AAAS 2016 was all about overcoming the noise
| 29 Feb 2016Mid-way through this year’s meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the thread connecting the disparate sessions and talks started to weave into a coherent structure. Though the theme was “global science engagement”, in blunt jargon it might as well have been “boosting the signal-to-noise ratio”. From the scientific results announced at the meeting to the sessions on improving communication, there was an undercurrent of urgency in messaging, a need for forceful (accurate!) advocacy, coupled with an embrace of fundamentals, both in science and in interaction with the public and with other scientists.
First, the standout physics result: LIGO. While the press conference itself was not at AAAS but (appropriately) at NSF, the detection of gravitational waves was the talk of the meeting. The presser simulcast was packed, Twitter enthused, and the talk by LIGO spokesperson Gabriela González was deftly added to the schedule, becoming one of the must-sees at the meeting. The gravitational-wave signal, as everyone breathlessly recapitulated, was actually within the frequency range of human hearing. The chirp that originated a billion years ago could be heard. Talk about a signal-to-noise ratio! The timing, not just for the centennial of Einstein’s prediction but also for the AAAS meeting’s PR efforts, could not have been more perfect: Albert’s face graced the giant Science magazine cover that served as a selfie backdrop in the exhibit hall.
On the same day as the LIGO announcement, the US House of Representatives approved a measure that would require NSF to fund only projects in the “national interest”. The LIGO news seemed a little lost on the public, and even the scientists and journalists themselves were a bit more interested in re-hashing the “open secret” of the big news and the way in which (in some sense) science was made into theater. In the case of the LIGO result the signal transmission was thus less than perfect, despite the well-orchestrated conjunction of a peer-reviewed blockbuster paper, stunning visuals and a dynamite press event.
Another strategic signal boost came in the form of Jennifer Doudna’s plenary. Just weeks after Eric Lander’s hotly-debated CRISPR history, Doudna’s talk was a calculated move in the struggle to assert dominance in the public eye while the Berkeley-MIT patent battle rages. Doudna made no mention of Feng Zhang in her talk, though she did credit a number of students and collaborators. At the media briefing immediately after, she also smoothly replied that she had not run into Lander, who was also in attendance at AAAS as an awardee. (And, I later found out, Lander, clearly a skilled communicator, is also a fellow alumnus of the AAAS Mass Media program.)
In the science-communication sessions, it became apparent that a surgical precision is being applied to the study of the practice of communicating science, if not to the actual practice itself. The deficit model may be dead, but its ghost still lurks. To actually meaningfully engage, scicomm researchers suggest connecting with people’s values, initiating dialog, meeting contrary perspectives, and increasing transparency. It may actually seem counterintuitive for scientists to adopt the role of listener rather than lecturer and to include uncertainty in their messaging if they’re trying to convincingly convey a scientific message. But this is because the nature of engagement itself is changing from an activity done begrudgingly, once-a-year to one of sustained relationships between scientists and publics, as exemplified by the ELFLAND approach.
The need for a signal boost was also evident within science itself. At the session on publishing and scientific integrity, the phrase “(re)surfacing the shadow literature” was thrown around. It’s very telling that the shadow work that embodies the core of the scientific method — the replication study — has long been shunned as unpublishable, but is now the toast of the town. Replication studies could really be a shot in the arm for science. Not only does reproducibility get science back to basics, it can crucially function to restore the credibility of science as an institution and re-affirm the values at the heart of science: honesty and transparency. Reforming the incentives for publishing and career advancement in science can go a long way in boosting the legitimacy of science and the efficiency of the scientific literature, and for the scientific method itself as a positive contributor to evidence and decision-making that can improve quality of life. That is probably a signal we would all like to see strengthened.
So much that we do (or attempt to do) as science communicators depends on high fidelity. Forget reporting scientific results with integrity: even the very act of speech can be hampered, and the message lost, due to technical malfunctions, environmental distractions, crowded rooms, lack of coffee, or the inclement weather, to name just a few of the complaints meeting attendees voiced on Twitter. But these distractions are very real, and our brains handle them poorly. Time and time again at the meeting, I heard the dictum that scientists have to break through the noise. Yes, there is a polarized and cacophonous media landscape. The proper way to respond to that is not to insert yet another droning voice into the mix. You can, for example, achieve high-fidelity science communication by being a Neil deGrasse Tyson. For those of us who aren’t, the key is small-scale, sustained, chipping-away-at-the-ice conversations, and the emergent global voice that comes from these concerted efforts. Connecting with an audience need not be hard. Though they are experts dealing in minutiae, scientists are also humans with opinions. Embracing this latter identity seems to be a key behavior for many of the most successful scientist-communicators.
One way we give science a signal boost is by gathering together. Crammed into windowless rooms, sitting on folding chairs listening to eloquent speakers like Kathleen Hall Jamieson or Arthur Lupia, I had the feeling I was part of a congregation, lapping up the sermon at the altar of Knowledge. But it doesn’t follow that evangelism, as tempting as that might sound, is the logical messaging strategy for science. The time for deficit-model-style forced conversion of the masses is long gone.
We need to stop talking about a “war on science” or how misinformed and disinterested the general public is. Science will continue to inform and sustain human culture, whether people overtly recognize this in their daily lives or not. The best outcome we can hope for with engagement is that someone will walk away with an awakened sense of personal scientific identity, as someone who does think and act scientifically. At the same time, scientists may emerge as better researchers through engagement. The (bi-directional!) signal boost associated with that shift is priceless.
HT to @RaoOfPhysics for thoughtful feedback.