In recent years, the proliferation of anti-science rhetoric has increased substaintally. The spread of misinformation and distrust of scientific sources not only poses a great danger to our health and our environment, but it also diminishes our standing globally. This leaves us with the question:
how do we stop false narratives about science?
The answer is simple, yet incredibly difficult: improve science communication. Unfortunately, past generations of scientists who have adopted the “guru on a hill” personality helped cultivate the widespread misrepresentation of science. Out of this elitist mentality, anti-science rhetoric was born. Now, the onus falls on us to combat attacks on science and scientists with approachable narratives, simple explanations, relatable content, and inclusivity. More and more scientists are stepping up to take on the challenge of reshaping the way they communicate science to friends and neighbors. I joined many of these scientists for a one and a half day bootcamp on science communication.
A first crucial step to effective communication is to recognize the curse of knowledge. We know what we know, they do not. To avoid estranging your audience, understand who they are and what they care about. Prepare a memorable narrative and find common ground while effectively delivering the big picture.
Next, perfect your “why”. This is the
significance/relevance of our work. Often, scientist focus on the “how”, skipping the “why” altogether.
But this is a huge mistake!! Your audience cares about the significance of your work and the relevance
to their lives. The significance of scientific research is especially important to those aiming to keep their
names off of the pages of the infamous [Wastebook]
(http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2017/06/congress-says-your-work-wasteful-now-what).
Luckily, there is a formula to help craft an elegant and easily digestible
significance statement. Start with a big idea that is concise. This serves as the framework for your argument. Next, develop three key messages that support your big idea. These can be facts, statistics, or predictions based on data. Think of transition statements that allow you to flow from each key message seamlessly. This is the one I drummed up during the course:
We need to improve our understanding of the feedbacks between the planet and microbial
communities, and continued government funding of fundamental research on environmental
microorgansisms will help us achieve that aim. Microorganisms in the environment have powerful
impacts on other living things around them as well as the atmosphere, including the air we breathe.
Microorganisms in the environment produce natural products, like antibiotics and enzymes, that help
them make a living in their ecosystem. But, we can use those natural products to save lives in the case
of antibiotics, or we can make them into lucrative consumer products. For example, we’ve discovered
soil microorganisms with diverse natural products that do can practically everything, ranging from
helping us wash our clothes in cold water, to developing new molecular tools that people like me use
all the time in the lab. However, not all microbial products are good for us. Microorganisms also
produce atmospheric greenhouse gasses, such as methane and carbon dioxide. Most of the world’s
microorganisms are found in marine systems, and although they are tiny, they have the potential to
make big changes to our planet. By studying what microorganisms in marine systems are producing,
we can model future changes in the atmosphere. This can tell us what to expect and help us make
informed policy decisions.
As scientists, we are a valuable resource for both providing new, exciting information and debunking
widely repeated myths. On day 2 of the bootcamp, we learned how to properly address myths,
enlighten the audience, and dispel misinformation. First, don’t start with the myth, this reinforces it.
Instead, make a “myth sandwich”: present facts before and after the myth. Next, validate their concerns
by sharing what you do know about the myth, but then debunk the misinformation. Finally, always
emphasize what you do know. The same tactics should be used when discussing scientific uncertainty.
Be transparent about what do and do not know, and emphasize what we do know. But, remember, you
cannot change everyone’s mind…
Finally, some general tips to always keep in mind when communicating science:
##
I put these skills to work on Capitol Hill to lobby for the National Science Foundation. It is not a secret that very little of the federal budget is allocated to science. In fact, federal spending on research and development is ~ 1% of tax revenue. As you can see in the graphic below, most of our nation’s budget is used for health care and defense.
Figures like this are only a snapshot that illustrates our nation’s priorities. The sobering truth is
that federal spending on foundational (basic) science has stagnated within the past decade. In fact,
trends show that the United States is set to be overtaken by China in overall federal science spending in upcoming years. Details for 2019 can be found here.
This is because, with the passage of the 2017 federal budget, we reached a turning point. This
is the first time in post-World War II history that the majority of basic or fundamental science research is
no longer funded by the government. The combination of flattened federal funding trends and increased
investment in science by private corporations is responsible.
To help convince law makers that continued
investment in science is crucial to maintaining
the US at the forefront of research and tech, my
colleagues (pictured above) and I met with
several state representatives from Georgia,
Tennessee, and Virginia. I highlight below a few
of our meetings.
