I love that you apply compassion: "sometimes people’s misinformed opinions can be infuriating. But they are usually so angry or opinionated because they are hurting. What might be underlying that hurt?" And that you say even tiny actions can contribute to healing. Yesterday, as I checked out at the Food Coop, the clerk said, "You're the person who lives an hour away and talks to herons and feeds eagles." I was able to say that I don't feed eagles, or any bird other than by encouraging native plants, and that we have so many eagles here because of Plainfin Midshipmen, a fascinating species. I told him that David Attenborough's crew filmed these amazing creatures for twelve weeks on "my" property/seashore, and that they'll appear and sing in an upcoming Netflix documentary about animal sounds. I hope everyone else can be as in love with learning about our world as I've always been, which is part of what you're saying in Hopecology. Thanks, Andrea for what you do!
I really appreciated how clearly you broke this all down - these issues get so thorny and convoluted and you offer a nice survey of it all, and without leaning into doom. The "both and" frameworks is so helpful here and I've always found it challenging that scientists shy away from it. I would only add that when choosing to have hard conversations it is also important to be aware of your own safety and capacity, you make the most impact when you understand the limits of your own energy and patience, and when you don't have to worry about getting into an even more nasty/aggressive conflict.
A perhaps minor, but real, aspect of flawed communications between science and the public is the often-terrible reporters scientists face when they are solicited for comment, or their recent work has been noticed by major media. It can be very difficult to get a coherent point across in response to a poorly informed question from a reporter. Even worse is their standard policy of NOT letting the scientist review a final draft. The result often is that the scientists is quoted in such a way that does not stand up to scrutiny by interested people or critics. I find, in general, the experience of dealing with reporters to be miserable and not at all conducive to fostering public trust or interest in science. Science writers (e.g., Ed Yong, and many other greats) are different and much better, but their work arguably reaches a less diverse audience than a piece on CNN or even NPR.
I love that you apply compassion: "sometimes people’s misinformed opinions can be infuriating. But they are usually so angry or opinionated because they are hurting. What might be underlying that hurt?" And that you say even tiny actions can contribute to healing. Yesterday, as I checked out at the Food Coop, the clerk said, "You're the person who lives an hour away and talks to herons and feeds eagles." I was able to say that I don't feed eagles, or any bird other than by encouraging native plants, and that we have so many eagles here because of Plainfin Midshipmen, a fascinating species. I told him that David Attenborough's crew filmed these amazing creatures for twelve weeks on "my" property/seashore, and that they'll appear and sing in an upcoming Netflix documentary about animal sounds. I hope everyone else can be as in love with learning about our world as I've always been, which is part of what you're saying in Hopecology. Thanks, Andrea for what you do!
I really appreciated how clearly you broke this all down - these issues get so thorny and convoluted and you offer a nice survey of it all, and without leaning into doom. The "both and" frameworks is so helpful here and I've always found it challenging that scientists shy away from it. I would only add that when choosing to have hard conversations it is also important to be aware of your own safety and capacity, you make the most impact when you understand the limits of your own energy and patience, and when you don't have to worry about getting into an even more nasty/aggressive conflict.
A perhaps minor, but real, aspect of flawed communications between science and the public is the often-terrible reporters scientists face when they are solicited for comment, or their recent work has been noticed by major media. It can be very difficult to get a coherent point across in response to a poorly informed question from a reporter. Even worse is their standard policy of NOT letting the scientist review a final draft. The result often is that the scientists is quoted in such a way that does not stand up to scrutiny by interested people or critics. I find, in general, the experience of dealing with reporters to be miserable and not at all conducive to fostering public trust or interest in science. Science writers (e.g., Ed Yong, and many other greats) are different and much better, but their work arguably reaches a less diverse audience than a piece on CNN or even NPR.