Science, Art, Litt, Science based Art & Science Communication
PART -1 - Introduction
Science is not finished until it’s communicated.
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough - Einstein
Science becomes immoral when it focuses myopically on discovery and fails to fully consider real-world impacts.
Doing hard research by scientists in fort-like labs that are inaccessable to the outside world is one side of Science. Then communicating it in the right manner the world can understand and get benefited by it is a different ball game altogether.
Scientists publish their work in science journals with all the data and statistics and in a language that seems like Greek and Latin to the man on the street even if he is literate. Then think about the situation of illiterates. To a large section of people, these science journals don't exist at all!
These journals are used by scientists to communicate their work only to their colleagues in their field.
After making these exciting discoveries by scientists, without the ability to communicate their importance to a variety of audiences will severely diminish the potential of this work to positively affect society.
Usually transferring the complex science concepts from the labs to the ordinary world in the manner that makes some sense will be done by science journalists. They do it in the way in which they understand because it is very difficult even for them to understand the jargon and data and depend on the scientists' explanations to communicate the difficult subject. Therefore a miscommunication is taking place ( Ref.4) with the result that science is being misunderstood and even hated by some. People feel the disconnect with science all around in the West (Ref.10) (and to some extent in the East too) from a common misconception that evolution is a theory that says human beings descended directly from the monkeys, to the worry that physicists in Geneva might suck the universe into a tea cup — or something uncomfortably smaller - unsubstantiated fears that the Large Hadron Collider, used to study subatomic particles, might create a black hole. Some think science is responsible for all the ills we are facing in the world now. One third of Americans are rejecting the theory of evolution (13,15). A move is afoot to keep climate science and evolution out of classrooms in the US now (10). And on several major issues we face, the views of public drastically differ from those of scientists in some parts of the world (17 ). Despite tremendous progress brought by science and technology, several people - irrespective of their literary status - still remain entangled in blind and superstitious states of mind as in the dark ages (7,12,15) proving that the communication system had failed to a large extent. Moreover, the influence of politics (Ref 2,3,6,8,16) and commercialization of the fruits of science (Ref 1, 14) are taking their toll on both scientific research and journalism with the former dancing to the tunes of its mentors (14) and the latter falling prey to conflicting stories. This is resulting in ordinary people being left to deal with the chaos themselves driving them to question the integrity of science.
Main Reason for misinformation in science: Nearly all the messages about science are coming from people who are 'talking about' science 'rather than doing' science. That is why sci-com by real scientists is very important ... to arrest fake news.
It's important for lay people to have some understanding of the science involved in the important problems we are facing right now like climate change, antibiotic resistance, vaccine safety, etc. to take right decisions and cooperate with the governing bodies. Unfortunately, coverage of scientific topics in the mass media all too often oversimplifies, fails to provide adequate context, and in some instances is downright wrong. Science can be pretty off-putting if it gets all tangled up in jargon and sounds like something tough and impenetrable to the average person. The communicator really has a job here to be an effective articulator of what the point is, what the progress is, why it matters, why it’s exciting, how it could be helpful.
Science is communicated by journalists in two ways: S cience "journalism" (contextualising, investigating and, at times, challenging science) and just science "communication" (a public relations exercise that is brought directly from the scripts of scientific institutions).
Reporting of science is particularly difficult when compared with other fields of journalism or that it is bad because of some special property that science but no other discipline possesses - "the scientific methods" and "peer review". For good science journalism to happen, journalists must try to stay at arm's length from their sources according to journalists. Failing to remain at one-step-removed runs the risk of turning a piece of journalism into some drippy, flaccid piece of science communication. What a journalist should be really doing when reporting science is asking questions and deflating exaggeration. But do scientists have vested interests in the way their work is portrayed in the media? The answer is yes to some extent. Practically any story has the potential to have an impact on a scientist's reputation or his/her next grant application. Journalists, on the other hand, must try to be independent if they are to be credible. Scientists feel Journalists should get the science right in their articles and let them look at the copy before publication to ensure accuracy. As an outsider, media can be irresponsible while reporting by sensationalizing issues like the GM crop stories. Sometimes research is applied out of context to create dramatic headlines, push thinly disguised ideological arguments, or support particular policy agendas. Scientists who demand to see a draft or journalists who let them may be doing so with the best of intentions. But does it betray the reader or the viewer? Reporters will give the story an angle that has their reader or viewer firmly in mind. Sometimes they give it a spin to sensationalize the stories. The biggest issue is that often the media purposefully produce rubbish scientific stories, as it can suit their agendas(ref 9). This is abuse, and there needs to be some form of policing to stop abuse! For instance one journalist wrote very interesting stories saying that intuition and other non scientific methods were being used by scientists. Some artists who read them thought that was true and argued with me saying that such practices were universal and critical to scientific research! I was shocked to hear such nonsense being spread by journalists. Unlike others what the scientists use is 'educated guessing' or 'informed imagination' which is different from ordinary 'intuition'. The imagination of a scientist is based on reality. If the journalists give the working of scientific methods a spin to suit their write ups it is bad science journalism that leads to misunderstandings. Unlike the journalists the reader or viewer is not a scientist's first concern. As a result, researchers can often suggest changes that would flatten the tone, or introduce caveats and detail that would only matter to another specialist in their own field of research. The scientists are more concerned about facts and correct representation while journalists also think about mass appeal and sales of his/her journal/paper apart from correct presentation.
The relationship between scientists and journalists remains difficult, sometimes even hostile. There are complaints on both sides — scientists doubt the ability of journalists to report accurately and responsibly on their work, while journalists complain that scientists are bad communicators, hiding behind jargon (11) and therefore can confuse them which ultimately could lead to bad reporting. Journalists have a need for digestible headlines that convey simple, accessible, and preferably novel lessons. The scientific method stresses a slow accumulation of knowledge, nuance, and doubt.
But scientists should realize that at times in a scientist's career, it can be extremely important, perhaps even critical, to have a good relationship with a few key journalists more importantly if they themselves cannot communicate their work properly.
Bad science journalism also comes from an inability to make sense of statistics and scientific data. Do journalists read primary source? Without a basic understanding of the techniques being used ( a little research here benefits everybody) or a grasp of statistics. One of the things science journalists can do to improve the quality of their work is when something they think is bad, they should ask relevant scientists to check if the facts in the story are accurately described. Because there is a special property that science but no other discipline possesses: it's extremely complicated and the gap between common knowledge and new scientific findings is ever widening. Bad stories are where reporters get the facts wrong, because they don't know what the facts are. The danger of losing the facts in translation is what worries the scientific community the most.
Stories, especially the big ones, should have some form of fact checking performed on them prior to publication. Journalists can get the story checked by another scientist who does know something about the subject and who isn't associated with the scientist or the paper that is reporting. Some journals do a good job of this and you often see quotes attributed to scientists not involved in the study passing comment as part of the new story in them. However, majority of news papers and journals that get involved in the rat races, want to publish the story first without checking the facts. It is very easy to write things better than scientists can but which subtly or not so subtly alter the meaning. Running it by a third party would be a useful compromise of checking the science without giving up journalistic principles. If something sounds odd or a scientific claim just sounds too bold, then we expect reporters to question it - and check with independent sources as to whether it stands up. It's unrealistic to expect any journalist, however scientifically literate, to have expert knowledge of all the fields in science, so there is nothing wrong with contacting a person in the field to check that your coverage makes sense. Journalists should collaborate with actual scientists more. On the other hand it would be better if Journalists themselves try to specialize in science subjects.
Journalists say they have deadlines to meet and cannot take time to verify the facts. One journalist told me his editor says - "If you can't write 500 good words an hour, you're in the wrong business." And I told the journalist - if you can write 500 science words an hour, you are in the wrong field! You chose a wrong subject! Even the most experienced science writer is not an expert in all the areas of science! You got to check and recheck facts. Scientists take years to do a paper. Can't you take even a few days to communicate it?! I want to tell these media people deadlines are death knells for science communication. Rat races kill their efficiency in science journalism.
A journalist who deals with science once asked me," If a science writer calls you up and says: 'Dr. C, I write for Y publication, and we would like to feature a precis of your paper that appeared in this morning's issue of the Journal of Last Resort. My editor gave me a copy of your paper a half hour ago, and my summary is due in an hour and a half. Could you please answer the following questions about your paper and refer me to someone else in your field who could comment on it now,' what would you say?" And my reply to her : "I would just say, 'sorry, wrong number' and hang up! Nothing annoys a scientist more than dead lines." I prefer to have no article on my work than a bad article sculpted by a dead line because I am from the life sciences and a badly written article might harm the people who read it!
