Science Communication Reconsidered
A forgotten 15-year old paper with lots of insights needed for today
Alberta Health Law professor turned vaccine apologist Timothy Caulfield was the lead grant recipient from Genome Canada in the preparation of an interdisciplinary workshop convened on the changing nature of science communication, focusing specifically on biotech, biomedicine and genetics. Participants were experts from the US, the UK, Canada, Germany and Australia.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt0609-514 which the public can access here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26279392_Science_communication_reconsidered
Given all the kerfuffle on Caulfield’s Twitter/X account, including the sporadic Twitter tantrum in posts like this one:
posts in which Prof. Caulfield purports to point at “misinformation” seemingly around the clock, a return to key concepts he worked on 15 years ago might be helpful to us all.
Here are some highlights copied out directly from the article published in nature biotechnology in 2009 and presented as food for thought for us today with highlighting added by the author of this substack.
Science communication receives significant attention from policy makers, research institutions, practitioners and scholars. It is a complex and contentious topic that encompasses a spectrum of issues from the factual dissemination of scientific research to new models of public engagement whereby lay persons are encouraged to participate in science debates and policy.
Science increasingly is interdisciplinary, bureaucratic, global in scale, problem- based and dependent on private funding. This latter trend, in particular, raises issues of public trust in science, which studies have shown is diminished by researcher and institutional affiliation with the private sector, especially in the area of biomedicine.
a still-dominant assumption among many scientists and policymakers is that when controversies over science occur, ignorance is at the root of public opposition. Concerns are raised about the state of science education and scientific literacy more generally. Science communication initiatives are therefore directed at filling in the ‘deficit’ in knowledge, with the hope that if members of the public only understood the scientific facts, they would be more likely to see the issues as experts do.
…some knowledge about science, and especially its role in society, is fundamentally important for a public that bears the risks and benefits of scientific and technological development
knowledge is only one factor among many influences that are likely to guide how individuals reach judgments, with ideology, social identity and trust often having stronger impacts
A decade ago, [Ed. Note - this would mean around 1999] a new ‘public engagement’ or interactive model emerged—one that emphasizes deliberative contexts in which a variety of stakeholders can participate in a dialog so that a plurality of views can inform research priorities and science policy. These efforts toward two-way dialog with lay publics have taken various forms, such as deliberative polls, citizen juries, consensus conferences and cafés scientifiques
… the ‘publics,’ or groups of individuals who are affected by the products of science, are invited to become part of a community of evaluators and decision-makers.
Jean-Francois Podevin/Science Photo Library
Advocates for expanding these public engagement initiatives argue that consultation exercises often come too late (usually just as a science product, such as nanotechnology, is being introduced to the market), that lay input is not given enough weight in decision-making and that under these conditions the consulta- tion process only serves a public relations function. They argue that engagement needs to move ‘upstream’ to when science or technology is in its formative stage, so that relevant publics can have a more meaningful say in matters of ownership, regulation, uses, benefits and risks.
the media could play an important role in informing the public about early-stage science policy debates and avenues for public involvement, potentially raising awareness and participation.
Yet a genuine role for lay participants’ recommendations can come only with the realization that sometimes an engaged public might reach collective decisions that go against the self-interests of scientists. For example, one outcome of a recent consultation forum on nanotechnology was that several lay participants were motivated to form an advocacy group to act as a watchdog over research in their community.
individuals are naturally ‘cognitive misers’: if they lack a motivation to pay close attention to science debates, they will rely heavily on mental shortcuts, values and emotions to make sense of an issue, often in the absence of knowledge
individuals are drawn to news sources that confirm and reinforce their pre-existing beliefs. This tendency, of course, has been facilitated by the fragmentation of the media and the rise of ideologically slanted news outlets [Ed. Note: today typically this phrase is used to refer to ‘right wing Conservative’ news shows, yet government-funded news organizations are also ideologically slanted towards the left side of the political spectrum.]
audiences will pay more attention to certain dimensions of a science debate over others depending on how an issue is ‘framed’ in news coverage. Frames are interpretative packages and storylines that help communicate why an issue might be a problem, who or what might be responsible and what should be done. Frames are used by lay publics as interpretative schemas to make sense of and discuss an issue; by journalists to condense complex events into interesting and appealing news reports; by policy-makers to define policy options and reach decisions; and by scientists to communicate the relevance of their findings. In each of these contexts, frames simplify complex issues by lending greater weight to certain considerations and arguments over others. Framing is an unavoidable reality of the science communication process.
