Communicating Science Better and More Successfully
The status quo approach is not working. There is a better way. A three-person roundtable points the way forward and through the struggle.
Science findings alone are not always enough to instill confidence in the minds of the public, which has left scientists and oftentimes, journalists, disappointed or flustered.
An uncomfortable reality and conclusion has developed.
“The authors of a report in Proceedings of the National Academies of Science (PNAS) argue that the standard communication model of disseminating the facts and assuming ‘the truth will prevail’ is increasingly falling on deaf ears,” per the Morgridge Institute for Research.
A professional advisory however has been presented as a potential solution.
“The science community needs to create a ‘collaboration model’ that invites more public conversations, incorporates personal morals and values, creates a level playing field for input and embraces uncertainty,” added the Morgridge Institute.
Co-author of the report, Dietram Scheufele, further explained the current disconnect.
"Scientists do a good job of answering the technical questions they think are relevant, about the risks and the benefits but these are not the questions communities are asking," wrote Scheufele, an investigator at the Morgridge Institute for Research and professor of life sciences communication at UW-Madison.
"Communities are asking about what the science means for their personal identities, and what it means for their fears about a future that will look very different from what we have now."
Communication Intelligence examines the current challenges and what could likely lead to improvements in this two-question roundtable discussion.
”This is a typical problem that smart people have. They know so much they start sharing it before they actually understand what is being asked,” says John Bates, a leadership communication expert, author and coach at Executive Speaking Success.
“Although personal identity doesn't matter to science, personal identity is increasingly the lens through which people view science and perhaps, too much else of the world.”
As distasteful as this might be to communicate to and through, it is a real obstacle to trust and understanding.
“The reason we are in the predicament we are currently in is that far too many scientists think that communicating is unnecessary because ‘the science is the science,’” Bates says.
He knows from experience and details more of what he has observed and learned:
“In my work with scientists all over the world, I have noticed that it takes a great deal of both courage to be willing to say things in a way that sounds unscientific but which actually communicates, and generosity to step out of their own perspective and be willing to see the perspective of non-scientists and speak to it, despite the risk that their scientist friends disapprove of them.”
Max Weisman, a principal at Halom Strategies, asserts the need for a healthy professional marriage between communication specialists and scientists.
He says the two professions, “must collaborate to educate and persuade the public.”
Weisman details what’s behind this thinking and his conclusion.
“Scientists, due to personality and background, are often STEM-focused without a communications background and communications professionals are the inverse,” he says. “Together, they can present captivating and factual information,” when they “view each other as partners, rather than adversaries.”
“The authors (of the study) are absolutely right: the idea that truth will prevail on its own terms is outdated and increasingly dangerous,” says Simon Rogers, founder and CEO at A Little Better Company (ALBC), a creative accelerator that works with social impact startups, nonprofits and incubators to connect people.
“Today’s media landscape does not present the public with neutral facts to weigh against each other. It instead offers them different versions of reality to subscribe to.”
He speaks to the ugly developments.
“Scientific truth is now competing with rage-bait content, emotionally resonant misinformation and identity-driven narratives,” Rogers says.
This leads, he argues, to a misleading belief.
“To say that people don’t care about facts anymore is to miss the point,” Rogers says. “They do care about facts, but not for their own sake: they care about what those facts mean to them.”
The Solution is Mildly Complex
“If we want people to trust, adopt and act on scientific findings, we have to treat storytelling, design and audience psychology as essential parts of the process,” Rogers recommends.
“This means investing in branding, emotional resonance and human-centered messaging as core strategy rather than optional afterthoughts.?
The alternative is the status quo, likely amplified.
“If we continue to separate science from creativity and storytelling, we will continue to cede ground to the loudest, most provocative and least informed voices.”
From Where Improvements Must Most Originate
The signal for opportunity is strongest, Rogers says, “for greater integration and communication between media outlets, communication professionals, educators and the broader scientific community.”
He explains his reasoning.
“It’s a social problem and it requires a creative and collaborative solution,” Rogers says.
It means adjusted thinking, a smarter map and concerted effort in a different direction.
“It will require innovative public-private collaborations aimed at equipping the non-expert public with greater scientific and media literacy, while empowering experts with better tools and platforms for communicating their findings in an accurate, yet compelling way.”
Obstacles to Overcome in the Current Landscape
"Within the current communication ecosystem, politicized science ensures that the loudest and most extreme voices get the most attention,” the PNAS report stated. ”It also elevates pseudoscience to the same level and quality vetted science."
The most helpful response to those particular voices, is clear to the roundtable.
“I believe that again, there is an element of identity is getting in the way of the dissemination of good science,” Bates stresses. “For better or for worse, many people have a visceral reaction to experts who assume others must bow to their expertise.
“I understand that Dr. Google didn't go to medical school but expecting people to accept that an expert can just tell them how it is does not work.”
A Smarter Way Forward
Something more intelligent has to begin taking place as the norm.
“Experts and scientists who want to be taken seriously need to acknowledge the valid concerns that the public may have and preserve the dignity of non-experts, while at the same time not allowing the pseudoscience to be given the same level of consideration as the vetted, good science,” Bates says. “It's a tricky balance to strike.”
