Communicating Science En

76
Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation, Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industria innovatioInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industria innovation If h i i l i h dd l i dh lh i li id ili i Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation, Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation, Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation GENERAL INFORMATION infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation A SCIENTIST’S SURVIVAL KIT communicatingscience

Transcript of Communicating Science En

Page 1: Communicating Science En

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation,Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industriainnovatioInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industriainnovationI f h i i l i h d d l i d h l h i l i i d i l i i

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation,

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation,

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation,

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

GEN

ERA

LIN

FOR

MAT

ION

infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation,research and development, environment and health,s o c i e t a l i s s u e s , i n d u s t r i a l i n n o v a t i o n

A S C I E N T I S T ’ S S U R V I VA L K I T

communicating science

Page 2: Communicating Science En

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Directorate-General for ResearchE-mail: [email protected]/nanotechnology

Interested in European research? RTD info is our quarterly magazine keeping you in touch with main developments (results, programmes, events, etc.). It is available in English, French and German. A free sample copy or free subscription can be obtained from:

European Commission Directorate-General for ResearchInformation and Communication UnitB-1049 BrusselsFax (32-2) 29-58220E-mail: [email protected]: http://ec.europa.eu/research/rtdinfo/index_en.html

Page 3: Communicating Science En

Directorate-General for Research

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

2006

communicating science“A SCIENTIST’S SURVIVAL KIT”

by Giovanni Carrada

Page 4: Communicating Science En

LEGAL NOTICE:

Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might bemade of the following information.

The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of theEuropean Commission.

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu.int).

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2006

ISBN 92-79-01947-3

© European Communities, 2006Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Belgium

PRINTED ON WHITE CHLORINE-FREE PAPER

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union

Freephone number:00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

Page 5: Communicating Science En

Foreword

As much of the ongoing research is funded with publicmoney, it is evident the need to inform the public aboutthe main research results, so as to allow interested peopleto follow the ongoing developments and to form their ownopinion on the basis of sound, science-based facts anddata.

Fortunately, more and more events are organised oncommunicating science such as that held in Brusselson 14 and 15 November 2005. The European Commissionpublishes and freely distributes a number of brochures,movies, leaflets and other materials on European researchfor different age ranges. Science journalists are increasinglyreporting about research and schools and science museumsare multiplying their initiatives.

Probably, scientists and researchers can also still improvetheir skills and practice in interfacing with the media,elaborating and presenting information in a way that noninitiated persons can easily and rapidly understand.

With the intention of providing a service to those scientistsand researchers, we are glad to publish and freely distributethe English edition of this Survival Kit written by the journalistGiovanni Carrada, whose original publication has beensupported by Italy’s National Permanent Conference ofDeans from the Faculties of Science and Technology. Weare thankful to professor Enrico Predazzi, President of theConference for his kind permission to distribute this SurvivalKit to a broad and international audience.

Page 6: Communicating Science En
Page 7: Communicating Science En

LEAVING THE IVORYTOWERScience and society: just like a marriage The rise and fall of the Public Understanding of Science Do people care about science and scientists? Dialogue with society How knowledge and opinions of science are shaped The perception of risks Be part of the gameCommunication is an indispensable Sisyphean task

THE ABCS OF COMMUNICATING WITHTHE PUBLICFrom peer to peer to public communication Competing for attention The power of emotions The power of storytelling Why is science “difficult”? Ethics in science communication

PLANNING YOUR COMMUNICATIONStarting off on the right foot Clarify your aims Know your own audience Assess constraints and opportunitiesChoose your message When communication is an uphill battleThe ten laws of human communication

TELLING A SCIENCESTORYTelling a story, or rather getting read Arguing, or rather persuading Explaining, or rather making what is difficult easy The text: short, clear and effective The use of pictures

USING JOURNALISTS Journalists and scientists: two different cultures What is a “good” piece of news? Not all journalists are alike How to access the media How to answer the media’s requests Working together

KNOWING THE MEDIAChoosing the right medium Television RadioThe generalist press The specialized press Books Science museums and exhibitionsThe Internet

INDEX - 7

INDEXPREFACEINTRODUCTIONA new job to learn Why engage in science communication? The advantage of being a scientist What is in this bookThanks

Page 8: Communicating Science En

8 - PREFACE

TO WORK!SUGGESTED READING PREFACEThe publication of this science communication primer was stronglyencouraged and promoted by the Permanent National Conference ofDeans from the Faculties of Science and Technologies.

The Conference is worried about thecultural, social and economic under-development which awaits aCountry in which there exists anincreasingly negative perception ofscience and basic research iscontracting dangerously.Fortunately, the alarm sent out bythe Conference seems to have rea-ched all or nearly all the country’sscience policy-makers, and oppor-tune measures are being studied,where they do not yet exist.One of the aspects neglected bythese measures, however, is anadequate maximization of the scien-tist’s work. If citizens do not know orappreciate what is being done inresearch institutes and laboratories,it is unlikely that science will find thesupport and talents it needs tocontinue to develop.Unfortunately, even we scientistsoften underestimate this activity andtend to see it, in fact, as a marginaldetail.We have learned how to work inresearch and in the laboratory, butnot how to work in the world of themedia. Indeed, our internal commu-nication practices differ greatly fromscience coverage for generalaudiences. But today we can nolonger ignore what the publicknows, or thinks it knows outsideour institutes or laboratories.For this reason, it is important thatincreasingly more scientists acceptthe author’s invitation to “learn ano-

ther job as well”, or at least to havean idea of what it entails. Not eve-ryone, naturally, will discover a parti-cular talent for speaking directly tothe public, but it will be useful toeveryone, in any case, to learn towork better with the media. This isthe objective of Giovanni Carrada’sbook. The pages which follow des-cribe how the world of communica-tions today works from the inside,including many tricks of the trade,while keeping in mind the scientist’spoint of view, interests, difficultiesand values. This book is not a col-lection of pre-packaged advice,rather, it introduces the reader to thecomplex and sophisticated proces-ses of science and technology com-munication, so that the reader willbe able to apply them. For this reason, before examiningthe more practical aspects, thebook opens with a reflection on howand why the relationship betweenscience and society is changing. Itthen proceeds with the underlyingconcepts of public communication,and finally it discusses everythingthat needs to be done before get-ting down to work, in the planningstage.Most likely, the reader will find moresurprises in this part of the book,since these first three chapters pro-vide the information which will helphim to begin thinking like a commu-nicator.The second part, on the other hand,

Page 9: Communicating Science En

PREFACE - 9

is dedicated to science communica-tion practices, for scientists whowant to take this job on personallyas well as for those who work withjournalists or other communicationprofessionals. It is a true mineload ofuseful information and suggestionsfor scientists that want or have tomake themselves heard in the noisyworld of today. In other words, thismanual is for the scientist whowants to survive in the sea of themedia which very often too easilydistorts, or even portrays the exactopposite of, what research hassweated to achieve.Perhaps, the strong point of thiswork, however, is represented by itsclarity of intent and expression. Theno frills language is clear and preci-se while the examples are pertinent;its reasoning is well supported andthe tone even-tempered andthoughtful. It is organized in concep-tually solid paragraphs which arelogically connected, allowing thereader to capture the key conceptsof communicating science in thefirst, rapid reading. The quotationscited at the beginning of each chap-ter are extremely appropriate, andare not simply decoration. On thecontrary they summarise the mainpoints which follow and draw thereader in.Every section of the book is arran-ged so that the reader will not wasteprecious time, as the author knowshow much time is worth. For this

reason, the bibliography also offersessential specifically-targeted, easilyaccessible studies.The book is so easy to read andfluent that as the title itself reveals itcan be taken as a survival kit; yet, inreality, the covert soul of a potentialscientist and science communicatoris felt. The sincere enthusiasm in thisbook is clearly rooted in professionalexperience which fully recognisesthe importance of science-citizeninteraction.This work, far from being exclusive-ly designed for the scientific world,should be, I believe, used as a basictext for every course of study inCommunication Sciences. If com-munication is not a gift, or at leastnot completely, and can thereforebe learned, this survival kit seems tobe a good starting point.

Enrico Predazzi

President of the NationalPermanent Conference

of Deans of the Faculties ofScience and Technologies

Dean of the Facoltà diScienze MFN dell’Università di

TorinoTo Paola and little Giulio and Pietro

Page 10: Communicating Science En

10 - INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTIONA NEW JOB TO LEARNA man who wants the truth becomes a scientist.A man that wants to let his subjectivity free may become a writer.But what should a man do who wants something in-between?

Robert Musil

In 1992, the astronomer Carl Sagan,protagonist of countless publicappearances, as well as the authorof twenty books translated worldwi-de, an enormously successful televi-sion series and a Hollywood film,was denied membership to theNational Academy of Sciences. Infact he was not able to raise therequired two-thirds vote from itsmembers. Director of the Laboratoryof Planetary Studies at CornellUniversity, Sagan had distinguishedhimself for the calculation of thegreenhouse effect on Venus, for hisstudies on the surface of Mars andon the oceans of Titan, Saturn’slarge moon. Too many colleaguesturned up their noses at his tirelessactivity in spreading scientific news,which had made him, perhaps themost famous scientist in the UnitedStates, and one of the most vibrantdefenders of science in the world.Two years later the NationalAcademy of Sciences reconsideredits vote, honouring him with thePublic Welfare Medal. Sagan hadbrilliantly challenged two importantprejudices which besiege scientiststhat choose to communicate withthe general public: the idea thatscientists who do are distracted fromtheir “real” work – research – and theidea that scientists are not able toexpress themselves clearly, as if theirmental universe were so far from thecommon man that at the very leastthey need a “translator”.

Openings and closings

There have always been scientistsdedicated to disseminating theirown work, the first being Galileo,who the Church never forgave forhis choice to write in vulgate ratherthan in the more obscure Latin.Over the years, however, theirwillingness to do so has changed.The Nineteenth century was one ofthe most propitious, especially inEngland. Beginning in 1826, andfor over twenty years, MichaelFaraday described the latest deve-lopments in science every Fridayevening, during extremely crowdedlectures held at the RoyalInstitution.Yet, in the first few decades of theTwentieth century scientists’ enthu-siasm for popularising science wasalready greatly declining. In 1938Lancelot Hogben, afraid of jeopardi-zing his upcoming nomination as aFellow of the Royal Society, askedhis colleague, Hyman Levy to pre-tend to be the author of his bookMathematics for the Million, a popu-lar work which became an internatio-nal bestseller. Only in the 1980s wasthere a large scale resurgence ofpublic engagement with the world ofresearch. This was no coincidence,as we will see in the next chapter.

Today, however, most of the bestpopular books on science are notcreated by “translators”, but by

Page 11: Communicating Science En

INTRODUCTION - 11

scientists. Just think of RichardDawkins, Antonio Damasio, StephenHawking, Edward O. Wilson, JaredDiamond or Luigi Luca CavalliSforza.

Even outside of the star system,increasingly more scientists are deci-ding to try out this new job. In fact,everyone, to different degrees andwith different roles, may be asked todiscuss or comment on his or herown research or research in theirfield. The reasons are varied many:s(he)may need to respond to a jour-nalist’s request, intervene on a deba-ted issue, assist with an exhibit or atelevision show, present a degree,speak with lobbies or spokespeoplefor interest groups, present their ownactivities to industry, local institutionsor other possible financers, or simplycollaborate effectively with the pressoffice of their own institution.

A new climate

Not many years after Carl Sagan’srejection, the situation changed.Today, in fact, scientific institutionsthemselves, like the English RoyalSociety and the French Académiedes Science, the AustralianCommonwealth Scientific andIndustrial Research Organisation aswell the American Association for theAdvancement of Science, are all invi-ting their members to discuss theirown work. It is no longer branded as

a waste of time, but rather, in somecases public engagement is nowindicated as an “obligation”. Some ofthese institutions, such as theAmerican National ScienceFoundation and the British ResearchCouncil have produced guidelines oncommunication, and many havecreated press offices or have hired acommunication officer, promotinginitiatives of every type includingeducational websites, documenta-ries, science shows and volunteerservice in research. Some, such asthe American Society forNeuroscience, have even formed astaff of professionals dedicated toassisting scientists in communica-tions with the general public.

More and more frequently, somebasic training in communication isconsidered necessary for those whowork or are about to undertake acareer in research. In Great Britain,for example, most of the ResearchCouncils offer their Ph.D. students afew days of training in communica-tions and the media, while propercourses are offered by universities,such as The University College inLondon. In the United States theAmerican Association for theAdvancement of Science and theScientists’ Institute for PublicInformation are the organizationswhich usually see to this.Why is there such renewed enthusiasm?

Page 12: Communicating Science En

First and foremost:Satisfaction

The vast majority of scientists willagree that, spoken or unspoken, it isabsolutely natural to desire the dis-semination of research, be it one’sown or from one’s field of study. It isrewarding to go outside the confines(human too) of one’s specializationand share one’s own passions withothers: managing to do so can be asource of great personal satisfac-tion. Whatever the reason for deci-ding to communicate, if you are notable to transmit your own passion itwill be very difficult to obtain goodresults. Konrad Lorenz was sopopular because of his extraordina-ry ability to get his readers involvedin the adventure of ethology, and thesame is true for all the great scien-tist-communicators.In addition to spreading knowledge,telling science stories helps conveythe value of a scientific way of thin-king and a rational attitude to pro-blems, even to those which havenothing to do with science.Historically, one of science’s mostimportant cultural contributions wasits example as “good training fordemocracy”. In fact, it was alsothrough science that the West lear-ned to defend its own reasons withrationality and an assessment ofreality, distrust towards establishedmoral and cultural authorities, tole-rance for others’ ideas and the belief

that everyone can contribute to theprogress of knowledge.

Communicating with otherscientists

Paradoxically, public communica-tion can also help inform otherscientists of your own activities,overcoming the barriers whichseparate different disciplinary fields.Progress in science and technologyare, in fact, so rapid and numerousthat in general scientists are onlyable to keep themselves updated ina highly specialized niche area ofknowledge. All scientists, in otherwords, are part of the general publicwhen something that lies outside oftheir field is discussed.In the United States, competition forcoverage in an important newspa-per, like The New York Times, hasbeen very strong, since it was dis-covered that it helps to become bet-ter known even amongst collea-gues. Some preliminary data cited inNature even indicate how scientificworks that were covered by new-spapers were later cited more fre-quently in specialized publications.Furthermore, new fields wereannounced and in some way evendefined with respect to the others, inbooks for non peer audiences, asoccurred in the mid Nineties with thestudies on consciousness and ear-lier with cosmology.

Acquiring familiarity with the tech-niques of public communication ofscience may, finally, be useful in tea-ching. In fact, there is no reason tomake a subject more difficult thannecessary.Even if (contrary to what happens inpublic communications) studentshave freely chosen to study a sub-ject and have a precise reason forstudying it, the ability to interestthem and keep their attention alive,while helping them to save cognitiveenergy, can become precious in anytype of lesson or presentation.

Often, however, the communica-tion of science has other purpo-ses, which are, perhaps, lessnoble but not less important.More than an end, in these cases,the dissemination of scientific cul-ture becomes a means. Beingable to effectively express your-self, means being able to effecti-vely persuade others and sendout messages with clear objecti-ves in sight.

But above all it is importantfor science

If many scientists end up enthusiasticabout disseminating science, it is alsobecause they have had to make a vir-tue of necessity. The great paradox ofscience today is, in fact, that while it isa hegemonic culture – few others areable to change our way of living, pro-

12 - INTRODUCTION

WHY ENGAGE IN SCIENCE COMMUNICATIONS?Today communicating is considered a strategic function by the majority of organizationswhich interact in our social system. It identifies them, justifies them, allows them togain consensus and to work to achieve the objectives that all systems have: to survive,to protect themselves, to obtain resources, and to grow.Annamaria Testa

Page 13: Communicating Science En

ducing, working and thinking so pro-foundly and quickly – science literacyremains low.With rare exceptions, such as SouthKorea and Finland, international sur-veys show almost unanimously thatcitizens lack scientific knowledge,even in the most developed coun-tries. This shortcoming is even moreserious given the continual growth ofknowledge and its practical applica-tions. At the Lisbon Conference in2000 the European government lea-ders pledged to make the Union “themost competitive knowledge-basedsociety and economy” by 2010. As aresult, the poor understanding ofscience by young people has beco-me subject of public debate inEurope. Disregarded in the past, theresults of international enquiries onthe level of student preparation, suchas PISA (Programme fro InternationalStudent Assessment by the OECD),are now published by important dailynewspapers. In addition, occasionsfor friction between science andsociety continue to multiply due to theinfluence of new technologies, thechoices new advances force us tomake or the impact new knowledgehas on the beliefs and values at thebase of our identities, culture andways of thinking.

The new necessity to communicatewith the general public actuallyshows how successful science is:the more you know and know how

to do, the more opportunities thereare to encounter (sometime even toclash with) different social stakehol-ders or different points of view.

Thus, if until recently communicatingwith society was an optional, todayit has become a necessity. And noone, in the scientific world, canafford to ignore this. In fact, youcannot expect someone else, forexample an “enlightened” politician,to defend the interests of science. Inthe last few years the relationshipsbetween science and society havebegun to change radically. In thisregard some have spoken of atransition from “academic” scienceto “post-academic” science.The important decisions which involvescientists’ work are no longer made bythe scientific community alone or bysome office in a state department.More and more often they are theresult of a complex negotiation with anumber of social groups: national andlocal politicians, private companiesand their associations, lobbies or spe-cial interest groups, “moral authorities”and the media. Often such decisionsare also presented to the generalpublic, whose opinions are later reflec-ted in the way the media and politi-cians behave.If one simply considers research oncancer or AIDS, human space mis-sions, biotechnology or geneticscreening, the growing weight (forbetter or worse) which extra-scienti-

fic opinions have on the decisionsrelated to research priorities beco-mes obvious. Because scientificresearch is ever more often the truecultural, social and economic driver,the quality of science communica-tion has become essential to demo-cracy and progress. On the onehand then, it is necessary to avoid atechnocratic drift, which wouldmean shielding the true decisionsfrom public scrutiny behind a mediasmokescreen. This operation, intruth, would most likely boomerangin the short run, as past experiencehas taught. On the other hand, it isnecessary to avoid the opposite,populist drift, in which an expert opi-nion is much less important than thepolitical game and the inevitableirrationality of the mass media. Notjust this. It is also important to pre-vent the birth of a subclass, scienti-fically speaking, made up of peoplewho know nothing at all about theprogress of the techno-sciences,and cannot understand how themodern world works, and are there-fore unable to participate in the lifeof a technological society.

The general objective of an effectivepolicy for science communication isto (re-)construct a climate of reci-procal knowledge and trust bet-ween science and society, establis-hing an authentically open and notjust “cosmetic” dialogue with thepublic.

INTRODUCTION - 13

Page 14: Communicating Science En

14 - INTRODUCTION

Visibility, consensus, trust

The first objective, from this point ofview, is to obtain visibility. In fact, it isdifficult to make yourself heard if youare not “visible”; or rather, if you arenot recognised as someone impor-tant and entitled to speak by thegeneral public or specific stakehol-ders. Naturally, visibility must bepositive; namely, it must be associa-ted with social consensus regardingits very existence and activity, whichcan play on an entire range of moti-vations, from the usefulness of one’sown research to national pride.More than ever, obtaining or protec-ting your financing is tied to thisconsensus. Social support is, infact, a prerequisite for political sup-port. Just think, for example, of therole public mobilisation played indetermining the financial contribu-tions for the research and treatmentof two important illnesses with verydifferent incidence like AIDS andbreast cancer, or for cancerresearch and research on cardio-vascular diseases, which in actualfact represent the number onecause of death in western countries.And there are other examples aswell.

Social consensus is not automati-cally created, based on how goodthe cause is objectively, but it needsto be actively pursued with effectivecommunication.

It was no coincidence that a fewyears of an intense communication

campaign was necessary to “sell”the Human Genome Project. Initiallythe campaign involved periodicalsfor the scientific community andthen gradually included popularmagazines which baptised thehuman genome “the book of life”.When, in the first half of the Nineties,the Finnish government gave the okto a decade-long 13.5% annualincrease in spending for research,the decision was made possible bythe construction of a widespreadand profound social consensus inthe country. The ultimate example isTelethon’s financial contribution toresearch for rare genetic diseases.Telethon is a series of national chari-ties professionally managed, thatcollect donations for dozens ofmillions of euro with single annualtelevised events.Without social consensus, not evenlobbying is enough: as the GMOexperience has shown, politics mustfollow the electorates orientation, nomatter how unreasonable it may be.Consensus, not necessarily of anentire social body, becomes, in fact,even more important when theobjective is difficult to reach. Whenthe decision is controversial, and itmay be so for various reasons, thefinal decision is always political. Andpolitical decisions are not alwaysrational. In some issues, which canbe defined “ideological”, the free-dom of research itself may be inquestion. But they are not necessa-

rily lost causes. A referendum cam-paign which intended to prohibit anytype of research in biotechnologywas defeated in Switzerland in1998, because scientists made anall out effort to inform the generalpublic, and learned to use the sameinstruments of public communica-tion as their adversaries.Finally, there are times when it isessential to make a scientificallybased voice heard loud and clear,such as when irrationality risksexploding, in situations like theSARS epidemic, an earthquake orthe umpteenth new “cure” for can-cer. The fundamental objective is,however, to establish with society,or key members of it, a deeper andmore solid relationship based ontrust. Only on this basis, tested overtime, will the inevitable gap be brid-ged; even if to some degree therewill always be a difference betweenthose who hold very complex kno-wledge and all the rest.

Page 15: Communicating Science En

INTRODUCTION - 15

The combined pressures to publishand find resources for research donot make the life of a scientist easy.Even without the added task of lear-ning a new job.Many may not feel particularly talen-ted as communicators. And per-haps they are not. Basically, theyhave chosen a completely differentcareer. Many others may not like thisjob, perhaps because they feel as ifthey have to “dirty their hands” insome way. Others may not like theidea of adding their personal contri-bution to the general informationoverload.Communicating with the generalpublic is, in fact, not without risks,as we will see further on when weexamine some of its ethical aspects.There is an actual risk that even inimportant choices the better com-municator’s position will prevail, andnotthe one held by the scientist withbetter arguments. Moreover, ascientist may be appreciated more if(s)he is telegenic rather than for theimpact factor of their publications.The need for public communication,however, remains.

The mechanisms which have crea-ted the escalation of volume andcommunicative hyperboles in everysector of society now apply toscience as well. And the price fornot communicating, or communi-cating poorly, is becoming higherevery day. Today those who are

not (well) represented in the publicarena risk losing their say, resour-ces, trust and at times even free-dom.There is nothing exceptional in all ofthis. All great social actors have hadto take this same road, and scienceis beginning to take it up at least ageneration late, compared to, forexample, the private sector. And thisis a road that you cannot turn backon. Why not, then, delegate publiccommunication to professionals? Asin all organizations, in science, com-munication is inevitably being hand-led more and more often by profes-sionals, and it should be that way.However, the active involvement ofscientists remains indispensable,because they are always the first linkin the chain of communication.Every choice made at the beginningof the chain will influence everythingthat happens subsequently, for bet-ter or worse. Professionals, such asthe press officer, must, in any case,be informed and guided.Moreover, because of the very spe-cific nature of science compared toother sectors, it is often difficult for anon expert to have as good a com-mand of the subject as the scientistdoing the work, or to see all its impli-cations, even in the long term.The scientist, in other words, is theperson best equipped to correctlyposit the communication, and attimes to do it themselves. Mostinternational reports have, in fact,

underlined that the general publicviews being a scientist as an asset,compared to the journalist. Theircredibility is higher simply because(s)he is are the one who creates theknowledge and does not simplypass it on second hand.

If it is true that the consequences ofscience and technology are tooimportant to leave in the hands ofscientists alone, it is also true thatthe relationship between scienceand society is too important to sim-ply leave in the hands of non scien-tists.

At times, to speak with a foreigner itis better to learn their languagerather than to use an interpreter, andthen perhaps complain if you do notunderstand each other.

THE ADVANTAGE OF BEING A SCIENTISTNothing shocks me. I am a scientist.Indiana Jones

Page 16: Communicating Science En

The purpose of this book is to helpthose who work in the world ofresearch to communicate thecontents and importance of theirown work or the work in their field.In fact, it provides the essentials forpublic communication in scienceand technology for scientists whowish to take this task on in personas well as for those who choose touse the media or professionals. Inthis last case a scientist risks limitinghis role to checking the correctnessof the content and wasting preciousopportunities, or worse dictatingwrong choices.The idea is to take a look at whatlays behind the work of professionalcommunicators, like journalists, whounderstand how to address thepublic at large, and learn to use theirskills to the benefit of science.This volume is a collection and sum-mary of reflections and experiencesfrom the last few years, not only inthe field of public communication ofscience and technology, but also inthe social sciences and the widerworld of professional communica-tions; in addition, naturally, to theauthor’s own experiences.But, can you learn to communicate?The good news is that the rules tocommunicate effectively are few andsimple. The bad news is that it is noteasy or natural to apply them. Tosome degree, in fact, communica-ting is a repeatedly new process,and the most suitable application of

the rules needs to be identified caseby case, using your creativity, whichis, as we all know, is a curious mix ofrationality and subjectivity. A book,moreover, may not be the bestmeans to transmit practical kno-wledge: it is better to demonstratesomething and then have it done,just as we do in the laboratory.The following pages, however, dooffer an good way to begin, or to re-order and enrich what has alreadybeen learned from past errors orintuition.This book is arranged “from generaltheories to small tricks of the trade”,in the sense that it begins with amore general and theoretical frame-work and, little by little, moves on tomore practical and functional infor-mation. A simple manual of practicaladvice, similar to the ones alreadyavailable internationally, would notbe enough, in fact, to get an idea ofhow complex and sophisticated theprocesses of communication are,especially if the subject is science ortechnology.Let us take a look, then, at thebook.Chapter 1 helps understand howand why the relationships betweenscience and society are changingand how long-standing difficultieshave been addressed. In particularthe crisis of the main approach useduntil recently, the so called PublicUnderstanding of Science, is exami-ned. Is it really true that everything

would be resolved if citizens simplyhad access to more scientific kno-wledge? This subject is then develo-ped using the results of reports andsurveys, in addition to the mostimportant analyses of how knowled-ge and opinions on science are sha-ped, and ends with the new modelsof communication between theworld of research and society.Chapter 2 discusses the basic prin-ciples and concepts of communica-ting science to the general public,which are (almost) the opposite ofthose used for peer audiences. Itbegins with the need to compete forattention in a world in which everyo-ne is forced to raise their voice lou-der and louder: excellent reasoningis not enough and an emotionallyflat communication does not “makethe grade”. Nor is it enough to“translate” into a simpler language,which presumes, in any case, thatthe reasons (obvious and lessobvious) why the public finds scien-ce difficult are clear. It is necessaryto create stories which contain andpossibly embody the facts and argu-ments that must be presented to thepublic.Planning is the subject of Chapter 3.Public communication cannot beimprovised, and the most seriouserrors, in fact, are those made at thebeginning. Planning means thinkingcarefully about a number of ele-ments: objectives, audience, thesubject’s limitations and opportuni-

16 - INTRODUCTION

WHAT IS IN THIS BOOKThe best effect of any book is that it excites the reader to self-activity.Thomas Carlyle

Page 17: Communicating Science En

ties and messages to transmit. Andif the task is an uphill battle andinvolves more than one contribution,it is necessary to devise an informa-tional campaign.Chapter 4 deals with communicatingin person, as the author, and thusabove all how to transform what youwant to explain in something thepublic is willing to listen to. Three ele-ments are examined in detail: what agood science story is and how tofind and construct it; how to beconvincing, applying the classictechniques to science and technolo-gy as well as a few specific solutions.Finally the ideas and the tools toexplain, or rather to make a difficulttopic easy are discussed. In addi-tion, attention is given to the qualityof writing, a basic skill necessary for

every type of medium, as well as tothe opportunities and dangers ofpictures.Chapter 5 deals with communicatingthrough journalists, or rather how touse the media to reach the targetaudience. Success means recogni-sing and overcoming the differencesbetween your professional back-ground and the journalists’ experien-ce, but also distinguishing betweenthe various types of journalists. Aspecial topic discussed is how toaccess the media as well as how toanswer their requests. The chaptercloses with how to learn to work withjournalists and the importance ofestablishing good personal relations-hips with them.Chapter 6 is dedicated to the choiceof the most suitable media for one’s

own objectives and possibilities. Themain media are examined in relationto science: their characteristics, dif-fusion, audience, suitable topics, keyadvice and how to access them.

Given the wide range of topics dealtwith, but also considering the valueof the reader’s time, this book isinevitably a synthesis which, tomake the reading easier, has avoi-ded notes and quotations. For thisreason a practical bibliography hasbeen added to facilitate a moredetailed study of the subjects dealtwith in each chapter: documentswhich can be downloaded fromInternet, which are fortunatelynumerous in this sector, have beengiven more attention than booksand articles.

INTRODUCTION - 17

Having worked with Piero Angela for over ten years has taught me almost everything I know about science and tech-nology communication. In addition to many “tricks of the trade”, Piero Angela has shown me that science can beexplained clearly while respecting both science and the public.Precious advice and suggestions were offered by my friends, Romeo Bassoli, Massimiano Bucchi, RossellaCastelnuovo, Emmanuele A. Jannini and Elisa Manacorda.Finally, a special thanks to Prof. Enrico Predazzi, president of the National Conference of Deans from the Faculties ofSciences, who from the very start believed in the idea of a “survival kit” to help our scientists explain science and makeits reasons heard.

THANKS

Page 18: Communicating Science En

Once upon a time there was an erain which, when science spoke, citi-zens took off their hats and listenedto the Word, in silence. It was theera of The World of Tomorrow, the1939 New York fair, the era whenthe Atomium in Bruxelles was builtin 1958, the era when man landedon the moon in 1969. In those dayspeople believed what the doctor,physicist or agronomist said.

That period, a long honeymoon withscience, is over.At the end of the Sixties, the term“scientific” began to take on negati-ve connotations, evoking moredoubts than certainties. In the col-lective imagination the promise tocontinue to improve life for all beganto lose ground to negative icons cal-led “DDT”, “Chernobyl” or“Talidomide”.

In 2000, the Science Museum ofLondon conducted an in-depthmarket survey for a promotionalcampaign. One of the most impor-tant findings revealed that its nameneeded changing: the most negati-ve element indicated by the focusgroup, and that the authors of thesurvey agreed had to be removed,was the word science itself. At leastscience is not alone.As with every important group, fromthe government to the CatholicChurch, science and technology toohad to abandon the safe port of a

sacred social role, to face the opensea of distrust, controversy andpublic assessment or, to use a morefashionable word, accountability. Itbecame necessary to account fortheir choices, not only to the generalpublic, but also to the same institu-tions which had previously suppor-ted them unconditionally (probablybecause of the long-lasting upshotof their victorious role in the SecondWorld War first, and later the ColdWar).

The new climate has resulted in verydifferent consequences. For exam-ple, English high energy physicistslost out, when a few years ago theyreceived the following request fromHer Majesty’s Minister of ScientificResearch: “In thirty lines explain whyBritish taxpayers should invest asubstantial part of their resources inHiggs’ Boson research”. Whatthose physicists wrote is not known,but they did not convince the minis-ter. Proposition 71 had more luck,winning the referendum held inCalifornia on 2 November 2004 toresume research on embryonicstem cells and grant financing forthree billion dollars (financing isuncountable) in that state alone.Thanks to the people’s voice,California will likely become themost advanced centre in the worldfor this type of research too.

Even if every metaphor has its limits,

the best way to understand the rela-tionship between science andsociety is perhaps to compare it to amarriage.

Just like a married couple, scienceand society look for and need eachother, and are joined by an unwrit-ten, but no less binding contract.Society needs science as its driverfor social, economic and politicalsuccess, while science lives off theresources, talents and freedom thatthe society makes available.

In the good old days (even if theywere not as good as memory wouldhave them) the partnership betweenscience and society resembled oldfashioned marriages. We were allpoorer, but at least the husband(alias science) was “the head of thehouse”, or at least he could exercisea certain amount of authority. Then,when his authority was questioned,the marriage itself underwent a cri-sis. The most important The cou-ple’s complaints represent its mostimportant symptom.

If we listen to science, it tells us thatsociety does not understand it, thatit is not interested in scientific resultsand does not understand howscience works. It does not payattention to those questions scienceknows the most about and exagge-rates its (few) errors, while taking forgranted its (immense) benefits.

18 - CHAPTER I

CHAPTER I

LEAVING THE IVORY TOWERScience and society: just like a marriageToday's scientists are no longer constrained simply by the laws of nature, as was generally the case in the past, but also by the laws (and attitudes) of the land.Norman Augustine

Page 19: Communicating Science En

Society does not take it into consi-deration often enough and cuts offits life supplies; in short, societyshows little or no gratitude.If, on the other hand we listen tosociety, it tells us that science cau-ses problems that it does not knowhow to solve. It caters to govern-ments, the military or multinationals,

not to the interests of the commonperson whose taxes pay forresearch. It does not want to explainwhat it does to anyone, even if itseems clear that it is pursuing themost futile curiosities. It is a world inthe shadows, out of control. It doesnot explain itself (perhaps evenintentionally).

