But are things really that bad? As part of two independent research teams, we interviewed nationally representative samples of scientific experts in nanotechnology [4, 5], stem cell research and epidemiology [6]. Data from these surveys suggest much more optimistic views among scientists about interactions with journalists, mass media, and lay audiences. At least two important differences in survey technique may explain these contrasting findings.
Sampling Matters
The first key difference between the AAAS study and systematic surveys of scientific experts in specific disciplines is the sampling strategy. Unlike interdisciplinary scientific associations, such as AAAS, "disciplinary scientific communities are international networks of peers dealing with the same research questions -- and publishing in the same international journals" [see online supplementary materials to 6]. A sample drawn from a list of self-selected members of such an association, therefore, is very different from studies of experts in a given field of study.
AAAS surveyed its members, including students, emeriti and non-scientists who support the organization's mission. Our surveys of scientific experts, in contrast, relied on samples of researchers in specific fields, and used sampling frames that drew from tens of thousands of publication records [5] and multiple countries [6]. Scientists were then contacted using multiple waves of mailings and reminders in order to minimize non-response among particular groups of scientists.
And different sampling strategies may be directly linked to overall responses. For example, the frequency of scientists' contacts with media may vary by discipline. Our surveys show that epidemiologists had more contact with mass media than stem cell researchers. The lower overall contact frequency between scientists and journalists reported in the AAAS survey may, therefore, be an artifact of a sample that included both active and non-active researchers across a variety of disciplines, including fields like mathematics that inherently receive less attention from journalists than medicine, for instance.
Tapping attitudes rather than truisms
The second key difference lies in how questions were presented. When asked how much of a problem they considered the fact that "news media oversimplify scientific findings," 93% of AAAS respondents reported that they considered such oversimplifications a minor or major problem. Similarly, 83% considered TV science coverage "only fair" or "poor"; for newspaper science coverage, the percentage was 63%.
What looks like a widespread anti-media sentiment, however, may also have been triggered, at least in part, by question wording. The AAAS survey did not ask respondents if they agreed or disagreed that news media oversimplified findings but, rather, how much of a problem respondents thought it was that they did. Our surveys of biomedical and nanotechnology experts instead asked scientists to express their agreement or disagreement with various statements about the quality of media coverage of their scientific field.
When asked in this more balanced way, 54% of the nano scientists disagreed "somewhat" or "strongly" that media coverage was "hostile toward science." In fact, when asked about the scientific accuracy of coverage, nano scientists were split, with 27% believing that it was inaccurate, 28% believing it was accurate, and about 45% falling in the neutral middle category. Similarly, 49%of biomedical researchers disagreed that media coverage was "hostile toward science," while only 12% agreed. Their assessments of accuracy were similarly split: 33% believed that coverage of their field was inaccurate, 35% believed it was accurate and 32% were undecided.
Scientists are ready to build bridges
These more positive attitudes toward public communication across disciplines also translate into scientists' openness to connect with lay audiences. Data from our nanotechnology survey shows that more than half of all scientists "strongly" or "somewhat" agree that "[s]cientists should pay attention to the wishes of the public, even if they think citizens are mistaken or do not understand their work." And scientists believe that communication can make a difference, with more than 80% in the nano and the biomedical surveys disagreeing that "[c]ommunicating with the public does not affect public attitudes toward science." Judged against scientific norms and priorities, media coverage of science will always be incomplete and -- at times -- flawed. But scientists, it seems, are open to a dialogue.
Overall, we do not mean to imply that data such as the recent AAAS survey are not helpful in guiding our thinking about the future of science communication. But data that potentially overstate the problem could drive a wedge between already divided groups and discourage both sides from building bridges. We continue to be convinced these that bridges have to be built, and -- based on expert surveys across disciplines and continents -- can be built.
References:
1. J. Mervis, "An inside/outside view of U.S. science," Science, 325:132-33, 2009.
2. R.J. Cicerone, "Celebrating and rethinking science communication," In Focus, 6:3, 2006.
3. A. Kohut et al., "Scientific achievements less prominent than a decade ago: Public praises science; scientists fault public, media," in The Pew Research Center For The People & The Press, 2009.
4. E.A. Corley et al., "Of risks and regulations: How leading U.S. nanoscientists form policy stances about nanotechnology," Journal of Nanoparticle Research, forthcoming.
5. D.A. Scheufele et al., "Scientists worry about some risks more than the public," Nature Nanotechnology, 2:732-34, 2007.
6. H.P. Peters et al., "Science communication: Interactions with the mass media," Science, 321:204-05, 2008.
The survey of nano experts was commissioned by the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University, and conducted by the University of Wisconsin Survey Center. The response rate was 40%. The surveys among stem cell researchers and epidemiologists were conducted under the leadership of the Forschungszentrum Jûlich, Germany in five countries (France, Germany, Japan, UK, and the US) with a response rate of 43% across all countries.
