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.
Yes, absolutely--I am all about seeking and finding the both-and in all kinds of thorny situations related to this. I also find it challenging that scientists struggle so hard with the both-and, but I have hope they can learn. That's much of what Hopecology is about! Thank you for offering the piece about self-awareness and conflict. That's an absolute must, IMO, if we are going to sustain meaningful engagement on these issues.
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'm sorry to hear about those experiences. I’ve also had disappointments when communicating with the media, and have tried to get to the root of the problem to mitigate some of the issues Joe raises.
I’ve found that it comes down to vast differences in how scientists and journalists are trained:
1. Communication style. Scientists are trained to couch and caveat everything and illuminate complexity so that we don’t overstate our findings, which is good; but a reporter just doesn’t usually have the training or expertise to sift through all of that. So once the reporter boils it down to the basics, it can be technically “wrong”, scientifically speaking, from our highly specialized vantage point.
2. Motivation. Journalists are under intense pressure to pitch and write snappy, often controversial, and therefore clickable, stories. This is just the way the world works now. It is unfortunate, but it means some journalists are going to try to create drama, often at scientists’ expense. A really good reporter will know how to draw out the fascinating aspects without having to do this. The drama is low-hanging fruit.
3. Rules. Because of rules for journalistic integrity, reporters actually aren’t allowed to release drafts. They are supposed to fact-check, but beyond that, anything that gets lost in translation is just that—lost in translation. This seems bonkers to scientists because it’s the opposite of the standard we are held to for our own writing in the peer review process.
It’s true—scientists sometimes end up sounding stupid as a result of the above. And that certainly doesn't create public trust.
Pointing out scientists' shortcomings isn't easy, because I am one, and so are many of my friends. But I’ve come up against too many scientists actually harming science by behaving badly to keep it to myself.
We should be able to have a conversation about what can be improved--how scientists can contribute to making science and the communication of it better--not just the public perception of us and our work.
I became so rattled after some traumatic experiences with interviews-gone-wrong that I sought self-help books! "Escape from the Ivory Tower: A Guide to Making Your Science Matter" by Nancy Baron. Also another one by my colleague in herpetology, Ellen Censky, whose title unfortunately I cannot recall. These were useful! They outlined the realities, quite similarly to what you outlined here, and encouraged the scientist simply to consider how important it is to them to discuss their work with the public? Because, if you want to do so (and many of us think you should!), these are the unfortunate ground rules. Preparing key talking-points for yourself before the interview is a great way to help make sure that your most valued topics or results survive the process. As Andrea points out, the nuance and qualification that embodies research immediately gets lost in the interview process. As does credit to anyone other than yourself---a reality that can inflame one's colleagues who feel that credit due to them was overlooked. It wasn't overlooked, it just never survives the reporting process.
If we want someone to understand all the nuance, complexity, and caveats, as well as who contributed to the work, we are really asking them to read the original peer-reviewed paper. This isn’t possible, however, because even if a layperson has access to it (which they often don’t), they don’t have the technical expertise to understand it, or the time it would take to try. The media simply has to be a stand-in for a distillation for a tiny piece of the work.
I’m not in the literature reading theoretical physics papers—I trust that the media is going to cover it in a way that I can understand. That probably means that it’s not going to be very precise. But the research is still worth learning about.
People like Nancy Baron and organizations like COMPASS have helped scientists immeasurably in better communicating science. I’ve taken their trainings several times. It’s a skill and takes practice, and I still find myself disappointed with misquotes etc., but I use it as a learning experience and change my approach the next time.
Most of the journalists I’ve talked to lately have been wonderful to work with. They really want to understand what the hell is going on with frogs and I want to help them. So I’ll keep trying to figure out this communication game.
A final note on collaborators being upset they weren’t mentioned in an article: Some scientists are more interested in making sure they get credit and accolades than they are in the quality and veracity of their own work. We work hard. Everyone works hard and deserves credit. That is why they are coauthors. When it comes to the media, the person who takes the time to talk to the reporter gets credit. That seems fair to me.
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!
