The Communication Crisis in Science

In the ongoing struggle against misinformation, mass media stands out as a formidable weapon. Unfortunately, it is increasingly being misused to disseminate false information not only in political arenas but also in scientific discussions. Recently, there has been a noticeable surge in the circulation of academic inaccuracies, be it the popularity of homeopathic solutions or the persistence of climate change denial. The scientific community finds itself in a losing battle for which it is ill-equipped.

To turn the tide in this conflict, scientists must prioritize the education and reintegration of the public regarding the breakthroughs that significantly impact their lives. The current methods of scientific communication fall short of what is necessary.

Even in commercial contexts, a string of scientific jargon can be sold to the public as fact when framed correctly. A prime example of this is ‘Enagic’, a company with roots in a “Sony specialty trading operation.” They market water—not just any water, but ‘Alkaline water’ and ‘Water ionizers’. While this may initially seem harmless, the reality shifts upon learning that a large number of their “Distributors” (self-employed salespeople in a pyramid scheme) promote the notion that this water “hydrates at the cellular level” and “removes acidic waste from cells.” Moreover, delving into the Facebook group “Kangen Water with Ron & Rhonda Gessner” reveals posts like “From Stage 4 lung cancer to NO MORE TUMORS!!! PLEASE share” alongside videos discussing the miraculous “oxidation-reduction potential of water.” The page is rife with pseudoscience, and many posts suggest that this water could serve as a miraculous remedy for serious illnesses. This misinformation is eagerly accepted by individuals who have not been adequately engaged by scientists who could equip them with the knowledge to resist such deceptive claims.

Consider scientists like Katie Bouman, Jennifer Doudna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier. While their names may not ring a bell, they are behind some of the most significant scientific advancements of the 21st century, including the first-ever image of a black hole and groundbreaking work in gene editing. Despite their monumental contributions, the significance of their work is not communicated effectively, leaving those with little scientific interest in the dark. Furthermore, those attempting to convey scientific concepts to the masses often target younger audiences, like Kyle Hill with his popular YouTube series ‘Because Science’, or they may not even be scientists themselves.

A notable figure in this discussion is Bill Nye. Merely mentioning "Bill Nye" in a room full of millennials likely elicits a chorus of his iconic theme song. While Nye is lauded by many as one of the greatest science communicators, he is not a scientist in the traditional sense. He studied Mechanical Engineering at Cornell University and worked at Boeing before discovering his passion for comedy. In fact, he has less scientific training than actress Natalie Portman, who has co-authored research published in scientific journals.

This raises the question: How can someone without a solid background in practicing science effectively communicate scientific theories? This situation reflects the challenge of creating accessible media that scientists often struggle with.

A few individuals have managed to bridge this gap, such as Neil DeGrasse Tyson. His book, ‘Astrophysics for People in a Hurry’, gained widespread acclaim. However, even Tyson sometimes falls into the trap of sounding patronizing. For instance, following the tragic mass shootings in Ohio and Texas, he tweeted:

“In the past 48hrs, the USA horrifically lost 34 people to mass shootings. On average, across any 48hrs, we also lose…500 to Medical errors, 300 to the Flu, 250 to Suicide, 200 to Car Accidents, 40 to Homicide via Handgun. Often our emotions respond more to spectacle than to data.”

This tweet inadvertently diminishes the pain of the victims' families and alienates the scientific community from the public, fostering unnecessary distrust towards science.

Such anti-science sentiments not only hinder scientific progress but also pose significant risks to public policy. We now find ourselves with a climate change skeptic in the U.S. presidency and another in the leadership of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Andrew Wheeler has appointed three new members to the EPA science board, all of whom deny the well-documented effects of environmental hazards. For example, Dr. Richard Williams advocates for formaldehyde's safety, Dr. Brant Ulsh disputes the dangers of low-level radiation, and amusingly, Dr. Barbara Beck believes that low lead levels in children's blood are acceptable.

Scientists are the vanguard of preservation and innovation, striving to enhance the world through research and theory. However, the effectiveness of their work is undermined when those they wish to help reject their findings based on misleading claims from a company selling slightly alkaline water. It is high time the ‘Information Era’ began disseminating the essential knowledge that the public needs to hear from those who dedicate their lives to discovering it.

Words by Olly Singleton