Yzabella Sielaff

Professor Wernick 

English 110

Science Communication in the United States

Many sometimes wonder: where are all the scientific breakthroughs? Did scientific discoveries stop with Einstein? Why aren’t we hearing about recent scientific endeavors or scientists paving their way through the field? The reason all of these questions arrive is because of our current method of science communication, especially within the United States. Scientists are making progress in their studies, but the way in which they communicate to the public—and to each other—creates a paradox of sorts in their progressional development from the public view. First, scientists receive training only to communicate as scholars to other scholars, so they have less experience communicating effectively with the public. They also seem to constantly switch between approving and invalidating each other’s work. On top of that, they are limited to the content in which they can actually study in order to get the funds needed for their research from the government. Then, the inaccurate spread of scientific information to the public turns political, seen especially during the COVID-19 pandemic in the US, causing them to lose trust in science and further defund work. Social media has allowed some scientists to spread their discoveries to other people, but problems arise within that source as well. The ongoing issues of science communication and the politicization of science, specifically in the United States, has put a toll on the public’s access to current knowledge and causes them to disregard science in general, limiting scientist’s ability to share their ideas and show the importance of their studies.

    Let’s begin on the surface level of the issue pre-covid: the paradox of scientific progress. In an article titled, “Scientific progress despite irreproducibility: A seeming paradox” (Shiffrin et al.) published on the website for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) in 2018, the authors expand on and unpack the issues of contradictions within the scientific process itself, as well as with their communication. This is a colloquium paper written for their superiors and published for their peers. The authors narrow down the major issues into multiple categories, but only some will be discussed and others summarized for the purpose of this paper. Essentially, the three main motives for seeming irreproducibility are restrictions, each other, and public perception. There are many restrictions in place for scientists to actually accomplish what they want, specifically involving money, content, and time. Obtaining fundings needed for a research project has been and continues to be difficult for scientists, especially with inflation. As a result, scientists have to make their research appeal to people in order to actually do the work they desire as well as ensure that their study follows every guideline. “Researchers today face increasing numbers of rules and regulations at every level, federal and state, university and business in preparing, submitting, and reporting grants, respecting privacy and health regulations, obeying well-intentioned laws and rules that seem always to increase and add to the administrative burden” (Shiffrin et al.). Then, if they manage to achieve all of this, they face the stress of result pressure, or when their investors expect immediate results from their studies, completely disregarding the scientific process by forbidding second chances. These, however, are only the scientists’ personal problems. On a wider scale, scientists have to compete with each other for those investors and correct one another constantly for their work to be verified. There is a sort of checks and balances system in place for scientists’ discoveries in which they are required to ensure that other scientists are publishing scientifically accurate conclusions and research processes. Beyond this level is public perception, where the paradox comes into play. The public is watching all of this from afar, typically from what the media reports. The media, however, reports what the public will buy, and science can be too expensive to fully elaborate on all the intricacies and increasing specializations of scientific studies. There’s more of a profit when they can choose events for humor or shock value. The only bits of information being shown to the average person is a funny article about a scientist failing or a wild article about this new scientific discovery. The public is only seeing pieces of current scientific progress causing them to sometimes wonder: ‘Where did all the ground-breaking discoveries go? I’m seeing all this stuff about science but I’m not actually hearing anything big that changes the world’—or the paradox. This is what then shapes the public’s reaction to scientific communication, whenever they do hear from scientists themselves. 

    Science and the U.S. government have always been in a balancing act when it comes to information communication and study permission, but recent events (the COVID pandemic) have brought to light new factors that sway that balance. It is now undeniable that the politicization of science exists and can be a big problem. The biggest example being when Trump “downplayed” the virus, though he knew the severity, causing a spiral into almost half of Republican America refusing to take the precautions necessary to prevent the spread. These precautions—such as wearing masks, maintaining distance, and getting fully vaccinated—were told to the public by scientists, but were completely disregarded by many people because of the association these facts had with their political beliefs. “Anti-Vaxxers, Politicization of Science, and the Need for Trust in Pandemic Response” (May), published right in the height of the pandemic in December 2020, concludes that ulterior motives under scientific recommendations is what causes the spiral into public distrust for their safety, and that it applies to both sides. May implies that political tension and the president’s actions on top of the pandemic prevention requirements interfering with their daily lives lead to the public’s increasing suspicions behind these measures, further politicizing science and putting their safety at risk, yet he makes sure to hold both scientists/health care workers and government officials accountable for their communication. “Science should focus on what is and can be known through scientific inquiry, and what these facts mean for the probable effects of various proposed response strategies. Policy agendas must be informed by these facts, but the normative implications are best balanced with other policy concerns by the public’s elected representatives…and public debate that utilizes scientific knowledge…(rather than agendas being advanced through competing distortion of scientific results). When these roles become conflated, we lose what is needed most: a shared basis of facts upon which informed, rational debate and progress can be based” (May). He believes that from now on, public communication, especially for disaster situations, should be a group effort of scientists, doctors, government officials, and policy makers, to keep the safety of the public in mind for the long term goal. 

