What is science communication, and what are modern challenges facing the field?

1. Science
Communication
The Old, The New, The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly
By Paige Brown

2. Overview

What is Science Communication?

Where is it happening?

Science Journalism vs. Science Communication

News values for Science

3. Science Communication

Most of the fundamental ideas of science are
essentially simple, and may, as a rule, be
expressed in a language comprehensible to
everyone. — Albert Einstein

4. Science Communication
Wiki:
―Science communication generally refers to public
communication presenting science-related topics to
non-experts. This often involves professional
scientists, but has also evolved into a professional field
in its own right. It includes science exhibitions,
journalism, policy or media production.‖
Science communication makes science accessible and
exciting to non-scientists.

5. 20th Century: Science Journalism vs.
Science Communication

Blogger BoraZ:

―Journalism is communication of ‗what‘s new‘. A journalist
is anyone who can say ‗I‘m there, you‘re not, let me tell
you about it.‘‖

―Science is communication of ‗how the world works‘. A
scientist is anyone who can say "I understand something
about the world, you don‘t, let me explain it to you".‖

―At the close of the 20th century, we had a situation in
which journalism and science, for the first time in history,
completely separated from each other. Journalism covered
what’s new without providing the explanation and context
for new readers just joining the topic. Science covered
only explanation and only to one‘s peers.‖ - BoraZ

6. A New Era: Rise of the
Science Journalist

Journalists specialized in the reporting of science
“The first time we hear about scientific
developments or breakthroughs is
frequently through the press. Skilled
science journalists are in tune with the
twists and turns of scientific discovery
and able to translate that into universally
understandable words within hours: they
are right at the front line of science
communication. In this short film, veteran
science journalist, Tim Radford, tells us
the 'three great stories in science' and
explains what is, and is not, important
when reporting science to the masses.”

7. Challenges for Science
Journalists

But reporting science often requires specialized
knowledge, lots of time, and lots of space for
explanation – all of which are limited in traditional print
journalism.

―A good science story should explain what is known by
now (science), what the new study brings that is new
(news) and why does that matter to you (phatic
discourse).The lack of space usually led to omission of
context (science), shortening of what is new (news) and
thus leaving only the emotional story intact. Thus, the
audience did not learn much, Certainly not enough to
be able to evaluate next day‘s and next week‘s news.‖ BoraZ

8. Bad Science Journalism
“Dr. Ben Goldacre describes how
bad science journalism in the
media can lead to terrible
consequences in public health,
such as the MMR vaccine
mistakenly being linked to autism.”

9. But in the end, a journalist
revealed the fraud…
Watchdog role of
science journalism?
Is science journalism
today providing a
―critical analysis‖ role?

10. A Newer Era:
Rise of Science Blogs

―Science is the process of discovery of facts about the
way the world works, but the communication of that
discovery is the essential last step of the scientific
process, and the discoverer is likely to be the person
who understands the discovery the best and is thus
likely to be the person with the greatest expertise and
authority (and hopefully ability) to do the explaining.‖ BoraZ

Digital technologies have put dissemination of (science)
information in the hands of new science writers,
science students, scientists themselves.

11. Science Blogging
“The Internet affords a creative
outlet for everyone with an
interest in writing. The gap
between the thoughts in one's
head and the ability to share
those thoughts across the web
has, in the last few years,
vanished. In this new climate,
ideas are liberated into the
blogosphere, competing for
one's attention and, in a kind of
web-based natural selection,
some flourish while others die.
In this short film, neuroscience
blogger, Mo Costandi, provides
insights into what makes a
successful blog and how a
former security guard ended up
writing the Guardian's
Neurophilisophy blog.”

12. ―There will always be full-time science reporters, but a
significant percentage of science news is now written by people
that don‘t fit that description – and that situation is unlikely to
change.‖ – Matt Shipman
―A Nature survey of 493 science journalists shows that jobs are
being lost and the workloads of those who remain are on the rise
(for full results see http://tinyurl.com/c38kp6). At the same
time, researcher-run blogs and websites are growing apace in
both number and readership.‖ - Nature
Science print journalists now even look to science blogs for
their story ideas.
What are some potential positives of this transition? Potential
downsides?

13. Where do you get
your science news from?

14. Science Communication:
Where does it happen?

Science journalism (in print)

Online science journalism news sites

Science magazines (Scientific American magazine)

Scientific Journals

Science Blogs

Science press releases (EurekAlert, ScienceDaily)

15. Science Online

Most people (60 percent) turn
to the internet when seeking
information about scientific
issues.

