Why I Wrote A Book on Science Advocacy

The holidays are here and pandemic fatigue is real.

Despite all of the warnings from government officials, expert advice, and rising COVID-19 case numbers, people are still taking the risk to travel and go visit their loved ones. Personally, I’m still hunkering down because there are immunocompromised individuals on my side and my partner’s side of the family. But I get why people are still taking the risk:

The uncertainty around when the pandemic will finally end.

Vaccines are on the horizon, set to be delivered to high-risk individuals at the end of 2020, but the vast majority of folks won’t get a vaccine till the middle of 2021. That’s, at the very least, four more months of hunkering down. And that can create a huge emotional and mental toll.

But at the end of the day, expert advice and these dire warnings are not enough.

In my debut book, Necessary Symbiosis: What Happens When Science and Government Work Together (and When They Don’t), I explore what happened to listening to experts, why trust in science and scientists could be declining, and what scientists can do to fight back.

Below is an excerpt from my Introduction. Enjoy!

Why Scientific Experts Are Often Ignored by the Government
Trust in science has become a hot-button issue when it really shouldn’t be. A 2019 Pew Research poll showed that those who have science knowledge have a higher confidence in science than those who don’t have science knowledge. That makes sense. People don’t have confidence in things they don’t understand. But looking at the partisan breakdown is rather frightening: 43 percent of Democrats have high confidence compared to 23 percent of Republicans.(1)

This divide shows that we are living in two different Americas. One America is not affected by scientific misinformation, while the other America is.(2) The America that is not affected is one where individuals recognize that science evolves and changes. The America that is affected by misinformation is one where some individuals want a quick fix, without realizing the science of tomorrow may contradict the science of today, and that’s how science works. One America is willing to change their beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence and the other America will just blame the evidence for existing in the first place. But this problem is not just along party lines — not even a majority of Democrats have confidence in science!

So why is that?

One of the main issues confronting scientists is their inability to share their research and findings in a way an average person can understand. They present facts, data, and analysis with scientific jargon, complex sentence structures, and word choices.

Facts are important, but I don’t think facts alone are enough. Facts alone don’t speak for themselves, and sometimes facts are twisted to suit the purposes of certain groups of people like those who are against vaccines, more commonly known as anti-vaxxers.

I think science and scientists in general need to become more adept at advocating, not just trying to state the facts.

If the experts aren’t advocating for policies which reflect their scientific findings, then who will? More importantly, why are those who oppose science doing the things the scientists aren’t — advocating?

Scientists should be doing the same, by flooding social media and communicating their research in an effective manner, in order to counter all of the pseudo-science, weaponized science, or false information out in the world today. Misinformation works because it communicates pseudo-science effectively to the public. To counter the pseudo-science, scientists should make their research more understandable to the public. And non-scientists should amplify the voices of scientists and advocate for science too. Because that kind of advocacy helps everyone, not just those who conduct the research.

I saw that kind of science-based advocacy firsthand at home, and I realized just how effective it is.

How Do Scientists Become Advocates?
Scientists need to change the way they are communicating and connecting with the public and the government. In order for scientists to effectively advocate for their own research, they need to become involved and become more effective communicators.

In this book, I will argue that there needs to be a working relationship between scientists and governments — a necessary symbiosis for society to progress and to deal with 21st-century problems.

Scientists should weaponize social media for good to counter the misinformation online, and symbiosis between science and government should be strengthened to ensure future policies are scientifically sound.

I want scientists like myself to become more involved in science advocacy and to communicate data more effectively. I know I have to be mindful of how I talk about my research to those who are not in a science-related field. In aiming to be as precise as possible, we often fill our explanations with jargon that turns off the general public. We, as scientists, play into the stereotypes, and probably turn off the general public as a result.

So, scientists and science journals should continue to push each other to not only communicate the research in a scientific setting but also in a layperson setting. Scientists should help the public understand, even if it’s not a completely accurate or precise explanation.

Over the next weeks, I’ll be sharing excerpts and stories from my book, Necessary Symbiosis, in this article series. My book Necessary Symbiosis: What Happens When Science and Government Work Together (and When They Don’t) is available here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08PW4XP38. If you want to connect, find me on Twitter (@KarraVyshnavi), Instagram (@karravyshnavi, @necessarysymbiosis), and at www.vyshnavikarra.com.

(1) C. Funk et al., “Trust and Mistrust in Americans’ Views of Scientific Experts,” Pew Research Center, accessed June 11, 2020.
(2) K. Anders Ericson et al., “The Making of an Expert,” Harvard Business Review, accessed June 12, 2020.