business community didn't trust the environmental and health advocates and assumed all their products were safe by default (after all, if people started dying, it would be bad for business, right?). Distrust of the regulators came from both sides. In a typical day I might argue with EPA in the morning about their interpretation of data, then argue with the client in the afternoon about whether the data supported - or didn't support - the safety of their product. My colleagues and I worked hard to ensure adequate safety, but all through this process the public was largely omitted from the discussion. Rarely was anything substantive communicated to the public, and rarely did the public seem to understand how science was impacting their lives. Mostly they distrusted the process. I wanted to communicate to the public, something I was logistically not allowed to do as a consultant.

So I left consulting. Now I write science and history books designed to bring knowledge of these topics directly to the general public. I use The Dake Page and my other writing outlets to communicate science to a wider audience.

As scientists we most often write for other scientists. We publish research papers in scientific journals, present data at scientific conferences, and bore our family and friends with the latest excruciating details of whatever sub-sub-sub-specialty of science thrills us. Not surprisingly, that doesn't do much to communicate either the science, or the importance of that science, to the public.

Meanwhile, there are lobbyists who spend substantial time and money trying to mislead the public at the behest of their corporate or political benefactors. So in addition to general science communication, this page focuses on exposing climate denialism, that is, the intentional effort by some to misinform the public and provide cover for politicians who put corporate profit (and campaign donations) over the best interests of their constituents. Lobbyists are expert in manipulating the public into believing what the lobbyists want them to believe. That is their job. And in today's political environment, the fox is now guarding the hen house. Thus, it is critical we scientists bring science to the public.

As we march, I encourage my fellow scientists to reach out more to the public. Don't throw math formulas at your neighbors, explain in plain language how the science relates to their lives. Be proactive, but not professorial. The public doesn't need, and doesn't want, to be lectured at, but they do want to be informed. That's more difficult in this overstimulated world in which confirmation bias is as easy as choosing which cable station you watch, or Facebook feed you scan, to get your news (or "news"). So give them science reality in real language and in short bits. And listen. Listen to what they say and what they don't say. Find out what is important in their lives, then help them understand the science while you learn to understand their thought processes and motivations.

This is why I march. I march for science. I march for people. And I march to bring science and the people together.

March for Science April 22nd - Details

The new administration has made no secret it denies science and is set on destroying human health and environmental protections. The EPA transition team was headed by science-denying Myron Ebell, head of the anti-science, anti-regulation libertarian consulting organization, the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The new EPA Administrator is Scott Pruitt, an Oklahoma Attorney General who has been the fossil fuel industry's biggest ally, duly copying lobbyist talking points verbatim onto Oklahoma AG letterhead to sue the Agency he now runs.

The list of administration attacks on science has been endless, and we're not even 100 days into office.

Which is why on April 22, 2017, Earth Day, thousands of scientists and science-supporters will flood the National Mall and the streets of Washington to emphasize the importance of science in our nation and world. There will be satellite marches all across the United States, but the main march is in Washington, D.C. According to the March organizers:

"The rally will be a call for politicians to implement science based policies, as well as a public celebration of science and the enormous public service it provides in our democracy, our economy, and our daily lives.

The rally will feature main stage speakers and several large teach-in tents around the Mall where scientists, educators, and leaders from a wide variety of disciplines will discuss their work, effective science communication strategies, and training in public advocacy.  More details on speakers and presenters will be available soon."

Here is the itinerary:

Start: Washington D.C., North of Washington Monument, Constitution Avenue NW between 15th and 17th street.
8:00am: Grounds open.
9:00am: Teach-ins start.
10:00am: Main stage rally program begins.
2:00pm: March begins!

More details on the rally and march can be found on the March for Science website.

Speakers at the teach-in will include such notables as:

Michael Mann - Climate Scientist

Maya Lin - Sculptor of the Vietnam Veteran's Memorial

Christiana Figueres - Former Executive of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change


Anousheh Ansari - First female civilian astronaut

Rush Holt - CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

And many more.

All scientists and science-supporters should join us in Washington, D.C. or at one of the satellite marches. Wear your science-related t-shirts, lab coats, or whatever you wear to your job. Bring pro-science signs.

Remember, this is a pro-science rally and march. Come out and support science's role in public policymaking.

More details here!
 

