Miscommunication in science - Correct the problem

Yes! Science is “difficult” and “boring”, and not related to the real life sometimes. A lot of people have this point view, even including scientists. The emphasis of science is bunches of trials, formulas, protocols and data. People who have little or no educated in science, could not see the relevance between science researches and their daily life. The barriers to communicating between scientists and the public are quite great and sometimes can cause serious problem. And when the problem comes out, somebody needs to stand out and take the responsibility. The scientists blame the journalists that they are careless in their reporting, are sensationalized about the stories, and overstate a scientific finding. Journalists, in turn, claim the science community limiting access to information, building barriers to the public, and misguiding the press and the public. Therefore, the public become more skeptical when they receive information from the media and scientists. Even they are told by the truth, sometimes they doubt it. This is a vicious circle, and in my opinion, it is not possible to eliminate the miscommunication in science. In the relationship among Scientists-media-public, there are lots of space for miscommunication in science. It is really like three different cultures and cross together. They do have similar factor which is English spoken. However, one language could have multiple meanings within different cultures.

If there is no way to take away the miscommunication, what should we do then? The simple answer is “to enhance communication” and “know your audience”. We already knew this, of course, but how? Here are some suggestions to make effective science communication from different research papers (Stocklmayer, Shuchman, Ransohoff):

Remove as much mathematics and formula as you can. Most people do not like math, and we know this.

The language you are using should be simple, as straightforward as possible. It doesn’t necessarily mean the words but the vocabulary should be easy to understand. Science is already difficult enough without having to think about the words.

Possible alternative conceptions could be another good choice as well. Use examples, stories, or graph to explain complex process for your research. It will rise the interests and attention from the media and the public.

Put more efforts on finding good introductory “hooks”. This is the first and important step to attract your audience and keep them stay further.

At last, Keep it simple is always the key.

And for the media, they have something to do as well.

Make more open discussion instead of closed discussion of research could be helpful to prevent sensationalism.

Media should make efforts equally in negative and positive studies. The media do not mention negative studies because sometime they are not inconsequential. However, as a result, the scientists become less likely to submit the negative results for publication because the journals do not want to publish them. This could cause inaccurate reporting.

Media should provide access to experts who can assist journalists to place correct and new information in the proper text. Usually, the major source of the reporting story are the researchers themselves. It is helpful to speak to someone who can criticize the work before release the report.

The media should easily explain and address concerns that some research data will be misinterpreted by the media. This could happen in situations like sometimes the science community does not want to discuss problems publicly for some reasons or fears that journalists will not understand the issues. However, withholding the information may cause even greater misunderstanding.

-Harry Zhao Yuanfeng

Stocklmayer, S. M., Gore, M. M., & Bryant, C. R. (Eds.). (2001). Science communication in theory and practice (Vol. 14). Springer.

Shuchman, M., & Wilkes, M. S. (1997). Medical scientists and health news reporting: a case of miscommunication. Annals of Internal Medicine,126(12), 976-982.

Ransohoff, D. F., & Ransohoff, R. M. (2000). Sensationalism in the media: when scientists and journalists may be complicit collaborators. Effective clinical practice: ECP, 4(4), 185-188.

Miscommunications in Science: Not a New Problem

This blog has shown many examples of different science topics that have been misrepresented or misunderstood.  There are definitely problems with communication and science, which we should all be trying to fix.  One aspect of science communication that I had not previously thought of was whether this was a common problem in science all along.  Did early scientists have trouble describing their work?  Was their work ever misinterpreted or misrepresented?  How did the public react to their information back then?  And now for a little history lesson! 

Recently in a class I am taking, we were talking about embryogenesis.  A photo was displayed showing comparative anatomy of embryos of different species.  The author of the photo was a man named Ernst Haeckel, a German biologist, philosopher, physician, and professor.  He discovered thousands of new species and drew hundreds of detailed illustrations of animals and other creatures.  Haeckel was the topic of some dispute with his "Embryology and Recapitulation Theory" as well as his support of the theory of evolution.  His recapitulation theory consisted of the idea that there was a link between otogeny (the development of form) and phylogeny (evolutionary decent), He strongly supported this theory with his drawings in which he showed embryos in early, later, and still later development.  The drawings were later discredited because he oversimplified them in order support his theories on evolution.  He received lots of criticism over the drawings and a lot of opposition from the catholic church as well as other scientists, but was also supported by many scientists that believed his theories.  

