With the advent of the Internet and media-sharing platforms such as YouTube, science communication has become a prevalent part of our lives.
Science communication, in general, is about educating the general public on scientific topics, and in some cases, raising awareness about scientific issues. Good science communicators often use entertaining and easy-to-understand language and analogies in order to deliver their message across to non-expert audiences.
While only a fraction of people consider themselves to be interested in science itself, science communication now plays an integral role in our everyday lives. For most people, science communication is the bridge between the research done by scientists and researchers and our own practical understanding of scientific concepts. For example, science communication was responsible for educating the general public on topics such as global warming, cancer research, neglected tropical diseases and nuclear fusion energy.
Done well, science communication has numerous advantages. In particular, it is great at raising awareness about global issues, and awareness of scientific concepts is likely to be useful for most people. However, poor science communication, or worse, bad or misaligned intentions, can be severely hurtful to our society.
The reputation of science
Science is seen as a source of objective truth. Of course, hypotheses can be wrong, theories can be disproved, data can be biased, and so on. But the purpose of science is to be objective, unbiased and rigorous, as much as possible. Science that does not possess this quality is untrustworthy and counter-productive.
Science has a reputation of being a credible source of information. Science communication has the power to change and influence our perspective, impacting the decisions that we make. Because we trust science. Someone out there has done their research, cited previous works, conducted a rigorous and bulletproof investigation, analyzed their findings for sources of bias, and gone through a demanding peer-review process before publishing their findings for the rest of us to see. The numbers are there, the trends are visible.
When exposed to science, we don’t have a natural tendency to question its validity. We don’t question why energy is conserved (well, mostly), the same way we don’t question why the area of a circle is . We might not be able to prove it, but we can see it, and we believe it.
So of course, scientists and researchers all over the world strive to eliminate bias, scientific funding and sponsors don’t have a say in the outcome of scientific research, and science communicators strive to present a balanced and scientifically accurate perspective to non-expert audiences. Right?
In fact, reality is vastly different compared to an ideal scenario.
Scientific funding
Scientists and research institutions often receive funding from various sources, including governments, private companies, charities and NGOs, and non-profit foundations. Without these sources of funding, research and innovation would progress extremely slowly, if at all.
These funding sources are able to be selective about who and what they support. Funding sources are more likely to provide funding, resources and support for scientific institutions that are beneficial to them. A government might fund a research institution for development of military technology, or a business could sponsor researchers working on technologies that they rely on. For example, the US government subsidizes and maintains partnerships with semiconductor producers in order to keep a strong grip on the industry 1 .2
In fact, this extends beyond just the research portion of science. Science communication is often funded as well, by the same governments, foundations and business sponsors.
Conflicts of interest
A conflict of interest is defined as an incompatibility between the objectives of multiple parties. In our case, scientists should strive to be as unbiased and objective as possible, but they also need funding in order to conduct their research.
The problem arises when the truth is at odds with the interests of funding sources. Scientists that publish results that somehow benefit these interests are more likely to receive funding and support. This is an example of survivorship bias, where institutions that appeal to their sponsors survive and grow, and other (likely more fair and less biased) institutions get drowned out in the noise and suffer as a result of the selectiveness of funding sources.
As you may have realized, science communication is pulled into this as well. The effectiveness of science communication for spreading messages or beliefs to the masses makes it a prime target for these stakeholders. The reputation of science as a source of truth leads to its abuse as a means for propaganda.
Governments want citizens to see the “progress” towards an environmentally-friendly city, and businesses want to improve their public image. Billionaires might abuse science communication to manipulate the public image of their investments.
In fact, this survivorship bias may not even be the fault of the science communicators. You might be selected for funding based on the message your findings convey, and perhaps continue to exaggerate or exemplify said message to appease or retain sponsorships. Even if you strive to keep your research process and presentation free of bias from your sponsors, your voice and findings have been amplified already.
Data isn’t fact
Data is a key component of science. It has equal connotations of truth and objectivity, which make it an equally potent tool for convincing audiences. In fact, data can be as much of a marketing tool as a scientific tool.
Most people are aware that data can be biased. Even small amounts of bias can skew results and change perspectives. However, audiences of science communication might make the mistake in believing points constructed purely based off of data and findings alone.
Data, while essential, is not infallible. The interpretation of data can vary widely based on the context, methodology, and even the intentions of those presenting it. For instance, selective reporting, where only certain data points are highlighted, can create a misleading narrative. This is particularly prevalent in fields like health and environmental science, where the stakes are high and the potential for bias is significant.
Moreover, the way data is visualized can dramatically influence perceptions. Graphs and charts can be crafted to emphasize certain trends while downplaying others, leading audiences to draw conclusions that may not reflect the full reality. This manipulation of data presentation is not just a concern for scientists but also for science communicators who may inadvertently propagate these biases by relying on poorly constructed visuals.
The role of science communicators
Science communicators have a critical responsibility to bridge the gap between complex scientific research and public understanding. However, this role becomes complicated when they are influenced by funding sources. Ethical science communication should prioritize transparency, providing audiences with a full picture of the research, including potential conflicts of interest and the limitations of the data presented.
To foster trust, science communicators should adopt a more critical approach to the information they disseminate. This includes questioning the sources of their data, scrutinizing the methodologies behind studies, and acknowledging the potential biases that may arise from funding sources. By doing so, they can help cultivate a more informed public that can critically engage with scientific topics.
Critical thinking
Ultimately, the responsibility for discerning the truth does not rest solely on science communicators. Audiences must also engage in critical thinking. This involves asking questions about the information being presented: Who funded the research? What are the potential biases? Are there alternative interpretations of the data?
Encouraging a culture of skepticism can empower individuals to seek out multiple sources of information, thus reducing reliance on any single narrative. This is particularly crucial in an era where misinformation can spread rapidly through social media and other platforms.
Conclusion
To conclude, while science communication holds the potential to enlighten and inform, it is fraught with challenges, particularly when influenced by funding and biases. It is vital for scientists, communicators, and audiences alike to recognize these dynamics and strive for a more nuanced understanding of scientific discourse. By fostering transparency and critical engagement, we can work towards a more informed society that appreciates the complexities of scientific inquiry.