Can Scientists be Great Communicators?
Thursday, August 2nd, 2007
For the past two weeks, we’ve been hosting Matt Nisbet as an Osher Fellow to the Exploratorium. Matt is well known in the blogging community for his Framing Science site on ScienceBlog and his cross-country speaking tour with Chris Mooney. They’ve been talking about science controversies and about ways that scientists can reach the public by framing or contextualizing their work in ways that are meaningful for different audiences. An example he gives is that of the religious community embracing global warming as an issue that needs to be addressed for moral reasons.
Of course, this is something that the museum world is also interested in, especially in ways to reach audiences that don’t traditionally come to science museums. Much of our audience is well-educated, middle-class adults, families, and even senior citizens who have time and money to come to the Exploratorium. Like all museums, we would like more diversity in our audience and to make science appealing to girls, minorities, and other underserved audiences. Matt’s dance card in his residency here has been filled with staff interested in talking to him about ways to communicate to broader audiences and to increase the appreciation for science through “incidental exposure” essentially taking advantage of science angles to popular topics like entertainment or sports. For instance, we were recently featured in a front page article in the San Francisco Chronicle, coinciding with the All Star Game, about the science of baseball. One of our educators demonstrated the physics of pitching and the story was linked to a Web site that we developed as part of our Accidental Scientist series (which also included gardening, music and cooking).
There’s been a backlash though from some bloggers and science communicators that accuse Matt of distorting science, of advocating manipulative tactics similar to that of political operatives. One online comment in a piece by The Scientist says that under no circumstances should anyone “spin” science which is how he interprets framing. The poster, Earl Holland of Ohio State, goes on to say that scientists should stick to their work, running experiments and distilling the facts, and leave the communication to the professionals. I think this shortchanges the abilities of many scientists to tell compelling stories about their work
and make it understandable and relevant to everyday people. Science is multi-dimensional and the implications of the enterprise go well beyond ”the facts” and into realms of politics, policy, culture, education, the economy, and everyday life. Wading into these realms may make some scientists uncomfortable, but it is the right of citizens in a democracy to know what their tax money is supporting and its relevance to their lives and interests. The Exploratorium has a long tradition, beginning with our founder Frank Oppenheimer, of working with scientists fully capable of explaining their work to public audiences and discussing its implications and context in a larger world. The more scientists there are who embrace this more public role, the better we are as a society.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
This is definitely a topic I feel strongly about. I run a program out of Stanford University called Stanford at The Tech that is designed to train scientists to talk and write about science in a way the public can understand and enjoy. The program participant’s writings (as well as mine) are published on The Tech’s Understanding Genetics website and we’ve found that if a topic is personal and written at an easy-to-read grade level in an entertaining way, lots of people who are not scientists become interested in science. We average around 50,000 unique visitors per month! (Well, we did until a few weeks ago when we were hacked out of existence.)
As the NIH budget gets smaller and smaller, I think it is short-sighted for scientists to focus only on science. Why would I as a public taxpayer fund research on fruit flies unless I know why it is important? Make the research accessible and the money might keep rolling in!
October 8th, 2007 at 8:03 am
woohoo
March 10th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Hey! I came across your blog posting after searching for and your post on Can Scientists be Great Communicators? makes an interesting read. Thanks for sharing. I will research more next Monday when I have the day off.
May 27th, 2008 at 4:21 am
Reading your blog makes me remember one I read of telling us how a professional communicator became a scientist. From these, I can now see that it is very possible for professionals to change profession if they want to. Thanks for sharing this information.
May 30th, 2008 at 7:39 am
The issue of genetics is very important in life since it deals both with plants and animals.AS such it helps to actually know the good genes required for any growth of living things
May 30th, 2008 at 8:47 am
communication is an art for every work of life so needed by all the scientist need to communicate his work . so he needs to be a good communicator.
June 16th, 2008 at 7:42 am
[...] that there was also an interesting post from Mary Miller at the Exploratorium about the backlash to Matt Nisbetts (the Framing Science guy) perspective on communicating science [...]
June 16th, 2008 at 7:46 am
Matt Nisbett is giving a full-day workshop for graduate students and postdocs at Cal Tech soon, on communicating science. I think this is a wonderful thing, because this is not part of the standard training for soon-to-be-scientists. Graduate students are trained to do science, but generally not how to teach it or to write or talk about it. Regardless of how you feel about the framing issue (whether it’s “spinning” or not), the simple act of talking to future scientists about how to communicate their message can have nothing but positive impact.
Read post from me about it on my blog, too: http://sciencegeekgirl.wordpress.com/2008/06/16/talking-to-scientists-about-the-media/
September 9th, 2008 at 6:59 am
I think that scientists can be more engaging that trained professionals in communicating the excitement of science. There is a certain innocence, confidence, clarity, and just plain relating as a human being exemplified by Dr. Frank Oppenheimer, Dr. Carl Sagan, Don Herbert (“Mr. Wizard”), Prof. S. Hawking, and the dozens of current working astronomers and other scientists who are seen regularly on TV interview programs, TV news segments, and their own shows. If there is a scientific breakthrough to be described on TV, I would rather learn about it from a scientist than a news presenter who has mangled it in a misguided attempt to make it accessible to the general populace. People can understand just about anything if it is described by someone who really knows what they are talking about.
March 15th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
I don’t normally comment on blogs but your post was a real call to action. Thank you for a great read, I will be sure to bookmark your site and check in now and again. Cheers, Amy xXx.
September 3rd, 2009 at 9:50 pm
When saying that “scientists should stick to their work, running experiments and distilling the facts, and leave the communication to the professionals”, we are assuming that communication and facts are two different aspects of language. Well, a communication can have several elements. Lateralization of communication as a “non-scientific” task is simply an insult..Communication is both a science and art..