Almost half of people in the
U.S. get their online science
news from nontraditional
sources (e.g., blogs), whereas
12 percent get online science
news from traditional news
sources (e.g., the sites of
science magazines).
Published online 18 March 2009 | Nature 458, 274-277 (2009)
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090318/full/458274a.html
Image © Nature

16. Science Online

―Nine in 10 internet users in the United States turn to
search engines to find information, and 60% of the U.S.
public seeking information about specific scientific
issues lists the Internet as their primary source of
information. This has created a new urgency for
scientists to pay attention to these trends and to the
emerging scholarly literature about communicating
science in this brave new ―online‖ world.‖
Science, New Media, and the Public
Dominique Brossard and Dietram A. Scheufele
Science 4 January 2013: 40-41. [DOI:10.1126/science.1232329]

17. The Good

―Among the U.S. public, time spent on the World Wide
Web has been linked to more positive attitudes toward
science.‖

Why do you think this is?

Availability?

Access to Lay-knowledge information?

Positive, trustworthy science communication from
scientists, bloggers?
Science, New Media, and the Public
Dominique Brossard and Dietram A. Scheufele
Science 4 January 2013: 40-41. [DOI:10.1126/science.1232329]

18. The Bad: Challenges with
Science Online

Accuracy of content

Biased search results: Science by popularity (# of clicks)


―The search engine Google offers users suggested search
terms as they make requests, offering up ‗nanotechnology
in medicine,‘ for example, to those who begin typing
‗nanotechnology‘ in a search box. Users often avail
themselves of the list of suggestions, making certain
searches more popular, which in turn makes those search
terms even more likely to appear as suggestions.‖
Why might this be a problem?
Chris Barncard:
http://www.news.wisc.edu/21392

19. Quality of Science Reporting
Online

Can blogs fulfil the important ―watchdog‖ and critical
analysis role of journalism for science?

20. Challenges with
Science Online

Uncivil, ―anti-science‖
comments online

21. 
―In one study led by University of Wisconsin-Madison professor
Dominique Brossard, 1,183 Americans read a fake blog post on
nanotechnology and revealed in survey questions how they felt
about the subject (are they wary of the benefits or
supportive?). Then, through a randomly assigned condition, they
read either epithet- and insult-laden comments ("If you don't
see the benefits of using nanotechnology in these kinds of
products, you're an idiot" ) or civil comments. The results, as
Brossard and coauthor Dietram A. Scheufele wrote in a New
York Times op-ed:
Uncivil comments not only polarized readers, but they often changed a
participant's interpretation of the news story itself.
In the civil group, those who initially did or did not support the
technology — whom we identified with preliminary survey questions —
continued to feel the same way after reading the comments. Those
exposed to rude comments, however, ended up with a much more
polarized understanding of the risks connected with the technology.
Simply including an ad hominem attack in a reader comment was enough
to make study participants think the downside of the reported technology
was greater than they'd previously thought.‖
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-09/why-were-shutting-our-comments
Popular Science‘s Decision

22. “the effects of online incivility may be even
stronger for more well-known and contentious
science issues such as the evolution vs.
intelligent design debate or climate change.”
Did Popular Science
make a good decision?
But what about informed decision making?
Dialogue and debate?
Open peer-review?
Criticism of established power in science?
Matt Shipman:
http://www.scilogs.com/communication_breakdown/online-news/

23. Challenges with Science
Online

How do we raise the profile of quality science reporting
(on search engines or otherwise)?

Can social media help solve this problem? Blogs? Why or
why not?
Matt Shipman:
http://www.scilogs.com/communication_breakdown/online-news/

24. Not all bad

Karl Bates, Duke‘s director of research
communication:
―Concern over social media‘s ‗self-reinforcing spirals‘
aside, I think the internet has created more and better
science coverage and a bigger audience than ever
before. Sure the first story you read may have pared
down the topic and be covered in dumb-ass comments,
but you have choices and multiple sources. We‘re now
able to read three different stories on the same paper
or browse the Guardian on our phones at two in the
morning if we see an interesting tweet. And then, one
click later, you can be on the original Nature paper.‖
Matt Shipman:
http://www.scilogs.com/communication_breakdown/online-news/

25. Lessons from the greats: