Online Science Communication the French way

Science communication and the internet is becoming a topic all over the world. Also France are tuning in on it. A conference next week at the Pasteur Institute brings people together to discuss how science communicated via the internet can help bring science to a wider public.

The conference which is entitled ‘Communiquer la science via internet’ takes place on the 25 September and you can read the programme here.

The conference aims to promote reflection and dialogue between science producers and citizens to improve science communication.

The conference is number three in a series of conferences focusing on communicating science. The initiative for the conference comes from a number of research institutions (Andra, CEA, Genopole, Inserm, Institut Pasteur, IRD, Cemagref), IHEST (Institute des Hautes Etudes pour la Science et la Technologie) and Universcience,

The conference is aimed at producers of science, public communicators, program designers, animators sites, the media, and the Internet.

Thanks to Karine Blandel from Signsofscience.org for letting me know of the conference.

Science communication – what’s in it for the scientist? what’s in it for science?

Communicating science is so often focused on transferring knowledge from experts to members of the public. More and more often it is also associate with engaging and communicating with the public. But still with a focus on what the public or the common man gets out of this. But what’s in it for the scientist? How can science communication benefit the researcher personally? Is it just a waste of time and a burden?

These questions are key to module 3 of the course Public Health Science Communication. In preparing for the module, I was surprised of how difficult it was to find literature that focuses specifically on this topic. It is mentioned as a component of science communication but little research put it at the center – at least as far I have been able to find out…

For the course I have included four texts that all  touches upon the topic, but doesn’t have it as the main focus:

• Interaction with the mass media – Peters HP, Brossard D, de Cheveigné S, Dunwoody S, Kallfass M, Miller S, Tsuchida S. Science 11 July 2008: Vol. 321 no. 5886 pp. 204-205
• Social media is more than simply a marketing tool for academic researchby Amanda Alampi. The Guardian, highereducation network. 24 July 2012
• The Verdict:Is blogging and tweeting about research papers worth it? by Melissa Terras. LSE blog: impact of social sciences. 19 April 2012
• Academic staff and public communication: a survey of popular science publishing across 13 countries – by Peter Bentley and Svein Kyvik. Public Understanding of Science, January 2011 vol. 20 no. 1 48-63

I have later on come across the two articles below, which focus on the costs and benefits of research communication. Both, however, put most attention on the costs and the potential benefits of alternative models for scholarly publishing (e.g. open access) and focuses on to a lesser extend on the benefits of the actual communication of science.

Research communication costs in Australia, Emerging opportunities and benefits

Costs and benefits of Research communication: The Dutch Situation (click here for the summary version)

What’s in it for you?

Therefore: In preparation for the course it would be great to receive some inputs from you people out there on how communicating your science has helped YOU. What have the benefits been for YOU? Do they out-weigh any potential disadvantages? If your research could talk – what would it say it got out of you communicating?

Hints to blog posts, book chapters, articles, podcast etc. focusing on this or just your own testimonials will be highly treasured! And will of course be fed back through this blog.

No simple recipe for translating science

The second module of the course in Public Health Science Communication focused on Translating Science to Traditional Media. On paper a nice and concrete topic – but both choosing literature for the syllabus and preparing for the class proved a little bit more challenging. Because what does ‘translating science’ mean? And is there a recipe for doing so?

The simple answer to the last question is: no. There is no formula to follow or an optimal way of doing it. It depends on the scientific topic, the scientist, the context, the targeted audience and the chosen media. This was one of the take home messages for the students. Not a very helpful message I fear. Hopefully, they did get something out of the module despite the lack of clear-cut facts and recipes. As a theoretical background, the students were presented with some perspectives on historical developments in the theories of public communication of science. The idea was to show the students how motivations behind communicating to the public had changed over time, and how the perception of the public influences how and why scientists communicate. For me personally, understanding developments in different approaches to translating science helps me think about how science can be translated today.

Framing

The power of ‘framing’ in translating science and reaching target groups was also talked about. The article by Myers, Nisbet et al A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change gave a nice public health context and demonstrated the power of health topics which is something all people can relate to. It was however just an appetizer for the extensive ‘framing’ approach.

We also had a nice discussion about whether and why scientists should communicate to the public. And what advantages the scientist may have for communicating (as the common perception is that scientists are bad communicators). The discussion was helped along by the article Of course scientists can communicate by Tim Radford. Again, there is no right or wrong answer for this, but the discussion gave a good feel for the challenges in translating science, but also some of the mechanisms that could help this communication along.

