Accuracy, Flair, and Comprehension: A Challenge for Science Communication
How must we fare against the aims of SciComm
“Write such that the masses can understand you”, advises every other faceless reader of science writing to its authors. “Of the eyes that browse your words, more will then understand. As more people get exposed to everyday science, society will progress,” they say.
There surely is more to it than that, and it is pertinent that we see why.
In video form, it is quite the same. A simple search of TED and TEDx videos returns numerous presenters talking passionately about science communication and its challenges. Most propose this very thing: simplify for a non-technical audience [1, 2, 3]. There are others who point out, sitting on the shoulders of Einstein, humbly so, that it is important to simplify only to the extent necessary, and no more [4]. Some others concede that as necessary as it is to simplify, there are hidden dangers — the risks of changing the meaning altogether [6].
Since the advent of social media and online content, there has been a sharp rise in the amount of science or technical content that is accessible to all. Science videos on YouTube can become million-dollar businesses (great decade to live in!), science blogs and tweets reach us all right on our phones, and classrooms are more interactive than ever. Claire Sale, in her talk at TED, notes this paradigm shift to make the case that science communication can be more effective if the people creating the science are themselves involved in the communication of it [5].
Contemplating the idea to communicate science in a specific field, then, raises a singularly piercing question:
The subject is typically of a high pedigree, is technical in nature, and is often very interesting and important.
Should the writing, i.e. the descriptor of it, be of a high pedigree, or should it be accessible?
In the past, the communication of science was largely the responsibility of intermediaries that stood between the producers and consumers of scientific knowledge. In this gross simplification of a model, scientific luminaries wrote academic papers and books, and published with newspapers or magazines. But recently they are able to tweet, in 280 characters or less, directly to the public. This evolutionary pressure of sorts will now help mould new adaptations. The first of these adaptations will probably be the ability to answer our overarching question.
A new model of communication flows should emerge; the so-called waterfall model is surely turning into the direct model. In the background, there is a continual consolidation of concerns.
The commonality, to begin with
Technical audiences have been writing for each other since the dawn of science, and new technologies have significantly boosted the rate of high-fidelity information sharing within the broader scientific community. This is not without its own issues, however. Design thinking and communication are strongly coupled (systems pun intended), but this is an area of perforated expertise even among scientifically literate participants [14]. Narrowing down to the key facets and satisfying the more immediate objectives of the scientific content to be delivered is itself a scientific challenge [15, 16]. Here, knowledge of behavioural science is perhaps of greater import than the scientific content itself. By this metric, communicating scientific research between academia and industry/regulators is sometimes found to be as tough as communicating basic science to the general public. The fidelity is different, but the underlying problem is the same.
“(…) people who can mobilize resources, are also the people who are not willing to listen to evidence.”
- Baruch Fischhoff (Carnegie Mellon) at a National Academies meet [14]
As for the other participants in this process — the general public — new opportunities for connecting directly with the producers of scientific/technical content have emerged. Unlike technical stakeholders or audiences who might inherently “need” certain information because there are impending decisions to make, the general public typically lacks such immediate motives. In the case of these consumers, it is rather the need of the producers to share what they know, because this incremental knowledge can eventually be used for common good. Therefore, the metaphorical burden of accurate, engaging, and comprehensible communication will, and must, shift to the producers themselves.
And in so happening, the producers must battle the messy reality of it all.
The Aims and the Reality: an example
When it comes to communication, there are two progenitors of value — scale and scope. The scientific literature on this issue proffers the different layers of complexity associated with the very aims of science communication.
One such aim, among several equally involved aims, is to “improve the population’s belief about science” [7]. Several mechanisms could theoretically achieve this same goal — increasing the number of people who understand scientific fact accurately; increasing the attrition rate of people holding false scientific beliefs; upgrading the quality of scientific fact and beliefs among the initiated or among the uninitiated; and so on. And thus, it is safe to comment that any attempt to measure and quantify this aim is inherently laden with travails. Equally laborious would be the attempt to achieve each of these sub-aims in a single piece of science communication, let alone every piece. A standalone piece — video, talk, or prose — will often implicitly encapsulate a very specific sub-aim, and this choice being in part operated upon by the context under which the piece is birthed, will cater to its aim with varying degrees of triumph. That being said, it should be expected of the author to not be insouciant towards the needs of her audience and strive for clarity and cogency, simply from a dissemination perspective.
