Improving science communication is a growing consideration as science becomes more complex and the gap between science and society continues to widen. Read about this topic in this article!
What makes science communicable? Is it graphs showing growing and falling trends, references to an in-depth paper for more details on a discovery, or overly simplified scientific explanations? Perhaps before asking what makes science communicable, we should consider why science needs to be communicable. Specifically, not just to those with a general science background, but also to the broader public.
Science is fundamentally involved in solving some of the most pressing issues we face today—issues that impact all of us. This is inevitable; we all live on and share resources from the same planet. Thus, it would make sense for us all to be informed on matters including public health and the environment. However, we face a key challenge in making new science communicable to those who don’t study science on a day-to-day basis. The standard paper may be difficult to understand and time-consuming for the average person, hindering their ability to know science. This challenge is heavily rooted in the way science is presented to society.
One of the many key benefits of scientific papers is their organization and flow. They can build a story of their research by following a standard scientific method: abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion (it’s important to note that this order is a generalization, and not all research papers will necessarily follow this specific order). Having an introduction to contextualize your research helps connect a reader to the paper by showing them why the research was done and its specific significance in the field. It also helps the reader to better understand the chosen methodology and interpret key results.
However, research papers may be complex and difficult to understand for someone who is perhaps not familiar with science. Research papers, though essential to communicate key findings in a coherent manner, need to be supplemented with simplified language for the public to be informed on the specific topic. This type of supplementation to scientific research would help effectively highlight key factors of a specific research study in a manner that the public is able to interpret with minimal confusion.
Despite the benefits of having an informed public, there are a few nuances of simplifying a research paper. Primarily, there is the need to balance simplification with adequate information. If there is oversimplification, the science communicator would risk misinterpretation, which could eventually lead to misinformation/disinformation. This scenario would be disastrous towards the ultimate goal of informing the public, as it could affect the decisions individuals make about their health. So, how would one decide “how simple is simple”? I believe this would be a multifaceted effort involving a close collaboration between science communicators and the public—discourses like discussions and interviews can help these two groups to quickly and efficiently clear any confusions, while together deciding the best approach to communicate the specific scientific finding(s).
The connection between science and society is bridged by the media; the media is the outlet through which science information reaches the masses. However, communication via media networks faces a conflict of interest: finding a balance between entertainment and informational purposes. This brings back the topic of balance, where finding a middle ground is essential, but getting there is challenging and subtle.
Our nature as humans gives us the extraordinary ability to perceive things differently and develop unique opinions and biases. This diversity of thought helps to build societies through shared experiences and insights during the collaborative process. Keeping science communication as objective as possible helps people form their own interpretations about new discoveries, which can in turn help inform aspects for future studies.
The science communication dilemma is a very nuanced topic and is a major player in areas of public health. Communicating science effectively in society is a multifactorial approach that is rooted in balance and objectivity.