As in a true marriage, the first step tosolve a crisis is to understand the othe-r’s reasons, whether they are right orwrong, because dialogue begins withthese. Understanding the other’s pointof view and explaining your own meansknowing how to communicate. Untiltoday, however, a different approachhas been used.

CHAPTER I - 19

To simplify (but not too much), thescientific community’s reaction to thiscrisis gave birth to the idea that itwas society that had to understandscience and that everything would befine if only citizens had greater scien-tific knowledge.The idea behind the vast majority ofcommunication activities was the socalled Public Understanding ofScience. This expression became alabel for every type of initiative

(books, articles, exhibitions,museums, events) launched by thescientific community for the generalpublic, and an explicit objective forprogrammes, committees, founda-tions, agencies, scientific associa-tions and institutions in every develo-ped country.The Public Understanding of Sciencehas been a kind of “standard model”of the interpretation of relationshipsbetween science, technology and

society. According to its basic premi-se, known in the specialist literature asthe “deficit model”, the root of publiccontroversies on science or techno-logy is the fact that citizens lack anunderstanding of scientific knowled-ge, theories and methods. Thus, ifthese were translated from specialistterminology into more popular lan-guage, the controversies wouldautomatically resolve themselves. Inthis model, science and society are

The rise and fall of the Public Understanding of ScienceOur most urgent and direct message must be to the scientists themselves: learn to communicate with the public, be willing to do so and consider it your duty to do so.The Royal Society Report on the Public Understanding of Science, 1985

Page 20: Communicating Science En

considered “two social bodies sepa-rated by a sort of semi-permeablemembrane which allows the flow ofinformation (dissemination) andactions (technological innovation)from science into society, but it doesnot permit flows in the oppositedirection”.As far as communication is concer-ned, the public is considered a basi-cally homogeneous and passiveaudience for the “pure” knowledgeproduced by scientists, who are thesource of the flow of information, andto some degree the censor as well.The choice of what knowledge oughtto be given is therefore based on thepresumed cultural and cognitive gapsin the public, rather than on theirquestions, interests and skills.The Public Understanding of Sciencemodel recognises, of course, oneimportant part of the problem. Withrare exceptions, a vast number ofsurveys in almost all developed coun-tries have actually found low levels ofscientific literacy in the population.But is this really the most importantstatistic? If citizens knew more aboutmolecular biology, would they reallybe less diffident about geneticallymodified foods?At the end of the Nineties, this rathersimplistic approach to relationshipsbetween science and society, andtherefore, to the communication ofscience, began to show clear signs ofits shortcomings. The strongestsignals were felt in Great Britain, thevery country that in 1985 launchedthe “movement” with the famousBodmer Report and that had inves-ted more than others, even through aspecial financial organization, theCoPUS (Committee for the PublicUnderstanding of Science). In 2000the important report “Science andSociety” prepared by the Chamber ofLords, with the help of important fact-finding surveys, recognised thatdespite the efforts made the Britishpopulation not only continued to bescientifically illiterate, but the muchhoped for appreciation had changedinto an aversion to research. And ifGreat Britain is crying, the othernations are not laughing.Unfortunately (or luckily) things are

much more complicated.In truth, it would be enough to consi-der the nature itself of communicationprocesses to understand that a oneway relationship could not work. Thisdoes not mean downplaying thevalue of specialized knowledge, butsimply that it is necessary to be rea-listic. Choices and opinions, no mat-ter how right, cannot be imposed in ademocratic society: no one wouldaccept them and the attempt to do itwould almost surely backfire.A consensus must be created aboutthe choices to be made, just as in amarriage. But there are also morespecific reasons. First of all, whatdoes it mean to understand or knowscience? Does it mean knowingmany scientific facts? Many theories?Scientific methods? Or how sciencefunctions as an institution? And ineach field, what is the acceptablelevel of knowledge, and for whichtypes of audiences? No one hasmanaged to give a convincing ans-wer to these questions yet.Moreover, the idea of transformingcitizens into little molecular biologistsor little statisticians is much more dif-ficult than can be imagined. For atleast three reasons.The first is that they would need toknow too much. To get a real idea ofthe possible risks of electromagneticfields, for example, it would be neces-sary to be familiar with the nature ofelectromagnetic radiation, its interac-tions with living cells, and the epide-miological research on them. Yet howmany areas of expertise should ourpoor citizens have to master?The second is the so called paradoxof specialization: as the quantity ofknowledge produced increases, or isat the least revised (two things whichare happening at a terrifying speed),the possibility for a single individual tomaster it is reduced.In society the basis of shared kno-wledge can only diminish: if, on thewhole knowledge is growing, thencontemporarily the individual expe-rience of ignorance can also grow.The third reason is the lack of suffi-cient motivation. How many peopleare willing to invest the time and effortnecessary to get a good scientific

education? What incentives wouldthey need? To get an idea, just thinkwhat it would be like to ask a scientist“to become literate” in another sub-ject of great social relevance, such aslaw.Would (s)he be really willing to delveinto the technicalities of criminal pro-cedure or administrative justice thatare essential for a really informed opi-nion? Outside of our professionalniche, we are all “public”.In some cases, then, the most fre-quently discussed science is the onewith fewer certainties. Just think, forexample, of climate change. If thescientific community itself has not yetreached a consensus on the subject,what sense does the PublicUnderstanding of Science make?The idea of changing citizens into litt-le scientists could also turn out to beuseless. If we look at survey results, itis clear that there is not a clear corre-lation between the level of scientificliteracy and attitudes and opinions onscience. In the United States, forexample, there is a generally morepositive attitude than in Europe,despite the lower level of scientific lite-racy. Generally speaking, more infor-med people tend to have strongeropinions for or against a particularinnovation: this is the result, for exam-ple, of two important enquiriesconducted in Great Britain and Italyon transgenic foods. It is difficult to make forecasts.Attitudes and opinions are in fact theproduct of complex processes thatdepend on individual mental models,which in addition to factual elementsinclude emotions, ethical considera-tions, prior knowledge and value jud-gements. These are all things whichcannot be modified with a simpleaddition of a little more information. Tobegin with then, an effective commu-nication requires a ScientificUnderstanding of the Public.Communicating Science is, then,something a bit more sophisticated,in which psychological, and especial-ly emotional concerns play an impor-tant part. Could this be where theproblem lies? Has the flame of lovegone out in this marriage, at least inthe heart of society?

20 - CHAPTER I

Page 21: Communicating Science En

The idea of not being loved in theoutside world is fairly widespread inthe scientific community. And justlike in real marriages, it is usuallytaken out on a third party, that in thiscase is not another person, and noteven a mother-in-law, but typicallyjournalists, envied for their unjustlyearned power over the public’smind, and thus, community-made-decisions.Scientists are actually top on the listin the results of surveys on socialconsensus and the credibility of thevarious professional categories,such as the Eurobarometer reportsand the Science Indicators from theNational Science Foundation.According to the 2001Eurobarometer report on scienceand technology, the three mosthighly esteemed professions inEurope are medical doctors, scien-tists and engineers, while journa-lists, entrepreneurs and politiciansare at the bottom of the list. Thebalance between the benefits andthe negative consequences ofscience and technology is alsoconsidered positive.Some problems, however, do exist.Indeed, the same report reveals that42.8% of Europeans agree with thestatement “scientists are responsi-ble for the bad use of their discove-ries by others” while 80.3% agreeswith the idea that “the authoritiesshould formally oblige scientists toobserve ethical norms”.

Feelings toward science reveal afundamental ambivalence betweenfascination and fear. And wherethere is ambivalence, not much isneeded for a positive perception tobecome negative.

This ambivalence is a more generalproblem of modern society, an eraof continual changes, which presentpromises as well as threats. As thecultural historian Marshal Bearmanwrote, “Modernity is refreshing andexhausting, full of energy and terri-fying. Above all it is open. To bemodern means living in an environ-ment which promises adventure,power, joy as well as the growth andtransformation of ourselves and theworld. At the same time, it threatensto destroy everything that we have,everything that we know.”Ambivalence is more explicit fortechnology, in which we recognisethe possible benefits, but also theability to knock down age old limitsand dissolve acquired categories.Care must be given, then, to restrainthe temptation to magnify the“power” of science: moderation, inaddition to being usually more cor-rect, is, in any case, more advisablethan technocratic optimism which isstill, in part, in fashion.Other psychological mechanismsare also at work. They are as simpleas they are powerful. One of these isthe tendency to become more alar-med than necessary when faced

with something new, rather than risknot seeing potential danger.According to a study conducted inGermany, people are four times asmore likely to react negatively thanpositively to a new scientific deve-lopment. This type of “instinctiverationality” is responsible for thegreater attention given to negativeinformation, and may explain ourpropensity to take the benefits ofscience for granted and exaggerateits errors or the fears it stirs.Another psychological mechanismis an instinctive distrust towardsthose who hold knowledge that wedo not have; it tends to always crea-te a barrier between the expert (andmore generally, those who havereceived a scientific education) andthe others.From this point of view, the fact thatthe new “objects” of science, fromDNA to nanotechnologies, are invisi-ble and outside the reach of com-mon knowledge and commonsense does not help. Consequentlythey are more mysterious and mayarouse distrust or even simple dis-interest.It is also for this reason that sciencemuseums now have a limitedimpact and are visited almost exclu-sively by children. If it was once easyto understand how a steam engineworks, perhaps with the help of acutaway or a mechanical model,today we can open a cell phone andobserve it for hours without even

CHAPTER I - 21

Do people care about science and scientists?The end of our foundation is the knowledge of causes, and secret motions of things; andthe enlarging of the bounds of human Empire, to the effecting of all things possible.Francis Bacon

There is something profoundly disturbing, something desired but also feared, something that has always been implicit in Bacon’s project but that, the closer itcomes to being achieved, the less attractive it is.Jon Turney

Page 22: Communicating Science En

beginning to understand how itworks. It is not surprising, then, thatthe highly polluting coal had betterpress than high frequency electro-magnetic waves receive today. Themedia magnify all these worries.The ambivalent feelings towardsscience and technology oscillate,then, between fascination and fear,but the crossover point in this emo-tional couple is different dependingon the cultural milieu. Today, scien-ce probably stirs more fascination in

Asia and the United States than inEurope, and much more than in theArab states.To return to our metaphor, the rela-tionships between science andsociety now resemble a modernmarriage, in which there are morearguments (and more separations)because the partners are equal.For this reason, The Public Under-standing of Science has begun to be an “unadvisable” expressionand it is now preferable to talk about

engagement, bi-directionality, invol-ving communication, debate, butabove all dialogue.If science and society want to getalong they must learn to communi-cate more and better. No one saysthat it is easy, but it is the price topay in a mature democratic society.Some examples, like Finland,California and some Asian nations,let us hope that the price can betransformed into opportunity. Forboth partners, of course.

22 - CHAPTER I

Dialogue with societyBefore talking, you must listen.To make yourself understood, you must first understand.Annamaria Testa

Today society no longer signs blankchecks for anyone, not even for scien-ce. Exactly like a married person, citi-zens expect to be consulted (and infor-med) before a decision is made. In factit should always be made together.This is true for any decision; whether tohave a mammogram done, to build anincinerator or even a dump for nuclearwaste.As events such as the controversialproject for the Italian national disposalsite for radioactive waste at Scanzanohave taught us, you cannot simplydecide, announce and then defendyour decision, because this will even-tually mean abandoning the project.What is needed today are clear pro-grammes for public consultation,during which the problem is not explai-ned just from a technical point of view.Citizens, on the contrary, need to beheard and then given answers whichtake into consideration their requests,uncertainties and the values at stake. Itis even possible that a different techni-cal solution may be found. Just consi-der what happened before the appro-val of the law which regulates the expe-rimentation on embryonic cells in GreatBritain: parliamentary debate began

only after two years of informing andconsulting all the main social playersinvolved.This new way of making decisionsabout technology is really only one signof the wider crisis of the old contractbetween science and society.Yesterday, society interpreted it moreor less this way: “I will support you andyou will provide the benefits; but youdo it, I trust you completely”.Today, however, society wants to knowat least who you are and what you do,and a web site which clearly and com-prehensively explains this is the least tobe expected. At the same time, it alsowants you to explain it to children, per-haps with exhibits or a television pro-gramme, and to offer a useful servicefor adults, for example practical healthinformation, just as the large Americanbiomedical research centres do.Furthermore, if the research producespotentially risky technologies or raisesethical questions, society wants to beable to have its say, but it especiallywants to be reassured that the scien-tists feel responsible towards society,and not only towards science, and thatthey are more concerned about thepublic than other groups, like industry.

Even if implicit, the new contract bet-ween science and society increasinglymore often determines what can orcannot be done in the laboratory. Inalmost every field, scientists must nowexplain the meaning and aims of theresearch they intend to carry out. Andif they are unable to do so, or theyencounter other types of issues, forexample bioethical, they may see thenecessary financing or the very permis-sion to continue certain types ofresearch denied. In this new context,your own spaces need to be negotia-ted, and to negotiate you must com-municate, which means knowing eachother and exchanging ideas.

The communication of science is nolonger simple dissemination, but rathera process in which different playersproduce knowledge, messages, attitu-des and new practices accepted by all.Science plays a fundamental role, butin this process many may want to havea say, including the media, institutions,environmentalists, associations of peo-ple with various diseases, as well ascitizens’ committees. And they areoften right. In order to remain an autho-rative voice, science has to keep socie-

Page 23: Communicating Science En

ty’s trust, which is obtained throughreciprocal understanding and notwith simple statements of facts, nomatter how incontrovertible theyare, let alone statements of authori-ty. As in a marriage, trust must beearned with effort and is easily lost;a one night stand, and it is over.Both science institutions and indivi-dual scientists shoulder this respon-sibility.

The consequences of one person’snegative behaviour, especially if theothers do not strongly and publiclydisassociate themselves from them,have repercussions on the entirecommunity.In order to create a climate of faithand trust there must be channels ofcommunication which are alwaysopen and scientists must be willingto communicate. Instead of asking

only “what do people need toknow”, we should ask “what dopeople think they need to know”,“what will be the effect on people ofwhat I want to say ”, “What do theyknow, or think they already know”.Indeed, if communication is to besuccessful we need to deal with rea-lity, but also with the perception ofthis reality held by the people youwant to communicate with.

CHAPTER I - 23

The photograph of a cow which isbeing given a shot of hormones mayarouse an animals’ rights activist’sindignation and worry about its pos-sible effects on a mother’s health.On the contrary, it may make a far-mer happy because of the increa-sed productivity it represents.They are not mental experiments,but a test actually carried out by aGerman scientist on a group of citi-zens. Whatever is communicatednever ends up on a tabula rasa, asthe more orthodox approach of thePublic Understanding of Scienceholds, but interacts with everythingpeople know or think they know onthe subject, with their convictionsand feelings, their distrust, the waythey are used to getting informationand their personal experiences.For scientists to base themselves ontheir own attitudes, shaped byscientific facts and their own field ofstudies, is particularly misleading.Their attitudes are the result of thespecial mental training provided bytheir scientific education. Each oneof us, in real life, almost neverweighs the pros and cons of a posi-tion with the utmost impartiality, loo-

king for the most logical and rationalexplanation. Rather, we make apretty quick evaluation based on ourpersonal experience and opinions,as well as the social and culturalcontext we live in. In particular, wetend to select those elements whichconfirm what we already think anddisregard or rationalize the others.Thus, the ground where our messa-ge is going to be planted cannot beignored, since their interactiondetermines whether a message isignored, distorted, misunderstoodor otherwise understood andaccepted. In other words, you needa realistic model of the public youare addressing.The public of science is still unfami-liar. Despite the enormous cultural,social and economic impact ofscience, there is nothing similar tothe sophisticated surveys made forthe advertising market to draw from.Understanding what happens whena scientific theory or facts becomecommon knowledge and opinion is,however, a task some sociologists,social psychologists, anthropolo-gists, cultural historians, and cogni-tive scientists have ventured upon.

Even if there is no model which des-cribes the shaping of popular ver-sions of science, a few interestingmechanisms have been clarified.The starting point of many analysesis that information, scientific or rela-ted to scientific facts, arrives piece-meal, usually from very differentsources and lacking an interpretati-ve framework, either because thisframework is not provided, orbecause it is too complex. Ourmind, however, literally abhorsscraps of information, the lack ofmeaning and significance, and animage of the world is reconstructedusing the scraps available, unifyingthem with ties which are often arbi-trary and irrational, filling in the blankswith what we have. It is a bit like theway vision works. In other words, ourmind actively tries to build meaningfulstructures where there are none,making use of the knowledge,concepts and devices we alreadypossess.The appropriation of a scientific theo-ry or facts is not at all passive, butrather it is an active process guidedby our common sense which tries torespond to specific demands.