When public surveys measure how well the common person understands science, the truth about scientific literacy becomes apparent. A simple rating scale may judge whether a person has answered questions about general science knowledge accurately enough. Questions used are about facts like the earth orbiting the sun in 365 days, bacteria being too tiny to be seen by the naked eye but being a common cause of disease, and so on. By doing the math on people’s answers, we can observe how well people know or understand basic science. In many countries around the world, the results of such surveys reveal that only between 1–5 people among every 10 people, know basic science in day-to-day life (*). In India, less than half the population knows and understands basic science, whereas in European countries more than half the population does [8, 9, 10]. Studies also indicate country-wise and education-wise differences: “a highly educated person in India, Turkey or Brazil might relate differently to science than a highly knowledgeable person in Sweden, Germany or Italy” [9].
The field of science makes new discoveries every day, whether small or large. Thus, in order to improve the understanding of science among the public, the public needs to take an effort to upgrade their baseline understanding continuously as well! Old knowledge is not fully sufficient to understand the latest knowledge.
(*) Respondent samples may vary across countries, and participants may or may not be normalized for education level — these are indicative aggregate numbers, but actual statistics may vary towards either extreme.
Author’s Authority
The previous section serves two heterologous purposes. After discussing one of the aims of SciComm (“improve the population’s belief about science”) that relates most to the choice of how to exploit the variety of language to a certain conversational effect, it unravels an implicit mechanism that is almost mandatory for the benefit of the cause (the public needs to upgrade its baseline of scientific understanding). But there is also a stark difference in the linguistic flair in both paragraphs — where the first paragraph moulds the language as per the complex ideas to be presented, often using scientific or technical phrasing (“attrition rate”), the second paragraph assumes simplicity and accessibility of the language to be paramount. The second paragraph discusses some statistics, but the language is extremely simple and devoid of scientific jargon.
Although simplification assists comprehension of the content, the nuance is often squandered. The second paragraph loses out on explaining, or providing disclaimers on, the demographic variations that are observed in India and other surveyed countries. For someone who is being exposed to the concept of scientific literacy estimation, this demarcation becomes pertinent in the very first discourse on the content — lest a proper misunderstanding may occur. And in order to do that, the author must attribute to the reader some scientific predisposition, for instance, knowledge of basic statistics. Now, concepts of basic statistics are something that a moderately literate (scientifically) person is expected to understand.
The author of any SciComm content, therefore, by default has the authority to decide the balance between accuracy, flair, and the expected comprehension of the resulting work. Assuming no external constraints, the author is free to decide this balance based on his agenda to communicate science. In entrepreneurial fashion, the author may decide to analyze who the majority of the audience is, what format the content is in, and how the content is going to be distributed and where. The author’s judgement may lead him or her to create different content on the same subject for different audiences, as long as the author is capable of such variety.
The author of any SciComm content, therefore, by default has the authority to decide the balance between accuracy, flair, and the expected comprehension of the resulting work.
Does anything necessitate that a science communicator must “simplify” to communicate to the masses? The answer is, obviously, no.
It is said that the test for judging whether you truly understand a subject is to explain it to a 6-year old. The Feynman-like argument for simplifying scientific content for the masses does hold water in this regard. It is, as discussed earlier, an aim to increase the public’s exposure to a wide gamut of scientific disciplines, discoveries, phenomena, and facts. It is also true that one of the strongest means to communicate well is to use literary devices — metaphors, stories, aphorisms, and their ilk. Such methods are known to help with absorption and long-term memory, and after all, retention in memory also happens to be one of the sub-aims of science communication.
The problem is, such simplification is only relevant for axiomatic or idiomatic conversation, and in both cases, further explanation is almost always necessary to convey the full meaning. With some aims of SciComm in mind, it wouldn’t be wrong to hold the science communicator in error if their articulation of choice leads the audience to commit scientifically ambiguous or fallacious items to long-term memory.
