|
A member of: Associate partner of: Referenced by: |
Proceedings of GreenFacts CER 2004 Round Table"Bringing scientific information to non-specialists" Brussels, June 4, 2004. CER 2004 Conference: Communicating European Research, With: Paul Galand, Ann Van der Auweraert, Jacques de Selliers, Dick Wife, Mary Weed. Opening remarks Science ensures Credibility The tone was set by the moderator, David Zaruk, who stressed that with today’s overabundance of information, ease of publication and lack of control or validation process, a serious public distrust of information has developed. Libraries are being replaced by the Internet, and with the overflow of information, people now need to make a "credibility judgment" on information before using it. Science and scientific information though is generally perceived as trustworthy, underlining the importance of a proper communication of scientific information to non-specialists as a means to ensure credible information for decision-makers.
Paul Galand, Professor, Researcher in fundamental oncology, ULB; President, WWF Belgium; Scientific Adviser and TV presenter, RTBF. Communicating science is a marketing occupation. Paul Galand started the round table by outlining the difference between communicating on what scientists do and communicating on science – with the latter being equal to "selling science" as a form of marketing. Certain journals such as "Nature" influence what is considered "good science" as they apply certain rules to what they consider a "sexy" paper which can be published. So even among scientists you need to "sell". Scientists should practice explaining what they do! Professor Galand explained that by getting their friends, spouse or taxi drivers to understand their work, the scientists are framing their work in a manner where not only other people, but also they themselves, can better situate its scientific value and social significance. Communicating to laymen helps scientists to clarify the concepts used and to keep track of what the aims of their research are. A measure of good communication is "survival". In his case, Paul Galand’s wildlife TV show "le Jardin extraordinaire" has survived for 40 years, broadcasting over 1500 shows
Ann Van der Auweraert, University of Antwerp, Science Shop, WE-Com, Mens, Hoe? Zo! Science Shops: Building bridges between research and the general public Ann Van der Auweraert began with the remark that the problem of science communication arises when complex political or ethical issues are involved. In this case, there seems to be a lack of interactive communication. The concept of the science shop was developed to build bridges and serve as an interface for research on demand. Science shops provide scientific information and research to groups in society who have no expertise or money, such as senior’s clubs, environmental groups and neighbourhood committees. Via the science shop, a social group can request scientific research or information. If research is needed, it is then transformed into a research question, carried out in a student research project, leading to the publication of a report for the social group who asked for the research. The goal is to provide better scientific information, improve dialogue between the scientists and non-specialists and encourage science students to be more conscious of the problems relevant to the public.
Jacques de Selliers, General Manager, GreenFacts Using the Internet to provide easy access to complex scientific information Jacques de Selliers explained how GreenFacts takes authoritative scientific documents on health and environment issues and, using the Internet medium, summarizes them in a clear language. This information is structured into questions and answers in the GreenFacts Three-Level structure of increasing detail. This user-friendly presentation enables a non-specialist (policymaker, journalist, stakeholder…) to get a clear, short answer to a question on Level One, find more information on Level Two, and then verify the answer against the scientific source document on Level Three. The Internet provides the means for multi-dimensional communication, so that each summarized sentence can be verified against its authoritative source document (published by international organizations like the WHO, UN, IARC, EU), adding to the credibility of the information. The Three-Level Structure also enables simultaneous communication to three different target audiences: non-specialists who just want a simple, short answer; decision-makers and stakeholders who need enough clear details to take a position; and the scientific community who want to see that the research information is disseminated in its entirety.
Dick Wife, Kids and Science, Specs Giving kids a scientific forum Dick Wife explained how Kids and Science provides a platform for
communicating science to young people. It encompasses several features:
Mary Weed, Media and Communications Consultant How can scientists be more media-savvy? Mary Weed shared her experiences on how the press can be used and how the press uses scientific information. Underlying the credibility issue is the view that science equals information and policy equals judgment. To have journalists receive the information, they need an image, such as the ozone layer, sea horses or the panda. She outlined several points for a scientist to have an effective media strategy: 1.) Expert opinions are better than none. Scientists need not be overly cautious in their comments. 2.) It is OK to ask a journalist for a little time to think about a comment. 3.) Don’t be frightened to express an opinion and don’t agree with a press comment that you don’t agree with, just because that is what the journalist needs. 4.) In the media, radio can be trusted to portray your thoughts the best, followed by TV, and then the written press. Role of scientists in communicating The moderator provoked discussion on what he called the Carl Sagan effect – that once a scientist begins to gain recognition for popularizing science, he or she loses standing from within the scientific community. Paul Galand noted that when he started his activities on TV he felt almost ashamed about doing TV shows. However, it was well perceived by his university. Although, his colleagues were positively impressed, they did not help him. Ann Van der Auweraert added that the positive attitude of scientists
towards science communication is not necessarily in line with their
behaviour. In their work there is no real incentive to communicate.
