Communicating Science in the Post-Truth Era | Claire Sale | TEDxKAUST

[Music] ladies and gentlemen I am here to sell you a fantastic new product which will change your life forever this amber teething necklace is guaranteed to make your baby more comfortable while teething and it's all due to the succinyl acid which has proven anti-inflammatory properties and it's all yours for the low low price of $20 a pop the only problem it's a lie it's deceit there is no scientific peer-reviewed evidence to support the claim that amber necklaces can reduce teething pain but people believe it and they're buying the necklaces I'm a mom and it's a claim I've heard over and over by my friends on internet mommy groups and on blog posts written by people who are selling them but I've also spent the last 10 years working in communication with academic and technology groups and this overlap between my work and my home life made me realize how academia should be responding to the new ways that people are sharing scientific information it also reminds me about this concept we've been hearing about in the news the post truth era the idea of post truth rose to significance during the political conversations around the truthiness and last year's brexit campaign in the United Kingdom and the presidential election in the United States it was widely reported that the voting public didn't really care if the points the politicians were making were possible or even true just like with the amber necklaces people cared more about how that story made them feel and about how that picture fit into their worldview host truth became such an important concept in 2016 that the Oxford Dictionary named it word of the year today truth feels less relevant than ever before and I blame the Internet don't get me wrong the Internet's a beautiful place where we can create community and friendship and access the entirety of human knowledge in the palm of a hand but it's not always serving in our best interest where there's a buck to be made people will make it especially in the case of the internet where anonymity is obtainable whether it's fake news websites shared on Facebook or marketers trying to sell us their products or lobbyists vying for attention for their causes there are big powerful groups telling really compelling stories and some are very good at misleading us for their own benefit say for example I believe that there are little green men flying around our planet in UFOs I can find all kinds of sources to back up that claim I can find blog posts or YouTube videos meetup groups and all sorts of pseudoscience to confirm my belief in the existence of little green men and flying saucers I might even believe that there's a government conspiracy to cover up the existence of little green men and tell myself that's why there's no supporting body of peer-reviewed information on the topic this assertion may seem ridiculous to you and me but this is truth to a fair number of people to combat this kind of nonsense fact-checking website started popping on the internet fact-checking was supposed to be the definitive source to discern truth from less reliable sources like chain mail or urban folklore ads or ambitious politicians it was supposed to solve the problem of people who lie in public forums but even the credibility of supposedly credible sources is questioned when opinion is stronger than truth people have been taught to question their sources but what constitutes a trusted source seems also to be different from person to person based on their culture or their political leanings or their life experiences the scientific method too was designed to overcome these biases but unfortunately it seems that some people are valuing opinion over scientific evidence even when the evidence shared in peer-reviewed journals is overwhelming let's take for example something more practical than UFOs let's talk about the public conversation in America around climate science the validity of human-caused climate change has been backed by both peer review study and a near unanimous consensus in the scientific community a 2013 review published in ERL showed that 97% of climate scientists agree there is a human-caused global warming trend that kind of consensus is unheard of but incredibly a 2015 study from Yale showed that 30% of Americans believe something different so if there's near consensus in the scientific community why is there still a debate in the public about the validity of climate change this is post truth I think most of us are willing to admit that scientific community as a whole has been slow to respond to the changing media landscape by the way that's why fact-checking web sites became the default on the internet rather than peer-reviewed journal articles but the scientific community can't ignore the post truth mentality if enough people believe that climate change is a hoax and they're influential enough they might be able to stop government industry and nonprofit players from allocating funds to climate research and funding is what drives science to remain relevant academia must adapt and respond to the problems that the internet revolution and the post truth era are raising fundamentally the way that scientists communicate hasn't changed much since the 1600s scientists are taught to publish precise and detailed papers in peer-reviewed journals and the articles are aimed at informing other scientists compounding the issue papers published in journals are hard for non scientists understand and they're generally only available to people working at institutions which are rich enough to afford subscriptions put simply scientists talk to other scientists and they leave the public out of the loop but the Internet has disrupted traditional media and it's disrupted traditional communication now it's time for academia to capitalize on this disruption to combat a culture of misinformation it is the responsibility of universities today to rethink the incentive structure for communication and academia we need to create incentives for scientists that place more emphasis on public communication I get it demands scientists time are already daunting most of their effort is devoted to discovery and publishing in traditional journals and acquiring funding but emphasizing public communication in addition to the traditional peer-reviewed methods when it comes to the hiring and promoting of scientists could have a major impact for universities especially with regards to improving reputation and increasing overall funding of course the peer review process will continue to be an essential part of the equation but by incentivizing scientists to share their findings with a general public we might just find