Instead of relying on personal experience or anecdotal observation, it is necessary to carry out careful audience research to determine which frames work across intended audiences. [Ed. Note: comments like this may be the precursor for the various ‘nudging’ programs we have been hearing of to shape people’s perception of the ‘need’ to take COVID-19 injections.]
Any reframing of an issue needs to remain true to the state of the underlying science.
Few decisions are made by policymakers and stakeholders without the media in mind. Given this role and influence, there have long been concerns about distortion and hype in news coverage of biomedicine and biotech. The orientation toward hype is viewed internationally by many scientists, ethicists, policymakers and government officials as the primary shortcoming of the media.
Numerous commentators have remarked that the media, scientists, the public and other interest groups can become complicit in generating a ‘cycle of hype’. The cycle is driven by enthusiastic researchers facing pressures from their research institutions, funders and industry; by the desire of institutions and journals to bolster their profiles; by a profit-driven media; and by the need of individual journalists to define events as newsworthy. As one result of these factors, research has shown that positive results are more likely to be published, whereas studies that refute previously published research are less likely to gain attention. For example, the discovery of the ‘gay gene’ was published in Nature and received considerable media attention, but a study refuting these findings received limited press coverage. [Ed. Note: We just went through this with zero mainstream coverage of findings refuting the efficacy and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines.]
A further source of hype may lie in errors of omission—what is left out of media narratives
There is a lack of reporting on funding sources for research and potential conflicts of interest, information essential for the lay public to assess the credibility of the research, and which group of experts to trust. Public opinion surveys indicate a high degree of trust in scientists generally and university scientists specifically, but this trust declines when members of the public are asked their impression of industry scientists.
Comfort with a technology increases with public trust in regulatory authorities and government. In fact, unless a science issue is contested by rival cultural authorities, such as religious or political leaders, the public tends to defer strongly to the expertise of university and government scientists
Details of methods and study design (especially for clinical trials), risks and timelines for the delivery of benefits are also underreported. Risks are often underreported because of the difficulties of conveying probabilistic information, which is inadequately understood by most journalists and by the general public.
Studies have also tended to focus narrowly on science journalists, but science debates receive their greatest attention when they shift from being covered just by these specialists to become the focus of political journalists, commentators and pundits. Under these conditions, the image of science morphs from a focus on discoveries packaged as progress, promise and technical background to a new emphasis on conflict and dramatic claims about risks and ethics
This difference in perception, and the hype derived from errors of omission and framing, may already be leading to individual and social harm. ... This raises important questions about the roles and responsibilities of the media. [Ed. Note: back in 2009 the examples for ‘harm’ given circled around the ‘probabilistic risk factors’ predicted in commercially available genetic testing and the ‘as-yet-unapproved stem cell therapies in jurisdictions with lower regulatory standards’. In today’s post-COVID era, we look back to recent harms of a much greater magnitude.]
Many academic articles, editorials and reports draw on findings about errors of omission and accuracy to recommend best practices and checklists for journalists. But do such endeavors confront the realities of science journalism and other news beats? The most important issue may not necessarily be content, but rather how the research is framed. In this regard, it is critical to understand the factors that shape the dominant interpretations in news coverage.
Scientific articles are aimed at a narrow specialist audience, whereas media articles are aimed at a broader audience. As a result, journalistic accounts are based on personal anecdotes provided by researchers or by individuals who may directly benefit from the research, such as affected individuals or members of affected families. Without such connections, science stories are less likely to be published in competition with the news of the day. [Ed. Note: We have seen the utter suppression of personal anecdotes from the lives of people adversely affected by the COVID-19 injection. The psychological toll of this suppression resonates throughout many of the testimonies gathered in 2023 by the National Citizens Inquiry.]