Tips for Communicating Science to the Public

One of the questions dogging scientists is whether they should speak out about science issues to the public. In the past we've largely stuck to our ivory towers, and been criticized for doing so. On the other hand, scientists have also been criticized for speaking out. Luckily, a recent study shows that the public is more appreciative these days of scientists who choose to talk directly to the public. This is something I've advocated in these pages many times. I've even penned a series of posts on communicating climate science.

Which is why I was happy to come across this article by scientist Marshall Shepherd: 9 Tips for Communicating Science to People Who Are Not Scientists. And of all places, I found it on Forbes magazine's website.

His tips include many I've discussed on these pages:

• Know Your Audience
• Don't Use Jargon
• Get to the Point
• Use Analogies and Metaphors
• Make Three Points
• Remember, You are the Expert
• Use Social Media
• The Myth of "Popularizers"
• Relate

A fellow scientist, writer, and science communicator reminded me this morning that the key to good science communication is brevity. So please read the full article by Marshall Shepherd, 9 Tips for Communicating Science to People Who Are Not Scientists.

Also, check out some additional resources for science communication here.

And let me know if you have any additional tips that we can include in future posts.

How Climate Deniers Control the Message

In lobbying, the goal is always to control the message and manipulate public opinion. Climate deniers work hard to control the anti-science message by using the same techniques and tactics used by the tobacco companies to steer public views. As technology has advanced, these lobbyists have adapted to the new media, including Facebook, which now seems to be the main source of (real or fake) news for many people.

Here are some ways the climate denial lobbying industry controls the climate message.

1) Continuously assert a grand conspiracy where the "mainstream media" (i.e., actual journalists) and "alarmists" (i.e., actual climate scientists) and "political people" (i.e., actual honest people) are part of a global, multigenerational conspiracy to promote some sort of "hoax." The goal is to erode public faith in the scientific and peer-review process. If people don't trust the scientists, people will be open to alternative views. Despite the ridiculousness of the conspiracy assertion, lobbyists know it works.

2) Discredit the communication process: This has to happen before the lobbyists can insert an alternative source of information, i.e., their manufactured false talking points. Since these talking points are immediately debunked by scientists and honest media outlets, lobbyists make sure to delegitimize any outlet that provides accurate science and/or debunks deniers' incorrect information. This is why denial lobbyists constantly attack the IPCC; the IPCC periodically puts out definitive reports summarizing the state-of-the-science, so they must be neutralized by the lobbyists. Ditto for why lobbyists constantly - and falsely - claim NASA, NOAA, and every other scientific organization have somehow falsified the data. They haven't, and lobbyists know this, but they must delegitimize all real scientific sources in order to make room for their non-scientific talking points.

3) Feed Falsehoods to the Blogosphere: There is a reason that denier lobbyists fund disinformation sites like CFACT's "Climate Depot" and "WattsUpWithThat," the climate equivalents of "Fox News." Lobbyists know that plenty of ideologues will gladly plagiarize whatever is fed them via these and other paid denier sites and post it without any kind of understanding on their own copy-cat blogs and Facebook pages. Within minutes or hours, any Google search will bring up dozens of these false and plagiarized blog posts. Since most people don't go beyond the first page of any Google search, all that appears to the public are the false talking points, not real science. This is also why the denier lobbying industry promotes every random non-science ideologue who claims to have exposed the grand conspiracy (see #1). Blogosphere saturation in itself is a goal. Lobbyists know that ideologues neither understand nor care that they don't understand. All these ideologues know is that the denier attacks, no matter how ridiculously false, support their preferred narrative. So they unskeptically repeat it.

4) Taking over the "New Media": As suggested above, denier lobbyists have been quick to maximize the power of the "new media," like blogs and Facebook. Unlike traditional journalistic outlets who vetting for truthfulness prior to publication or broadcast, the new media tends to "post now, vet later" as a means of beating the competition to the punch, no matter how false that punch is. Lobbyists love this. They know they can saturate the media with falsehoods and by the time the falseness of those falsehoods is provided in response, the falsehood is ingrained in ideological minds. [Think: A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.] No amount of correct information will ever change the mind of someone who has latched on to the original falsehood because it would mean acknowledging being hoodwinked. People don't like feeling they were played for fools, so to avoid that feeling they simply ignore anything that proves them foolish. It's called willful ignorance, and it's rampant on social media. Again, lobbyists love this. They don't mind manipulating people; it's their business.

