Focus on science (communication)
The communication of scientific research has drastically changed in the past decades. We explore the reasons behind this and current challenges in the field
An entry by Johannes Eckes and Josephine Franz
Friday, December 25, 2020
Media, Technology and Society
Science explains to us how the world works. Science communication translates it in a language everyone understands. Since the outbreak of the corona pandemic, scientists and their expertise have continued to be even more in the focus of public and media coverage.
About 100 years ago, in 1919, Albert Einstein managed to prove his theory of Gravitational Lensing right. While the findings themselves were a groundbreaking revolution in physics, they had basically no practical use for the average person. As a matter of facts, only a handful of people could even understand the meaning of Einstein’s research at that time.
Ignoring the inherent complexity and practical uselessness of his research, the press quickly picked up on Einstein’s findings and thus made him Science’s first “superstar”.
In 2020, this story would be almost unthinkable to happen without Einstein having a press and PR-Team of at least 5 people. But how did we get here? How did we go from scientists being viewed as obscure people that constantly hide in their laboratories to the same people being traded as the Superstars of their time?
The reasons for the strong growth of science communication as a subcategory of journalism, PR and communication in general are simple:
1. There is more science happening
With more science happening in general, there are simply more topics to talk about. Additionally, the public interest in scientific research has surged in the past decades, creating science journalism as a subcategory of traditional journalism.
2. There is more criticism on science
In the past 150 years, the goals of scientific research have not always been for the greater good. Especially in WW2, science was used to develop some of the most gruesome ways to kill people. Amongst poisonous gasses, german euthanasia programs or new and deadlier guns, especially the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are examples of science doing more harm than good.
Due to these missteps, scientific research is often viewed upon more critically by recipients (rightfully so!). With more criticism being made, there is also more discussion surrounding the public sphere of Science and thus more need to communicate.
3. Communication legitimizes
If a scientist doesn’t publish his research, he or she might just as well not have done any research at all. Especially in times where attention is one of the most valuable resources to anyone communicating, publishing and publicly discussing research is essential for every scientist. Surely, not every Scientist is a good communicator, but that is the very reason why science communication exists.
Digitisation also changes science (communication)
Since the Internet has become more and more widespread and popular, opportunities in science have also changed: Knowledge is generated, stored, distributed or used differently today than it was 30 to 40 years ago. This has also changed science communication. Most publications by scientists can be found online and new channels and media formats exist to share knowledge.
This creates new opportunities and challenges for scientists. They can network more quickly with other scientists (e.g. on platforms such as Researchgate) or publish their results on various platforms such as social networks or blogs (e.g. the blog of the scientist Lars Fischer). However, this also requires a great amount of time and offers critics a target for attack through the presence and publication of results on the net. The pressure also increases when comparing with other scientists, e.g. by counting citations.
Science journalism as an intermediary between researchers and the public
Science journalism can be understood on the one hand as part of science communication, on the other hand as part of journalism. A science journalist gives science a voice, translates findings into an understandable language, brings together and contrasts different positions of scientists. Science is still more of a niche topic in journalism and requires extensive research, which is often time-intensive. In terms of science communication, it is particularly important that scientists and journalists develop a mutual understanding for each other in order to facilitate good cooperation.
Increased demand for information during the Corona crisis
Science and communication about it have been boosted by the corona pandemic in particular. Especially during the first weeks of the lockdown, the news was dominated by the corona issue. The population had an increased need for information and wanted to understand the reasons for the outbreak of the pandemic. In the process, science also came into focus and virologists such as Christian Drosten, Hendrik Streeck or Alexander Kekulé were suddenly well-known people in Germany who were regularly in the news.
In recent months, the reporting of scientific findings has thus spilled over from the sub-sector of science journalism into the daily news. This has meant that findings have had to be translated for a wide audience, which has caused many scientists a bitter taste.
Drosten and the media: criticism of media coverage during the Corona crisis
The virologist Christian Drosten in particular criticised that this translation of research statuses in media coverage was very much simplified and shortened, resulting in headlines and contributions that in his opinion were no longer justifiable. This was one of the reasons why he started the podcast „Corona Update“ together with the NDR at the beginning of the pandemic, in order to explain in detail new findings of the coronavirus.
According to Drosten, there was also a strong personification of himself and other virologists. In this context, one of the impressions he gained was that the media were trying to create a dispute between the scientists. At the same time, the public got the impression from the reporting that the scientists were making the political decisions on how to proceed in the Corona crisis. These decisions were always made by the politicians, who were only given scientific advice.
Learning processes in editorial offices and among scientists through corona crisis
Drostens‘ criticism of the media is understandable. In the reporting of the last few months, it has become clear that political journalism functions according to different logics than science journalism. It often tries to polarise, to present opposite positions and often focuses on individual people, mostly politicians. In science, however, these logics do not work: Here, the „controversy“ or rather the discourse between scientists contributes to the acquisition of new knowledge and has no bad motives. In the course of their coverage, editorial offices also had to constantly weigh up what they were reporting on and who they were listening to – and this often without scientific expertise in their own ranks. In addition, the reporting once again makes it clear that today’s fragmented media landscape, unfortunately, thrives on foreshortening and exaggeration in order to attract attention.
What are the criteria for good science communication?
To close this article, we have compiled a small list of criteria to spot good science communication. This list is by far not exhaustive though and can be expanded indefinitely according to other sources, many of which are listed below.
Good science communication…
- stays true to the facts
- highlights the boundaries and limitations of research
- is self-reflecting and analyzes critically
- conveys knowledge appropriately to the target group
- carves the relevant information out of the constant flood of new research
- supports and endorses the dialogue between science, politics and society
Further literature and recommendations about the topic:
- detektor.fm (2020): Grams’ Sprechstunde: Wissenschaftskommunikation – Was sagen, wann schweigen? Online. In: detektor.fm. Available at: https://detektor.fm/wissen/grams-sprechstunde-wissenschaftskommunikation
- Deutschlandfunk (2020a): Coronavirus und Medien – Christian Drosten bei #formate20. Online. In: Deutschlandfunk. Available at: https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/coronavirus-und-medien-christian-drosten-bei-formate20.740.de.html?dram:article_id=486042
- Deutschlandfunk (2020b): Folge 173 – Corona und wir: die Pandemie und die Medien. Online. In: Deutschlandfunk. Available at: https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/folge-173-corona-und-wir-die-pandemie-und-die-medien.3397.de.html?dram:article_id=487410
- maiLab (2020a): Corona hat meine Meinung geändert. Online. In: maiLab YouTube-Kanal. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn2rJrKwENI&t=12s
- maiLab (2020b): Virologen-Vergleich. Online. In: maiLab YouTube-Kanal. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u439pm8uYSk&t=4s
- NDR (2020): Coronavirus-Update #24: Wir müssen weiter geduldig sein | NDR Podcast. Online. In: NDR. Available at: https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/Coronavirus-Update-mit-Christian-Drosten,coronavirus1030.html