The reaction is often "OK this is important but not for me".
Mary Weed interpreted this as: Those scientists are not interested
in communicating (if they say they have no time, effectively, they
are not interested). Paul Galand remarked that it is better that
people who "have no time" do not enter into such an
occupation. Jacques de Selliers recommended that scientific experts
should work together with professional non-specialist writers to
ensure that scientific information is both accurate and clear to
the layman. Mary Weed noted how the public needs a personification
of science, citing the positive, popularizing role of Einstein.
Communication as a form of desire Marie-José Loverini, from the French Ministry of Research, offered a comment that spurred debate on communication as desire and the role of science therein. She outlined the history of the word communication, how it was used for the first time in an erotic poem in the 11th century and then afterwards in a medical treaty on sexually communicable diseases. Communicating is being sexy but not being a seducer, telling the truth (making the truth more attractive), creating desire and knowing what is missing. Paul Galand agreed that the notion of desire is important. You must feel your audience. "Pas de communication sans manipulation". He tackled the issue as a biologist. In biology there is a receptor and an emitter which seeks to influence the behaviour of the receptor. It is important to feel the public, to know what they expect and how to address it. You have to understand and adapt to the logic of the other person. But does that mean that you are manipulating the other one? No more than when you choose to use the other’s mother language to communicate. The objective is to influence the other’s behaviour. Not to direct it.
Science within a context Paul Galand declared that science is not innocent. "Once you leave the ivory tower, you must be careful not to fall into the gutter." It is harmful when scientists bypass the circuit of consensus found within the scientific community and immediately communicate their findings before they are evaluated, if not necessarily accepted by their peers. Science takes place within a particular context; it has a homogenous strategy, and must have a coherent message. If you want to reach a particular public, a specific target, you must know all the surrounding conditions. It is better to work on improving the "art" of communication with people, specialists as well as non-specialists. Do not expect that someone who is unable to clearly communicate on scientific concepts and data with colleagues will be able to do so with laymen. However, this is a minimum, yet not a sufficient condition to be a good "science popularizer".
Professor Wim Sinke (ECN, Netherlands) asked Jacques de Selliers how documents are chosen at GreenFacts given that there is a lack of broad consensus in the scientific community. Reaching a consensus is very difficult. Consensus is more of a theoretical concept, as there will always be disagreements. Jacques de Selliers agreed that different scientists can have different views. For that reason, GreenFacts only summarizes documents published by international organizations (like the WHO, UN, IARC or EU) that are written consensually by a wide body of scientific experts. They present the current state of the science and make a clear distinction between the points where most scientists agree, where there are different views and points that remain unclear because more research is needed.
On science communication and education A remark was raised over the fact that science education at school should give the public the means to deal with information from scientific debates (like the issue of the risks of MMR vaccines) and to understand the issues themselves. Dick Wife replied that there is a responsibility to interact with kids and dose the information, so that they are prepared and able to give a rational response. Paul Galand agreed, adding that scientists must never oversimplify. Information plays an essential role in issues such as MMR, and in this case the aim of science is to educate.
Needs for communicating science It was generally agreed that funding was the main issue science communicators are facing today. Dick Wife noted that fundraising took up a considerable part of his time. Dick Wife, Jacques de Selliers and Ann Van der Auweraert all concurred that obtaining support not only in words but in funding is a considerable obstacle between what they do and what they could do.
Future of science in society Jacques de Selliers noted that the scientific consensus can evolve. Science is but one element to be taken into account in the decision-making process, among other factors such as social and economic aspects, values and cultures. However science is still the best available ground on which to base the dialogue between groups representing different views and conflicting interests. Better communication of the current state of science will enable a more constructive dialogue and lead to sounder policy decisions. Dick Wife warned: Don’t leave science only to the scientists! Mary Weed fears the disappearance of science. Science is compromised in society. It may not have a significant cultural role but it plays an important role that is often set aside. Science must not remain the privilege of scientists; it must be shared and communicated. The threat is obvious when we take a step backward. A sense of urgency has to be created so we can react. Since most scientific advances are incremental and breakthroughs are rare, science must carefully tread the path between playing up aspects of a report and sensationalizing it. Ann Van der Auweraert: Science consists of both generating knowledge and solving problems. The former tends to be given a higher status. A balance is needed as both approaches are necessary.
|
Print version 
Roud table programm
