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.