Rob Woodall of the House of Representatives is a smooth-talking lawyer from Georgia and gave us a very memorable meeting. He was one of the few legislators who took the time to meet with us in person (most sent their staffers). Because he was our first meeting of the day, none of us knew what to expect. However, our assumptions of push-back to science according to party lines turned out to be correct. While he appreciated our anecdotes of how science funding benefits our personal lives and enriches our communities, he told us that his constituents simply do not support science funding. According to him, they see the spending as wasteful, and he especially takes umbrage with “mission creep” that scientists often engage in. I specifically asked him what he meant by this: it’s the tendency for scientists to seek questions to answers that initially were not asked in a proposal. For example, on the way to finding a cure for a specific disease, researchers at the CDC get “distracted” and end up investigating the safety of different helmet brands for riding bicycles. He sees this as wasteful, I see this as getting more bang for your buck. In addition, he claimed his constituents do not support the “soft” sciences as much as they do the “hard” sciences. Now, if I were to ask you what he meant by “soft” and “hard”, your answer may be the same as what I would give: sociology and psychology are often considered the “soft” sciences, while physics and chemistry are the “hard” sciences. Well, this is definitely NOT what he means. I am unsure where he defined this distinction, but to him, National Science Foundation work is considered the “soft” sciences, and everything that falls under National Institutes of Health is the “hard”. My interpretation of what he values with regard to science, then, is that the development of cures, treatments, and diagnoses of disease is worth more than foundational science that defines the world around us. It is true that the developments for treating human disease is of immense importance, however, often we cannot get at complicated targets for drugs or tests for diseases without some basic science studies. Representative Woodall provided us with an example of what his constituents thought was prudent spending, although exorbitant by anyone’s standards. Last year, a major bridge in his state caught fire, causing massive disruptions in the commute of thousands of Georgians. The contractors hired to fix the bridge were quick to get the job done, finishing a whole 6 weeks ahead of schedule. To reward them for a job well done, they were provided an extra $3 million in addition to their contract price of $13 million. To make the point that his state was on board with this spending, Rep. Woodall said that his office received zero calls from angry constituents. I imagine he told us this story to portray his constituents as people who value application and impact to their daily lives. This is something I already understood, but I also extracted something else from his story. Those contractors helped Georgians avoid additional hours spent on alternate routes, spending more on child care, or taking days off work. Those contractors helped solve a crisis. His story told me that scientists will not be valued until there is a crisis. A crisis involving brain drain, where smart talented researchers leave the United States to go somewhere in which they are well paid and well respected. A crisis where climate change destroys our agriculture, fisheries, and water supplies. A crisis where the United State is no longer the world’s leader in research and development. I told him all of this and more, and yet failed to “move the needle” with him. A final thing to keep in mind is that lawmakers like Rep. Woodall believe it is their job to communicate OUR science. This is not true. We must own our work, be proud of it, share its value to their world, and keep reminding everyone of the why.
I joined Mariah from Clarksville to speak with
Representative Blackburn’s office. We did not get to speak
directly with Blackburn about the National Science
Foundation, but we got to meet her outside of her office briefly. Her staffer, Ellen (the only female staff member that was not a secretary that we met, by the way), sat with us for about ten minutes. The tone of the meeting was pretty awkward, as we could both tell Ellen did not have any interest in what we were saying, either because of inexperience or true disinterest in science.
Representative Hice took time out of a committee hearing to speak with us in the hallway of the Rayburn building. The constituents from Georgia in our group were particularly concerned about meeting with Hice because of his outspoken stances on social issues. We were all pleasantly surprised when he said that he “could not imagine” that drastic cuts in science would take place anytime soon. In fact, although the President’s proposed budgets for both fiscal year 2018 and 2019 include deep cuts to NSF funding, Congress is fighting back. The omnibus passed in March actually included massive increases in science funding. This is all good news, but we have to keep the pressure on.
While waiting to meet with Senator Corker’s staffer, we were treated to coffee and Pringles (which I learned are made in Jackson, Tennessee). At the front of the office was a secretary who was taking phone calls from constituents. People calling in to voice their concerns over current policy or upcoming bills were met with terse “uh huh”s and “mmm”s from someone not taking notes on names or zip codes as they are supposed to, but shoe shopping online instead. This was very enlightening and will inform my future calls to Corker’s DC office. Senator Corker was not able to meet with us, so instead we met with a young staffer who made it clear that the senator supports science and appreciates The University of Tennessee. Because Corker is retiring soon (with rumors of a Presidential bid that was not able to be confirmed by the staffer), the impact that his office can make on science funding is likely minimal. I opened an invitation up to both him and the senator to come visit the labs at UT to see what NSF funding helps us accomplish. Senator Alexander was also unable to visit with us. By the way, while most represtatives’ offices are furnished with native décor that reminds them of home, Alexander’s office wins the prize for the most over the top decorations. It was like walking into a a next-level Cracker Barrel, with coonskin caps and old muskets hung on brown splinterred wood walls. I liked it. We were called back by John, a current Oak Ridge National Lab Science Policy fellow. John has a PhD in materials science, and so he understands the importance of continued federal science funding. He assured us that Alexander is a science advocate, and very much likes hearing stories of how science changes lives. I extended an invitation to our lab to both John and the senator so I could share more stories. Overall, I was pleasantly surprised by the receptivity to science most representatives displayed. I hope that the perceived partisan divide surrouding science is over blown and will not get in the way of continued federal funding of science. To ensure our country remains at the forefront of research and development, I believe that scientists who are up to the task of being aware, vocal, and engaged have a duty to stand up for science.
© 2020 Joy Buongiorno (Her/She). Site forked from The Allan Lab GitHub website; copy and modify it for your own research group.
University of Tennessee, Department of Microbiology.
Follow me on:
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7442-0599