While providing PR support for a publisher of science journals, textbooks and online search and social media tools, I executed a number of campaigns that targeted researchers a couple of years ago. Part of the project involved studying the social media habits of this group, to better understand how many use various online tools and maintain blogs,for example.
We determined that researchers are (or at least were, at the time) a reclusive bunch when it comes to blogging. The competitive nature of their work compels scientists to keep their information cards close to the vest when it comes to online communications about topics they study.
So it did not surprise me to see the Wired article "Appeal to the Heart" in the latest issue that maintains that scientists need to do a better job communicating, and that they are losing the information war with pseudo science.
The article reported that attendees of a meeting of American Association for Advancement of Science discussed the challenges posed by climate change deniers.
According to the piece:
…the answer isn't more science, it's better PR. When celebrities like Tiger Woods or Tom Cruise lose control of their image… they hire an expert. What the climatology community needs is a crackerjack Hollywood PR team.
It goes on to quote an entertainment industry PR expert, from the firm that represents Ellen Page and Pee Wee Herman.
First off, I am not sure there is a problem here. There will always be extremists and true believers regardless of what hard science reveals. It does raise a compelling question: who really is ahead in shaping public opinion on various issues that pit hard science results against alternative views?
Assuming there is something to be worried about, I am not sure I buy into the cure discussed in the article. Science cannot be reduced to a brand like cottage cheese or Pee Wee Herman, in my view.
The issues are much more complex. The challenge is more akin to one that a tech PR firm would probably be well equipped to handle, as an example. Or perhaps a political PR firm, because to do this right you might need to mix it up, roll up your sleeves and possibly get tough. I am not sure if the seemingly straightforward but genteel tactics (recruit celebrity spokespeople, work harder to get the facts out) espoused in the article would have much of an impact.
Could there be anything more dry or boring than a contingent of white coated lab researchers lecturing the American public across all forms of media? Do celebrities have any credibility here? You need to wake people up, shake them by their lapels and get them to care. Al Gore and other high profile figures have been out there forever to little effect.
My advice is be dramatic and take no prisoners. E.g. why not make it personal and publicize the views and leanings of the pseudo scientists to show how extreme they are?
I am not sure if the scientists would play along though; according to the article
"Scientists hate the word spin. They get bent out of shape by the concept that they should frame their message," says Jeniffer Ouellette, director of the Science and Entertainment Exchange, a National Academy of Science Program that helps connect the entertainment industry with technical consultants
(Yes, there apparently really is an organization like this.)
What do you think? Who is winning the information war and what approach should scientists take to better communicate their findings?