A lot of video clips, sounds clips and images were used to inspire and illustrate different ways of translating science:

• A good example of how comparison can help translate something that is difficult to grasp: The great sperm race http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAnMymnJiLM
• An example of experimenting with radio/sound in the translation of science: RadioLab – Patient Zero http://www.radiolab.org/2011/nov/14/
• Using visual communication e.g. by using infographics http://www.medicalcodingcareerguide.com/vaccination-debate/
• Sharing your enthusiasm and putting the audience (me) in the centre http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SFeJEb5ldE
• Making statistics come alive – Hans Rosling’s GapMinder project http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo
• Using cartoons – speaking to each individual audience – Explaining a health reform http://healthreform.kff.org/the-animation.aspx

Some more examples were shared by readers of this blog in the comments section. Thanks to all, and keep’m coming.

Some practical writing tips and tools

Although the course is not a practical communication or writing class I chose to spend some time on some basic communication tricks. Tricks that I was introduced to at the Danish School of Journalism and which I have found useful – especially for my written language. Many of the concrete writing tips can be found in Roy Peter Clark’s book Writing Tools – 50 Essential Strategies for Every Writer (short online version is available and podcasts). Simple things like thinking about making your verbs active, choosing your verbs with care, walking up and down the ladder of abstraction, remembering the inverted news triangle, reading your text aloud while walking etc. It was all a bit rushed and a whole writing course would have been relevant – but unfortunately it could due to time restraints only be an appetizer.

Favorite examples of the translation of health science to traditional media?

For the second module of the course in Public Health Science Communication we’ll be looking at the Translation of public health science to traditional (and new) media.

I have asked the students to find and bring examples of public health sciences communicated in news articles, YouTube videos, blog posts, TEDtalks etc. but I was hoping that I could get even more examples of favorite health communication examples from readers of this blog. It can be any example – a favorite because of its bad communication, fun communication, creative, alternative, good.

An example I like of how comparison of scale can be to used communicate something difficult to understand because of the micro universe it takes place in is the documentary “The great sperm race” by Channel 4 in conjunction with the Wellcome Trust. The documentary is supported by a website with additional materials, facts, games etc.

What are your favorites?

Why should we do public health science if we can’t communicate it?

The course Public Health Science Communication went live Wednesday last week! And based on the first experiences it survived the encounter with the students, is still in good shape and looking forward to moving on to module two this coming Wednesday.

Since the concept “public health science communication” is still not a household concept and does to my knowledge not (yet) have a Wikipedia entry or a crystal clear definition, I found it useful during the first lesson to ask the students what they, in one sentence, considered public health science communication to be. It gave some interesting responses, of which I here share a few:

In one sentences: What is public health science communication?

• Simplifying public health science so that it is easier to understand for the public
• Public health science communication is the science of communication of scientific research to the public
• Communicating the essence of public health research to the public
• It’s an interaction among public health workers, public and policy makers to improve health of general public
• Ways to create greater understanding amongst public, governments and general public about advances in science in particular and relevant formats
• Communication of scientific health information translated into understandable messages to the public
• That it is important – why should we do public health science if we can’t communicate it?

Most of the responses are not surprising, and combining them gets us around several aspects of the concept. I do however still find it a little surprising that focus is so heavily on communicating to the public. Where is communication with researchers? Only a few mention e.g. policymakers and public health practitioners. Of course the word public could be understood in its broadest sense – but my feeling is that many are thinking about Mr and Mrs Smith/Jensen/Sanchez when they say “the public”. Some also understood public health science communication to be communicating for behavioral change, which would probably fall more under health communication. Secondly, it seems that science communication is regarded as being about communicating to the public and not with the public. I look forward to expanding the students’ perception of this in the coming weeks.

All the responses are interesting, but my favorite response is this one: “That it is important – why should we do public health science if we can’t communicate it?” In my head it nails it completely.

I also asked the student what they expected to learn. Below some of their responses:

What do you expect to learn?

• How to be a better communicator of science
• I expect to learn something about how to communicate public health science to the public, what information is interesting for ”the public” and which strategies are useful in communicating and how I do it
• Something about the relation between the scientific world and the public – the role of science communication
• How to better communicate health related information to individuals  (with diverse backgrounds) + communities in an effective and respectful manner
• A broader way of thinking/analysing/communicate science so it is easier to implement them locally/nationally/internationally
• How to make research tangible for people outside the field. How to sell the message
• How to communicate to the public 1) what is public health science, 2) communicate results of public health sciences
• Challenges of communication with policy makers from public health workers point of view
• Theories and practical stuff about communication

I’m exited about what the responses. Hopefully, the students will feel that they have been given a few tools, and a better understanding of the role of science communication in public health when the course is over. I also hope that they will have seen that public health science communication includes more than reaching the public and ‘selling messages’, but is just as much about engaging and interacting with the public (understood in its broadest sense) and that communication is not only in aimed at educating the public but may also serve a purpose for their research and for themselves as researchers.

Although the students’ expectations and the objective of the course weren’t all that different I still clarified what the course was not – and what it was intending to be. Perhaps this may be useful to readers on this blog as well.