Communicating Science

When scientists and others use their specialized jargon terms while communicating with the general public, the effects are much worse than just making what they're saying hard to understand. In a new study, people exposed to jargon when reading about subjects like self-driving cars and surgical robots later said they were less interested in science than others who read about the same topics, but without the use of specialized terms.

The authors measured citation rates and the Altmetric Attention Score—an indicator of the amount and reach of the attention an article has received—along with other forms of bibliometric performance (year published, journal impact factor, and article type). Published in PeerJ: Life & Environment (2018).

Experimental astrophysicist Amber D. Miller argues that we need to show the world what an incredible resource we can offer for solving today’s complex problems.

Researchers analyzed thousands of climate change articles from 45 countries and territories around the world to determine how they frame the issue, and differences were revealed mostly by the wealth of the nation.

We will provide general recommendations for those interested in developing basic science courses with an emphasis on communication with a layperson audience, with specific examples derived from our own experience developing and implementing a neuroimmunology course designed to promote science communication skills in parallel with mastery of scientific content.

In 2014, the Annenberg Public Policy Center opened an area of study in the Science of Science Communication, to investigate how scientific evidence can be more effectively conveyed to the public. This research looks at the failure to dispel public controversy over such issues as climate change, vaccinations, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) despite the presence of valid, compelling and widely accessible scientific evidence.

Previous research indicated that corrective information can sometimes provoke a so-called “backfire effect” in which respondents more strongly endorsed a misperception about a controversial political or scientific issue when their beliefs or predispositions were challenged. I show how subsequent research and media coverage seized on this finding, distorting its generality and exaggerating its role relative to other factors in explaining the durability of political misperceptions. To the contrary, an emerging research consensus finds that corrective information is typically at least somewhat effective at increasing belief accuracy when received by respondents. However, the research that I review suggests that the accuracy-increasing effects of corrective information like fact checks often do not last or accumulate; instead, they frequently seem to decay or be overwhelmed by cues from elites and the media promoting more congenial but less accurate claims. As a result, misperceptions typically persist in public opinion for years after they have been debunked. Given these realities, the primary challenge for scientific communication is not to prevent backfire effects but instead, to understand how to target corrective information better and to make it more effective. Ultimately, however, the best approach is to disrupt the formation of linkages between group identities and false claims and to reduce the flow of cues reinforcing those claims from elites and the media. Doing so will require a shift from a strategy focused on providing information to the public to one that considers the roles of intermediaries in forming and maintaining belief systems.

Before getting fired up to set the scientific record straight, scientists would do well to first consider the science of science communication.

Explains how cognitive biases operate—what goes in inside people's heads that makes us more likely to fall for fake news, and for us to continue to believe false information even after it's been corrected.

Illustrated explanation of the Backfire Effect.