Dietram A. Scheufele, Department of Life Sciences Communication, University of Wisconsin-Madison, and the Center for Nanotechnology in Society, Arizona State University
Dominique Brossard, Department of Life Sciences Communication, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Sharon Dunwoody, School of Journalism & Mass Communication, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Elizabeth A. Corley and David Guston, Center for Nanotechnology in Society, Arizona State University
Hans Peter Peters, Forschungszentrum Jûlich, Germany
Contact Dietram A. Scheufele at the Department of Life Sciences Communication, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1545 Observatory Drive, Madison, WI 53706, or by email at scheufele@wisc.edu.
Related stories:
[21st May 2009]
[October 2007]
[20th July 1998]
[Comment posted 2009-08-07 08:24:41]
Nobody should expect relations between two subsystems of society governed by different rules ? such as science and journalism ? to be without tension. Actually, the complete absence of tension would be a reason for concern because it would indicate that either science or journalism (or both) fail to do their job properly.
One anonymous commentator points to the 3% of researchers in the AAAS/Pew survey who indicated that they "often" talk to journalists. In our survey of biomedical researchers about two thirds of the US respondents (rather similar to France, Germany, Japan and UK) reported contact(s) with journalists "in the past 3 years", and 17% even said that they had contact with journalists more than 10 times in that time period. Michael Holloway asks in his comment how many scientists have been to local and state school board meetings. We did not exactly ask this question but we asked (as part of a list of outreach activities) whether the respondent had given talks in schools and colleges and almost 40% indicated that this was the case in the past 3 years. More than 40% said that they had been involved in preparing a brochure for the general public, and 50% said that they talked to lay visitors or visitor groups of their respective institute etc.
Several commentators have expressed their doubts regarding the validity of surveys. I completely agree that survey results require cautious and careful interpretation, and that self-reported behavior cannot simply be equated with actual behavior. There may be bias caused by the sampling process, selective responses and social desirability. However, there are ways to assess the extent and direction of bias due to missing responses, and this assessment led us to the conclusion that there is no strong bias towards researchers with higher involvement in public communication that would invalidate our main findings (see our discussion in the online appendix to our Science article, pp. 6-8). Furthermore, a social desirability bias inflating the amount of reported contact to journalists and outreach activities would at least indicate that scientists accept involvement in public communication as a legitimate normative expectation.
[Comment posted 2009-08-06 15:16:18]
Part of the challenge in communicating science is that it?s a foreign language to most people. But it?s also just plain foreign?many people have no idea who or what is behind the laboratory walls. As a result, the typical ?mad scientist? and ?nerd? stereotypes linger. Our inability to clearly communicate our work with the public does little to change the dialogue. I recently left my postdoc at MIT to support scientists lives both in and out of the lab via a new web resource called BenchFly, LINK We provide a platform for researchers to share videos of scientific tips, tricks and techniques- essentially creating the same demonstration-based learning model we use everyday in the lab - just now on the internet.
Scientists will broadcast the work and the personalities that is currently lost behind the walls of labs and relegated to notepads and journals. Not only will this distinguish individual personalities, but it will collectively create a new self image for scientists and hopefully change the dialogue between scientists and the public. It?s true- ?bridges have to be built, and?can be built.?
[Comment posted 2009-08-05 13:27:33]
1.- the languahe used to comunicate with people,has to be a normal and every-day language and not a scientific language which people does not understand
2.- It depends on the nature of research.It must be of a general interest, for example new possibilities to improve very comon diseases now difficult to deal.
This means that perhaps practical research is more receptive for people in general.
I could be an example:i am searching electroacupuncture treatments for neurological diseases.It has a high prevalence rate, so results concerning new possibilitiues to improve these diseases are more to be read than comenting some metabolic disorders of these diseases.
[Comment posted 2009-08-05 03:20:07]
[Comment posted 2009-08-04 22:39:05]
[Comment posted 2009-08-04 20:23:46]
Second, there are precious few, if any, trained scientists in any of the many media organizations. Worse, editors do not insist that reporters have a short list of experts, in each of the fields on which they report, to consult for perspective when another scientist publishes or makes an announcement in one of those fields. Instead, and particularly when it involves a politically controversial area such as climate change, stem cell research, or animal studies, the journalists fall back on their ever-ready, but dubious, "balance" policy which is satisfied by simply finding any noisy contrarian, regardless of merit, and quoting same. To the naive reader, the appearance of the two claims, together in the same piece without qualification, leads to the perception (rightly or wrongly) of equal status and credibility. That the media today thrives on ratings - and those ratings thrive on controversy - there is a not-too-subtle conflict of interest in profit-oriented media between straight-up reporting and reporting anything that is - or can be contrued to be - controversial.
Therein lies most of the reason that "touch" has been lost between scientists and the public. While out-reach by scientists may help some, most such efforts will be nullified by the much more pervasive and intentional dumbing down, equating of unequals, and politicization by the media. The general drift toward questioning and challenging all authority, regardless of competence and integrity, probably accounts for most of the remaining reason.
[Comment posted 2009-08-04 17:00:38]
[Comment posted 2009-08-04 14:25:10]
If the question really is "Are scientists out of touch?" then ask how many have been to local and state school board meetings.
[Comment posted 2009-08-04 13:34:40]