Who Lies Sleeping?

PhysOrg.com. Scientific advances often provoke deep concern on the part of the public, especially when these advances challenge strongly held political or moral perspectives.

An American Academy of Arts and Sciences’ project on Improving the Scientific Community’s Understanding of Public Concerns about Science and Technology examined the ways in which scientists engage with the public, and how their mutual understanding could be improved. More than fifty scientists, engineers, public policy experts, lawyers, ethicists, and journalists participated in a series of workshops that focused on four areas of public concern:

1. the siting of nuclear waste repositories
2. the spread of personal genetic information
3. the next generation of the Internet
4. the risks and benefits of emerging energy technologies.

Several common themes emerged:

• Scientists and the public both share a responsibility for the divide. Scientists and technical experts sometimes take for granted that their work will be viewed as ultimately serving the public good. Members of the public can react viscerally and along ideological lines, but they can also raise important issues that deserve consideration.
• Scientific issues require an anticipatory approach. A diverse group of stakeholders research scientists, social scientists, public engagement experts, and skilled communicators should collaborate early to identify potential scientific controversies and the best method to address resulting public concerns.
• Communications solutions differ significantly depending on whether a scientific issue has been around for a long time (eg, how to dispose of nuclear waste) or is relatively new (eg, the spread of personal genetic information). In the case of longstanding controversies, social scientists may have had the opportunity to conduct research on public views that can inform communication strategies. For emerging technologies, there will be less reliable analysis available of public attitudes.

In Do Scientists Understand the Public?, a new paper based on the Academy study, science journalist Chris Mooney reviews the workshop findings and recommendations. According to Mooney, scientists and the public often have “very different perceptions of risk, and very different ways of bestowing their trust and judging the credibility of information sources. Perhaps scientists are misunderstanding the public due to their own quirks, assumptions, and patterns of behavior”, says Mooney. Laypeople, meanwhile, tend to “strain their responses to scientific controversies through their ethical or value systems, as well as through their political or ideological outlooks”. The monograph is available online at
http://www.amacad.org/publications/scientistsUnderstand.aspx

A complementary report, in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, outlined a comprehensive communication strategy for the establishment of “marine reserves” off the California coast apply not to other areas of science and natural resource management, and could and should be adopted more widely. Kirsten Grorud-Colvert, a research associate in the Department of Zoology at Oregon State University said:

More effective communication is badly needed at almost every level of science. It doesn’t have to be expensive, but we have to get out of the ivory tower, away from our scientific jargon and work more closely with our various audiences.

The researchers noted in their report that scientists who see communication as a top down transmission of information run the risk of alienating key audiences. Those audiences, they said, include resource users, local and national interest groups, communities, land and resource managers, political leaders and the general public. These groups are diverse. Some are well informed and others less so. They have a wide range of values and opinions, and no single form of communication will be most effective at reaching all of them.

But scientists must try to transcend what is often a combative and politicized atmosphere in resource management discussions, the researchers said, and work to base their statements on peer reviewed data. They also must present their findings impartially to build trust.

The comprehensive approach to communication used in the successful establishment of marine reserves in the Channel Islands and along the California coast offers insights useful elsewhere. Among the steps that were used:

• Scientists worked to “know the audience”, identifying the various group needs, levels of expertise and background, and using that to tailor communication efforts.
• A few main messages were identified, such as identifying the problem, why it should matter to the audience, what actions are needed, and what benefits would derive from those actions.
• A diverse range of communication approaches were used, ranging from printed materials to web sites and small group presentations.
• Efforts were made to identify and track the success of the communication strategy, based either on accomplishing a specific goal or measuring the increase in understanding among target audiences.

In this example, an educational booklet and film titled The Science of Marine Reserves was developed, with input from both marine ecologists and science communication specialists. More than 10,000 of an updated version of the booklet have been distributed to 57 countries. And since its launch in 2008, 600,000 visitors from 220 countries have visited the content on a web site titled Protect Planet Ocean.

Not every science communication effort may be this ambitious, Grorud-Colvert said, but as funding for science becomes more competitive, there’s an increasing demand to make it more relevant to public issues and meet funding agency requirements for outreach strategies to communicate the findings. She added:

Being willing to participate in the public forum and investing time is a big part of this. A lot of scientists just aren’t used to that. But these are important issues and we all need to do a better job of communicating about them with honesty and credibility. We need to help people understand what’s known, what isn’t known and what’s still being debated, and build trust in the process of science.