Our Info-Eating Disorder and The Threats It Poses to Science Communication
A RadioLab podcast titled Smarty Plants reveals a secret ability of plant life that most people would only imagine humans and animals are capable. Ask any home inspector, and they will recount an instance when a tree had wrapped its roots around underground pipes, causing damage to the water system.
A botanical scientist was compelled by this behavior, and decided to see what exactly directed the plant to find the water: was it temperature, was it a form of “hearing,” or was it a sort of “conscious” decision? In a controlled laboratory, the scientist discovered something fascinating. Plants, like animals, can exhibit classic conditioning. That is, when they associate something, like the feeling of a fan, with sunlight (aka plant food), they will lean toward the fan in anticipation of the sunlight after repeated “lessons” that reinforce the association. Even more interesting, the plants will retain this “memory” for at least 27 days, if not longer. The podcast highlighted a breakthrough in botanical science. The capacity for plants’ cognition (if that’s even an appropriate word to use for plants) is far greater than previously understood.
Like our understanding of plants is evolving, our relationship with technology is developing with great speed. While most used to wait until the Sunday paper landed on their front lawn to catch the news, now we flood our devices in search of word-food, leaning toward technology, hungry for information.
But as our brains’ appetites grow, their biological capacity to process information does not (at least not as quickly as we might like). Our brains filter information the same way it did one hundred years ago, limiting our ability to actually retain the information that we binge-read.
An article by Anthropocene Magazine demonstrates this limitation. “As biodiversity declines, so does public attention,” journalist Brandon Keim declares. He identifies the two environmental crisis, climate change and biodiversity loss, and remarks at how little attention is given to the latter. Biologist Pierre Legagneux calls it a “biodiversity communication deficit,” which could be the result of the subject’s complex nature. Complexities, researchers speculate, that journalists inadequately communicate to the public. The effects of journalistic shortfalls are seen by the public neglect for suffering species and habitat devastation.
However, the future holds potential for effective science communication. A BBC Scotland News video broadcasts a Scottish school’s effort to revolutionize educational approaches to reading and writing. Rather than forcing students to read pre-selected books as assignments, the school promotes leisurely reading and allows students freedom to choose the books they read. Head teacher of St. Anthony’s primary school in Johnstone, Jackie McBurnie stated, “We’re still striving for excellence; it’s about how we do it.” The school’s progressive approach could redefine students’ relationships to reading and writing, which could, in turn, shape more effective communicators, scientists, and citizens. The school received the UKLA Literacy School of the Year Award for their work.
The way in which our future’s journalists actually communicate could be vastly different than what we know today. As quickly as newspapers disappeared from front lawns, online news articles could be dominated by more innovative media. A Media Shift article discusses threats to independent web journalism, stating that there are “too many voices on the Internet.” Publications both large and small are facing financial strains that could pull them under, if business aspects are not properly managed.
Some hope remains for solo bloggers and small teams, but journalist Dorian Benkoil says they must “reach the right combination of revenue types — from advertising, subscription and memberships, to events, eCommerce, and perhaps grants from foundations, or support form those who are ideologically or commercially aligned.”
If journalists aren’t writing news stories, then who is? Mico Tatalovic published in the Journal of Science Communication the article “AI Writing Bots Are About to Revolutionize Science Journalism: We Must Shape How This Is Done.” Indeed, artificial intelligence bots are writing articles about anything from sports to politics. Tatalovic worries that science communicators believe that science is too complicated to be written by AI, but algorithms to summarize scientific research papers and translate them into press releases and news reports are already being developed. According to the article, SciNote’s AI manuscript writer has already written more than one hundred research papers. If AI bots become the public’s source for information, what threats does that pose to the integrity of communication?
Social platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Medium, and other blog and media outlets could be the saving grace for honest, individualized discussions. On Twitter, scientists share updates, pose questions, and engage in debates about complex subjects while the “lay audience” watches. Sometimes, they join the conversation, learning more about scientific issues and contributing new ideas to often exhausted debates.
As an aspiring science journalist, I feel threatened by articles like Tatalovic’s and Benkoil’s, that declare present-day communication strategies a dying trend. Yet, with a technological upbringing to support me, I feel that I can adapt to advancements in communication and maneuver the evolving social sphere to produce compelling stories that interest, or even inspire, readers across the world.
