Skeptix List
2017-04-20 13:45:05 UTC
It wont. Try this instead.
By Tim Requarth
If you consider yourself to have even a passing familiarity with
science, you likely find yourself in a state of disbelief as the
president of the United States calls climate scientists hoaxsters
and pushes conspiracy theories about vaccines. The Trump
administration seems practically allergic to evidence. And its not
just Trumpplenty of people across the political spectrum hold bizarre
and inaccurate ideas about science, from climate change and vaccines
to guns and genetically modified organisms.
If you are a scientist, this disregard for evidence probably drives
you crazy. So what do you do about it?
It seems many scientists would take matters into their own hands by
learning how to better communicate their subject to the masses. Ive
taught science communication at Columbia University and New York
University, and Ive run an international network of workshops for
scientists and writers for nearly a decade. Ive always had a handful
of intrepid graduate students, but now, fueled by the Trump
administrations Etch A Sketch relationship to facts, record numbers
of scientists are setting aside the pipette for the pen. Across the
country, science communication and advocacy groups report upticks in
interest. Many scientists hope that by doing a better job of
explaining science, they can move the needle toward scientific
consensus on politically charged issues. As recent studies from
Michigan State University found, scientists top reason for engaging
the public is to inform and defend science from misinformation.
Its an admirable goal, but almost certainly destined to fail. This is
because the way most scientists think about science communicationthat
just explaining the real science better will helpis plain wrong. In
fact, its so wrong that it may have the opposite effect of what
theyre trying to achieve.
Get Slate in your inbox.
Before getting fired up to set the scientific record straight,
scientists would do well to first consider the science of science
communication. The theory many scientists seem to swear by is
technically known as the deficit model, which states that peoples
opinions differ from scientific consensus because they lack scientific
knowledge. In 2010, Dan Kahan, a Yale psychologist, essentially proved
this theory wrong. He surveyed over 1,500 Americans, classifying each
persons cultural worldview on a scale that roughly correlates with
politically liberal or conservative. He then assessed each persons
scientific literacy with questions such as True or False: Electrons
are smaller than atoms. Finally, he asked them about climate change.
If the deficit model were correct, Kahan reasoned, then people with
increased scientific literacy, regardless of worldview, should agree
with scientists that climate change poses a serious risk to humanity.
Thats not what he found. Instead, Kahan found that increased
scientific literacy actually had a small negative effect: The
conservative-leaning respondents who knew the most about science
thought climate change posed the least risk. Scientific literacy, it
seemed, increased polarization. In a later study, Kahan added a twist:
He asked respondents what climate scientists believed. Respondents who
knew more about science generally, regardless of political leaning,
were better able to identify the scientific consensusin other words,
the polarization disappeared. Yet, when the same people were asked for
their own opinions about climate change, the polarization returned. It
showed that even when people understand the scientific consensus, they
may not accept it.
The takeaway is clear: Increasing science literacy alone wont change
minds. In fact, well-meaning attempts by scientists to inform the
public might even backfire. Presenting facts that conflict with an
individuals worldview, it turns out, can cause people to dig in
further. Psychologists, aptly, dubbed this the backfire effect.
If scientists simply want to explain science to a curious audience,
disseminate their research more broadly, or write for fun, this
doesnt matter much. But if scientists are motivated to change
mindsand many enrolled in science communication workshops do seem to
have this goalthey will be sorely disappointed.
Thats not to say scientists should return to the bench and keep their
mouths shut. They should just realize that closing the information
gap isnt the goal. And instead, they need to learn how to
communicate science strategically.
There are obvious reasons why science communication is a necessary and
worthwhile endeavor, but a huge one is that theres a politically
motivated push to destabilize scientific authority. At a Heartland
Institute conference last month, Lamar Smith, the Republican chairman
of the House science committee, told attendees he would now refer to
climate science as politically correct science, to loud cheers.
This lumps scientists in with the nebulous left and, as Daniel
Engber pointed out here in Slate about the upcoming March for Science,
rebrands scientific authority as just another form of elitism.
Is it any surprise, then, that lectures from scientists built on the
premise that they simply know more (even if its true) fail to
convince this audience? Rather than fill the information deficit by
building an arsenal of facts, scientists should instead consider how
they deploy their knowledge. They may have more luck communicating if,
in addition to presenting facts and figures, they appeal to emotions.
This could mean not simply explaining the science of how something
works but spending time on why it matters to the author and why it
ought to matter to the reader. Research also shows that science
communicators can be more effective after theyve gained the
audiences trust. With that in mind, it may be more worthwhile to
figure out how to talk about science with people they already know,
through, say, local and community interactions, than it is to try to
publish explainers on national news sites. And they might consider
writing op-eds for their local papers, focusing on why science matters
to their particular communities.
