Читать книгу Communicating Science in Times of Crisis - Группа авторов - Страница 14

Science Is Not an Alternative Fact!

(Yard sign during Biden–Trump presidential campaign, 2020)

Generating good science is a worthy goal among people who want to develop new ideas and processes that are exciting and novel, but the real value lies in science being applied in circumstances or contexts that can elevate conditions and states in the status quo. Science has limited value if it is not used, if it is not communicated to others. Unfortunately, there are too many scientists who feel they are either unskillful at communicating their science to others or believe communicating scientific findings is someone else’s job. These are two very serious concerns with the former being a condition of fear of being misunderstood and the latter being a mindset of misplaced responsibility. Regardless of which motivation is at work, science is being marginalized when it is not communicated effectively. We are particularly drawn to a passage in the Hester, Ivanov, and Parker chapter in this book that states “we have a shared responsibility to proliferate, effectively communicate, and disseminate scientific information that reduces risks for the common good of individuals in our families, communities and across the world.” If not communicated, is it really science?

A separate issue is one that ascribes further responsibility to scientists in their role as communicators. Freedman and colleagues (2020) contended that scientists need to be mindful about recent interest in scientific work regarding the virus and “use this opportunity to improve scientific communication and transparency as a means to improving our society … there remains an unmistakable sense that society needs science” (p. 4). Through what communication channel such as television, print, or social media modalities and through which conceptual and political lens a person is focused on are highly influential in how science information is processed. The chapter by Muhamed and Merle (this book) makes clear that situation and contextual properties of scientific messages are influential in portraying scientific information as intended by scientists.

It does not escape us that science can find a way out of the laboratory or field without determined efforts at communication. It is clear, however, that communication done right can move scientific findings into the hospital, office, other labs, and homes at greater speed and with greater confidence and convenience. Quite simply, good science will find an audience, yet that audience will be disappointed, confused, and frustrated without strategic messages that champion, promote, and explain its practical usefulness to the audience. Furthermore, scientific communication is expected to carry essential elements that ensure credibility and durability for the topics it is covering. To wit, messages should contain with them elements necessary to instill the type of credibility that builds confidence from which people will make appropriate decisions about their health and well-being.

One way of thinking about credibility is through consideration of proven and accepted criteria that build messages, and eventually theories, by which the public readily accepts the assumption being advocated. Chaffee and Berger (1987) offered seven attributers that build “good” communication theory. We think the same principles apply in judging good communication science. These characteristics include the following:

 Explanatory power: The extent to which the science under consideration explains its purpose and to what extent does the explanation extenuate?

 Predictive power: The ability to forecast events or conditions into the future.

 Parsimony: The simplicity of the science. Is it easily described and understood?

 Falsifiability: The ability to test the science.

 Internal consistency: Generally understood as validity. Is the science internally consistent?

 Heuristic provocativeness: Is the science interesting enough to spark new ideas and new testing?

 Organizing power: The ability of the science to make sense or reduce uncertainty for what is known now.

The application of these principles offers the opportunity to judge the ability of messages about science for their worthiness and value. It is because messages come in different forms and through different media that criteria like those above provide scaffolding for improving how science gets in the hands of those who can use it.