Scribd
Upload
73 views

Top Tips For Getting Your Science Out There

Uploaded by

Koyel Sreyashi Basu
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
73 views

Top Tips For Getting Your Science Out There

Uploaded by

Koyel Sreyashi Basu
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free.

View research | View latest news | Sign


up for updates

CAREER COLUMN · 29 JANUARY 2020

Top tips for getting your science out there


Craig Cormick explains how scientists can get their arguments across to
members of the public.

Craig Cormick

A common fault in science communication is talking only to those who love science and thinking you have reached a
wider audience. Credit: Peter Dazeley/Getty

As a professional science communicator who has watched many scientists struggle to convey
their research effectively, I decided it was time to apply some of the principles of good
science to communication. I wanted to tap into the wealth of evidence-based research that
exists on how to improve it. There is a lot out there — but it is unrealistic to expect any busy
scientist to comprehend studies in science communication as well. So I started writing a book
that might help scientists to do just that.

The more I researched and wrote, and the more scientists I talked to, the more convinced I
became of how urgently such a book was needed. We live in an era in which personal feelings,
for many members of the public, often have as much weight as scientific evidence and
objective facts. We need to know how to work with this, not against it.

A few key principles that arose from my research include:

‘The public’ is not a single entity. The diversity of the public can be understood as many
‘communities’. As social psychologist David Kipnis pointed out in 1996, we all like to hang out
with people who are similar to us. In the modern world that can be at work, socially or online.
And we tend to highlight the differences of people who are not like us. In scientific terms, we
are all heterogeneous, but are drawn to homogeneous groups. These groups are called
segments; understanding them is useful for learning how to communicate effectively. Many
studies in different countries, including a project investigating US views on global warming
(Global Warming’s Six Americas at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut) and a 2014 UK
report on public attitudes to science, show there are six key segments when it comes to
opinions about science and technology. I have captured these using the following short
descriptors:

1. The fans — who love everything related to science.

2. People in the middle — who have some interest in science.

3. Those who say ‘I don’t get it’ — who are interested in science, but have trouble
understanding it.

4. ‘Too busy’ — those who don’t have the time to pay attention to science.

5. Distrustful people— who don’t trust science and often hold anti-scientific beliefs.
6. ‘I know it all already’ — those who feel they have nothing new to learn from science, but
often have extreme anti-scientific beliefs.

One of the most common faults in science communication is talking to fans of science and
thinking you have reached the wider community. It is also important to know who your
audience is so you can tailor your messages accordingly.

When information is complex, people make decisions based on their values and beliefs. Many
people who oppose the science on climate change, genetically modified food, infant
vaccination or water fluoridation rarely make their minds up on the basis of any scientific
data. Instead, they choose what to agree with according to how well it aligns with their
existing world views or values. This has been shown repeatedly by researchers such as lawyer
and psychologist Dan Kahan at Yale. Research also shows that because many people seek
affirmation of their attitudes or views — no matter how extreme — they tend to reject any
information or facts that counter their beliefs1,2 . They then seek out and cling to any data
they can find that support their point of view, regardless of how credible the source is.

Facts and evidence rarely help as much as scientists think.


RELATED
Scientific information hardly ever changes a mind that’s
already been made up, so don’t rely on data. Rather, find out
what an individual’s values are, and discuss those instead.
Or, even better, frame your discussions to align with their
views. For instance, somebody who does not believe in
climate change, and who has pro-industrialization and
Collection: Science development values, is more likely to be engaged in a
communication conversation around sustainable investments. They can
then be drawn into a conversation on sustainability without
you mentioning climate change.

People trust others whose values mirror their own. Trust is not given — at best it is lent, and
can be withdrawn at any time. However, people do tend to look for others ‘like them’ to lend
their trust to. If you are not talking to an audience that is like you, you need to find points of
commonality. For instance, if you are talking to someone who is against infant vaccinations,
you need to establish the common ground that you both care greatly about the welfare of
children. If you are speaking to somebody who does not trust science or scientists, look for
areas of commonality in being a parent, or a gardener, or whatever that person values.

Tell a good story. Most effective science communication really comes down to just telling a
good story. Knowing your audience and your communication objective is crucial, but if you
can turn your message into a story, it has a much better chance of being accepted. As US
psychologists Melanie Green and Timothy Brock have pointed out, neuroscience tells us that
stories increase people’s likelihood of remembering information, reduce counter-
arguments, and are more compelling than facts and more convincing than data3.

It can be complex to work with all of these principles, but communicating science
successfully is important and must be effective if scientists hope to combat false information.

doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-00239-6

References

1. Cipriano, M. & Gruca, T. S. J. Predict. Market 8, 34–56 (2014).

2. Mercier, H. & Sperber, D. Behav. Brain Sci. 34, 57–74 (2011).

3. Green, M. C. & Brock, T. C. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 79, 701–721(2000).

show more
Jobs from Nature Careers ›
All jobs

Assistant/Associate/Full Professors – Geophysics, Structure Geology, Geodesy,


Space Physics, and Planetary Science

Southern University of Science and Technology (SUSTech)

Shenzhen, China

JOB POST

Medizinischer Dokumentar (m/w/d)

German Cancer Research Center in the Helmholtz Association (DKFZ)

Heidelberg, Germany

JOB POST

Mitarbeiter (m/w/d) Unternehmenskommunikation in Teilzeit (19,75 Std./ Woche)

German Cancer Research Center in the Helmholtz Association (DKFZ)

Heidelberg, Germany

JOB POST

Online-Redakteur / Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter (m/w/d) mit Schwerpunkt


Gesundheitskommunikation in Teilzeit (19,75 Std./Woche)

German Cancer Research Center in the Helmholtz Association (DKFZ)

Heidelberg, Germany

JOB POST

Nature ISSN 1476-4687 (online)


About us Press Press office Contact us
releases

© 2020 Springer Nature Limited

You might also like