graphic by Doruk Golcu

NS: What initially brought the three of you together?

Kate Seip (KS): This past June, I organized a joint lecture [at the New York Academy of Sciences] given by communications expert Dr. Matthew Nisbet and science author Chris Mooney on how scientists need to “frame” their research differently to persuade various audiences of its importance and relevance. It was at the post-lecture reception that I met Liz and Katie.

Liz Oswald (LO): Inspired by Matt Nisbet’s discussion of a curriculum for a graduate program in science communication, we began talking about how our science graduate programs failed to address communication of scientific ideas to the public, and how we believed this to be an important aspect of scientific training that is often overlooked. We began communicating through email about how we might develop programming that would fill the need for training in this area, and the SCC was formed!

NS: What is the mission of the SCC?

LO: We hope to increase contact among science graduate students, practicing scientists, journalists, and policymakers such that all groups become more familiar with the practices of the other groups, in hopes of facilitating future communication.

KS: [We hope] to increase awareness of the amazing number of areas affected by scientific research and thereby broaden general support for science. Also, [we aspire] to forge constructive, meaningful bonds between scientists and non-scientists in a multi-disciplinary effort to communicate why scientific research is important and emphasize its ever-growing role in our society.

NS: What drew you to address the relationship among the media, scientists, and policymakers?

LO: Science is often viewed, by both scientists and the public, as a pursuit that operates outside of the motivations of politicians and the public, allowing for the unbiased creation and application of pure, true knowledge through research. In reality, however, the media, scientists, and policymakers are intimately connected in the creation and dissemination of scientific research. When scientists fail to acknowledge this connection, they risk loss of monetary support from policymakers and skewing of their work for promotion of special interests. Society as a whole benefits from an increased understanding of how scientists form and present ideas, as this will lead policymakers to distribute funding in an effective manner and the media to efficiently and accurately reflect scientific information for use by the public in living their lives and communicating with representative policymakers.

NS: How would you describe the current level of communication by scientists?

KS: Scientists learn to write very well for other scientists. Publishing research in scientific journals using concise language and limited space isn’t an easy feat, nor is giving a scholarly lecture. Scientists learn these skills because they’ve been necessary to survive in academia.

Katie Abele (KA): I think it is common for [some] scientists [to] have the attitude that if someone doesn’t understand their work, they don’t want to bother explaining it. This shouldn’t be the case…Instead, I think they should feel obligated to explain it if that person is interested in knowing about it. Scientists need to learn how to discuss science in layman terms, without sounding belittling, and they need to learn how to judge the receptivity of their audience. It is also important to include the big picture when discussing science—why is that research important and what will the impact be?

NS: How do you think that scientists can improve communication about their work?

LO: Maintaining a positive attitude about communicating their work to people without background in their area is the first step! Scientists need to understand that the media and policymakers appropriate scientific information differently than they do and that they must learn to present their work in such a manner that makes this possible. This includes understanding the knowledge level and information needs of their audience, locating the appropriate outlets for their results, finding ways to insulate their message from alteration in communication while retaining its accuracy, and appropriately explaining scientific uncertainty in a way that allows consensus to be reached when needed.

NS: Why has this issue become so important now?

KA: While it has always been important, I think it is especially critical now since there has been a recent shift in government to decide policy based on “moral” issues instead of scientific ones. The media, think tanks, and interest groups have become increasingly dependent on spinning science for their own gain and a lot of the time science is reported without the overall picture communicated. Another thing that has changed is science itself. Science has become increasingly more complex, as has the language used amongst scientists to discuss their research. That is why it is necessary for scientists to learn how to disseminate their research and opinions in a comprehensible manner.

LO: Another factor is the ever larger budgets required to conduct modern research in biomedicine, recognized by much of the public as an important goal. As the federal budget is inherently limited, policymakers, scientists, and the public must all communicate to determine what areas of biomedicine deserve funding priority, a task made all the more difficult when national resources for research are depleted during wartime. [Furthermore,] as younger generations become reliant on new information outlets such as the internet and video for obtaining scientific information, scientists must learn how to adapt their information outputs to these media for appropriation by the public and policymakers.

NS: In your opinion, how does the public perceive science today?

LO: I think the public is generally inclined to trust information that is presented as scientific, when it is non-controversial and promises improvement of human well-being. However, when interest groups such as politicians and corporations use the media to debate controversial scientific knowledge, calling attention to differences in scientific opinions and favoring the information that supports their cause, the public can become confused and distrustful of all scientific information presented to them. I think the public wants to understand scientific developments, but needs information presented to them in a way that allows appropriation of this knowledge for life improvement and confident selection of representative policymakers.

