I've heard colleagues say that the solution to what's happening to American science is for scientists to communicate the value of science better. That's false. Trump is doing a lot of unpopular things, including destroying the science enterprise. What's happening is not our fault.
Most people believe in the values of democracy, but those values are being assaulted by this administration every day. 1/2
My experience of the 2020 pandemic was an immense amount of quality science being released and discussed by researchers and clinicians, but only a tiny fraction of the media who were skilled or bothered to present that with any degree of fidelity to their audiences.
The entire framing of "scientists need to communicate better" falls over when we look at who's making an effort to listen.
Mark Sumner, @Devilstower, formerly at DailyKos.com, currently writing at Uncharted Blue, was one those who did not just a competent job, but an outstanding job of conveying the complexity of the shifting epidemiological understanding of COVID-19.
Mark gave me confidence that I knew as much as could be known as the pandemic progressed.
The risk of contagion is highest in indoor spaces but can be reduced by applying all available measures to combat infection via aerosols. Here is an overview of the likelihood of infection in three everyday scenarios, based on the safety measures used and the length of exposure
@ewen @davidho the COVID science coverage by media was a shit show wherever I saw it. Largely scientists follow the evidence, and when pushed will always be clear that the result obtained was based on the best available evidence at the time which may change later. The general public expects science to be "right" all of the time and happily ever after, which isn't how it works.
Combine that with media "balance". If every actual scientist says something is a thing and the media people have to find a representative of the opposite view you don't get balance. You get false equivalence. On your TV show you have Professor Know-It-All discussing the science du jour with Barry Tinfoil who has cycling proficiency.
A general audience don't see it like that. The lay person sees a scientist who changes their mind (which they don't realise is evidence based) and Barry from next door who sounds like he knows what he's talking about, which makes him equivalent. Being confidently incorrect might sound good on TV but it doesn't mean the spewer is as knowledgeable as the scientist, but with a different view.
I did see a lot of good science comms in COVID but media let it down and the public missed the point. Don't get me started on "airborne", I'm wound up by thinking about how anyone but scientists think about science.
Well said.
Watching the disconnect between the scientific process and the media process gives me very little help for the future of mankind.
@davidho Most of the scientists I know do engage publically otherwise I wouldnāt know them.
Iām doing a media literacy class and asked my governor to join the coalition from university of Washingtonās @uwcip .
We have been working on these issues since before they took office!
Still we need more involvement. We should use the buddy system. Everyone within someone initial reach should ask how they can help! We should have a funnel where volunteers can go etc.
The people that spin news of new science negatively need wraparound pushback, vertically integrated pushback
The science communication publications can improve the academic quality of their work, the university leaders can prioritize more effective communication and training, the public can cast skeptical eyes on obvious grifters and they can also support the academic enterprise by learning and not just waiting for others to teach each one of them specifically
You (the public) can learn what a derivative is. You can learn how mixed methods research works. I know it hurts to give up the best stupid reason you have to misunderstand something obvious
@davidho Does anyone actually believe this is a failure of scicomms, or are people just looking for agency to seek normalcy/control in the face of the dismantling of the civil state?
We live in a low-trust environment now. Science has been politicized because people see scientists as moralizing (masking, vaccines, renewables) because there is money in making people believe so. As long as this is the case science canāt be conveyed on the merits. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160105-the-man-who-studies-the-spread-of-ignorance
This is a crisis and science communicators have been down this road before.
Science is inherently political, whether we recognize it or not. Telling politicians that oil and gas causes climate change is political, because oil and gas is political.
Saying that vaccines work is political, because vaccines became political.
Scientists must recognize that there's no such thing as political neutrality.
Scientists must recognize this and communicate in a way the recognizes how political their existence has become.
Scientists cannot sit on the sidelines. It's a political fight for survival. There is no neutrality
Here's a good example.
Scientists could have framed this entirely differently.
"Scientists fear toxic slew of chemicals found drinking water will cause long term health damage "
If we frame it differently, we get the public onside. Right now, it's been framed as "not a concern".
This issue is highly political. On one side, you have people who don't want cancer, on the other side, we have profits from big agri.
Don't be afraid to get political. Give issues the framing it deserves.
Scientists are warning that they have found traces of pesticides in the drinking water of municipalities along the ChĆ¢teauguay River. While the levels found complied with Quebec regulations, the studyās authors recommend authorities make changes.
The distrust of science is a funded narrative.
Climate denial, election denial, and covid disinformation are correlated because they are funded by the same people and targeted at the same people.
Bradley, Koch, Coors, Scaife, Seid, Uihlein
They funded the Jan 6 coup attempt, funded 50 years of climate denial, covid denial and Project 2025 to get the GOP elected.
Next they're funding an attempt to dismantle the EU.
Koch Network funds fascist movements globally.
Koch Network has several influence operations in Canada working on their behalf.
Usual aims: Ecocide. Ending public education & national health. Tax cuts for the rich. Fossil fuel subsidies. Greenwashing like Cap & Trade. Ending indigenous rights. Eroding separation of church & state. Anti-immigrant bigotry. Opposition to women's rights.
1. JCCF (backed the 2022 antivaxxer ...
1/
Koch Industries, Elon Muskās X Corp., Loblaws, Enbridge, Pathways Alliance, the Canadian Gas Association, Rumble Canada, Rebel News, Canada Proud, and Facebook. These are just a handful of the corporate interests and right-wing communications platforms linked to the inner circle of Pierre Poilievre and his federal Conservatives as Canada heads into a snap federal election [ā¦]
2/
....convoys that cost the Canadian economy billions in losses)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Centre_for_Constitutional_Freedoms
2. Fraser Institute
https://www.vancouverobserver.com/politics/2012/04/26/fraser-institute-co-founder-confirms-years-and-years-us-oil-billionaires-funding.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Institute
3. Capitol Hill Group
4. Crestview Strategies
5. StrategyCorp
6. Pathways Alliance
7. One Persuasion
8. Rebel News
9. Wellington Advocacy
10. Harper Associates
additionalcontext
David Ho
Photo Ewen š·
Grassroots Joe
Peter Brown
Piranhallama
scunneen (he/him) š
Everyday.Human Derek
David
MidniteMikeWrites
Rich Stein (he/him)
Chu ę±
Mx. Luna Corbden šø
yuhasz01
CaptMorgan
Josh
Nicole Parsons
Ron Dyck
Bwaz
Robin Barton