Scientists can be great communicators. We are trained to work on collaborative projects large and small, present our work clearly and purposefully in journal articles and conferences, and generally enjoy talking to each other. Communication is an important part of scientific life. But when researchers try to engage the public, they face barriers to getting their message across and can often find that their messages are being manipulated.
As a scientist closely involved in science communication, I find my colleagues fall into the same traps over and over again—assuming they even bother. Science cannot effectively communicate its process and values to the public. And attempts to disseminate vital information can be distorted by media interests, co-opted for political gain, or outright ignored. As a result, I believe the public is slowly losing confidence in science because they do not see scientists as trustworthy people.
According to the Pew Research Center, the number of U.S. adults who trust scientists “a fair amount” or “a great deal” fell from 87 percent to 77 percent over the past two years. And since the vast majority of science relies on public funding, if the public does not engage with science, I fear that our future as an institution is in jeopardy.
Studies have shown that simply giving more information to the public is not the best way to fix it. It is critical that scientists find ways to communicate more effectively and directly with the public so that the public has access to the minds and hearts of scientists. In other words, they need to see scientists as people they can empathize with and trust. To enable this, research institutions must support these endeavors through media training and institutional incentives that are currently lacking in the academic landscape.
At most top-tier research institutions, a researcher’s primary responsibility is to win more grants. Anything that supports this, such as writing proposals and publishing well-received papers, can be rewarded by the institution through promotion and tenure. On the other hand, anything that does not support this—including participation in public communication—is often viewed as a distraction.
I have seen this discouraging atmosphere in my career and that of my colleagues. And this personal experience is backed up by evidence. A 2012 survey of researchers’ attitudes toward outreach showed a bleak outlook, with 74 percent of respondents citing one or more barriers to public outreach, including little support or encouragement from their institutions. Meanwhile, less than half were able to come up with potential solutions. Those findings are echoed by another study published earlier this year, which suggests many barriers remain 10 years later. Using focus group discussions, researchers indicated that they felt pressured to focus on research and teaching rather than public engagement for tenure and promotion requirements. In many cases, the study found that mentors actively discourage graduate students and junior faculty from interacting with the public.
Science cannot effectively communicate its process and values to the public.
The lack of scientific communication in academia seems to be more of a passion hobby than a professional career facet – and that assumes scientists even have time for it amidst the pressure to publish or perish and other commitments. From that same 2012 poll, one of the most damning comments came from a physics graduate student who ultimately wanted to pursue a career in outreach. When asked how they progressed through graduate school, they said, “The best way you can do it is to keep your mouth shut and keep going until you graduate.”
Yes, science dissemination is hard. But scientists are used to doing hard things. If they were rewarded for public communication—by making science communication training part of their professional development and making public communication part of the portfolio that leads to tenure and promotion—I’m sure they would find and develop the necessary tools to do it effectively.
For researchers looking to communicate their work to the public, navigating the media landscape can be difficult. While there are many journalists who make sure science is done right in their work, there are others in the media whose interests do not always align with those of scientists. So we see good science distorted into bad messages. For example, the pseudo-scientific documentary What the Bleep Do We Know? interviewed real scientists but altered their interviews to appear to support outrageous claims. And there are countless headlines that exaggerate or even directly contradict the science described in the article.
When working with the media, researchers should check the publication history and output of the journalist they are working with and, if possible, ask for a review of the citations used in the article. It’s worth noting that many outlets, including Undark, won’t allow quotes to be reviewed verbatim in the interests of journalistic integrity. If this is the case, researchers should ask the fact checker or editor to contact them and provide a summary of the citations provided.
Perhaps it’s no surprise that scientists get caught up in the mismanagement of their knowledge, because “Working with Media 101” is not part of any science graduate program I’ve come across. Although some universities have begun to offer media training certificates and workshops, participation in such programs is often optional and not a degree requirement.
Scientists may be quick to blame the media for poor science communication, but ultimately these stories wouldn’t exist if scientists weren’t involved in the process: doing research, helping their university’s press release process, and making themselves available for interviews. And many of these researchers have no training or instruction in media relations. Academia stifling scientific communication not only silences scientists, but also leaves scientists who want to be heard unprepared to engage with the media.
Unfortunately, sometimes scientists themselves participate in this distortion, leveraging their position and public trust to advance personal agendas and their quest for fame. For example, Andrew Wakefield spent years promoting the false idea that vaccines cause autism, an idea based on fraudulent research. In my own field, a group of astronomers recently claimed to have found evidence of life in the cloud tops of Venus, a story that created a media frenzy. Other astronomers immediately disputed these claims with much less vociferous voices. The bottom line is that poor science communication contributes to a decline in public trust in scientists.
Unfortunately, there will likely always be a small number of bad scientists. But that’s why it’s doubly important that good researchers understand the power of effective communication. If we develop a culture and expectations where scientists have a more intimate relationship with the public and where non-scientists have a better understanding of the scientific process, I believe that people will have better tools to separate the good from the bad.
Perhaps it’s no surprise that scientists get caught up in the mismanagement of their knowledge, because “Working with Media 101” is not part of any science graduate program I’ve come across.
Social media provides an unfiltered method of communication where researchers can interact more directly with the public. Although it requires researchers to devote time and energy to building a following, it should be used more as an important tool for reaching people one-on-one. Although most scientists use social media, many of them use these platforms to connect with each other rather than with the public. Scientists should use this newfound voice to speak directly to the public, removing all barriers and distortions set up by gatekeepers.
Researchers need to expose the messy inner workings of their process so that the public can appreciate and understand our methodology and the conclusions we reach. And institutions need to make science communication a direct job requirement of being a scientist.
Yes, science is messy and often comes up with conflicting answers before finding a solution. Yes, the science is nuanced, with every result bracketed by caveats and assumptions. Yes, science is human, an imperfect instrument for exploring the world.
But people don’t interact with science, they interact with people. To restore trust in science, we need to expose the humanity and people of science as much as possible.
Paul M. Sutter is an astrophysics researcher at Stony Brook University’s Institute for Advanced Computational Sciences and a visiting scholar at the Flatiron Institute in New York. He is also an author, host and speaker.