When it comes to the science and health side of communication, there are already some ideas for improvement. “What the pandemic has taught us about science communication” by Junaid Nabi on the World Economic Forum expands further on methods they can better communicate with people. The two tips he provided was to have empathy and to speak plainly. Scientists and researchers need to recognize that speaking to the general public should include empathy and patience in order for people to fully understand the importance of this information, especially in stressful times. This will also allow people to be more understanding of the scientific process and, in turn, they will allow focus for progress. Scientists and other academics also have the habit of using jargon and expecting people to be “on the same level of knowledge” (Nabi) as them, instead of explaining their research and results in a way the public can comprehend. This is mostly due to the lack of training scientists have with communication, unless it’s to communicate to one another through journals and other scholarly publications. Luckily, one method for communication that encompasses these ideas has developed over the pandemic: communicating science through social media platforms. Social media posts enable information to be relayed to people in an easily accessible and digestible way. For example, “Chemists are finding their place on TikTok” (Lemonick) declares an article on C&EN. Lemonick discusses the current success of science videos on TikTok and how their accounts have gained a lot of popularity, allowing them to have a platform to educate younger people. From my own experience using the app, I’ve personally found myself gravitating towards science videos and noticing the amount of other people who do as well. Nevertheless, with the media comes conflict. Saying that you “learned it on TikTok” has a complicated connotation to it because there is a lot of misinformation spread, not only on TikTok, but on all social media platforms. This can make it complicated or frustrating for proper communication to work and could discourage people from considering it a useful source. In addition to this, there are multiple issues with even more content restriction for what you can post as well as with the privacy of your content. TikTok is notorious for taking down videos and “shadow-banning” users whose content doesn’t follow their regulations. They also recently lost a class action lawsuit for collection of personal information from app users and sharing it without their consent (“TikTok To Pay $92 Million To Settle Class-Action Suit Over ‘Theft’ Of Personal Data” Allyn).

Some argue that the best place to begin improvement on science communication is with establishing training, particularly for young scientists. An article by Adriana Bankston on The Female Scientist titled, “Why scientists need to be trained in science communication!”, outlines the steps needed in order to establish a system in universities that promotes science communication, rather than one that just briefly discusses it. “The first phase would consist of multiple training elements— such as seminars, workshops, writing opportunities, as well as a centralized online resource for science communication, among others. The second phase would be devising methods for evaluating these science communication programs, including longitudinal tracking. In the third and final phase, this program would result in multiple products, including publications and opportunities to better understand the barriers towards and incentives for universities to implement these types of programs” (Bankston). Essentially, Bankston implies that scientists should do a study on both how and which specific methods of training would affect science communication towards different audiences by initiating these sessions within universities and keeping track of which were most effective and further refining and updating this process over time. “Ultimately, increased recognition for the value of science communication both within and outside academic environments is necessary in order to enable young scientists to participate in societal change” (Bankston). She believes that starting at the root of a professional scientist’s life will significantly improve the future of science communication, showing a much needed value for new, young scientists’ plans. 