KS: [On a personal level,] I’ve found that my family and friends have been incredibly interested in scientific research, once they hear a bit about it. As children, scientists and non-scientists alike are all incredibly curious, precocious creatures—we ask why the sky is blue, how far down the earth goes, what space is made of, how our hearts pump. As we grow older, sociocultural influences start to tear away at that curiosity and soon we stop asking these questions. Hopefully, increasing our outreach will help people reconnect with that innate tendency to ask questions about the ways in which the world works.

NS: Some would argue that the media often sensationalizes science for ratings. How can we ensure that the media communicates research accurately?

KA: That is one of the biggest reasons why scientists have to be more adept at speaking with the media. A journalist with a five-minute spot on the evening news is not going to thoroughly research scientific journals to get an accurate background for their story. Scientists need to be able to sum it up for them in an understandable way, while still staying true to science.

NS: Do you feel that increasing communication has the potential to improve funding for research?

KA: I think funding would improve in many research areas if scientists were better able to communicate the importance of their research. The public might say, why give a lab $500,000 to research what one little molecule looks like when bound to another little molecule? If they understood the implications that had, for a specific disease, for instance, they might be more agreeable to spending money figuring it out.

KS: I recently went down to Capitol Hill to talk to congressional staff about the need for increased scientific funding, and spent a lot of time practicing my “grandmother explanation”—how you would explain [your] work to someone like your grandmother, who is interested in what you do but doesn’t necessarily have the scientific training to understand all of the complexities. It was tough. Everyone that I met with was genuinely receptive and interested in my work and [my] opinions on funding issues, which was very encouraging… Unfortunately, many also see funding issues as a matter of distribution—many argued that the NIH had already “gotten its due” during the doubling period of the last 1990s. It took a while to figure out how to convince them of the importance of reinvesting in the NIH, but the issue finally seemed to click when we warned that the productivity stemming from the doubling period needed to be maintained or we risked losing this amazing investment in biomedical research. Most non-scientists simply want to know the ultimate economic, societal, or medicinal impact. This is incredibly hard for most scientists, including myself, to understand. By reaching out to these groups and explaining research issues in an accessible way, scientists have the ability to forge meaningful bonds with groups that haven’t been as involved with or supportive of the scientific community. Of course, with other governmental obligations aside, funding priorities also originate from constituents’ demands. Widespread public support for science will undoubtedly make an impact on scientific funding, so long as the administration prioritizes science as well.

NS: Do you think that professional science communicators may provide the answer?

LO: I think that while all scientists need to be aware of how their work can and will be communicated to the public, there is absolutely a place for people that are trained specifically in science communication. Many scientists are quite busy with research work, writing grant proposals, and teaching obligations, and therefore may not be able to serve as [a] public spokesperson for their work. Also, synthesis of a large amount of scientific knowledge is an important part of science communication, and I think that science communicators can be trained to be particularly adept at this task, given a background in the actual science and the tools to connect ideas and information across specialized scientific fields.

KA: I am not sure if it would be beneficial to have people that specifically major in science communication, but it would be great if every science program (Ph.D. or Masters) required a communication course in the curriculum. Having scientists trained in how to discuss their research would have a larger impact than a handful of science communication professionals would. Matt Nisbet brought up the idea of having “communication delegates,” entailing a few scientists in a given city that would be available for comment whenever a scientific issue was spotlighted. This would ensure both sides of the story, for instance, in a breaking-news story on teaching creationism in the classroom, so that the general public has a more well-rounded take on the issue.

NS: What do you hope will come of the lecture series?

KA: I hope it opens people’s eyes to the importance of communication in science and to how much of an impact scientists can have on government policy.

NS: What are your long-term goals for the consortium?

LO: Based on the interest in and outcome of the lecture series, we may work on developing curricula for our institutions that will promote effective science communication by science graduate students that could take the form of a semester-long seminar, for-credit class, or set of workshops providing tools for communicating work in the sciences to those outside of one’s field. We also hope the lecture series will continue to grow as a forum for discussion and networking among scientists, policymakers, and journalists.

KS: I’d like to see a long-term coalition established from the initial groundwork laid by the SCC. Each lecture is followed by a networking reception to provide an opportunity to interact with other attendees, which we hope will forge open lines of communication and foster collaborative efforts between others in very different fields. With the enthusiastic response that we’ve already received, we… hope to host a second series next year and perhaps broaden our scope to include hands-on training. I’d also like to incorporate roundtable discussions between scientists, media members, and policymakers on hot-button scientific issues, for which effective communication is particularly important.

For more information, visit the SCC blog at http://scicommconsortium.blogspot.com. Announcements for upcoming lectures can also be found at http://www.nyas.org and http://www.copusproject.org.

On October 18, the SCC will host a panel discussion on the interface between science and the media at NYU School of Medicine. Another panel is scheduled for November 15 at The Rockefeller University. Various scientists working in controversial areas of research will be on campus to discuss their experiences communicating with policymakers and the public. The SCC hopes that you will join them for these exciting events.