He acknowledges this isn’t a simple or easily tolerable task.
“Scientists must understand that people's identities are wrapped up in the discussions,” Bates adds. “Acknowledge that people care, that they have genuine concerns, even if the concerns are unfounded. Ridicule is not going to work.
“There must be some understanding, some acknowledgement of the lay public as smart, concerned and capable, even if misinformed.”
Communication Platforms as a Tool
There are different places to communicate for benefit, if done skillfully.
“It is also time for scientists to begin to understand how the social media platforms work and use selective, crafted, thoughtful outrage to spread their message, without insulting non-experts,” Bates says.
The public is not made up of mostly scientific minds and thus, it is best communicated with in a manner that better connects to how they are positively moved emotionally and logically.
“Scientists bring facts and figures, communicators bring stories and trends,’ Weisman says about a collaboration for more effective, outcome-based communication.
“Together, scientists can bring hard facts to present to the general public — proactive or reactive — while communicators can help present this in engaging ways.”
He details the problems that can occur without a team commitment.
“As a communicator, I can pitch stories to the media or tell a story via social media, without the facts and these can be subject to misinformation,” Weisman says. “Scientists can present facts, but academic journals may not be the most engaging method for people to consume information.”
The General Public is Different These Days
“We are in an era where previously held universal truths, such as those from the scientific community, like vaccination and global warming, are being challenged,” Weisman points out.
What is valuable, he says, are communicators’ skills and approaches, outside of scientific communication: “there is an added persuasive element, not just informing,” he debates.
Politics and Politicians
“It is no longer enough to promote new vaccines or the dangers of climate change,” Weisman says. “Life-saving discoveries are being defunded and weaponized for political agendas.
“Our best communications professionals can work to combat misinformation and persuade the public but they need the quality information and findings from scientists on the front lines.”
These two professions can’t go their own way, he continues. They must collaborate.
“This partnership is critical,” Weisman says. “Our current climate and the height of the digital age face new challenges that require new tools and strategies.”
Better Conveying Scientific Findings and Meaning
“Communicators have to meet people where they are but with good science-based information,” Weisman says.
“Videos and graphics are typically captivating for the general public, but they don't necessarily need to feature the scientists themselves; rather, they should focus on the people who will best win the hearts and minds of the audience, with guidance from the science community on the message.”
To better illustrate, he elaborates.
By “using popular mediums such as social media, podcasts and influencers, we can connect good information with skeptical audiences,” Weisman says.
“This is another urgent case for positioning creative communication as central to the scientific process,” Rogers argues. “Go to Amazon and you’ll find thousands of pseudoscientific health products: unproven, unregulated and often ineffective — selling thousands upon thousands of units.
“Why? Because they’re effectively branded. They’re easy to understand, emotionally resonant, visually compelling and designed to be desirable.”
This is highly sensical, Rogers says.
“They know what their audience values and they speak to these values in clear and accessible terms,” he explains. “In a world trained to equate aesthetics with substance, creative and compelling branding has become a proxy for legitimacy.”
He uses that as an example to show the contrast with scientific communication for the pubic, which leads to disconnection.
Scientific Communication Moves Away from its Goals
“Meanwhile, vetted science often comes wrapped in dense language, inaccessible formats and outdated visuals,” Rogers says.
“The truth hasn’t changed but the rules of attention have.
“If pseudoscience is beating science in the public imagination, it’s because the former understands the audience and plays the game.”
This is not the Path that Benefits Society to Travel
“This is not just frustrating but actively dangerous,’ Rogers asserts. “And it won’t change until science stops acting like it’s above marketing and starts embracing it as essential infrastructure.”
A Call to Break Away from Ineffectiveness
“If the loudest, flashiest voices are drowning out truth, then it’s time for science communicators to shift the narrative in their favor,” Rogers says.
He details what this will entail.
“Scientists and communicators must collaborate to give their work the clear, compelling value proposition of a premium direct-to-consumer product,” Rogers declares.
This adjustment and improvement makes desired breakthroughs much more possible. Rogers briefly talks about what it looks like in practice.
“Doing so will involve positioning, packaging and promoting research with intention and embracing creative new avenues for storytelling and design, including social media fluency and influencer support,” he says.
“Reality needs to feel premium,’ he concludes. “Pseudoscience needs to feel second-rate. That’s how we can take back the narrative.”
Publisher Notes: the Communication Intelligence Extra section is unlocked and free to all readers.
Advertising available for any section of the newsletter: To advertise, link to your business, sponsor an article or section of the newsletter or discuss your affiliate marketing program, contact CI.
Communication Intelligence services
Communication Intelligence is a newsletter and business for special writing products, and consulting and advisory services.
This lays out the problem and the path forward so clearly. The idea that “truth will prevail” has become dangerously outdated. It’s not that people don’t care about facts; it’s that they need those facts wrapped in meaning, relevance, and emotional connection. It’s time science starts showing up where people actually listen.
Happy Friday Michael...