Communicate "locally"
G. Stone Connections, L.L.C.
Connecting to the voice of the patient and caregiver...always
Before I offer my initial thinking on the Pew Research Center Study -- Public Trust in Scientists and Views on Their Role in Policymaking, here are some topline data on the survey
Below is the topline findings on scientists as communicators...
What Jumps Out at Me
As to communications, I first look holistically or at the message and messenger. What jumps out at me is that ‘intelligent’ seems to be linked to negative traits like “scientists felt superior and didn’t pay attention to the moral values of society.” So perhaps just saying “science,” or “scientist” automatically positions whatever is said next in a negative light – at least according to about ? of those surveyed. Why?
?1? I Know the Messengers (Scientists) – I worked with scientists – but a lot of people may not
?I have worked in many R&D-based industries with scientists, researchers and engineers (agriculture/animal health, automotive, aerospace, electronics, chemicals, pharmaceuticals). Great people I probably saw every workday and sometimes weekends at conferences. These were friends and colleagues, and I trusted them. Why didn’t those surveyed trust them? Maybe they never “met” them or saw them day in and day out.
?2? The “language” is not clear to “me” -- I “get” the scientific jargon and the data – but unlikely many do. Most likely don’t follow NEJM, JAMA, LANCET, even BMJ Open, know biostatistics, read clinical studies or – understand “p” value. So, what does this mean?
领英推荐
?It means maybe tangible evidence is important. Think of the daily idioms we pepper our conversations with:? “seeing is believing,” “talk is cheap,” “Put up or shut up,” “show me the money,” “the devil is in the details, “proof is in the pudding,” and of course the motto for Missouri is the “Show Me State.” In effect, “I need to see it.” If I don’t see it and you don’t tell me in a way that “makes sense” to me (i.e., in line with what I live with every day), then not sure it’s true.
?______________________________________________________________________________
?My very topline ‘thoughts” moving forward
?While I could offer a lot more, I want to get to my topline thoughts around what to do...?
1: Find the local scientist/researcher/engineer. Locally, “scientists,” may be “veterinarians,” “PCPs or GPs,” “teachers,” “farmers,” “crop-dusters,” “contractors,” etc. Work with ‘them’ to tell your story in addition to the primary medical researchers. Remember that rolling out the COVID vaccines bypassed the local PCPs, and this may have contributed to the skepticism.
2: Offer context and process information...and examples that are relatable
Ivermectin – many people remember it as the “drug” inaccurately recommended to treat COVID. Well, I worked in animal health and was extremely used to people using ivermectin on their animals – very effectively. Many in that community “knew” ivermectin very well and by discounting it completely went against everything they lived with for years. We were calling them “stupid” for even considering it. [Not really but that’s what I think they felt.] Ivermectin is used in humans to treat parasites so who’s to say that some people with COVID also had parasites and felt better after taking ivermectin because it treated at least “one” of the things making them sick.
Remember the OJ Simpson murder trial?? After reviewing the DNA evidence, they said that the odds of someone other than OJ committing the murders, were fewer than one person in 170 million.? That meant little to the jury.?
??______________________________________________________________________________
So, when thinking as to more effective ‘communications’ by scientists, think about ‘localizing’ communications. Remember the saying “Think globally, act locally” – applies in communications too.