Formerly known as the audience
The question is not whether scientists should communicate with the public, but rather how they should do it. The odd dinosaurs in some university science departments still don’t think it necessary to tell their fellow citizens what they are doing, but most researchers, especially the younger ones, believe that sharing knowledge is an important aspect of their jobs.
The challenge these bright young scientists face is how to effectively communicate with the public about their work in a media environment that is experiencing seismic changes.
The benefits and risks of scientists sharing the fruits of their labour were intensely debated at a seminar titled: The science of science communication held at Stellenbosch University last week. The key presenter, Prof Dominique Brossard of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said the way people in the US consume science news has changed sig- nificantly in recent years.
In the past, people used to learn about new developments in science from newspapers, magazines and television whereas nowadays science blogs are the main sources of such news.
While mainstream news sites such as the New York Times or CNN have good science sections, many scientists are currently reaching out to the public directly with their own science blogs.
Brossard, who has written extensively on controversies concerning genetically modified organisms (GMOs), said reliance on search engines such as Google tends to narrow our outlook. She said this happens through “self reinforcing informational spirals” when online traffic drives search engine page rankings which in turn drive traffic.
She noted that users tend to click on news items that confirm or support their own beliefs. For example, a climate change denialist will probably choose to look at web pages that refuse to blame industrialised countries for causing global warming.
As search engines take into account users’ preferences, they perform searches with the implicit objective of offering articles that are most likely to be clicked on. In the past, this role of selecting news items was performed by newspaper editors who would try to present the latest news according to their readers preferences.
Those of us who rely on web searches as a primary source of news are allowing algorithms to perform the functions previously entrusted to editors.
Several young scientists at the seminar said they were keen to put their research online for public consumption but were afraid of negative reactions and especially trolling – abusive posts in the comments section of an article or a blog. Brossard said that research in the US revealed that rude or biased comments caused readers to believe that the research was itself biased.
The fear of trolling or being misunderstood as a result of trolling was particularly real for a scientist whose work entailed animal dissection.
Most news sites and blogs have had to deal with trolling at some point and many have been forced to close their comments sections due to excessive rude posts.
However, some researchers are reluctant to close their comments sections because they feel it would be an act of censorship. Participants at the seminar proposed directing comments to a Facebook page that could absorb insulting criticisms.
They also advised zoologists who had to cut animals for their research to avoid posting video footage of their work. In the interest of transparency, they could describe their investigations in text but if they wanted to reduce trolling, they should not post graphic images or video.