that the impact is as great or perhaps even greater than the communication revolution that is already occurring in other industries today so assuming scientists see the opportunity they feel the responsibility and they're appropriately incentivized how can we support them as they begin their communication with the public to bridge the gap between scientists and the relatively new ways that people are getting information via the internet universities are employing professional communicators like me universities most universities have communication departments that are aimed at least in part at translating science to the masses but I'll never be able to tell your story better than you can tell it yourself as a professional I can help you by shaping messaging or building communities or making beautiful visuals to help you tell your story better but the gist and the power will always come directly from the source of the message there is no better spokesperson for your work than you I like to remind scientists three things as they begin communicating with the public first the excess Cybil if you're serious about your research making a real world impact communicating about your work beyond your network of potential collaborators is essential traditionally this is meant getting your work covered in the news but you could also start by using social media write a blog or talk about your work on Twitter or do and ask me anything on reddit how you choose to do this will be deeply personal but by making your research accessible to a general public you're taking the first step it takes your conclusions out of the scientific echo chamber and empowers the general public to have access to your work second be clear as scientists you're trained to focus on small details but it's your ability to explain the overarching story of your work and your field of science that will help you the most so begin with the big picture the implications of your research rather than trying to explain your hypothesis with conclusion or die's our precision the goal is to get people to buy into you as an expert and the kind of work that your impact can have with this in mind you'll want to share your message in a way that your audience can understand use plain English and frame your messages in a way that is both real and personal to your audience think about who you're speaking to and use language and concepts and analogies that they can understand and most importantly relate it back to why your work will benefit them I'm not suggesting you dumbed down your science the public is full of really smart people but remember the goal isn't simply to get more people to understand what you do the goal is also to get people to recognize the implications of your research for themselves and for society third be honest don't succumb to post truth the post truth error will be hard on academia but that doesn't mean we should abandon the scientific method it is an enduring foundation but just because you're right doesn't mean anyone will listen a scientist you'll get something out of all this - communicating outside of your scientific area will enable you will give you perspective that enables you to understand where your research fits into the wider world being a thought leader on your topic well guy will help you guide the public conversation of your field and for my family financial perspective this will support a more favorable funding environment for your wider research area remember funders give money to fix issues that they understand and funders give money to fix issues that people are talking about there are quite a few scientists today who have already put these pieces together and are pushing their research forward through public communication let me share with you two of them locally I enjoy following scientists here at couched on social media one of them Susanne Dirk's is a young up-and-coming scientist who goes by the name scientific diver on Instagram there she shares lots of pictures of her field work collecting giant clams in the Red Sea her goal is to figure out how important the clams are to over all coral reef health she shares beautiful pictures relating to the process of her work and also information of general interest about plants and animals in the sea her communication efforts are accessible and clear and honest and they're digestible to a general public while still maintaining scientific credibility what's more her social media posts enable her to connect with people all around the world and her efforts are increasing attention for her work both within her field and for the general public sharing the stories behind her research makes her more credible and makes it more likely for people to discover her findings and want to support her work globally climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe is also using these principles to make significant impact for climate research she's aggregating her findings and research findings from others in her industry and sharing them at high-profile events and with high-impact media she's found a balance between conducting her research and communicating about climate science with the big picture in mind the impact is that she's been able to use data and information to dispel myths circulating with the public around climate change she's been covered in the New York Times she's met with Barack Obama and Leonardo DiCaprio on the White House South Lawn and she has got one heck of an online presence and all of these efforts are raising the profile for climate science for the better the best part is anyone can do what Kathryn and Suzanne are doing this is the future of scientific communication the democratization of media has enabled us to communicate to wide audiences on narrow topics but in too many cases it's enabling harmful untruths to be perceived as facts today there are more voices and communication channels than ever before and as we saw with the amber necklace many are really good at distorting the truth for their own benefit it is the responsibility of academia today to seriously consider the opportunities associated with a two-way flow of information with the public and use proven communication techniques to get the public to believe in real science cynical peddlers of pseudoscience have effectively packaged their messages in neat believable bite-sized formats that the public is hungry for if real science is to prevail we must adapt [Applause]

Channel: TEDx Talks

Views: 10,853

Rating: 4.7530866 out of 5

Keywords: TEDxTalks, English, Saudi Arabia, Social Science, Communication, Education, Media, Social Interaction, Social Media, Truth

Id: INf0WvnSCI0

Length: 18min 15sec (1095 seconds)

Published: Thu Aug 03 2017