Following the panel discussion on “recommendations for scientists on how uncertainties related to the 2 degree limit should be discussed in public/with journalists” I had some thoughts which I would like to jot down in this blog post.
Firstly, I think it’s important to understand the topic of discussion. It asks for recommendations for how scientists should interact in a public sphere. A public sphere therefore calls for translation of knowledge which is accessible and understandable to the public. When scientists are in a public sphere they need to communicate differently than when they are in the academic sphere.
To make knowledge accessible to everyone in the public, we need to further delve into the people’s relationship with science and more specifically uncertainties. Some see science as final, an objective source of information that has all the answers. Some see science as incomprehensible, hard to follow. There are probably several other categories you can put people into, depending on how their relationship with science is. But focusing on the kinds I mentioned, I feel both of them are problematic as science is neither final- it undergoes changes and revisions from time to time, nor incomprehensible- it just needs to be communicated well.
For the public to be comfortable with science and its uncertainties, there needs to be a change in how science and uncertainties are taught or shown in the media. We often forget that one of the basic reasons for the existence of science is to just add knowledge. One studies a mountain or a glacier just because it is there! And when you are studying something, uncertainties are bound to arise in ways that you can probably never know or sometimes with deeper studies uncover. So uncertainties are not all bad.
But for the public to be comfortable with such a perception of uncertainty and science, it would take a while (changes in education, changes is how people in the immediate surrounding talk about it). A faster way would be to communicate it better. Frame uncertainties better. Use narratives that have a positive effect. This way facts don’t become less facts, even when communicated with uncertainties because the audience is now comfortable with it. Studies show framing climate change in terms of its public health impacts can help localize the issue and make it more personally relevant whereas framing climate solutions in terms of political conflict can emphasize the self-interested motivations of political leaders, thereby undermining efficacy[1]. Studies done across political spectrum to see how people engage with climate change use narratives of reduction of waste, patriotic energy system, smart money etc[2]. Similar narratives can be used to get the point across to the audience.
Another thought that came to me was maybe there is too much pressure on the scientists to communicate the science too, in addition to doing the science. Well it’s their personal choice. I think there is a space big enough for more “science communicators” to transfer the specific scientific knowledge to the public. Encouragement of more such jobs would definitely help in the transfer of knowledge and also help the public become aware and comfortable with science and its uncertainties. But till we have a bigger and more inclusive space like that, scientists who are willing to do the job of communication should make knowledge accessible. This would be greatly appreciated as we need faster transfer of knowledge. I believe that transfer of knowledge is definitely one of the ways through which we can achieve climate action and policy changes.
References
- Feldman, L., Hart, P. S., & Milosevic, T. (2017). Polarizing news? Representations of threat and efficacy in leading US newspapers’ coverage of climate change. Public understanding of science (Bristol, England), 26(4), 481–497. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515595348
- Whitmarsh, L., & Corner, A. (2017). Tools for a new climate conversation: A mixed-methods study of language for public engagement across the political spectrum. Global Environmental Change, 42, 122–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.12.008
Dear Amruta,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts! When I read the sentence “Encouragement of more such jobs would definitely help in the transfer of knowledge and also help the public become aware and comfortable with science and its uncertainties.”, one question comes to my mind: by who these jobs should be taken?
I think that journalists for example would be the best option to express the knowledges to the public in terms of communication and linguistics, but would that be reliable in terms of scientific content?
In the other hand, if these jobs are taken by natural scientists, would they know how to give this knowledge in a clear and trustable way?
So I ask myself: which would be the perfect solution?
That’s something that I have thought about too. What I meant in the post is that there can be a new space/job created for scientific journalism. In fact there already is, we just need the space to be bigger. For example, journalist Ed Yong from The Atlantic covers science in an amazing way! Anyone who has some training with both journalism and science will fit the job in my opinion. I would also go one step further and say anyone with an interest in both and training in just one of them will also fit the job and can learn in the process.
Thanks for your engagement with the post, Clara.
Thanks, Amruta for this blog post! I totally agree with the fact that there has to be a place for “science communicators” to connect science with the rest of society. Whoever takes this responsibility needs to have the tools to read and understand science AND the tools for effective communication, knowing the target audience. It is the job of scientists to communicate their findings and discuss science within their field, but the moment they step out of academia their language has to change. Otherwise, it is like trying to communicate in English with non-English speakers. They could understand the subject considering the context and the circumstances but they would never get the message. Or it is like asking a fish to fly. It just does not work. Once my Italian teacher in high school told us: “Intelligence is to modify one’s own behaviour accordingly to the situation”. And I closely guarded this message. I sincerely believe that transferring the knowledge in the fastest and in the most effective way is the key to societal change and climate action.
Thanks Amruta for this blog post!
I totally agree on the fact that there has to be a place for “science communicators” to connect science with the rest of society. Whoever takes this responsibility needs to have the tools to read and understand science AND the tools for an effective communication, knowing the target audience. It is the job of scientists to communicate their findings and discuss science within their field, but the moment they step out of academia their language has to change. Otherwise it is like trying to communicate in English with non-English speakers. They could understand the subject considering the context and the circumstances but they would never get the message. Or it is like asking a fish to fly. It just does not work. Once my italian teacher in high school told us: “Intelligence is to modify one’s own behaviour accordingly to the situation”. And I closely guarded this message. I sincerely believe that to transfer the knowledge in the fastest and in the most effective way is the key to societal change and climate action.
I loved the analogy, Sara! It is most definitely hard to express in a different language. And I also agree with you teacher. Those are some wise words, thanks for the comment 🙂