How knowledge and opinions of science are shapedThere is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god.John B.S. Haldane

Page 24: Communicating Science En

In its most popularised version, forexample, an old theory on the cere-bral hemispheres often divides thebrain into a “warm” right hemisphe-re, tied to emotions and sociality,and a “cold” left hemisphere, ratio-nal and “evil”, though it is just oneway to respond to the very humanneed to classify individuals usingtypologies, like “artists” or “engi-neers”.The most frequent aim of thesereconstructions, however, is to builda bridge between a new develop-ment and what is already known orbelieved, or rather, to make theunfamiliar familiar by reducing it to amore ordinary image. The “laziness”of the mind also plays a role in this,since it usually looks for shortcutsthat allow us to economise on ourown cognitive energy. Every scien-tist knows how much effort anddetermination is needed to payattention to the facts themselvesand resist the temptation to readsomething into them that (s)hewould like to see.A scientific theory or a fact is thus

transformed into social representa-tions, that are not limited to reassu-ring, restoring a sense of continuityto one’s own representation of theworld, but concretely guide actions.Like filters, different representationslead to different interpretations ofthe same scientific facts, news ordiscoveries, channelling the reac-tions into the same number of direc-tions. To every effect, the represen-tations act as pre-judgements.A very popular social representationis the “naturalness” (which equalsgenuineness and safety) of traditio-nal foods compared to those produ-ced industrially. This representationwas established at the end of theSixties in a specific cultural contextand after various episodes of badbusiness by the food industry,because of the legitimate desire toknow what ends up on our plates. Ithas ended up influencing our rela-tionship with all foods, leaving littleroom to examine each case specifi-cally.Basing his ideas on prejudices (pre-judgements), of course, is exactly

what every scientist tries not to do inhis work. Yet, the scientist who dis-regards the importance of this in thefield of public communicationsmakes a big mistake.

Not knowing what the social repre-sentations in play are or ignoringthem can lead to misunderstan-dings, and therefore, to ineffectivecommunication at best, and adamaging message at worst.The social representation “resists”,in fact, the expert’s mindset becau-se it is based on other elements andother ways of thinking that can alsobe very strong.

Communicating risk is perhaps thefield in which social representationscount the most. In this context thescientist’s voice easily loses its privi-leged role and becomes just one ofthe various points of view on theissue. This is not a value judgement,but simply an observation.Unfortunately, this is what oftenhappens: therefore, it is necessaryto be aware of it and keep it in mind.

24 - CHAPTER I

The perception of risksIt happens, that for a common vice of nature, that we conceive greater trust or stronger terror for the things we have not seen and that are hidden and unknown.Julius Caesar

There are very few technologies thatdo not present any risk, howeversmall. Yet the acceptance of a tech-nology depends less on a statisticalestimation of a risk, than on a per-sonal decision based on the riskperceived and the advantages itseems to offer.The evaluation is never completelyobjective, therefore a citizen’s eva-luation may also be very differentfrom the expert’s assessmentexpressed in probabilistic terms. Forexample, people worry much lessabout car accidents than planecrashes, more about the so called

“electromagnetic pollution” than thedamage caused by smoking.Psychologists’ studies have revea-led that the degree of control indivi-duals feel they have over the pheno-menon highly influences their opi-nion of the expert’s probabilisticestimates.In the Anglo-Saxon world the risksociety perceives is often represen-ted as the product of hazard (therisk as evaluated by scientists) andoutrage (the degree to which thecitizens react). Outrage cannot beexplained, as the scientific commu-nity often tends to, exclusively by

the general public’s lack of techni-cal knowledge or the exaggeratedalarm and distorted facts the mediahave transmitted. In fact cultural,moral and often even political com-ponents contribute to this factor.The issue of GMOs, from this pointof view, is truly paradigmatic.Transgenic foods arouse, at least inEurope, extremely strong andwidespread outrage despite theextensive scrutiny they have beengiven and a decade of consumptionwithout the minimal negative conse-quence in a good part of the rest ofthe world. The situation is the result

Page 25: Communicating Science En

of many different elements; for onethere is a pre-existing social repre-sentation of foods. Then there is theso called “symbolic short circuit bet-ween food traditions deposited inhistory, artificiality and transgressionof the natural order”, as well as poli-tical and economic interests tied tothe protection of European agricul-ture from international competition.There are founded concerns for theregulation of intellectual ownershipin the field of genetics, not to men-tion the story of Frankenstein, anextremely powerful myth of contem-porary popular culture of scienceand technology, where a creature,fruit of an illicit interference in themechanisms of life, escapes hiscreator’s control. Because of thesefactors, any type of public debateon the topic must take place on thisplaying field, a strongly rooted fra-mework which does not lend itselfto a rational and reasonable discus-sion of the subject. It is in this set-ting that another social representa-tion has been able to grow, which isless powerful but not less foolish:

the no risk guarantee for any newactivity or technology, of the so cal-led “precaution principle”, at least inits more restrictive interpretations.The role of the media in all this isimportant, but different in part fromwhat is commonly believed. It istrue, in fact that the media love thissubject because it is interesting andcaptures attention, even if nothinghas actually occurred yet. And it istrue that they sometimes distort thefacts. Various studies have, howe-ver, suggested that what actuallyhappens is that the media do not tellpeople what to think, but what tothink about. In other words, theydecide what the public should beexposed to or not. And that is notall.It also seems as if people’s attitudesto scientific risks become morenegative simply because they arefrequently discussed, regardless ofwhether the risk is emphasized or,to the contrary, reassessed.The evaluation of the risk is a perso-nal issue and eventually depends onthe acceptability of the risk in one’s

own world, in addition to theamount of trust (again) in the socialplayers that are in charge of keepingthis risk under control.Communication, then, must explainthe probabilistic size of the risk inunderstandable terms, and if neces-sary reassure. But it should never belimited to giving the nude and crudefacts. On the contrary, the riskneeds to be placed in a context,illustrating the causes, effects, impli-cations and interests in play, and ifthere are any, the benefits whichaccompany the risk, answering anyquestions and expectations thegeneral public may have.All these elements, in fact, cometogether in the social representa-tions that are not necessarily adeath warrant.

CHAPTER I - 25

Be part of the gameIn modern democratic conditions, science like any other player in the public arena ignores public attitudes and values at its peril.“Science and Society” ReportChamber of Lords, 2000

The perception of risks, just like theshaping of other social representa-tions of science and technology, isformed during public debate whichcan occur anywhere, but mainly inthe media. It is here that the boun-daries are negotiated as to what isaccepted by society and what isnot, which risks to accept andwhich to refuse. Moreover, it is herethat the credibility of science (itsknowledge, its methods, its objecti-ves) must be won. The first condition for effective parti-cipation is to know and understandthe playing field. If a simple exposi-

tion of the facts and arguments isnot sufficient, before making the firstmove it is necessary to clearly iden-tify: the participants, the points ofview, feelings and interests involved,favourable influences as well as theobstacles that need removing andthose which can be sidestepped.As Jon Turney, one of the most per-ceptive scholars in the social repre-sentation of science and technolo-gy, wrote: If we want to understandthe origins of the vocabulary usedtoday to talk about science, we notonly need to trace the internal deve-lopment of science, but also the his-

tory of science in popular culture,beginning with the culture today.And since most communicationtakes place in the media, this needsto be studied carefully.

In order to know the playing field it isnot necessary to examine the workof scientific journalists, who general-ly reflect a vision of the world whichis not unlike that scientists themsel-ves, but television, daily newspa-pers, movies illustrated women’smagazines, interest groups’ websites, science fiction: it is moreimportant to look at what “lay” jour-

Page 26: Communicating Science En

nalists and other professionals aresaying (even unconsciously) aboutsocial representations since they arethe most truthful interpreters of thecommon way of thinking.

