The latest issue of Seed has an excellent quote form Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical physicist at Case Western Reserve University:
I remember, I was on a visiting committee at MIT, and these students tend to think they’re going to be successful because they’re good at what they’re doing. But in fact, a large barometer of their success will be how well they can communicate what they’re doing. Not just to the outside public, which most scientists don’t necessarily have to do — though I think that’s important, too — but within the field, or to your company. It isn’t just what you do, it’s often how you present it. And, traditionally, we’ve spent very little time educating our students on how to communicate.
I absolutely agree. This could be dismissed as “spinning,” something which scientists shouldn’t do. But the truth is thousands of scientific papers are published every month. Nobody has time to read them all, and most of the papers one does read can’t be read carefully. If the writer doesn’t do a good job of explaining what the results mean and why they are important, they are likely to be missed. If you are giving a talk about your research, hopefully the audience can figure out for themselves why your information is relevant to their work, but you’re doing everybody a favor if you help them. Many very good researchers are terrible at communicating their ideas and their findings.
Many people are aware that Mendel’s groundbreaking studies of heredity were buried and what he learned had to be re-discovered independently. According to Frank Sulloway in Born to Rebel, this was partly due to Mendel’s inability to communicate the importance of his findings.
Just in case anybody thinks Krauss is advocating spin:
So strategies of persuasion, I think, are vitally important within the field. But — and I should be very clear about this — while I understand science as a sociological phenomena, I do believe in objective reality and I do believe that, ultimately, important science wins out in spite of the social constructs adn the social or peer pressures to do certain things…That’s what makes science special.
Thanks for this posting, and especially for distinguishing the difference between “spin” and the need to connect with your readers.
I have had modest success–not nearly as much as Krauss–in writing for nonscientists in my book reviews and in my books for young readers.
The reason for my success, I believe, is my ability to view my writing from the perspective of the people who will be reading it.
Writing for a peer-reviewed journal is very different from writing for a newspaper, magazine, or a children’s publisher. We shouldn’t say one form of writing is better than another because each has its own purpose and audience.
The measure of success in communication of any kind is how well the author connects the material to the readers, and in what ways the writing changes those readers.
Political “spin” aims to persuade the readers/listeners/viewers to vote in a particular way. Spin in scientific communication loses the quality that makes science special, as you note.
Even when I have a particular political point of view (such as on the vital importance of addressing global warming), I always make sure to place communicating the science ahead of my point of view.
You can see that played out in my reviews of The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney and A Contract with the Earth by Newt Gingrich and Terry Maple.
Fred Bortz — Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)
The Krauss quote is right on the money. I don’t see ‘spinning’ anywhere in it (has it been dismissed this way?), just a strong acknowledgment that although we as scientists often think our science speaks for itself, we need to give it our voice – audibly and often – for it to be heard.
I think this hits on why the lag in public acceptance anthropogenic climate change. The science is solid and will eventually ‘win’ but we haven’t always been the best at giving it a strong, easily accessible voice, ultimately allowing other noise to fill the void. We can thank Al Gore for hugely improving the accessibility of the message for a lay audience, but we as a scientific community should use a little introspection on why we haven’t been very effective ourselves.
There are two distinct types of communication: the type that clarifies and enlightens the audience and the type which distorts. The second seems to always come from selfish desires.
I think you are too hard on researchers regarding their communication abilities. Scientific research and good communications are both very demanding specialties. I don’t see how anyone can be very successful at both. If a scientist can explain his results to others in the same field, I think that is good enough. All the best scientific writers I know love science, but are not active researchers. Perhaps institutions which do large amounts of research should have a communications expert to work with the researchers to explain various discoveries to the general public.
BTW, I love the direction your articles have been taking lately. You are addressing some very important and difficult aspects of science. Hope you keep it up!