December 22nd, 2009 at 6:49 am
Matt Nisbett is giving a full-day workshop for graduate students and postdocs at Cal Tech soon, on communicating science. I think this is a wonderful thing, because this is not part of the standard training for soon-to-be-scientists. Graduate students are trained to do science, but generally not how to teach it or to write or talk about it. Regardless of how you feel about the framing issue (whether it’s “spinning” or not), the simple act of talking to future scientists about how to communicate their message can have nothing but positive impact.
February 15th, 2010 at 11:52 am
good text. I think people are most specialised to one think, so i guess good scientists are good at what they do but at no other.
April 25th, 2010 at 9:04 pm
The effects of Global Warming is getting much stronger these days. We should concentrate more on alternative energy to reduce carbon emissions.
May 21st, 2010 at 8:52 am
It would be great if the scientists working on this oil spill were able to communicate their observations better. Thanks for the read.
July 1st, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Hello scientists would you be kind enough to fix our situation in the Gulf please. BP is to incompetent to figure it out on their own. Please help them.
July 7th, 2010 at 3:00 am
Its nice topic to think on it & in my view scientist can do that because if one can analyze the thing thoroughly can also be a good communicator…communication can be effective when a person know about the topic on which he or she commenting & i think scientists can do that effectively because of having great analytical mind…just a need on initiative required to apply that mind communication…
July 22nd, 2010 at 5:28 pm
I think that the comment in “The Scientist” was a bit harsh. I prefer to listen to a scientist rather than a “communication professional” what happens when that communication professional can’t answer scientific questions from joe public?
July 30th, 2010 at 11:42 am
The effects of Global Warming is getting much stronger these days. We should concentrate more on alternative energy to reduce carbon emissions.
August 2nd, 2010 at 4:27 pm
I really liked this post because I think a lot of people (including me) think in dichotemies…When in reality there people aren’t just one or the other. You’re not either a scientist (more left brained) or more of a communicator (right brained). While this is occasionally true, it helps not to put labels on it. Plus the way that things are communicated really helps this out.
August 9th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
good text. I think people are most specialised to one think, so i guess good scientists are good at what they do but at no other.
Regards People…
August 10th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
Well, its always been a long debate, however being an engineer myself i too think that they can be better communicator in technical issues and better a topic is communicated better is its understanding.
August 12th, 2010 at 9:22 am
Great post!
I find this a very interesting topic to read and discuss. In my opinion, it would have beem a great if all the scientists were good communicator because communication helps to raise the interest in people’s mind about any research or topic. Through communication, scientists can bring more like minded people, force, resources in the project of any research. Communication can definitely bring the awarness about any critical topic such as global warming.
August 13th, 2010 at 2:09 am
To me, great scientists are not bound to be bad communicators. But I can see at leat 2 factors that do not help that :
- Scientists communicate by definition on technical matters. Thus, the majority of the public see their discussions as annoying, because they just dont understand it. Some scientists do have the ability to explain complex matters in easily understanble words though.
- Then, I’m convinced that lots of scientists are very sensible. It takes a lot of sensibleness to understand things the way scientists do. Therefore, this sensibility make them a bit marginal and this makes communication with other people harder in my opinion.
Great post anyway !
August 19th, 2010 at 6:36 am
good text. I think people are most specialised to one think, so i guess good scientists are good at what they do but at no other.
August 19th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
as a burgeoning scientist, I absolutely believe they can be.
August 21st, 2010 at 4:52 pm
I believe scientists can be great communicators but it’s rare. It’s tough to immerse yourself into such a logic driven world when communication is typically not by the numbers. Scientists need to have PR staffs
August 23rd, 2010 at 1:38 am
Well, what I find is that scientists are really good at doing their job, and they should be valued higher.
September 1st, 2010 at 7:32 am
String Theorist scientist and uber-genius Dr. Michio Kaku is an excellent example of a great communicator. He has an innate ability of simplifying very complex scientific concepts, and making them interesting.
September 7th, 2010 at 7:40 am
I believe scientists can be great communicators but it’s occasional. Because, You’re not either a scientist or more of a communicator. But there are some exceptions too.. So, it varies from person to person. So don’t push them hard on line. Judge their abilities on their achievements rather…
September 7th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
I really enjoyed to read this post. I believe that the scientists are some of the most intelligent and capable people. Without a doubt that they can be great communicators.
September 9th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
As much as I love & respect Dr Kaku, I am wondering if any of you have heard the musing of Joe Rogan… he in a more strait forward, less scientific matter, breaks down the same concepts of string theory and such. I find the whole subject to be very interesting.
September 10th, 2010 at 9:38 am
If a scientist is smart enough to become an authority within his/her field then they should have enough intelligence to convey their breakthroughs in common laymen terms so everyone is able to understand and profit. Why should we restrict the communication from those who understand the concepts and principles the best?
September 13th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
I believe they can be good communicators but it is all to easy to go over peoples heads and get a bit out of control when your trying to communicate a topic you love.
September 28th, 2010 at 8:47 am
I think that scientists can be more engaging that trained professionals in communicating the excitement of science. There is a certain innocence, confidence, clarity, and just plain relating as a human being exemplified by Dr. Frank Oppenheimer, Dr. Carl Sagan, Don Herbert (”Mr. Wizard”), Prof. S. Hawking, and the dozens of current working astronomers and other scientists who are seen regularly on TV interview programs, TV news segments, and their own shows. If there is a scientific breakthrough to be described on TV, I would rather learn about it from a scientist than a news presenter who has mangled it in a misguided attempt to make it accessible to the general populace. People can understand just about anything if it is described by someone who really knows what they are talking about.