Scientists can also learn to avoid certain pitfalls. I spoke with
Gretchen Goldman, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists
Center for Science and Democracy, which offers communication and
advocacy workshops. A counterintuitive lesson shes learned is that
refuting stories that deny climate change by addressing each claim and
explaining why its wrong is not that productive. In fact, it could be
counterproductive: If you repeat the myth, thats the part people
remember even if you immediately debunk it, she says. A better
approach, she suggests, is to reframe the issue. Dont just keep
explaining why climate change is realexplain how climate change will
hurt public health or the local economy. Communication that appeals to
values, not just intellect, research shows, can be far more effective.
Goldman also said scientists can do more than just educate the public:
The Union of Concerned Scientists, for example, has created a science
watchdog team that keeps tabs on the activities of federal agencies.
Signing up helps ensure that policy decisions at all levels are based
on good science.
Top Comment
Upton Sinclair wrote, correctly, that it is impossible to make a man
understand something if his salary depends on his not understanding
it. That can be generalized from salary to self-interest. More...
67 CommentsJoin In
In my own workshops, Ive certainly been guilty of focusing on
communication skills at the expense of strategy and not fully
addressing the flawed deficit model. But Im learning to better
challenge scientists assumptions about how communication works. The
deficit model, Ive found, is difficult to unlearn. Its very logical,
and my hunch is that it comes naturally to scientists because most
have largely spent their lives in schoolwhether as students,
professors, or mentorsand the deficit model perfectly explains how a
scientist learns science. But the obstacles faced by science
communicators are not epistemological but cultural. The skills
required are not those of a university lecturer but a rhetorician.
Theres a certain irony that scientists, of all people, know so little
about, well, the science of science communication. Theres also a
certain irony that, right here in this article, Im lecturing
scientists about what they might not knowin other words, Im guilty
of following the deficit model myself. So in the spirit of doing
better, Ill not just write this article but also take the time to
talk to scientists in person about how to communicate science
strategically and to explain why it matters. I hope they end up doing
the same.
Tim Requarth is a freelance science journalist and director of
NeuWrite. He has a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Columbia University,
where he also teaches science
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/04/explaining_science_won_t_fix_information_illiteracy.html
By Tim Requarth
If you consider yourself to have even a passing familiarity with
science, you likely find yourself in a state of disbelief as the
president of the United States calls climate scientists hoaxsters
and pushes conspiracy theories about vaccines. The Trump
administration seems practically allergic to evidence. And its not
just Trumpplenty of people across the political spectrum hold bizarre
and inaccurate ideas about science, from climate change and vaccines
to guns and genetically modified organisms.
If you are a scientist, this disregard for evidence probably drives
you crazy. So what do you do about it?
It seems many scientists would take matters into their own hands by
learning how to better communicate their subject to the masses. Ive
taught science communication at Columbia University and New York
University, and Ive run an international network of workshops for
scientists and writers for nearly a decade. Ive always had a handful
of intrepid graduate students, but now, fueled by the Trump
administrations Etch A Sketch relationship to facts, record numbers
of scientists are setting aside the pipette for the pen. Across the
country, science communication and advocacy groups report upticks in
interest. Many scientists hope that by doing a better job of
explaining science, they can move the needle toward scientific
consensus on politically charged issues. As recent studies from
Michigan State University found, scientists top reason for engaging
the public is to inform and defend science from misinformation.
Its an admirable goal, but almost certainly destined to fail. This is
because the way most scientists think about science communicationthat
just explaining the real science better will helpis plain wrong. In
fact, its so wrong that it may have the opposite effect of what
theyre trying to achieve.
Get Slate in your inbox.
Before getting fired up to set the scientific record straight,
scientists would do well to first consider the science of science
communication. The theory many scientists seem to swear by is
technically known as the deficit model, which states that peoples
opinions differ from scientific consensus because they lack scientific
knowledge. In 2010, Dan Kahan, a Yale psychologist, essentially proved
this theory wrong. He surveyed over 1,500 Americans, classifying each
persons cultural worldview on a scale that roughly correlates with
politically liberal or conservative. He then assessed each persons
scientific literacy with questions such as True or False: Electrons
are smaller than atoms. Finally, he asked them about climate change.
If the deficit model were correct, Kahan reasoned, then people with
increased scientific literacy, regardless of worldview, should agree
with scientists that climate change poses a serious risk to humanity.