I think that this example goes to show you that there were discrepancies in science as early as the 1800s.  It seems that the science industry today has many different publications that contradict each other and both sides can end up in the media, or maybe just one side that misrepresents the true facts (vaccine example).  I have to wonder if these drawings changed many views and brought up a lot of controversy among different people with different beliefs.  Now, we know that he did not portray the drawings absolutely correctly in order to support his own theories.  I have heard of some papers being retracted in more recent times that had already led some to think differently from the correct facts.  I find it interesting that Haeckels drawings caused so much controversy among public and scientists alike.  It goes to show that today's problems are not necessarily new and that miscommunications can occur in many places and times.

-Kate

It has yet to be proven that vaccination causes autism

Read: more http://www.naturalnews.com/047072_mmr_vaccine_autism_government_coverup.html#

This news article is trying to prove to the public and common reader that vaccination causes autism in children. This is a controversial topic in the medical field. When it comes to health and particularly vaccination, everyone concerns since it is not a prescribed medicine only certain group of patients take it. The title of this article is conclusive in connecting autism with vaccination even though most of the medical research did not find a significant correlation between them.  They should represent the both sides of argument clearly. Also I did not like the language they are using in the title and article. They used “secret documents” in the title to attract the attention of the public. This phrase gives the feeling as if the researchers and health organization are hiding something very important that concerns public health and they are the brave man who is unwrapping the truth.

In the article it was mentioned that CDC, Pediatrics, US government and Merck all admit MMR vaccine causes autism which is not true. In reality, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the CDC, the World Health Organization, and the Institute of Medicine all agree that there's probably no relationship between autism and vaccines. And they question why do so many people remain unconvinced. And the researchers at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) are taking a careful look into parent concerns that vaccines are tied to the disorder since there is a lot of emotion around the issue of autism. That concern is difficult to change for several reasons. Parents are receiving misleading information online or from people around. It is hard for public to understand scientific and medical testing which make it hard to separate good science from bad. And also it is hard for scientists until they can show exactly what causes autism. 

Sameer,

Hormones in meats and milk cause early puberty? hold on a sec.....

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/10/05/hidden-hormones-can-bring-about-early-puberty-in-kids/

In the U.S., the number of girls that reach puberty early is growing last 30 years. We have heard a lot of people or the media talked about this phenomenon and worried about it. Of course, I think early puberty is an issue and we should care about it. However, when the media tell stories about some girls develop pubic hair or breast at 8 years old; and ask you to be careful with the food you eat. The audiences will be very sensitive to what they have for dinner everyday. Some people (some are my friends) and the media linked early puberty to many factors including hormone in the foods like milk and meats. There is no a definite answer to the question what on earth causes early puberty. I think that is the reason why people come up with so many hypotheses, which were reported by the media and spread all over. Therefore, back to the question “what causes early puberty?”

The best explanation is fatness: when the body reach a threshold level of fatness, it will tell the brain to transit more energy to reproductive development, thus the puberty starts. It is not about the age so 12 years old does not define the term “puberty”. Although there are many criteria to define puberty, the requirement of GnRH (Gonadotropin-releasing hormone) amount is key to initiate puberty. Therefore, the problem may shift to obesity, which is the main reason causes early puberty. Other factors like environment cues may play a role but definitely not hormones in the meats.

Then some people may ask “so what happen to the hormone from our milk and food? There is no effects of using synthetic hormone in animal feeds and eventually left in the foods?” It is true that a lot of dairy farms (30% of the nation) use synthetic version of hormone to increase milk production, to improve growth rate and to keep animal healthy. However, FDA has concluded that milk produced by treated cows is as same as untreated cows. Protein hormones in both plant and animal foods are digested and broken down into amino acids and peptides in the stomach and then absorbed by the intestine. You may argue that steroid hormones, like estradiol, which are not completely digested by the body, can accelerate initiate puberty or breast development. Yes, meat and milk have this type of hormone but at very low level compared with the amount of our body produces everyday. A glass of whole milk contains 3ng of estradiol and a serving of beef from a treated steer has 1.2ng of estradiol, but a prepubertal girl produces 54,000ng of estradiol everyday, and an adult woman produce 630,000ng per day (Ann Macrina 2012). Imagine how much of milk and meat a girl should take to elevate her estradiol level to an adult woman level.

Even though I still find some news claiming hormones in the food can bring early puberty in kids, in fact, I am glad I can find a lot of information and resources online defending some miscommunication by the media about early puberty. We are trying to correct that misunderstanding but it will be difficult; because if you can not prove that 3ng of estradiol in the milk would not impact the body, people will keep cautious and suspicious. I think this is the destructive power of miscommunication in science. 

