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,