- American Scientist
- Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society
Christopher Brodie is a bit of an anomaly in the science community. He has completed postdoctoral work at Duke University in neurobiology and holds an undergraduate English degree. As an associate editor of American Scientist, Brodie translates technical scientific findings into articles easily understood by the general public and appreciated by his science brethren.
This award-winning magazine is published in the Research Triangle Park by Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society. Its feature articles are written by prominent scientists and engineers on topics that range from molecular biology to computer engineering.
Brodie is also one of the organizers of the Science Communicators of North Carolina, a professional organization of science journalists, public information officers, teachers and others dedicated to making science more palatable for the public.
In an e-mail interview with Boris Hartl, Brodie discusses the motivation for forming the Science Communicators of North Carolina, his fundamental recommendations on reading science articles and on improving understanding between scientists and the general public.
Scientists, especially the publicly-funded ones, are seemingly recognizing the need to make their work more accessible to the general public. But for many scientists, public communication doesn’t come naturally. What local resources exist to help scientists communicate better with the public?
There are none, in terms of cross-institutional resources. Stepping back a moment, the premise to your question—that scientists don’t feel comfortable talking to the public about what they do—shows you the scarcity of these resources and the marginalization of this kind of communication. Scientists don’t know how to talk to regular people because they don’t have to.
In the culture of academic science, the first priority is to secure grants, followed by publishing scientific papers, teaching, administration and, last, outreach. Institutions have not placed much value in the ability to talk in plain language about science. Reaching out to school kids or local neighbors doesn’t count in the tenure discussion, it doesn’t keep the lights on in the lab, and it garners scant acclaim within the scientific community.
As you say, this may be changing, mostly because of pressure from the people who write the checks. Recently, the National Science Foundation has said that grant applicants must describe the “broader impact” of their research. However, there aren’t good blueprints for how to “broaden the impact” of one’s research and the resources to develop such things are thin.
For the most part, each investigator is left to forge his or her own connections with the people who do this type of outreach for a living—teachers, public-information officers, journalists and the people who run science museums. They are usually good resources. And these efforts tend to pay off for the scientists—the communication skills that get polished in a high school classroom or in writing a local Op-Ed column improve their grants and papers.
The North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences conducted a survey and 70 percent of scientists who responded said they would like to give a non-technical talk about their research. That’s a good step first step, right?
Absolutely. It’s a nice starting point and a hopeful sign that all the science in the news—medicine, climate, energy and the like—has prompted a sense among scientists that the public wants to hear what they have to say. But it also shows that even among the small, self-selected group of research scientists who took that survey, many did not embrace the opportunity.
The idea that scientists are obligated to explain their work to the public is a minority view among scientists and administrators. At most institutions, neither success nor failure in outreach efforts has much influence on the academic career of a scientific researcher.
I think everyone here in North Carolina would like to see a little more of this region’s scientific excellence slosh into the brains of its citizens—children and adults alike. For that to happen, institutions have to value in some tangible way this use of time by their scientists. And investigators need a way to learn these skills and get some practice using them. The Museum of Natural Sciences is working to put together a workshop for scientists that will provide communication-skills training and opportunities for practice.
It could be said that journalists aren’t doing their jobs either. Author and University of Southern California journalism professor K.C. Cole said a large percentage of science articles in the mainstream media "are outgrowths of PR memos detailing the latest discoveries or 'eureka!' moments of studies published in reputable journals." Does this make a journalist's task of framing and providing context that much more difficult?
You could say this, but it's a half-truth that covers up the bigger picture. K. C. Cole is right that many science stories in the paper are based on press releases rather than original reporting. But this isn’t caused by slack in the newsroom. Almost all news outlets are under financial pressure caused by the changing media climate. An increasing number of them are axing their dedicated science writers, leaving editors with no choice but to assign science and technology stories to general reporters.
In the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill area, for example, I don’t know of a single major media outlet that has a full-time science writer. It’s not that they've stopped reporting on science — they haven't — but the articles are usually lifted from the wire services or written by people who aren't science journalists. For these reporters it is certainly more difficult to provide context for the stories they write.
Ironically, many former science journalists have joined the ranks of the public relations corps. Often, their job is to write science stories in the form of press releases that will attract attention from their former colleagues in the newsroom—most of whom have less background knowledge than the person writing the release. This makes it harder for working journalists to quickly distinguish substance from hype.
Blogs have become an increasingly popular vehicle for scientists to bring their work from the laboratory to the public arena. Should these blogs be limited as an information-gathering tool for journalists?
Scientist blogs have indeed made it easier for people 'out there' to get a glimpse of the everyday workings of scientists. They certainly speed the spread of information. But I don't think that blogs can be considered authoritative sources. They're spontaneous expressions, snapshots. Data that get posted on a blog haven’t gone through the process of peer review, so you've got to take them with a grain of salt.
The real strength of blogs, I think, is their ability to collect many threads of information and weave them into a coherent pattern. In this respect, blogs are a great source for journalists who want to catch wind of new story ideas.
As it turns out, North Carolina is a hotspot of discussion about this topic, and the second annual North Carolina Science Blogging Conference, which will take place in Research Triangle Park in January 2008, has already attracted more than a hundred participants. A quarter of them are flying in, either from other parts of the United States or from other countries.
Science blogger Lennart Kiil wrote a guide for science journalism readers. He includes sensible ideas such as 'Be aware of evaluative and normative language where such cannot be defended' and 'check sources and sponsors.' Do you have other tips for readers?
His suggestions are very good ones, and consumers, investors and other people with a personal stake in the results (such as patients searching for therapy options) should keep them in mind. But for the general public, his list of maxims might be too much to think about while reading the paper or watching TV.
If I had to tell people one simple thing about reading science articles, it might be 'wait and see.' The first announcement of some breakthrough is seldom the final word. Wait and see how it plays out in the days and months ahead.
If you begin hearing the same thing from independent sources, then you can have a little more confidence that it’s real. The antidote to credulous reading is more reading. But if you need to evaluate a single article on its own merits, take a peek at Kiil's guide.
Please tell me the motivation for forming the Science Communicators of North Carolina (SCONC).
There is a large, loose community of science writers here in the triangle, and many of us know each other from conferences or past jobs. In talking with Russ Campbell of the Burroughs Wellcome Fund, we thought this area needed a group that could convene people to meet and chat, enjoy a beer together and exchange war stories, job leads and writing tips. That was the start. But as we got more involved, it became clear that this group might be uniquely positioned to meet some important needs in the community.
In response, SCONC became an organization with a broader membership and scope. We welcome everyone who explains science for a living, including scientists, teachers and museum staff in addition to journalists and institutional communicators. We also welcome those people in business or industry who describe technical research to a lay audience—people in PR or investor relations who are, fundamentally, science writers.
These people are the voices of science in North Carolina, and for the most part, they're invisible and silent outside of their own insular domains. There's no common forum for people who talk or write about science, and SCONC would like to help fill that void. Ultimately, I think these efforts are good for the participants, for their institutions and for the region.