Thanks for this, Kirie. Yes--any normalization of nature, for those who might feel it's a bit distant and exotic, is a win.
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.
Yes, absolutely--I am all about seeking and finding the both-and in all kinds of thorny situations related to this. I also find it challenging that scientists struggle so hard with the both-and, but I have hope they can learn. That's much of what Hopecology is about! Thank you for offering the piece about self-awareness and conflict. That's an absolute must, IMO, if we are going to sustain meaningful engagement on these issues.
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'm sorry to hear about those experiences. I’ve also had disappointments when communicating with the media, and have tried to get to the root of the problem to mitigate some of the issues Joe raises.
I’ve found that it comes down to vast differences in how scientists and journalists are trained:
1. Communication style. Scientists are trained to couch and caveat everything and illuminate complexity so that we don’t overstate our findings, which is good; but a reporter just doesn’t usually have the training or expertise to sift through all of that. So once the reporter boils it down to the basics, it can be technically “wrong”, scientifically speaking, from our highly specialized vantage point.
2. Motivation. Journalists are under intense pressure to pitch and write snappy, often controversial, and therefore clickable, stories. This is just the way the world works now. It is unfortunate, but it means some journalists are going to try to create drama, often at scientists’ expense. A really good reporter will know how to draw out the fascinating aspects without having to do this. The drama is low-hanging fruit.
3. Rules. Because of rules for journalistic integrity, reporters actually aren’t allowed to release drafts. They are supposed to fact-check, but beyond that, anything that gets lost in translation is just that—lost in translation. This seems bonkers to scientists because it’s the opposite of the standard we are held to for our own writing in the peer review process.
It’s true—scientists sometimes end up sounding stupid as a result of the above. And that certainly doesn't create public trust.
Pointing out scientists' shortcomings isn't easy, because I am one, and so are many of my friends. But I’ve come up against too many scientists actually harming science by behaving badly to keep it to myself.
We should be able to have a conversation about what can be improved--how scientists can contribute to making science and the communication of it better--not just the public perception of us and our work.
I became so rattled after some traumatic experiences with interviews-gone-wrong that I sought self-help books! "Escape from the Ivory Tower: A Guide to Making Your Science Matter" by Nancy Baron. Also another one by my colleague in herpetology, Ellen Censky, whose title unfortunately I cannot recall. These were useful! They outlined the realities, quite similarly to what you outlined here, and encouraged the scientist simply to consider how important it is to them to discuss their work with the public? Because, if you want to do so (and many of us think you should!), these are the unfortunate ground rules. Preparing key talking-points for yourself before the interview is a great way to help make sure that your most valued topics or results survive the process. As Andrea points out, the nuance and qualification that embodies research immediately gets lost in the interview process. As does credit to anyone other than yourself---a reality that can inflame one's colleagues who feel that credit due to them was overlooked. It wasn't overlooked, it just never survives the reporting process.
If we want someone to understand all the nuance, complexity, and caveats, as well as who contributed to the work, we are really asking them to read the original peer-reviewed paper. This isn’t possible, however, because even if a layperson has access to it (which they often don’t), they don’t have the technical expertise to understand it, or the time it would take to try. The media simply has to be a stand-in for a distillation for a tiny piece of the work.
I’m not in the literature reading theoretical physics papers—I trust that the media is going to cover it in a way that I can understand. That probably means that it’s not going to be very precise. But the research is still worth learning about.
People like Nancy Baron and organizations like COMPASS have helped scientists immeasurably in better communicating science. I’ve taken their trainings several times. It’s a skill and takes practice, and I still find myself disappointed with misquotes etc., but I use it as a learning experience and change my approach the next time.
Most of the journalists I’ve talked to lately have been wonderful to work with. They really want to understand what the hell is going on with frogs and I want to help them. So I’ll keep trying to figure out this communication game.
A final note on collaborators being upset they weren’t mentioned in an article: Some scientists are more interested in making sure they get credit and accolades than they are in the quality and veracity of their own work. We work hard. Everyone works hard and deserves credit. That is why they are coauthors. When it comes to the media, the person who takes the time to talk to the reporter gets credit. That seems fair to me.