This approach to improving science communication aligns with a method called Evidence-Based Science Communication, or EBSC. In a perspective article written by Eric A. Jensen and Alexander Gerber in January 2020 called, “Evidence-Based Science Communication”, the authors elaborate on the depths in which the scientific field is lacking in inclusivity and a list of principles that scientists should follow, especially when it comes to science communication. These authors also followed their own ideals and re-wrote the topics of this academic paper in a blog post titled, “For science communication to be effective it should be evidence based”, so that they can communicate effectively to both a general audience and a scholarly one (for the purpose of this paper we will be focusing on their academic article). Their view is to start at the base of science principles and reassess whether they take social science research into account by ensuring that they are well established and completely objective, allowing all information from any source to be considered and prevent selfishness or personal bias from entering the scientific communication process. They want to hold scientists and practitioners accountable for both their research and their methods of communication by confirming they follow the same scientific principles with learning as the highest priority. Jensen and Gerber also provide a list of traits that have the best outcomes for science communication in accordance with those guidelines, such as being open; to the public about funding, to marginalized or excluded groups, to growing and improving themselves, and to helping others in their own scientific endeavors, as well as to ensure that all processes are focused on refining knowledge and understanding when it comes to designing their own methods and respecting ethical principles. 

The quality and methods of science communication in the United States has been discussed at length, but never appeared to be of the utmost importance until the pandemic struck. Before, scientists seemed, to the public, to be off in their own world, doing obscure research tasks that held importance but weren’t relevant to them. The COVID-19 pandemic, however, showed that this would become a huge problem in a disaster event, which it absolutely did. The lack of development for science communication caused the public to remove importance for scientific information and easily be swayed by public or political figures, ultimately leading to higher infection rates among groups of specific political parties. This experience has now unquestionably revealed the significance of science communication and has brought forth many ideas for how to improve it based on what the pandemic taught us—from speaking on the same level as the public, the possibilities of social media, training programs in universities, and evidence-based science communication—but which one is most efficient? I will now share my personal answer to this question, based on all of the research presented above.

While scientists may not have control over their environment, they do hold control over their own research practices and communication skills. It may be difficult to change the system of our society to become more science oriented, but scientists can begin by improving their own field and their own practices, especially for communication to the public. I think that in order to achieve the best results, scientists should use a little bit of everything in this article. I fully agree with implementing evidence-based science communication, especially as a set of ground rules and principles for all researchers to follow, and I believe that the other solutions offered would be a beneficial way to begin working towards a completely unbiased yet successful method of communication with the public. Scientists should first take into account all of the successful methods from COVID-19, such as communicating with empathy and bringing themselves to the same level as the public by speaking plainly and using communal platforms, like social media. Then, scientists should further study and refine which techniques work best for specific audiences, and begin to teach this process in workshops or activities for young scientists in universities. Now that you know everything about the issue of current science communication as well as my own opinion, what would you suggest?

Works Cited 

Allyn, Bobby. “Tiktok to Pay $92 Million to Settle Class-Action Suit over ‘Theft’ of Personal Data.” NPR, NPR, 25 Feb. 2021, https://www.npr.org/2021/02/25/971460327/tiktok-to-pay-92-million-to-settle-class-action-suit-over-theft-of-personal-data

Bankston, Adriana. “Why Scientists Need to Be Trained in Science Communication!” The Female Scientist, 21 June 2020, https://thefemalescientist.com/article/adriana-bankston/2645/why-scientists-need-to-be-trained-in-science-communication/

Gerber, Alexander, and Eric Jensen. “For Science Communication to Be Effective It Should Be Evidence Based.” Impact of Social Sciences, 29 May 2020, https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/05/27/for-science-communication-to-be-effective-it-should-be-evidence-based/

Jensen, Eric A., and Alexander Gerber. “Evidence-Based Science Communication.” Frontiers, Frontiers, 23 Jan. 2020, https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00078/full

Lemonick, Sam. “Chemists Are Finding Their Place on TikTok.” Cen.acs.org, 21 Feb. 2020, https://cen.acs.org/education/science-communication/Chemists-finding-place-TikTok/98/i8?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=CEN

May, Thomas. “Anti-Vaxxers, Politicization of Science, and the Need for Trust in Pandemic Response.” Taylor & Francis, 21 Dec. 2020, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10810730.2020.1864519

Nabi , Junaid. “What the Pandemic Has Taught Us about Science Communication.” World Economic Forum, 16 June 2021, https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/06/lessons-for-science-communication-from-the-covid-19-pandemic/

Shiffrin, Richard M., et al. “Scientific Progress despite Irreproducibility: A Seeming Paradox.” PNAS, National Academy of Sciences, 13 Mar. 2018, https://www.pnas.org/content/115/11/2632