Over the last few weeks, I’ve been thinking a lot about how to communicate what it is I study. I find that it is really hard to put what I do into “normal” words, and I have been surprised about how very difficult it is! This has caused me to think further about “why” it is so hard to communicate sciency things – and here are a few things that I’ve come up with.
We don’t have the words. Here’s what I’m thinking: because active science is working on the edges of what we know, maybe we don’t have good words to use when talking to people that aren’t “in the thing” with us on a regular basis – OR – even if we use normal sounding words, maybe they have special meanings in our particular area. This doesn’t let us off the hook though… it just means that we have to work harder to find ways to communicate what we do and why we do it.
People don’t always hear what you (think!) you are saying. All communication comes from at least 2 sides and there can be any number of ways that it can go wrong. All sorts of emotional or physical conditions can distort both sending and receiving information between two or more people... my husband can attest to that! For example, how interested might you be in listening to someone talk about a new topic if you are starting a cold, or how patient would you be in explaining a new concept if you are feeling a little anxious about an appointment coming later in the day? And that’s assuming that the concept is clear to begin with!
Scientists sound like they don’t want to commit to an answer. A big part of science is addressing uncertainty and/or probability. There are very few things that scientists would feel comfortable saying is 100% certain, because there can always be an exceptional case. Because of this, scientists will usually talk in terms of likelihood, or probability. This doesn’t mean that the underlying principles are wrong, it is just the scientist attempting to allow for the things that are not well understood yet.
Science information can be used for both good and bad. Information from well designed, ethical, peer-reviewed science is just that – a piece of information on a topic. It is rarely the be-all and end-all on the subject. It’s really easy, though, for industry, activists and political leaders to spout “facts” that support their particular argument while ignoring many studies that perhaps say something contrary. Unfortunately, this leads us to the world of “alternative facts” where no-one can agree on reality anymore!
These are only a few things that make talking about science to people that don’t “do science” a challenge. What can we do about it? I would suggest that, since blocks in communication can come from numerous sources, then bridging the gaps need to come from multiple directions. We scientists can work harder to find ways to explain our work in ways that are understandable to someone outside the field -- since it is our work, we do need to take responsibility for finding ways to explain it. However, I think there needs to be some contributions from other areas as well… perhaps we can ask “the public” to stretch a little bit, too! Perhaps we need to adjust science education in K-12 schools to include more understanding of uncertainty and probability -- maybe even some statistics! We probably can’t get leaders to not try to use “science facts” for their own advantage, but maybe we (as in “the public”) can do more to check information on our own to make sure we understand where the leaders are getting their material. And last but not least, maybe we can find ways to remind “the public” that scientists are people, too, with human limitations. Good communication has to come from all sides, and a little bit of kindness and patience from everyone can’t hurt!
Comments