Thats not what he found. Instead, Kahan found that increased
scientific literacy actually had a small negative effect: The
conservative-leaning respondents who knew the most about science
thought climate change posed the least risk. Scientific literacy, it
seemed, increased polarization. In a later study, Kahan added a twist:
He asked respondents what climate scientists believed. Respondents who
knew more about science generally, regardless of political leaning,
were better able to identify the scientific consensusin other words,
the polarization disappeared. Yet, when the same people were asked for
their own opinions about climate change, the polarization returned. It
showed that even when people understand the scientific consensus, they
may not accept it.
The takeaway is clear: Increasing science literacy alone wont change
minds. In fact, well-meaning attempts by scientists to inform the
public might even backfire. Presenting facts that conflict with an
individuals worldview, it turns out, can cause people to dig in
further. Psychologists, aptly, dubbed this the backfire effect.
If scientists simply want to explain science to a curious audience,
disseminate their research more broadly, or write for fun, this
doesnt matter much. But if scientists are motivated to change
mindsand many enrolled in science communication workshops do seem to
have this goalthey will be sorely disappointed.
Thats not to say scientists should return to the bench and keep their
mouths shut. They should just realize that closing the information
gap isnt the goal. And instead, they need to learn how to
communicate science strategically.
There are obvious reasons why science communication is a necessary and
worthwhile endeavor, but a huge one is that theres a politically
motivated push to destabilize scientific authority. At a Heartland
Institute conference last month, Lamar Smith, the Republican chairman
of the House science committee, told attendees he would now refer to
climate science as politically correct science, to loud cheers.
This lumps scientists in with the nebulous left and, as Daniel
Engber pointed out here in Slate about the upcoming March for Science,
rebrands scientific authority as just another form of elitism.
Is it any surprise, then, that lectures from scientists built on the
premise that they simply know more (even if its true) fail to
convince this audience? Rather than fill the information deficit by
building an arsenal of facts, scientists should instead consider how
they deploy their knowledge. They may have more luck communicating if,
in addition to presenting facts and figures, they appeal to emotions.
This could mean not simply explaining the science of how something
works but spending time on why it matters to the author and why it
ought to matter to the reader. Research also shows that science
communicators can be more effective after theyve gained the
audiences trust. With that in mind, it may be more worthwhile to
figure out how to talk about science with people they already know,
through, say, local and community interactions, than it is to try to
publish explainers on national news sites. And they might consider
writing op-eds for their local papers, focusing on why science matters
to their particular communities.
Scientists can also learn to avoid certain pitfalls. I spoke with
Gretchen Goldman, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists
Center for Science and Democracy, which offers communication and
advocacy workshops. A counterintuitive lesson shes learned is that
refuting stories that deny climate change by addressing each claim and
explaining why its wrong is not that productive. In fact, it could be
counterproductive: If you repeat the myth, thats the part people
remember even if you immediately debunk it, she says. A better
approach, she suggests, is to reframe the issue. Dont just keep
explaining why climate change is realexplain how climate change will
hurt public health or the local economy. Communication that appeals to
values, not just intellect, research shows, can be far more effective.
Goldman also said scientists can do more than just educate the public:
The Union of Concerned Scientists, for example, has created a science
watchdog team that keeps tabs on the activities of federal agencies.
Signing up helps ensure that policy decisions at all levels are based
on good science.
Top Comment
Upton Sinclair wrote, correctly, that it is impossible to make a man
understand something if his salary depends on his not understanding
it. That can be generalized from salary to self-interest. More...
67 CommentsJoin In
In my own workshops, Ive certainly been guilty of focusing on
communication skills at the expense of strategy and not fully
addressing the flawed deficit model. But Im learning to better
challenge scientists assumptions about how communication works. The
deficit model, Ive found, is difficult to unlearn. Its very logical,
and my hunch is that it comes naturally to scientists because most
have largely spent their lives in schoolwhether as students,
professors, or mentorsand the deficit model perfectly explains how a
scientist learns science. But the obstacles faced by science
communicators are not epistemological but cultural. The skills
required are not those of a university lecturer but a rhetorician.
Theres a certain irony that scientists, of all people, know so little
about, well, the science of science communication. Theres also a
certain irony that, right here in this article, Im lecturing
scientists about what they might not knowin other words, Im guilty
of following the deficit model myself. So in the spirit of doing
better, Ill not just write this article but also take the time to
talk to scientists in person about how to communicate science
strategically and to explain why it matters. I hope they end up doing
the same.
Tim Requarth is a freelance science journalist and director of
NeuWrite. He has a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Columbia University,
where he also teaches science
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/04/explaining_science_won_t_fix_information_illiteracy.html