Here is a gem of a quote from a scientist: Journalists take liberty with my articles in a manner that is not a slight "mishap" but an attempt to sensationalise. Everywhere in the world but more so in Africa where people may not have other resources such as books, TV or internet to counter check the info given on newspapers, such liberties at time have more than just an annoyance factor for the scientist, they actually have life and death implications...think MMR, and other anti-vaccine stories based on misquotations or poor synthesis of research information. So as a journalist in your rush to avoid being killed by your editor think how many readers you might actually harm with the article...deadlines or dead readers ...the choice is yours!
I will give another example. When Indian Space Research Organization launched Mangalyaan, its Mars Orbiter, recently, all the news papers just quoted what the scientists said during the launch, copied from ISRO's site a few details and published them the next day. I took one week to write my article and post it here, after doing thorough research on it and people told me my write up was the best they came across on the subject! Need I say more?!
And some of the things science journalists do - which might not be deliberate but still- can make people understand things differently from the way scientists want they should be understood. For instance, in their effort to "hear both sides of the story," professional journalists have contributed to the misconception that there is a "debate" among climate scientists over anthropogenic global climate change. That "debate" really exists only in the misguided minds and resulting headlines, and here is why: If a journalist tries to "balance" a quote from one of the vast majority of scientists who agree on climate change (97% according to scientific studies, ref5) with one coming from the tiny minority of those who don't (just 3%), he or she creates the wrong impression that the scientific world is equally divided about the issue. No journalistic training, only brains, can protect from such blunders.
Let us watch a funny video to really tell the world how it should be done:
Some media people don't even bother about educating people regarding scientific explanations of things happening around the world and breakthroughs because 'science' doesn't increase the readership, viewership or TRPs of the media. So they think - why spend time and space on it?
Therefore, Scientists should make more of an effort to do pieces themselves for popular media, more regularly if they want correct portrayal of their work. Some of the best blogs and stories written these days are done by real scientists. They are creating art works based on their own work. Making videos and movies is the method followed by some. I am glad scientists themselves are coming forward now to communicate with the people outside and art is being considered as one of the important tools to use in this process. Quite a lot of discussion is taking place lately in the Scientific community about the need for Scientists themselves to come forward and share their knowledge and in ways that will reach more people.
It is difficult sometimes for scientists to understand how the world sees what they see. They get entangled in scientific jargon, think and work at a different level and fail to see from the angles of ordinary people. This is because they get several years of specific and special training in the subject to deal with the complexity of science. The training turns them into experts to deal with highly complicated subjects, data and the jargon. Sometimes the jargons don't even have words to describe in common language. It becomes inconvenient and highly demanding for the scientists to deal with communication. So opening a dialogue is really important. Only when the scientists deal with the world outside of theirs, they can understand the problems faced by people in understanding them and their world and how close or far away they are from them. Then they can do full justice to their work by delivering the themes in the way the world wants. Scientists are really facing some problems in communicating with others, but they are trying to overcome them. I wrote an article on how scientists should communicate with laymen based on my experiences. You can read it here: http://kkartlab.in/group/some-science/forum/topics/how-scienitsts-s...
I write on science topics and even stories to remove misconceptions about science I come across while dealing with people. Some of the false notions prevalent among the ordinary people are really shocking to me. Some human beings have very closed minds that are too difficult and time consuming to open. We get entangled in arguments that are quite unnecessary. Scientists will not have have so much time to waste in them. But that again shows the gap between the scientific world and the ordinary world. Now we are trying to close it. But what is the best way to do this is the issue before the scientists right now.
Scientists representing their own work in the visual communication of science is one way of doing it or working in general on science themes and science culture is another aspect. I do both text and literature and art communication of science. The former in the form of articles, stories and poems and the latter in the form of paintings, installations and videos.
Art helps science in communicating the theories, concepts, facts in a better manner. Even an illiterate person can understand science when it is showed in a picture form. A scientist knows what s/he wants to communicate therefore will be in a better position to put his/her work in a picture form. I feel when scientists are doing this, they should try to simplify things so that there won't be any communication gap between scientists and non-scientists. Some of my artist friends advised me to make my art works complex as I try to make them as simple as possible.. According to them there is no need for common people to understand art! But I disagree with them. Science is a complex subject and if you make it more complex people won't be able to understand so much complexity and move away from them and the whole purpose of communication will be lost.
Several of my colleagues in the scientific community all over the world are strongly supporting me in the way I communicate the science concepts with well balanced themes in the form of art ( You can see my work on my website: http://www.kkartfromscience.com/ ). I am glad more and more scientists are coming forward to try this method and able to do this with ease. If journalists are not bothered about science communication or good science communication, yes, scientists will have to do this work themselves.
