Oct 08 2007
Science writer call to action
An article by Chris Mooney in a recent issue of Seed Magazine has this pull-quote at the top of the page:
If we’re serious about building a society that makes scientifically informed decisions, then science needs to figure out a way to get its message across effectively (Emotional Rescue, Seed Magazine, May/June 2007).
What I’m not clear on is why it’s assumed that it’s up to scientists to do the communicating. There’s this funny cultural quirk we westerners seem to have about how we’re supposed to be able to sing, dance, and play the old bassoon; but being a scientist and communicating about science are completely different activities, and the ones who can do both well are definitely the exception and not the rule. ( A tip of the fedora to E. O. Wilson, the member of this exclusive company whom I’ve been reading most recently.)
Bridging the gap between the specialist and the non-specialist is, to me, one of the most interesting and challenging writing tasks there is. But I wasn’t born knowing how to explain things simply and clearly; I had to train myself over a period of many years to step back, assume nothing, simplify, define terms, use repetition, check for comprehesion, rephrase and restate, use examples and stories, maybe even put on a corny skit or two.
Mooney’s article does a great job summarizing the communications challenges in the context of a topic I’ve been spending a lot of time with of late: cliamate change. (I like the people who use this neutral term; “global warming” already has enough heat behind it to start shouting matches at our family gatherings.) And he has some information on people who are looking at the issue of communication in its own right, like Stephen Gardiner and Matthew Nisbet (about which more later).
The thing is, there are others who have already noticed the problem of talking about science to non-scientists. Entire graduate programs are devoted to teaching science writing, and some folks even put together this great book about it.
Mooney’s article ends with a rousing call to action:
In the very best traditions of science, treat communication itself as a subject of research and inquiry. Endeavor to find out what the public thinks before trying to change its mind…Try to learn which messages will resonate, and which ones will not.
Don’t they call that “social marketing?” Anyway, I say “Right on!”