Should Scientists Sell Science?

Scientists need to do a better job of explaining science to the public, write journalist Chris Mooney and American University communications professor Matthew Nesbit in yesterday's Washington Post.

Scientists excel at research; creating knowledge is their forte. But presenting this knowledge to the public is something else altogether. It's here that scientists and their allies are stumbling in our information-overloaded society -- even as scientific information itself is being yanked to center stage in high-profile debates. [...]

So in today's America, like it or not, those seeking a broader public acceptance of science must rethink their strategies for conveying knowledge. Especially on divisive issues, scientists should package their research to resonate with specific segments of the public. Data dumping -- about, say, the technical details of embryology -- is dull and off-putting to most people.

Sounds good. But what does that really mean?

We're not saying that scientists and their allies should "spin"
information; doing that would only harm their credibility. But discussing issues in new ways and with new messengers can be accomplished without distorting the underlying science.

It's a well-meaning argument, grounded in a sensibility that scientists like Richard Dawkins, whom Mooney and Nesbit single out for unnecessarily antagonizing people with religious beliefs, would do well to borrow.

However, I'm not sure that scientists -- or scientific communication, or the public good -- would benefit from a public relations-driven tailoring of their 'message.' However hard it may be to disentangle politics, culture and science, scientists are generally seen as trustworthy and objective. Part of the reason for that, I suspect, is the wonkiness of scientists, their tendency to 'data dump.'

Tailoring a message is the job of activists and interest groups and politicans. It's telling that the examples cited by Mooney and Nesbit generally involve these people, rather than scientists:

For example, church leaders can speak to the evangelical community about the necessity of environmental stewardship (a message that's already being delivered from some pulpits), even as business leaders can speak to fiscally oriented conservatives about the economic opportunities there for the plucking if Congress passes a system for trading carbon dioxide emission credits.

In this regard, one success story has come in the debate over human embryonic stem cells, a leading example of how scientists can effectively engage the public on controversial findings. In the weeks following Bush's 2001 compromise decision on stem cell research funding, more than 60 percent of the public supported the president's policy. But six years later, public opinion has shifted. In news coverage and campaigns, funding advocates have emphasized not the technical details of the research but the promise of new therapies and the resultant potential for economic growth.

"Church leaders" ... "business leaders" ... "funding advocates" ...
except for the latter, these groups don't contain scientists -- and when it comes to stem cells, the science has indeed been misrepresented.

Most scientists think it will take many years, perhaps decades, before stem cell therapies help the paralyzed to walk and the blind to see. Funding advocates have made these advances seem more certain and more imminent than experts believe. This might backfire five or ten years down the road, when a disillusioned public could lose its enthusiasm for funding science that didn't live up to impatient expectations.

Scientists shouldn't take abstain from taking political stances on important issues -- that would be disastrous. But turning researchers into on-message drones loaded with carefully tailored talking points could erode the public's faith in the ideal, if not the reality, of their objectivity.

Thanks for the Facts. Now Sell Them. [Washington Post]