-Harry Zhao Yuanfeng

Whose fault is scientific miscommunication? A brief rant on a simple question and it’s complicated answer.

      As Americans, it seems the trend is to encourage everyone to validate themselves professionally with personal details.  Politicians are sold to us or criticized based on their personal lives: they are fathers, family men, a strong woman, successful minority, religious, non-religious, get involved with secretaries etc.  However, this seems to also be a trend in science, and I think this may be hurting our ability to relate to the public at large.  There are sociological reasons people trust other people with similar backgrounds to them.  By looking down on people for being not well educated, religious, or not believing our science, we do no good but cause them to feel alienated.  People who are not atheist or liberals may feel unwelcome, afraid to voice their opinions, or worse, judged and looked down on.  I know some people were shaken by the media’s and publics perception of us, but we need to take some responsibility for that.  We are at fault for those perceptions, and our relationship with the public.  It is not just the public’s stupidity that causes these problems, it is our fault too, and it is also our problem.

     In schools, children are not always taught the research process, leading to a lack of understanding of the process of research is adulthood.  If they don’t understand the process, why on earth do we expect them to blindly believe the outcome and data?  Will full ignorance is one thing (see any political conversation on climate change – I am not talking about sticking your head in the sand) but people are allowed to think differently about topics than we do.  When people aren’t scientifically trained, they don’t understand that what we know constantly changing.   We are made painfully aware of how much we don’t know, and how much what we do know can change with new studies. As scientists we are used to that, and repeatably exposed to this in our education and research.

[Found at http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=374]

          The average Joe isn't educated in this field, and does not understand why this happens.  If people are not experienced in the research process, it is very reasonable for them to be confused when the entire scientific basis of what they should be feeding themselves is completely changes.  This creates some mistrust from the public, where scientists see no issue.  The media may also play a role in this, but the truth is elucidating an idea through research takes years.  How long can it take to do a research project and write it up,  much less the number of papers and research trials it takes to actually figure out what is going on.  The media and the public don’t have the patience or the time to wait ten years if our research effects their lives to get the full story or picture, and that is understandable.  Sometimes, the idea is never completely elucidated, but just gets more complicated.  The public doesn’t understand that side of research, so those that do understand that could get more involved in public outreach about not just their own research, but the process in general.

As scientists, sometimes we are sending the wrong message.  If you look at my previous post, the scientist who is disputing flu vaccinations is very well educated.  He is causing a ruckus in a totally different field, but he is an educated person who is a semi-related field.  Just today, NPR aired a story not about the Rosetta launch, but what one of the scientists was wearing.

[http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/14/364083954/shirtstorm-leads-to-apology-from-european-space-scientist?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=news]

  How do we expect to be perceived when the interviewed scientist for the Rosetta success was wearing a completely inappropriate shirt on television?  There is a reason that scientists are perceived the way they are, and as an individual we may feel we haven’t earned that, but we need to be constantly trying to improve.  We need to accept responsibility for our part of scientific miscommunications, not try to put all the blame on the media trying to seek attention, or on the public’s perceived stupidity.  We are all in this together.  

                There is danger for educated scientists to fall into this exact blame game:  The public is stupid and trusts inappropriate sources.  The media just wants to get hits and likes.  It’s not that simple, it is a complex and nuanced problem.  Yes society is changing, and some of it seems depressingly permanent and for the worse.  But as scientists, I think instead of focusing on what everybody else is doing wrong, or how the media spins stories, we need to focus on improving ourselves.  That is the only thing we have control over, how we behave and try to grow, and I think that is what this class is aimed at doing.  Not on how the media behaves, not on what the public perceives to be important or is willing to believe, but on how what we do and how we act can influence that.  I think we lose sight of our role in this, that we are not alone, but that we cannot do it alone and are not supposed to.  

               Everyone in this class will go into different fields, and as much as academia trains you for academia, it's ok that the majority of grad students will not end up in academia.  There are so many roles to play.  As an individual we can’t do the research we think is going to change the world, write papers and grants to continue to pursue that research, teach courses, educate minds and serve as a mentor, educate the public, educate the young, have an impact on policy, tell your story through the media, and change the world.  It is not going to happen!  In my opinion, you find the niche in this process that you feel you do the most good in, and you continue to work with other scientists, researchers, media, and public figures in order to change things for the better.  