The role of the Internet as a major source of biomedical and science information for the public has both positive and negative consequences. Traditional media websites allow journalists to connect readers with source information through direct links to research or patient sites and articles. The expanded layout of web pages may address concerns about errors of omission, as more quantitative or probabilistic information may be provided in sidebars or graphics but only if the effort is made to provide this sometimes labor-intensive material. Special online comment sections allow readers to instantly contest or correct information con- tained in a story. [Ed. Note: Today, instead of embracing this potential for interactivity for collaborative sense-making and the sharing of ever-evolving findings, as is done regularly among collaborating scientists and aware lay readers via uncensored platforms like Substack (for example on Dr. Jessica Rose’s account), ideologically minded science communicators on corporate-tied platforms have been gas-lighting or outright blocking those who attempt to contribute balance and lesser known findings to the discussion.]
Science bloggers frequently vet false claims made in the media or in policy debates and increasingly serve as important sources for journalists. [Ed. Note: Likewise, science communicators like Timothy Caulfield who consistently block out ever evolving evidence, falsely labelling it as ‘misinformation’, also serve as ‘important sources’ for unsuspecting (?) or non-inquisitive journalists who are unaware of the extent of censorship today and do not seek out the expertise of those who are ‘shadow banned’ or otherwise removed from the public square.]
Corporate information sources generally are little more than direct-to-consumer advertising for products, services or both.
[recently corporations began] to take advantage of the social media properties of the web, entering into a dialog with stakeholders and publics via specially created sites that feature blogs, scientist profiles and discussion sections (see Johnson & Johnson’s (Bridgewater, NJ, USA) corporate blog (http://jnjbtw.com), YouTube channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/JNJhealth) and Facebook page (http://www.facebook. com/ADHDMoms))
Science blogs also engage in strategic framing, with some of the most popular science bloggers blending discussion of science with ideologically driven commentary on politics or religion. These popular blog sites become echo chambers reinforcing deficit-model assumptions about the public… [Ed. Note: Today, Twitter/X accounts of celebrity science commentators aptly fit the role of ideologically driven echo-chambers reinforcing unsubstantiated claims]
Graduate students, as the future spokespeople and decision-makers at science institutions, should be taught about the social and political context of science and how to communicate with the media and a diversity of publics. The latter includes an emphasis on the importance of meaningful public dialog initiatives as well as of relationship-building with journalists and editors. There is a danger, however, of this type of public engagement emphasis becoming too conflated with marketing and public relations.
The wide-ranging factors contributing to media hype and errors (largely of omission) need to be more explicitly recognized so as to allow science institutions and media organizations to formulate appropriately informed communication policies. [Ed. Note: There is no lack of media communication policies in Canada. What is needed is the will to actually abide by them.]
There also will need to be laws protecting consumers from false or hyped claims on websites that market health services and products directly to the public. [Ed. Note: Pfizer’s hyped claim of 95% efficacy, often parroted thoughout the media, comes to mind.]
And in closing:
Finally, if there is a major threat to science journalism, it is that science journalists are losing their jobs at for-profit news organizations. Some suggest that scientists-as-bloggers might be able to fill the gap, yet for reasons reviewed earlier, this is unlikely to be an effective solution. New models of foundation-, university- or government-supported science journalism are needed, with these online digital formats blending professional reporting with user-generated content and discussion. [Ed. Note - We now see what happens when foundations and universities become reliant on corporate donations for their funding…the science journalism they back is decidedly one-sided; multi-sided discussion is censored out; media ethics policies requiring a diversity of viewpoints are ignored; public engagement in scientific debate & policy making are fought against; etc. Even science communicators themselves have become ‘cognitive misers’ losing their willingness to engage in intellectual curiosity and to support true scientific inquiry.]
=======
Added here as food for thought (not in the original paper):