"Telling people about science is just as important as conducting the science".
Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa's poem on "Science Communication"
From the group (Art- literature-Science Interplay)
Science communication, science communication, science communication
An useful tool that converts difficult to understand things into easy translation
Brings in human beings many a right vibration
Communicators are people who guide this beautiful mutation
Yet other times cajolingly,
Using metaphors freely,
Making people trust science merrily!
If science communicators fail to convince,
In order to solve the problems we face
There is no other go but to use force
The field that gets maligned in this process is Science!
Communicators have a difficult role to play
Art, literature, text, speeches and plays are the methods to sway
Whichever route used to convey
Science messages should reach the masses every way!
Copyright © 2012 Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa.
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Science communicators of India:
François Gonon et al., "Why Most Biomedical Findings Echoed by Newspapers Turn Out to be Fa...", PLoS ONE 9/12/2012:
Methods: We focused on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Using Factiva and PubMed databases, we identified 47 scientific publications on ADHD published in the 1990s and soon echoed by 347 newspapers articles. We selected the ten most echoed publications and collected all their relevant subsequent studies until 2011. We checked whether findings reported in each “top 10” publication were consistent with previous and subsequent observations. We also compared the newspaper coverage of the “top 10” publications to that of their related scientific studies.
Results: Seven of the “top 10” publications were initial studies and the conclusions in six of them were either refuted or strongly attenuated subsequently. The seventh was not confirmed or refuted, but its main conclusion appears unlikely. Among the three “top 10” that were not initial studies, two were confirmed subsequently and the third was attenuated. The newspaper coverage of the “top 10” publications (223 articles) was much larger than that of the 67 related studies (57 articles). Moreover, only one of the latter newspaper articles reported that the corresponding “top 10” finding had been attenuated. The average impact factor of the scientific journals publishing studies echoed by newspapers (17.1 n = 56) was higher (p<0.0001) than that corresponding to related publications that were not echoed (6.4 n = 56).
This will not be a surprise to any honest working scientists, nor to members of the public who have observed the fate of science and technology in the media ecosystem over the years.
Gonon et al. focus on the role of publication bias and sensationalism at top scientific journals — but of course popular media have their own motivations, which often lead to credulous trumpeting of "results" that were never published in the technical or scientific literature at all, much less featured in a high-impact-factor journal. For a random sample of past LL posts on various aspects of these phenomena, see "Quit email, get smarter?" (4/23/2005), "The Agatha Christie Code" (12/26/2005), "It's always Silly Season in the BBC science section" (8/26/2006), "Flacks and hacks and brainscans" (11/23/2007), "David Brooks, Social Psychologist" (8/13/2008), "Debasing the coinage of rational inquiry" (4/22/2009), "The business of newspapers is news" (12/10/2009), "Texting and language skills" (8/2/2012), etc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-shostak/science-from-hell_b_1948... (on how American congressmen spread stupid stories): Astronomer Edwin Hubble, who first discovered the expansion of the universe, was part of a devilish plan. Measurements of nearby galaxies suggesting that the cosmos began with an explosive event -- what we now call the Big Bang -- were a conspiracy to ensure that you don't yearn for spiritual salvation.
This is the claim of Paul Broun, a Republican representative from Georgia. According to the Associated Press, the Congressman recently made a banquet speech in which he said "All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. And it's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior."
The skeptical representative went on to say that the Earth is less than 10 thousand years old, and was formed in six days. A lot of planetary scientists are clearly barking up the wrong tree.
Well, the approval rating of Congress is an anemic 10 percent these days, and these bizarre statements might just be another reason to be unhappy with those representing your interests under the Capitol dome. But here's the zinger: Broun sits on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.
No doubt this reassures you about the chances that this country will continue to be in the forefront of groundbreaking research.
America's popular heroes have seldom been its great thinkers, and even less its scientists. The success of TV's Big Bang Theory, which seems to give the lie to this claim, is more the exception that proves the rule. Typically, only about 2 percent of the American populace tunes in to PBS's Nova series -- the most successful science show on the tube. Survivor and X Factorget twice the ratings.
Everyone talks about science literacy, and how it's essential if we wish to remain an important player on the world stage. And yes, moving the needle is hard. But one thing we don't need is a crazy fox in the chicken coop.