             The topics this week in our conversations in scientific communications were somewhat dark and depressing on the outlook for the future of our society.  I think it is easy to get caught up in the negative, and feel like we can’t change anything.  While it is important to continue to grow and better ourselves, we need to remember as bleak as things may look, we are not in this alone.  Science is all about “standing on the shoulders of giants”.  In research, you are basing your experiments on others work, and the knowledge you use is the product of thousands of years and probably millions of people’s effort.  In my mind, it will not be one person who finds the cure to cancer, because that cure will be based off of the knowledge put out by so many minds.  When communicating with the public,               I think we need a reminder: you cannot change the world on your own, you are not alone, and that as powerless as we may feel individually, as a group we can change science and the way people live their lives for the better.  But to do so, we need to stop playing the blame game, and step up to improve ourselves.

I tried to keep this brief, but as per usual I am long winded.  Here are some links to stimulate discussion and may peak your interest in some of these topics!

http://news.sciencemag.org/2010/02/nih-director-ruffles-feathers-again-new-religion-book

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-strange-case-of-francis-collins

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2014/06/10/320634230/a-problem-like-no-other-science-and-politics

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/09/science-and-politics

http://www.unesco.org/science/wcs/abstracts/II_1_perception.htm

http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/public-praises-science-scientists-fault-public-media/

-Jocelyn Cuthbert

Tiny Human Stomachs

When looking through Yahoo news stories, one really caught my attention: “Tiny Human Stomachs Grown in Lab.”  This title just had to be a complete over exaggeration of the findings.  However, after reading through the article written by Laura Geggel, it became clear that this title is basically what scientists have reported in Nature.  The article is long enough to provide details regarding how scientists completed the research and why it matters.  Additionally, the author uses quotes from scientists both working on the project and those who are experts in the field but unrelated to the work reported.  This provided clear explanations that anyone with a basic understanding of the human digestive system could understand.  While it is clear that this research is very complex, it was well explained for a public audience. 

When comparing the Yahoo article to the published manuscript “Modelling human development and disease in pluripotent stem-cell-derivedgastric organoids” in Nature (McCracken et al., 2014), it became clear that the Yahoo article really did a great job at taking extremely complex and detailed science, and converted it to a form that the public could understand.  While the manuscript goes into great detail on the genes being expressed in certain cell types at certain times of development, the news article didn’t mention a single gene but rather referenced the overall outcome of the project and the future direction of the work.  This allowed proper communication of the science to the public in a way that was easily understood.  Overall, this is a great example of science being reported accurately and clearly. 

-Laura

Whales talking dolphin?

In order to compare a news article reporting recent scientific findings to a published scientific paper, I started looking though major news outlets for any science story that caught my attention.  On time.com, I came across a story that seemed to be popping up all over the internet, “Captive Orcas Can Learn How to Speak Dolphin, Researchers Say.” From first impression, the title of the article makes it seem that killer whales are communicating with dolphins rather than imitating sounds, so I decided to delve deeper into the story.

After reading the entire article written by Jack Linshi, a few things really stood out, first being how short the article was.  Simply three paragraphs were provided to explain and summarize that data presented.  While the title of the article gave the impression that the whales learned to communicate with dolphins, the article states that the “killer whales living with dolphins are capable of imitating their sounds.” After a short explanation of the science conducted and results, the article concludes by listing the known species that can learn to mimic sounds.  The overall impression from the article was that the science was basic: some killer whales lived with dolphins and they learned to make the sounds the dolphins made. 

However, when looking at the paper “Differences in acoustic features of vocalizationsproduced by killer whales cross-socialized with bottlenose dolphins” by Musser et al., 2014, it became evident that much more intricate science occurred than what the article reported.  The sounds of a control group of killer whales, control group of bottle-nosed dolphins, and the test group killer whales co-habitating with bottle-nosed dolphins were analyzed for a number of quantitative parameters to allow for a thorough comparison between groups.  Also, the paper provides a thorough introduction explaining that killer whales have been known to modify their vocalizations to match relatives, different groups of killer whales, and even sea-lions when orphaned in the wild.  Therefore, it was hypothesized that killer whales co-habitating with dolphins would add dolphin vocalizations to their repertoire. 

Overall, I believe that the science was reported accurately but not thoroughly.  The title gives an over-exaggeration of the findings of the study, most likely to increase the number of people reading the article.  A very simplistic overview of the study is provided, highlighting the overall conclusion of the study.  However, no background is provided which makes it difficult to gage the overall impact of the research reported. 


-Laura