5) Taking over Facebook pages: The newest variation on the above is the intentional commandeering of climate-related Facebook pages. This began with ideologues and amateur trolls spewing nonsense and insults all over comment threads, expanded into lobbyist-paid trolls intentionally disrupting these comment threads and posting propaganda, and now includes climate deniers taking over administrative control of the pages themselves. One Facebook page purports to offer a "friendly discussion environment" but is owned and administered by blatantly biased deniers who routinely break their own rules of decorum, allowing denier attacks on scientists while berating anyone who provides accurate science or rebuts their grossly inaccurate propaganda. As "Admins" they cannot be blocked, yet routinely throw anyone debunking them off the page, no matter how polite that rebuttal. In this way they 1) control the message (i.e., intentionally promote denial while intentionally deleting accurate science) and 2) stroking their own fragile egos and mental insecurities.

6) Repetition and KISS: Lobbyists know that too much information gets overwhelming and isn't processed. Keep It Simple, Stupid (KISS) is the watchword of lobbyists. The shorter the soundbite, the more persuasive the message. This is especially true in these days of constant stimulation via instant electronic media. So provide a sound bite (e.g., "Emails!" "Hoax!!!") and repeat it over and over and over and over and over. And then over again. When caught in a lie, repeat the lie even more emphatically. This past election shows how doubling down on falsehoods, a form of gaslighting, means honest people are constantly on the defensive while others repeat known falsehoods as if they are true. Over time the public assumes the falsehood must somehow be true (after all, I keep hearing it, right?). This technique has been used by climate denial lobbyists for a long time, just as it was used by the tobacco denial lobbyists and acid rain denial lobbyists and ozone hole denial lobbyists (who, not surprisingly, are often the very same lobbyists). This is what lobbyists do.

This past election reveals something else of concern. Now that the extreme right wing zealots are in political power, the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and general bigots all feel empowered to act out their bigotry more publicly. To them, it's now okay to show their racism freely. Climate deniers find themselves in a similar position of power. Besides clamping down on climate communications by science agencies, the new administration has put several climate deniers in cabinet positions. From these perches they will work hard to "control the message" of denial via abuse of their political positions. This was done before in the Reagan and George W. Bush administrations, both times backfiring on them. Despite their efforts to suppress it, the science doesn't change because political people lie to the public and abuse the public trust. No matter how much climate denier lobbyists in the administration try to ignore the science, the science doesn't go away.

So climate denier lobbyists will continue to try to control the message even as the science becomes more and more unequivocal. The climate is warming and humans are the dominant cause of that warming. That fact is still fact and will remain fact no matter how much lobbyists and political hacks deny it.

It's up to all of us to make sure the facts of climate aren't lost in the intentional denial machine's attempt to suppress that message.

Talking to People About Climate Change

Man-made climate change is making our climate warmer, causing the rise of sea level, and diminishing Arctic sea ice extent over time. These things are happening and human activity, primarily the result of fossil fuel use, has been shown to be the dominant cause. This is unequivocal, as in undeniable and demonstrated by multiple lines of evidence.

So how do we communicate that fact?

As this page has discussed many times, there are lobbyists who spend millions of dollars and terabytes of internet bandwidth to intentional misrepresent the science to the public. That is their job as fossil fuel, libertarian, and other corporate lobbyists; all to protect profits of industries and corporations that benefit from outsourcing the costs of their products to the public.

I've spoken already about how climate scientists can communicate with the public. Strategies include speaking at local libraries, churches, and schools; teaching classes at community colleges or online; making yourself available to the media, and even doing TV shows. While these are all good ideas, there are several things that all scientists must keep in mind when talking to the public.

1) Lose the jargon: I mentioned this in the above linked article but it's important to reiterate it. Anyone who has ever read a medical report knows that every profession has its own language for describing things. This language allows professionals to communicate using words that have precise meanings - to them. To everyone else they are gibberish. No one expects everyone to understand the jargon of anyone outside their profession. So don't talk to the public like you're talking to your fellow scientists at a scientific conference. Doing so makes you look clueless.

2) Make it personal: Gee, reduced albedo enhances thermal absorption...; say what? Albedo? Is like libido? Needless to say, this falls under the "lose the jargon" item above. Just say as less white ice means the darker water absorbs more heat from the sun and makes the remaining ice melt even faster. Then move on to why this matters to the person you're talking to. Explain that their favorite beaches may disappear, or that wine growing areas may shift, or their allergies may get worse. Know your audience and what is important to them, then explain how climate change effects them personally.

