by
Sue Stocklmayer
When is science too hot to handle?
Too hot to handle by whom? The media? The Government? Scientists?
Does it mean that the science is out of hand – or the public’s response is out of hand?
Chris Bryant has outlined some of the problems that attach to failed communication, especially in the stem cell debate in Australia and, spectacularly, in the mad cow debacle in Europe. Presumably those in the scientific community and the Government, who were damaged by these issues, may well have felt that the science was hot indeed. One may see signs elsewhere of science which is, perhaps, becoming at least a little warm – for example, the Canberra Times has, over the past fortnight, featured three articles on GM crops. The headlines read: Misinformation Warning: Hysteria over GM crops will hurt Australia; GM bans will hurt Australia – Minister; and Most farmers give thumbs down to GM crops
All three articles cite communication as an issue. Paula Fitzgerald, the executive manager of Agrifood Awareness Australia, says " deliberate misinformation about GM Crops was threatening to undermine the technology". Farmers had to get credible evidence, rather than listen to outlandish and often incorrect claims. On the other hand, in the second article, a member of the Network of Concerned farmers said that Minister Warren Truss’s comments ignored strongly held concerns by consumers about their safety.
There is a pattern here. Most telling is the inference that it is up to the farmers to get the credible evidence. This line that the onus rests with the public to get the real facts, is one which has bedevilled effective science communication for many years.
My thesis this afternoon is that no science is inaccessible, if it is communicated effectively and in a timely manner. Science suffers from lack of proactive communication - indeed the idea of such communication is not one on which our own Government has spent much time. Their efforts have rested complacently on surveys which indicate Australian pride in our scientists – even, that Australians prefer reading about science to reading about sport. We haven’t had a mad cow crisis, or widespread concerns about feral GM crops – yet. But they are looming.
Science communication is complicated. It is hung about with prejudices, with argument and with arrogance. Let us consider the prejudices first. We have heard Simon and Roger discussing animal ethics today, and we all know of violent prejudices against the use of animals in research. Surveys have shown that most people condemn such practices. However, an analysis of these surveys by Julia Veitch, one of our masters graduates, has shown that in subtle ways the very questions the surveys ask, even when conducted by very respected researchers, are framed in terms of assumption of public prejudice against animal research. Many of these questions are highly emotive and one might predict the public response. Often scientists engaged in such research regard the public as beyond reason, and seek to keep a low profile. Perhaps improving understanding is actually their responsibility?
Science communication is also hung about with argument. Science, as we have heard during this weekend of ideas, is a very human activity. Unfortunately the face it presents is often not that, but a closed and unarguable body of knowledge. In consequence the public believes that science knows. When scientists argue in the public domain, it can be very confusing for the ordinary person. Sometimes it gets ugly.
I am reminded here of the debate which raged at the height of the calicivirus scare. A major television news program brought in, at great expense, an American scientist who claimed , on TV, that the calicivirus could jump species. We happened to have working with us at that time a Fulbright Fellow, a journalist who was reporting on Australian science. His article, in Science, represented this American researcher’s views as being outside the mainstream. Imagine my astonishment when a phone call came from Oregon asking me publicly to declare the Fulbright journalist a fraud, a charlatan on false credentials. The efforts to which this researcher went to make his case and to discredit our journalist internationally were outrageous. But here at home damage had been done.
Greater efforts should be made to portray science publicly as an uncertain endeavour, as a very human activity as hung burdened with politics and personalities as any other.
Last, the arrogance. Many scientists do not appreciate the need to bridge the gap before a credibility crisis occurs. They place responsibility on the public. As one academic (not from my institution) pronounced, "It’s the public’s duty, given the benefits they receive from science, to make more of an effort to learn about it". He should be appalled to know how low trust in scientists has sunk – quantifiably – in Europe.
It is NOT the duty of the public to seek out information. We should not expect them to. We should recognise also that there are many vested interests, many fringe groups, that are much smarter at talking to the public than the world of science has been. They go where the public are, talk in a way that the public understands.
Views, like those expressed by the member of the Network of Concerned farmers, about government ignoring strongly held concerns, are valid views. The concerns are real and should be addressed. A problem arises here too, in that the way in which scientists seek to address such issues is to dish out some scientific "facts", often based on risk and probability. These will not answer those concerns.
This is evident from other research that has been conducted at our Centre. For example, Cathy Frazer has recently completed her PhD looking at the influences brought to bear on parents when deciding whether to immunise their children. Just today, an article on autism in the Canberra Times mentions that vaccinations are believed by some parents to be implicated. "there has been a backlash against vaccines in England – and recent measles outbreaks" – says the article. Several immunologists and related organisations are quoted as refuting this, presumably on statistical grounds. But Cathy Frazer has found that the anti-immunisation lobby in Australia has a powerful voice with new parents. This is, in part, because they are very good at understanding and talking to their clients. Are practising scientists this good?
Wherever science is a hot issue, are the scientists out there where the people are? Or are we, arrogantly, expecting people to access the information where we choose to put it, - on websites so complex and so scientific that ordinary people give up? - In brochures which give lots of reassuring platitudes but do not address those same concerns that the farmers are talking about? To what degree does this say that we REALLY care about effective communication?
A hint may be found in the Chief Scientist’s report, "Chance to Change" where Dr Robin Batterham stressed the need for public awareness. This was, nevertheless, the only section where there was no formal recommendation to Government, rendering the rhetoric toothless. How serious are we - really?
There has been, in recent times, greater acknowledgment of the need for dialogue, worldwide, but in Australia but not much action on the public awareness front. Media releases from Biotechnology Australia, for example, are consistent. January 2000: "… members of the community would like to know more". April 2002: "The Australian public tends to be confused …". July 2002: "Australian consumers are looking for more quality information…"
The information is certainly there, but the public is assumed to be skilled in knowledge-seeking and sufficiently motivated to do it. This only becomes true if there is a flurry of concern about a topical issue. It is then too late.
We have to rethink. It is unrealistic to imagine people will tenaciously seek information in areas they do not know about or where they have scant interest.
It is incumbent on scientists to communicate proactively to all Australians, including those in government, so that clumsy, last-minute attempts to influence decision makers become redundant.
Effective methods for reaching the public must be found. We must deliver information where it is wanted, in accessible and obvious – perhaps less formal – ways. Australia has a wealth of talent in science communication that is largely untapped. It is woefully underfunded. Research into effective communication is almost non-existent. Will it take a real crisis for effective strategies to be considered? I hope not, but I fear it will.
Chris Bryant has referred to the demise of PUS. Unfortunately the new term in Europe is Public Engagement in Science and Technology – PEST. At risk of being a pest, I will emphasise once more the need for public involvement and engagement. We need to promote public access and ownership of science. But above all we need to give proper respect and consideration to those very real concerns which the public have, and not to belittle them as uninformed or unscientific. Even - we might learn something. Truly then science will never be too hot to handle.
|