From the article science from hell : by Seth Shostak
Importance of science communication:
Artists advice to scientists on how to communicate science:
Science should be humanised for popularisation
Source: Hueiyen News Service
Imphal, November 06 2012: On the second day of the 4-day long training workshop on science writing/journalism for school and college teachers of Bishnupur district being held at Ningthoukhong's Ibudhou Oknarel temple complex, resource persons highlighted various techniques and art of science journalism writing on Tuesday.
Satyajit Usham, Editor of Hueiyen Lanpao (English Edition), who attended the workshop as one of the resource persons, said that science writing is different from news reporting and it's an art that calls for clarity, precision and human touch.
Moreover, the writer should have a thorough grasp over the subject matters they are going to write on.
During his lecture presentation on the topic, 'Writing for Newspapers & Role of Print Media in Science Popularisation', Satyajit illustrated the key points that a writer should bear in mind while preparing a piece of journalistic write-up on popularizing science and said that for popularization of science among masses, there is the need for humanizing science.
He said that a writer should be able to make distinction between technical and popular science writing and keep their targeted readers in mind while writing.
Moreover, the language should be understandable and technical jargons should be avoided as far as possible.
Explaining about the working nature of media houses in the state, Satyajit also stressed on the need for making science as media events.
Public acceptance of climate change affected by word usage
Published: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 - 13:34 in Earth & Climate
Public acceptance of climate change's reality may have been influenced by the rate at which words moved from scientific journals into the mainstream, according to anthropologist Michael O'Brien, dean of the College of Arts and Science at the University of Missouri. A recent study of word usage in popular literature by O'Brien and his colleagues documented how the usage of certain words related to climate change has risen and fallen over the past two centuries. Understanding how word usage affects public acceptance of science could lead to better science communication and a more informed public. "Scientists can learn from this study that the general public shouldn't be expected to understand technical terms or be convinced by journal papers written in technical jargon," O'Brien said. "Journalists must explain scientific terms in ways people can understand and thereby ease the movement of those terms into general speech. That can be a slow process. Several words related to climate change diffused into the popular vocabulary over a 30-50 year timeline."
O'Brien's study found that, by 2008, several important terms in the discussion of climate change had entered popular literature from technical obscurity in the early 1900s.
These terms included:
Biodiversity -- the degree of variation in life forms within a given area
Holocene -- the current era of Earth's history, which started at the end of the last ice age
Paleoclimate -the prehistoric climate, often deduced from ice cores, tree rings and pollen trapped in sediments
Phenology -- the study of how climate and other environmental factors influence the timing of events in organisms' life cycles
Not every term was adopted at the same rate or achieved the same degree of popularity. Biodiversity, for example, came into popular use quickly in only a few years in the late 80s and early 90s. Other terms, like Holocene or phenology, have taken decades and are still relatively uncommon.
"The adoption of words into the popular vocabulary is like the evolution of species," O'Brien said. "A complex process governs why certain terms are successful and adopted into everyday speech, while others fail. For example, the term 'meme' has entered the vernacular, as opposed to the term 'culturgen,' although both refer to a discrete unit of culture, such as a saying transferred from person to person."
To observe the movement of words into popular literature, O'Brien and his colleagues searched the database of 7 million books created by Google. They used the "Ngram" feature of the database to track the number of appearances of climate change keywords in literature since 1800. The usage rate of those climate change terms was compared to the usage of "the," which is the most common word in the English language. Statistical analysis of usage rates was calculated in part by co-author William Brock, a new member of MU's Department of Economics and member of the National Academy of Sciences.
Note: A portion of O'Brien's experiment can be repeated using any computer with internet access.
1. Go to http://books.google.com/ngrams
2. Enter terms such as "climate change," "global warming," or "anthropogenic" and note how they have changed in usage over the past century.
Source: University of Missouri-Columbia
A central question of communicating science to a wider audience often boils down to this: can you take a complex scientific topic and explain it in a way that someone unfamiliar with the field can understand? The commonly-cited techniques for meeting this challenge, such as cutting out jargon and using relatable analogies, sound easy in principle but are often quite tough in practice.
In their effort to "hear both sides of the story," professional journalists have contributed to the misconception that there is a "debate" among climate scientists over anthropogenic global climate change. That "debate" really exists only in the misguided minds and resulting headlines, and here is why: If a journalist tries to "balance" a quote from one of the vast majority of scientists who agree on climate change with one coming from the tiny minority of those who don't, he or she creates the wrong impression that the scientific world is equally divided about the issue. No journalistic training, only brains, can protect from such blunders.