#SciComm: Linking scientists and the media

I vividly remember my maiden attempt to explain my drug discovery research interests to a non-chemistry audience –  my potential molecular biology collaborators. I illustrated the purpose of the different chemical modifications and their possible effects on drug pharmacology, metabolism, and physicochemical parameters. As a medicinal chemist, I appreciated being able to convey the essence of my project, and also being able to understand their research focus.

Meanwhile, aware of the breast cancer focus of my PhD project, my family/friends would ask me – ‘So, have you found a cure for cancer?’ I often find myself fumbling for an answer satisfactory to them – ‘Umm no, but I have made a contribution to the existent knowledge in the field’. Not good enough!

Science communication challenges lie at multiple levels, that involve the laypublic and the scientific community at large. There is a dire need, especially for the scientists, to realize and address these gaps.

Break it down: Communication between scientists

Interdisciplinary research – bringing together diverse fields – can demand effective dialogues between researchers for building meaningful collaborations. Scientists are accustomed to academic writing, and it can be agonizing to detach from technical details and the compulsive use of jargon. My collaborators and I tackled a similar challenge; we realized that communicating on a ‘big picture’ greatly helped us to unify our technical expertise. For e.g., we discussed the purpose of various biological assays (gene expression) to distinguish different chemical classes of the synthesized compounds; this excluded the protocol details. Our discussions at the conceptual level, addressing our research goals, helped us formulate specific objectives with potential applications in the clinical settings.

Break it down further: Engage the public

Popular science media is primarily accountable for educating the laypublic on scientific advances – this entrusts them with the responsibility to present news that a) raises awareness on important issues; b) do not create misconceptions.

A WHO survey (2014) conducted in developing countries found that an appalling 76% people believed that ‘anti-biotic resistance’ meant resistance of the human body (rather than the microbes) to the anti-biotics.¹ Self-prescribing antibiotics, leading to their indiscriminate usage, and further not finishing the entire course of medicines, are significant contributors. Media as much as doctors have to take responsibility to educating people about the do’s and don’ts of antibiotic medicines, and their implications extending to the community. The slow progress of antibiotic drug development and the rapid rate of the microorganisms developing resistance to them, poses a grim necessity of public awareness.

A 1998 Lancet article (retracted in 2010) linking MMR vaccine and autism propagated vaccination fear among the public. This being responsible for a decrease in the immunization rates, led to measles outbreaks in the UK.² The scepticism associated with vaccines has not been eradicated since; journalists presenting skewed reports are largely to blame here. Science aware media can be an effective means of intervention to address issues that can have a significant impact on a nation’s economies.

Apart from being morally obligated to repay their funding source (tax payers), scientists can cater to their own interests by popularizing their research among the public. The success of citizen science projects, ALS ice-bucket challenge have established the importance of crowdfunding as a burgeoning avenue for research funds. A recent two-day science festival in Singapore is an excellent example of science popularization. With flyers all over the city, this science fare had exhaustive demonstrations and interactive talks on cancer therapy, 3-D printing, bioplastics etc. Scientists of differing capacities engaged the public, and familiarized them with cutting edge technologies.³

Why are scientists good science communicators?

The recent mockery of scientific studies by John Oliver was not only a criticism of research questions and study designs, but also of the deteriorating quality of scientific reporting.⁴ For e.g., incongruous reports, having polar ‘opinions’ on the cardiovascular effects of coffee, muddles the laypublic’s scientific judgement. To produce a coherent report, a science journalist also requires an ability to understand statistics of the study and ask relevant questions – skills that scientists are well-versed with.

The onus is on scientists, to assume responsibility and employ strategies, that lead to impactful collaborative scientific research, authentic journalism and hence a science literate globe.