3) Have patience: Remember when you just couldn't understand what your PhD advisor was trying to tell you? Now think about what it must be like for people who haven't spent all those years studying in your field. Remind yourself that some of these concepts are pretty intense. Make it clear and take your time. And again, lose the jargon.

4) Don't explain everything: Seriously, dude. There is no reason to get all statistics and math on people. Sure, the devil is in the details, but only for fellow scientists. The public doesn't need to know exactly how many gigatonnes or gigawatts or gigawhatever are involved. Just explain that the massive amounts of CO2 we've added to the atmosphere are warming the climate, which leads to Arctic sea ice extent decreases, increasing sea levels, greater likelihood of more severe droughts, yada, yada, yada. Better yet, tackle one issue at a time, and leave out the math.

5) Don't waste time with trolls: Remember "have patience?" There is one exception - trolls. In pre-internet days trolls were just obnoxious people you could walk away from and keep out of your life; now they walk into your living space via Facebook and other online social networking vehicles. But guess what - you can still block them from your life. Do it. Trolls serve zero useful purpose. Their entire existence is a mission to disrupt, and frankly, it's a disservice to your readers and listeners to let trolls disrupt the right of honest people to learn.

6) Be polite: This can often be hard to do (see #5, Don't waste time with trolls). Descriptive terms like "denier" for someone who denies basic fact are okay (though some would disagree even on this point), but personal attacks allow trolls to whine about how they are being attacked and protect them from having to defend their statements. If you can't be polite, move on.

7) Tell them what they can do: Most people want to do their  part, but figuring out what that part is can be daunting. Steer them to some solutions that they, as individuals and as local groups, can do. The USEPA has a nice page that gives some ideas for what to do at home, at the office, on the road, and at school. The David Suzuki Foundation offers 10 ways to stop climate change, and many others have ideas as well. 

One way is to actively reach out to your elected officials at the local, state, and/or federal level. Learn about the effects that man-made climate change is having, or will have in the future, on your community. Reach out to your congressional representatives. Insist that rational actions be taken to ensure a future for your children and grandchildren.

No one person should think that they have to "save the world" by themselves, just that they can take one small step. If all of us each take a step, those steps become miles and, eventually, light-years.

Finally, one more:

8) It's already happening: Man-made climate change is here. It's already having impacts on our lives, and will continue to get worse without action. But action is also happening. The global community has begun taking steps to reduce CO2 emissions. The energy industry has begun taking steps to shift from fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy. The public has begun to take steps at the local and state levels - some small, some large. The federal government has begun shifting to renewables. Even corporations have begun to modify their behavior and investments to reduce carbon footprints, which they often find also decreases costs and improves corporate finances.

So all of us need to remind all the rest of us that we're already on our way to solving this problem. All it takes is for each of us to take that step.

Communicating Climate Change - Resources

Today is the last day of the Democratic National Convention, following last week's Republican National Convention. The differences between the parties could not be more stark on virtually every issue, including climate change. In short, Democrats acknowledge the unequivocal science of man-made climate change; Republicans deny it. Meanwhile, climate scientists are concerned that they have underestimated the magnitude and speed of the problem. It could be much worse than we already know.

Communicating the science of climate change to the public can be challenging when there are entire lobbying industries intent on misleading that public. This post is intended to provide some resources to scientists and informed public on how to communicate the science.

Recently I was reading my notes on a book I had read several years ago but for which I never wrote a full review. That book was called Don't Be Such a Scientist: Talking Substance in an Age of Style by Randy Olson, a long-time scientist who gave up his university professor job to become a full time science communicator. Olson's specialty is film making, so not surprisingly he advocates the use of visual effects whenever possible. The main title reminds scientists to stop talking to the public as if the public was the audience of a scientific conference. The subtitle is reminiscent of Marshall McLuhan's The Medium is the Massage, that is, that "substance is style" (or, "style is the substance"). In short, scientists need to stop trying to communicate every detail of the science to the public and focus more on getting the main points across in a way that isn't boring. Motivate and educate, arouse and fulfill. [I'll have a full review of the book in the future]

The ability to communicate science to the public and to policy makers is critical for our well-being. I've mentioned several other books on science communication in these pages. Click on the links below for full book reviews:

