Communicating Controversy

Living in the Information Age has resulted in a deluge of voices that we must navigate every day. It’s never been easier to quickly and efficiently spread information (real or fake), with ideas becoming “viral” seemingly at random. Further, society has become increasingly polarized on political and scientific controversies. As scientists, should we be at the vanguard of scientific communication in the face of controversy and risk becoming embroiled in it ourselves? Or should we distance ourselves from such discourse to protect our objectivity and our credibility in the public’s eye?

While scientists normally excel at communicating with other scientists, we’ve been unsuccessful at informing the public on how science “works,” according to a recent article by Vraga et al. Worse still is that the public’s understanding of scientists tends to originate from popular culture and media. The fact that more people have experience with this scientist caricature than with actual scientists suggests that we’ve been avoiding the spotlight for too long for fear of retribution or damage to credibility.

It is our responsibility to report on these issues and to make our voices known. Misinformation or “fake news” is on the rise, as it easily propagates through social media. This has not gone without public notice, with fake news being reported in importance above violent crime, climate change and racism. By contributing our expertise, we can work to undo the damage that misinformation has done, but we must be aware of the effects this can have on our image.

Despite the growing need to participate in public discourse, communicating on a contentious issue to the lay public has a direct impact based on the political leaning of the audience.   For example, if we advocate for measures to confront climate change, Republican audiences will see us as having a liberal bias and thus being a less credible source. This “political bias” can be applied to most contentious issues in science, such as GMOS, vaccines, and CRISPR.

The public’s tendency to align us with a political bias complicates our role as science communicators. We strive to be objective, but we cannot ignore that we are inherently biased to some degree and that the public will pick up on this. A single slip in communication on an emotionally charged issue can lead to a loss of trust, and this is an inherent risk that we must be aware of as we enter into the role of scientific liaison to the public.  

By participating in discourse, we can begin to bridge the gap between the public and scientists. While it’s certainly worth being cognizant of the risks associated with an increased public presence, our input is needed now more than ever. As the public’s concern with the spread of misinformation grows, we’re presented with the perfect opportunity to take a strong stance in public discourse. While we must remember that our opinions may not always  be in line with those of our audience (or even other scientists), we do more harm by avoiding public discourse entirely. Let this be a call to arms to take up the fight against misinformation by embracing the opinions and stances that have resulted from years of study.