Case in Point
Philip Ball is an acclaimed science writer and communicator. He is a former editor at Nature, and undoubtedly a polymath. His Twitter handle reads, “Obsessed with (too) many things.” He has authored books that tackle some of the deepest trenches of music theory, statistics, physics, and biology, among many other subjects. [11]
Reviewers have categorized his writing as being “limpid”, “cogent”, “painstakingly researched”, “eloquent”, “lucid, accessible, and engaging”. As one reviewer puts it, “Learned while never less than absorbing… [Philip] Ball can truly make scholarship sing.”
These comments, however, come from accomplished writers and editors of international publications. Contextualizing to the broader public, it isn’t a stretch to say that Philip Ball’s writing is actually “inaccessible” to the majority of the population; it is lucid and limpid only to a sliver of society that is privy to a certain degree of scientific thought and eloquent English.
Given the aims of science communication, does this make Philip Ball a failure at science communication because the scale of audiences alone is not maximized? The truth couldn’t be further from this. His prose is brilliantly organized, thoroughly researched, and is breathtaking in its scope. It is hard to imagine one man (presumably with his team) conducting a project to write in intricate detail about a subject that is not his sub-specialty to begin with. The surveying of literature, both scientific and non-fiction, across centuries to tell a true story and put modern research and worldviews in the spotlight, while retaining the primordial intent of science communication, is a feat not below superhuman. To its intended audience, it is a truly noteworthy set of writings that is as effective as it is impressive.
Take also the example of Quanta Magazine, a high-fidelity website with scientific content, and design, that literally ooze of finesse. Around 3 million people visit the site monthly. While humongous readership for a standalone magazine, compare that with the population of the countries where the magazine is popular. The monthly readership decidedly falls nearby a hundredth of a percent of the possible audience. Does this mean such a magazine is failing at its job of communicating science to the public?
This is a case in point for the generous application of the common business practice of segmenting the target market. Science writing is also a new product, as would be a new gadget, and while developing it, it is best to consider how the product can be made to work well with its intended users. Often, individual and freelance writers, especially the neophytes, tend to miss out on this aspect of their work. Applying this thought process helps to condense the aims of SciComm into the author’s work by default.
And that reveals some of the more elusive challenges when we imagine the global nature of science communication.
It’s not just about flair
English is the predominant language of science today, but a wealth of science exists in other languages. Research points to the barriers of language in global science [13], which, needless to say, percolates down to science communication. This is a barrier not only to dissemination but also potentially to non-partisanship.
Imagine explaining the concept of sub-atomic particles to a middle-aged, rural Indian audience today. Say a colleague challenged you to this as a way to help you refine your science communication skills. The first impediment: their baseline knowledge will probably not live up to the requirements of explaining sub-atomic particles. What if they don’t understand the concept of atoms? Simply stating that “atoms are very, very small indestructible pieces that make us all up” can nudge someone into the subject, but this was what Democritus posited way back in 400 B.C. too. Our concept of atoms today is not the same, and at the end of the day, we need to be able to communicate that which we now know.
Engaging in a dialog with a rural Indian audience, or having them read something, will likely have to happen in a regional language, perhaps Hindi (but most likely a local variant). Being Hindi speakers living in a largely Hindu household and having received primary education in a rural setting for example, this set of people will likely have their own prejudices when it comes to atoms. Metaphysical and religious themes would lurk in the background even as you are required to explain electrons, protons, and eventually quarks… all by translating into Hindi.
Next, consider the prevalence of pseudoscience and misinformation on social media, a set of platforms on which billions of people are regular participants. This potentially viral spread of inaccurate information is antithetical to the aims of science communication. In the face of a burgeoning populace with increasingly inaccurate scientific beliefs (potentially, due to the spread), it is a great test for science communication to increase the population’s belief in accurate science, let alone maintain it.
As a society, we regularly need to decide which stagnant problems are a priority to solve and which looming questions are a priority to get answered. The communication of science to various members of society serves this need by attempting to put people on even footing so that our decisions are equitable, or at least democratic.
