Science Communications Article

I promise I won’t be one of those annoying writers who saves the punchline -- the magical and missing ingredient -- until the very last paragraph. I respect you too much for that. 

And also because that’s the missing ingredient. Respect.  

So now you can skip to the end. But that would not be respectful. Conversations are two-way and they require effort at the outset on both sides. 

Whether it is a five-year-old child, a political activist of any stripe, an annoying colleague in the humanities, or your slightly odd neighbour, you can help set the stage for a marvellous conversation, one that includes the sharing of science. You just have to silence your inner judge, and encounter that person with curiosity and respect. 

If you are writing or presenting to a group of people, it actually gets easier, because you can imagine you are addressing someone you already respect.  

It’s worth commenting here on some common advice designed to quell presentation anxiety. You are supposed to imagine the audience is naked. I would not find this useful, because I would have a hard time respecting someone who took their clothes off just when I am trying to give a speech. 

So for the sake of argument let’s imagine that everyone is fully clothed. Do you think the audience that turned out to see your presentation is mentally lacking? For decades, that is what the mainstream approach to science communications would have had you believe. It asked you to “dumb down” your science so lay people can understand. It propels an urgency to increase “scientific literacy” so that citizens can engage in discussions about issues based on science, like climate change and vaccines, and make critical decisions based on data. It’s called the deficit model. 

And it is rather unscientific and therefore surprising coming from science lovers. The data shows that this is not how human beings tick. The evidence shows that people highly versed in science facts are capable of using the exact same data to support different positions, that the data does not “speak for itself.” 

This is super frustrating, of course, for the scientifically trained. I know from personal experience that my husband, who is also scientifically literate, can see the same data as me and yet be wrong.  

You see this all the time as a lament on the shortcomings of other people’s data sets: “If they knew what I knew, they’d think what I think.”  

This plays havoc with efforts to communicate effectively. Fortunately, science communication is changing. The idea of “scientific literacy” and “dumbing down” your science is now recognized as disrespectful, and it doesn’t get the intended results. In fact, it’s like telling someone, “Relax, would you?!” It achieves the opposite effect.  

Most people have the brainpower to be able to understand complex things, they simply are not trained in the same things as you. So think about the person before you. Put them first for a moment. They are coming to you from different walks of life and are the sum total of their experiences to date. On top of that, they made the effort to get dressed.