By: Seham Elsherif
Recently, the public interest in science communication has increased, and it has become an urgent necessity to understand what is going on around us. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, the importance of science communication became apparent to raise public awareness about health information and preventive measures to protect against the disease. Through science communicators, people became able to learn about how the virus spreads, the differences between the various vaccines, and the mechanisms of action of new vaccines.
In times of disasters –such as earthquakes and hurricanes– people wait for what specialists have to say; they learn a bit about weather and climate. The same applies to Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the hype caused by ChatGPT. People need answers about the development of AI and whether it will destroy their jobs, among other questions on their minds. Who will respond to all of these queries? Science communicators, whether scientists, researchers, specialists, writers, or science journalists, will.
Science communication for the public is not as easy as it sounds; there are some critical subjects that are still controversial. Sometimes, political and economical views influence scientific issues; as a result, the issue of losing confidence in science, in addition to other challenges facing science communication, appear. What we will discuss in this article are the challenges of science communication.
The Importance of Science in our Life
There is no doubt that science is the foundation for the advancement of nations. Modern technologies in all fields depend on how we comprehend sciences such as physics, biology, mathematics, etc., but does the public understand the importance of science in life? In statistics issued by one of the authorities in Canada, they found that, out of every ten Canadians, only four realize how important science is in human life. This percentage is small in a developed country, let alone a developing country, so this clearly shows how important it is to communicate science to the public.
The importance of science communication lies in raising public awareness and increasing scientific knowledge so that the public understand the world around them in an easy and simple way. It provides the public with the necessary awareness to make decisions that require the use of scientific solutions or when making a decision regarding environmental issues such as global warming.
The Crisis of Losing Confidence
One of the challenges facing science communicators is the loss of confidence in scientists or science in general; building trust with the public is more important than stating facts and information. The loss of confidence is due to several reasons, including the politicization of science, which is happening in some countries. In the United States of America, political opinions influence the public’s trust in science.
Among the scientific topics that were most discussed in political circles were those related to the COVID-19 virus protective measures, such as wearing masks and taking vaccines. According to a report issued by the United States of America, trust in scientists decreased by 7% between November 2020 and December 2021. In Canada, skepticism about science increased, with 32% of adults losing confidence in it.
The scientific message may receive resistance from the public for religious reasons, such as in natural selection theories and the Big Bang, or for social reasons, such as anti-vaccine movements, or political-economic reasons, such as global warming.
One of the reasons for losing confidence in scientists is the public’s feeling that scientists are an elite class, sitting in their ivory towers isolated in their scientific laboratories, unaware of societal issues. The solution to this problem is through the engagement of scientists in society and dialogue with people in public places, such as restaurants and gas stations. Scientists must realize the values and customs of society and be an integral part of it; as such, the public will trust them and believe what they say.
One of the things that reduces the trust balance is the exaggeration in describing scientific achievements and the results of modern research. It must be made clear that research studies are subject to criticism, and that every study has different shortcomings. The efforts of competing and former scientists must be recognized.
To enhance confidence in science, we must work on three axes: The first is transparency that can by achieved through publishing research data and information and its results in a timely manner, in addition to making it clear that there is no certainty in science, because scientists may make mistakes or that some theories may later appear to be incorrect. The second axis includes is honesty in stating information and facts and mentioning shortcomings. The third axis is taking responsibility, which means accepting criticism, admitting mistakes, following up on reactions, and mentioning updates on the research that was discussed before.
Useful tips for gaining the public's trust include: knowing the audience well, choosing the appropriate language for them, simplifying the language of dialogue, and reducing the use of jargon. Using the language of examples and similes, as well as the use of images, helps convey the basic message easily. The science communicator should not make his message to the public directed towards a specific matter. For example, with regard to the issue of vaccines, the science communicator should not direct his speech only to those who support or reject it, but should keep in mind that there are people in the middle region who are not sure of their decision. Some people may fear side effects or doubt whether health safety rules are followed when vaccinated.
Misinformation and disinformation
One of the challenges of science communication is misinformation and misleading information, and there is a difference between them. While both include false information, misinformation is intentional to achieve certain goals.
Misinformation is widely circulated due to the absence of correct information, and it comes in clear language and free of complications, which facilitates its spread. Examples include the circulation of treatments for COVID-19, the effectiveness of which had not been scientifically proven. Although the use of social media in times of disasters and crises has many benefits, it carries the risk of spreading misinformation and raises anxiety among people, because anyone can post whatever they want. Therefore, we talked above about the importance of building trust and credibility between scientists and the public, so that, in times of crisis, people can turn their eyes and ears to scientists.
When misinformation spreads, it creates confusion: should we talk about it or will this promote it? To determine this, the following questions must be answered: Does it represent a significant risk to society or pose harm to it (such as a risk to public health, public peace, or the environment)? Is there a scientific response based on reliable research? Can this claim be answered with scientific evidence? Can inaccuracies be corrected without being amplified and disseminated more widely (if misinformation has been disseminated on a limited scale, will pointing it out promote it)? If the answer to all questions is positive, then work must be done to correct this information, provided that its source must be traced and the purpose behind it must be understood.
Misunderstanding
Another challenge of science communication is misunderstanding, which may result from inaccuracy in narrating the information. For example, it was wrong to say during the COVID-19 crisis that wearing masks prevents infection with the virus; it should have been clarified that masks help protect against the virus, but they do not negate the possibility of infection. Then, it is necessary to know how to formulate the message in the right way.
An experiment conducted in the European Laboratory for Particle Physics Research (CERN) solves the problem of misunderstanding. Some believed that the Giant Hadron Collider threatened human life on the planet because it might cause a black hole, and then the world would come to end. CERN's reaction at the time was not to deny this belief, but rather they saw in it an opportunity to clarify the safety system and identify black holes; this led to opening a discussion about the theory of supersymmetry.
At the end of the article, the issue of science communication can be concluded in the vision of Massimiano Bucchi, Professor at the University of Trento in Italy, who is interested in studying the relationship between science and society. First, he advises science communicators to expand their reading of the history of science, sociology, psychology, and literature. He believes that one of the most important challenges of scientific communication is providing high-quality content to the public, and discusses how to improve the quality of content, how to distinguish between good and bad content, and how to achieve the ultimate goal of communicating science, which is building awareness. We must know that communicating science is not an improvised matter, but rather a long-term plan must be developed for it.
References