Ensuring accuracy in modern science communication

Now, more than ever, trust in science is imperative. Although one report found that more people were likely to express a high degree of trust in science and scientists in 2020 than in 2018, this trend shouldn’t lull us into a false sense of security. Clickbait and misleading information are ongoing challenges, and presenting technical information in a way that everyone can access is half the challenge. Here Ashmita Das, CEO of open talent platform Kolabtree, sits down with freelance medical writers Dr Arianna Ferrini (AF) and Dr Michael James (MJ) and technology journalist Ian Bolland (IB) to discuss how effective communication can instil trust in science.

?

Communication is at the heart of science — academics and researchers regularly disperse their findings among the scientific community by writing and publishing articles in journals.

Describing and explaining technical scientific phenomena is a balancing act. On the one hand, scientists want to communicate their research without oversimplifying and creating inaccuracies. However, overcomplicated information risks putting readers off or distracts from the true message.

What does communicating science effectively mean? Why is it important now?

AF: The first factor is the audience, who they are and what they care about. You want to get a message across in the clearest way possible, but the public, say, will care about different things to journalists or potential investors. The objective of these communications are different, but a balance between accuracy, brevity and having a clear, concise message is crucial in both.

MJ: I completely agree, effective science communication means ensuring the results, implications, significance, and impact of research are easily understood. The best science is novel and accurate, but if you can’t communicate if well, it won’t go anywhere — regardless of to whom you’re writing. Scientists can tackle mistrust by making their research clear, effective and by broadcasting its validity and objectivity.

IB: Science is in a similar situation to many sectors, as there is a degree of nuance to everything, but people don’t want to hear about nuance. Social media has a lot to answer for here and many people now prefer to consume information in the simplest way. Science is there to educate and there are ways to make this information accessible to wider audiences.

What do you think the challenges are in communicating science???

MJ: There is a fine balance between writing interesting work and being responsible about how you’re framing that work in terms of what’s known and what we don’t know. It’s important not to make claims that will take people in the wrong direction, and keeping things concise and understandable, while still conveying highly technical information, can be a difficult balance to strike.

As mentioned earlier, other challenges include knowing the audience and what they care about. When I first started pitching to investors, everything was far too nuanced for them to get the clear message, and it took a lot of practicing for me to figure out?the right way to write and present. Similarly, if grant and manuscript reviewers don’t understand what academics are trying to say, they won’t get scored well.

AF: Dealing with misconceptions is one of the greatest challenges we face as science communicators. Another is keeping the audience engaged and creating a two-way conversation between scientists and the public. It’s always important to have that wider audience in mind when putting together new content, whether this is a research paper or a grant proposal. Keeping information simple and relatable by using analogies and talking more about scientific process is an exciting way to boost interest.

IB: Nowadays, it seems to be harder to bring any nuance into conversations, possibly because people just have shorter attention spans and prefer bite-sized messaging. However, this means only a partial message is getting out there when scientists need to bring a broad perspective.

How can you translate technical information in a reliable, valid way that the public understands?

AF: First, visuals are a very powerful tool for scientists to communicate and retain complex phenomena. When I work on different medical and scientific writing projects, I always stick to three key points. So, if you’re writing up some research, always know the three main points that you want the audience to understand. If you can get those three points across, the content will already be very informative.

I also suggest starting with the most relevant information and the main message first, which helps keep the audience engaged. Again, it’s a balance, because you need to give some details to retain credibility, but you want to avoid jargon.

MJ: I agree, especially when talking about the use of visuals. If we’re talking about how to translate information reliably in a way the public understands, as Ian says, it’s not just the efficiency of the message, but the message itself. It must be accurately expressed, have the necessary depth, and empathise with the audience.

IB: Arianna raised an interesting point about the visuals. The fact is that people learn differently from the beginning and that not everyone learns by reading words from a page. Sometimes a diagram may be more helpful, for instance. Catering for different learning needs is a massive thing that everyone in science communicating must do.

I often see this issue with the contributed copy that I receive. I’m an editor, not a scientist, and sometimes I need authors to explain certain technical concepts to me so that I can communicate the message effectively to my readers.

AF: That’s an interesting point. Scientists are often only trained to communicate with other scientists, not other audiences. This can be a big stumbling block when putting new content together for the first time.

Given these different audiences and writing styles, who is best positioned to produce this content? What kind of skills do they need?

MJ: The knowledge and skills required for research are not necessarily the same as those needed to communicate. If you do have a lot of experience writing and editing for a broad range of audiences, such as the lay public and investors, then you will be in a better position. Understanding science is important, but putting yourself in your audiences’ shoes is essential. However, not every scientist is equipped with these skills, so outsourcing to someone who does can be useful.

AF: As Michael said, not everyone has the skills, time, or passion for communicating, so outsourcing and collaborating with different professionals is the best way forward.

IB: From my perspective, the process takes three or four people. You need a scientist to begin with, someone who can translate the jargon in a way the journalist understands, the journalist to produce the content and the reader to consume it. Along that route, you’re bound to lose one important concept or detail in translation but communicating a message as accurately as possible is so important.

AD: That’s great, thank you everyone for sharing your thoughts with us today on this important topic. The pandemic taught us how important it is for the general public to understand the latest scientific information and to be able to trust the source, and I think our industry is really making strides here.

Best of luck with all your projects and I look forward to seeing your written work out there!

Are you looking for a medical or scientific writer for your project? If so, visit the Kolabtree site and post your project for free https://www.kolabtree.com/services/scientific-writing .?