Interdisciplinary dialogue between practitioners is one aspect here, but conveying science to the broader public is an equally important (if not more important) need. As in the example above, although slightly extreme, it is apparent that equal footing is very difficult to achieve. In the long run, we are all party to societal decisions, and science communication must learn to overcome hurdles that prevent an inclusive process.
The real beast of a challenge
And yet, there is respite. Not every communicator needs to communicate to the masses. In fact, it is preferable for it to not be the case. The quality of outcomes will be much higher this way.
Science, in its magnificent breadth, is meant to be disseminated to the masses, but if the benefits are to fully accrue, the masses need to augment their own understanding of it over time. This implies that at any given point, there will be segments of audiences for any given work — from moderately literate and non-genius, to highly literate and nearly-genius. The breadth of science needs to be communicated across the spectrum, not just to the near end.
The real challenge for science communication, in this age of hyper-speed technical advances, is to AT LEAST keep the divide between these two poles nearly constant, as both evolve upwards and outwards.
About the author
Sarang Deshpande is an engineer, founder [Flow Mobility; Cambio Motion], and writer. This trifecta allows him to be usefully interdisciplinary in his approach. Besides spending time solving challenges in the urban mobility domain, he regularly writes about science, tech, business, and life (sometimes). He is an editor at World In Mind, a new publication which brings cutting-edge research to students and working professionals. Important research across industries will set the tone for humanity’s future trajectory, and young humans would do well to keep the world in mind when they choose their area of professional focus.
References
(not in alphabetical order)
[1] Quantum physics for 7-year olds, Dominic Walliman, TEDxEastVan, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARWBdfWpDyc
[2] Science and storytelling, Lucy Hawking, TEDxSalford, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7K-qlQVpgE
[3] Sharing science through story, Fergus McAuliffe, TEDxDublin, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXJJvvjSB9c
[4] Talk nerdy to me, Melissa Marshall, TED, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y66YKWz_sf0
[5] Communicating science in the post-truth era, Claire Sale, TEDxKAUST, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INf0WvnSCI0
[6] Bickerton, P., The difficulty in effective science communication: communication, Medium, Available:
https://medium.com/@peterbickerton/the-difficulty-in-effective-science-communication-communication-4b26f1230b87
[7] Kappel K and Holmen SJ (2019) Why Science Communication, and Does It Work? A Taxonomy of Science Communication Aims and a Survey of the Empirical Evidence. Front. Commun. 4:55, Available: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00055/full
[8] Council of Canadian Academies, 2014. Science Culture: Where Canada Stands. Ottawa (ON): The Expert Panel on the State of Canada’s Science Culture, Council of Canadian Academies, Available:
https://cca-reports.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/FullReport-Science-Culture.pdf
[9] Bauer, Martin W. (2009) The evolution of public understanding of science — discourse and comparative evidence. Science, technology and society, 14 (2). pp. 221–240. ISSN 0971–7218, Available: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/95663.pdf
[10] Raza, G., Singh, S., 25 years of public understanding of science in India: Analysis based on cultural distance, Journal of Scientific Temper, Vol 4(3&4), Jul-Sep & Oct-Dec 2016, pp. 81–101, Available: http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/47274/1/JST%204%283-4%29%2081-101.pdf
[11] Philip Ball bibliography, https://www.philipball.co.uk/books/all-books
[12] Communicating science, Sheril Kirshenbaum, TEDxCongressAve, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXqLHc5ZbbM
[13] Amano T, González-Varo JP, Sutherland WJ (2016) Languages Are Still a Major Barrier to Global Science. PLoS Biol 14(12): e2000933. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2000933
[14] Mobilizing the science of science communication, Fischhoff B., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7PwzBm7hxY
[15] Fischhoff, B., The sciences of science communication, PNAS August 20, 2013 110 (Supplement 3) 14033–14039; first published August 13, 2013 https://www.pnas.org/content/110/Supplement_3/14033
[16] Bruine de Bruin, W., Developing Scientific Communication: How to Find Out What People Need to Know https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7D9CyPUWwU
[17] Mastin, D., The Science of Science Communication — Lessons From Business https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlegSRxNt4Q
