Are Scientists Anti-Social? (Part 2)

This is the final part of my take on the question – “Are Scientists Anti-Social”. The first part is here.

Part 2: Scientists sharing their work with the non-scientific public

“The School of Athens” at the Vatican Museum

This is where we have a truly important problem!

In my last post, I argued that any change in the way how scientists communicate with other scientists must preserve the time-tested peer-review model of scientific publication. However, when it comes to scientists communicating with non-scientists, absolutely any change in the current model is welcome and desperately needed.

Scientists need to understand that doing science is not their right. It is a privilege given to them by the taxpayer (or if you are in a private company – by the shareholders). Scientists are ultimately accountable to those who fund them and should make every opportunity possible to make the public understand their work.

The public needs to understand what the scientific method entails. For example, the active ingredient in those anti-allergic pills you took recently – the one that clears your symptoms in 30 minutes and doesn’t make you drowsy (also known as second generation H1-receptor antagonists) – was first discovered in 1933 by scientists while working with guinea pigs to prevent anaphylactic shock in humans, then widely debated in scientific literature, scored a Nobel Prize in 1957, engendered more projects, taken into development by multi-billion dollar drug companies, declared safe for patients by the FDA in 1995, now a lot of them are off-patent, and thus, for a few dollars, you can enjoy allergy season by controlling your immune system, without which you would not be alive. The public cannot take the arduous process behind these discoveries trivially, and then demand more effective treatments for their children (essentially a finer control of their physiology at lower prices), while tacitly allowing their government to cut research spending to an extent that now only one in five grants gets funded.

Science and medicine are under attack in recent times like never before in history. In cases that are much more serious than rapid allergy relief. Be it climate change, vaccinations, or particle physics; any fool with an internet connection can now pass judgement and give advice in areas so far beyond their field of expertise, with so little accountability, that they become extremely dangerous (the irony of posting this on an obscure blog is just hitting me!). Scientists need to step up and communicate to the public effectively regarding what they do, and how they do it. I believe that if such a communication strategy doesn’t feature prominently in your scientific training and mentorship plan, you have failed as a scientist.

Like most important things, effective communication is not easy. And it takes a lot of time. Scientists are so often caught up in their jargon (to communicate with other scientists, you see!) that any ‘normal’ person would lose interest immediately. This is where science writers and communicators come in. Their expertise lies in understanding the scientific process, jargon et al., and present it in a way that is interesting to the non-scientific public without misrepresenting facts, or obfuscating facts and opinions (very important). Most of what passes for science reporting in the media nowadays comes from journalists who are either jumping the gun on the implications of the science they report (to get breaking news), or intentionally twisting the story to be as sensationalistic as possible to get more page hits (yes, Gizmodo, I’m thinking of you).

Well-informed, articulate science journalists are very valuable to society. Fortunately, they happen to be quite prolific on social networks like Twitter and the general blogosphere. Combinations of scientists, communicators and informed citizens (non-immigrant aliens too!) form groups like SoNYC aimed at tackling these issues. At the SoNYC meeting #2, we discussed the role of social networking tools like Twitter in science communication. A prominent tweep said that she used Twitter to troubleshoot a DNA gel with a colleague. I would consider this to be an extreme version of scientific communication though Twitter. I follow scientists who tweet their thoughts on freshly published scientific paper in less than 140 characters, exactly like most people tweet their thoughts on a linked article. I find this tremendously helpful in keeping track of what is published. Another great friend/ scientist and I routinely engage (often combatively) proponents of pseudoscience like homeopathy, astrology, rabid pro-lifers and religious fanatics. These people need to know that their propaganda against science will not go unchallenged. Social networks are unique in their ability to connect people in interesting ways. For example, I started using Twitter first for following technology related news. Then I started connecting with amateur photographers (still my primary use of Twitter). I found a prolific scientist that a famous technology writer follows. She tweeted about the SoNYC meeting, and that is how I came to know of their second meeting. And it was a block away from where I work. There are many such examples of how social networks indirectly, yet more effectively, influence science thinking and communication.

I will wrap up with another good question floated at SoNYC of how we can get more scientists on social networks. I think it is only a matter of time before Twitter takes-off in the scientific community (assuming Twitter doesn’t keep doing crazy things out of fear). Facebook emerged from a sea of social networks (MySpace, Orkut, Hi5 – to name a few) by rapidly delivering what the public wanted, and delivering it well. Facebook now boasts over 500 million users (more than the population of the USA). Twitter is still relatively small in comparison, but a much more powerful service in terms of connecting people based on interest, rather than acquaintance. The early adopters need to tweet more and spread the word to their colleagues.