Am I Making Myself Clear? A Scientist's Guide to Talking to the Public by Cornelia Dean

Unscientific America: How Science Illiteracy Threatens Our Future by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum

Escape from the Ivory Tower: A Guide to Making Your Science Matter by Nancy Baron (link to Goodreads)

The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics by Roger A. Pielke, Jr. (Note that the author is more often than not supportive of the denier lobby, but this book offers useful insights that all scientists should consider)

In addition to books, there are several posts on this page that have discussions about science communication:

Communicating Climate Science - The Series (a four part series examining how scientists do research and how they can communicate to other scientists, policy makers, and the public)

The Science of Communicating Science (including how to translate common scientific terms into English)

Science Communication: How to Deal with Trolls on Facebook

Scroll down this link to see other climate communication posts.

In the future I'll have more on other resources for communicating the science.

Science Communication - How to Deal with Trolls on Facebook

While all science is done via peer-reviewed research papers, scientific conferences, and active communication with other scientists, there is the illusion of scientific "debate" on social media like Facebook, Twitter, and the blogosphere. Blogs can be used to help communicate the science to others, including the general public, but blogs are only an extension of the science, not the science itself, largely because anyone at any time can say whatever they want on blogs, and too often do.

After observing some of the "debates" that occur on Facebook, it was refreshing to see an article on the blog Science Communication Media called "Constructively dealing with trolls in science communication." As I've been saying for a long time, the short answer is - don't.

Ignore: As with bullies, the best way to respond to a troll is to ignore them. It tells the troll they have no power or influence over their target and most of them will quickly move back under their bridge.

This is especially on sites like Facebook. Why? Because Facebook has designed their algorithm to keep "active" posts at the top of the feed for any given page. The same goes for any comment in the discussion thread.

And guess what is "active." Yup, commenting and "Liking" (and now, other "reactions"), the very thing that trolls desperately want you to do. Every time you comment, whether it be to refute or insult the troll, the more their post or comment gets shown to more people, who comment or "react," which goes on ad infinitum.

That is the entire goal of the troll. To feed their constant need for attention and obviate their mental insecurities. This all may be good for assuaging a troll's ego, but it's a waste of time for any honest person interested in discussion of science because the troll has no interest in learning, just trolling.

I've advocated blocking trolls (which, by the way, includes every climate denier who constantly floods Facebook climate pages with the same falsehoods over and over). The author of the "Constructively dealing with trolls" piece agrees.

Block buttons exist for a reason: The other simple response to trolls is to block them. No, seriously, block them. Blocking isn’t censorship or an admission of defeat – it’s simply a filter, in the same way we install ad blockers on browsers or choose not to tune into shows we don’t like. It’s so disappointing when I see scientists and other reasonable professionals waste their time responding to trolls.

Recently an otherwise well-meaning commenter on Facebook argued that blocking trolls merely blocks you from seeing them but those trolls can "converse" with anyone else who comes to the comment string. While that's true, the reason for blocking them goes well beyond that limited thinking. First, when you block them, you stop wasting your time with people whose entire purpose is to get you to engage so that their post or comment will stay at the top and be seen. That means you can spend all your valuable Facebook time posting and supporting posts that accurately communicate the science rather than unintentionally promoting misinformation. That's a win right there. Second, if all honest commenters block the troll then the troll will only be seen by random people who happen to catch the post as soon as it is posted. Those people will either 1) roll their eyes and move on, thus causing the post to immediately disappear in the thread (especially if new, accurate, posts are added by honest people), or 2) comment but quickly identify the person as a troll and block them too.

This is best summed up by one of my favorite paragraphs in the article:

Minimize responses – Arguing with a troll is like mud wrestling with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig enjoys it. Trolls thrive off provoking people, so ignoring them is usually the best way to get them to move on.

Indeed, as I've said before, engaging with trolls creates the illusion of debate, of discussion, of disagreement. What it does is misinform and disinform the reader. By engaging with trolls (e.g., climate deniers) we are doing a disservice to readers who honestly want to understand the state-of-the-science. We are violating the implied essence of the Hippocratic oath - first do no harm. We do harm if we contribute to misinforming the populace.

The article is well worth reading in its entirety and contains many other helpful gems of wisdom. It's called "Constructively dealing with trolls in science communication."


And yes, the pig wrestling picture comes off the blog (though I don't know if that is the original source).