This is how the negative socialrepresentations can be caught intime, and perhaps acted on imme-diately, before they solidify andcause damage. This is the case, forexample, of the rising wave againstnanotechnologies, which reallyemerged from futurology sold asscience by Eric Drexler, the author ofEngines of Creation, by MichaelCrichton in his novel Prey, and in thefamous interview of Bill Joy, the latescientific director of SunMicrosystems for Wired magazine:is there anything better than swarmsof undetectable androids about inthe world to reawaken the ghost ofFrankenstein? This might evencrack a smile, considering thatnanotechnologies is one of the mostmatter-of-fact and useful sectors inmaterial sciences, if the situationwere not quite so similar to theGMO issue raised a few years back.At that time too the alarm wassounded in good faith, although it

turned out to be unfounded, and theinnovations, which affected daily life,were also invisible and did not offerobvious benefits to the consumer.The initial demands for “strict” regu-lation of the nanotechnological sec-tor, if indeed it makes sense to talkabout it in such a heterogeneousfield, have already made themselvesheard.In these cases the situation can beaverted and the playing field can bechanged in time. We all tend, in fact,to prefer information that confirmsthe opinions we already have.Information on new topics, or topicsperceived as such, very stronglyinfluence attitudes. Everything thatis said thereafter will have to takethe first impression into considera-tion. Politicians are very familiar withthis game: for this reason theyalways try make themselves heardon popular issues.There are no infallible recipes, howe-ver, for effective involvement inpublic debates. Each case is diffe-rent. As we will see in Chapter three,the right recipe needs to be foundcase by case, by analysing the topicand context of the communication.There is not one valid recipe for

each of the many possible circums-tances. Scientists are the ones whomust learn to communicate with thepublic, each in their own context.Whatever the recipe chosen maybe, one ingredient is indispensable:trust, which compensate for theknowledge that is inaccessible to anon peer audience. A case in pointis the physician-patient relationship.This is the main path to a good rela-tionship between science andsociety.In all cases - and there are many - inwhich a true understanding of thescience involved is illusionary, theonly choice available to the public isbetween trusting or not trusting theexperts.Be careful, though. Even if the gene-ral public does trust the expert, itstrust is no longer a total authorizationand does not substitute dialogue.Rather it is the objective, reachedafter time, of good communication,or rather reciprocal knowledge andrespect as well as credibility won onthe field after continual availability.When trust in science weakens, infact, the credibility of other players,from magicians to alternative formsof medicine grows stronger.

26 - CHAPTER I

Communicating is an indispensable Sisyphean taskNow, here, I see. It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place.Lewis Carrol

In the Odyssey, Homer describes thedestiny that awaits Sisyphus,Aeolus’s son, founder of the city ofCorinth, and an extremely shrewdman. When it is his turn to descendinto Tartarus, the gods condemn himto pushing an enormous boulder up ahill, which then rolls down the hill assoon as he nears the top, making himrepeat this arduous task in eternity.Public communication of science is

also a never-ending “task”. Indeed,every discovery, every applicationmakes us review what we know orthink we know, or at least change ourusual way of doing things. It forces usto face new problems that we do notknow how to solve, new choices tomake, and new knowledge that wedo not how to classify and interpret.Yet, no one likes changing, at timesnot even scientists themselves.

Communication of science helps,then, to continually re-construct thebridges between what we knew andwhat has just been discovered, conti-nually up-dating the social represen-tations in circulation.Yet, from our point of view there aretwo ways to remain in the race.The first is routine communication,an ever-open channel with societyto be used to construct, over time,

Page 27: Communicating Science En

the indispensable basis of reciprocalknowledge and trust. This form of communication is carriedout with updates, activities in schools,offering useful information and services for the media. We are tal-king about communicating throughvarious social players, including themedia, local institutions, interestgroups or individuals.The second is, instead, crisis com-munication, which is used for expres-sing opinions on issues at hand.

It should be very clear: without routi-ne communication, crisis communi-cation is of no use. If the public thatyou want to convince do not knowyou, do not think you have ever offe-red anything useful, or have neverbeen able to test out their trust in you,they will not listen.

Having said this, we can begin toaddress the basic concepts of thepublic communication of science.

CHAPTER I - 27

Page 28: Communicating Science En

CHAPTER II

THE ABCs OF COMMUNICATING WITH THE PUBLIC

From peer to peer to public communication A different language is a different view of life.Gustave Flaubert

When the sophisticated AtlanticMonthly magazine published TheDouble Helix in two episodes at thebeginning of 1968, it stirred both thereaders’ admiration and a small hor-net’s nest of issues. Whatever didJames D. Watson want to do withhis adventure of how the structureof DNA was discovered? Did hewant to flatter himself, slander hisex-competitors, tell a science story,or get rich from an unscrupulousbusiness deal?What critics were actually repriman-ding the Nobel winner for was thesimple fact that a scientist, indeed, agreat scientist, had written a bookthat was not only fascinating, buteven enjoyable.What a difference there was, in fact,between the book, which eventuallybecame a classic, and the two smallconcise pages in the 25 April 1953issue of Nature with which Watsonhimself and Francis Crick openedthe era of molecular biology. Watsonhad simply understood earlier thanother colleagues that communica-ting with society is something com-pletely different from communicatingwithin one’s own professional circle:it is not a simplified version, nor a“translation”, and not even a simplerway of teaching.

Unfortunately, the kind of communi-cation scientists are used to using isvery far from what should be used

to communicate with the rest ofsociety: while science works withhypotheses and empirical observa-tions, the general public tend tobelieve stories which ring true.

Learning to write a scientific paper ispart of every scientist’s training.Since the Nineteenth Century, thenorms for writing up research havebeen very clear. They were createdfor communicating data and argu-ments as quickly and effectively aspossible. In its prescribed form,with the sections arranged in a fixedorder, from the abstract to thebibliography, the scientific paper isorganized so as to leave as fewambiguities as possible in: the lan-guage is impersonal and lacking innarration; its syntax is simplified; itssemantics rigid. The language ishighly specialized and extremelyconcise and there are no digres-sions or figures of speech. Unfortunately, however, the veryreasons why an article is written thisway are the same that make scienti-fic literature practically illegible outsi-de of specialist circles.Public communication has differentrequirements; it follows differentnorms; and above all, it takes placein a different context. Most of theproblems which occur during anexchange of ideas with society arisewhen these differences are nottaken into consideration.

28 - CHAPTER II

Page 29: Communicating Science En

The first big difference, and one thatis often underestimated, is thatcommunication among expertsimplies the readers’ complete atten-tion, since they are already interes-ted in the information because theyneed it. On the contrary, non expertreaders (or listeners, viewers, visi-tors) usually do not have any parti-cular reason to pay attention towhat is being said. They do not haveto listen. Their attention must bewon, otherwise any effort madebecomes useless.

It is not the public that must takeinterest in science, but science thatmust try to make itself interesting tothe public.

If today there is a much valued com-modity, this is people’s attention. Many are competing for this atten-tion, and they are usually well-equipped: businesses, politicians aswell as lobby groups for small andlarge interests are all in search ofvisibility and consensus. In a kno-wledge-based society and econo-my not only science needs to com-municate more. Even beyond thecommercial needs, today there ismuch more information to supportevery type of product or servicethan there was in the past. Yet themore people talking, the easier it isfor individual voices to get lost.Competition is therefore strong and

is becoming increasingly more diffi-cult: we are transforming ourselvesinto a society overloaded with infor-mation.What does this mean, practicallyspeaking? On the one hand, themeans and opportunities for infor-mation are multiplying and nowinclude almost any type of event,created or sponsored by a greatvariety of groups.On the other hand, it is necessary toyell louder than ever in order to beheard. Messages are more andmore often shouted and simplified,in forms which are shorter or fasterthan ever before, in the hope that atleast something will catch the publi-c’s attention and “filter through”.Just flip through the magazines froma few years ago or watch an oldtelevision programme again and youwill see.Competition begins in a newsroomwhere scientific news is also expec-ted to be “sexier” than ever. Noteven important international scienti-fic magazines are completely immu-ne to this trend: in the race to be tal-ked about, they too sometimesmake a mistake, like the famousincident of the “memory of water”, ina 1989 issue of Nature when a resultwhich was apparently extraordinarysoon after proved to be a sham.The difference between peer andpublic communication is at the rootof almost all the strong points, as

the discoverer of the double helixunderstood, but also all the defectsthat popularisation of science mighthave, like sensationalism. Yet it can-not be disregarded if effective com-munication is to take place.

The rule of thumb is that somethingbecomes news if the public finds itnew, but above all, interesting. Forthis reason it must touch a funda-mental human need, or a subjectwhich has already caught publicattention.

The piece of news that “filtersthrough” is the one that most easilystrikes the strongest chords, whichinvolve our health, economic deve-lopment, wonder, national pride,fear and so forth. Just look at howmuch attention climatology hasreceived since we have begun toworry about global warming. If whatwe want to talk about does not stri-ke one of these chords, a tie can befound – an excuse, an honest one –to bring it up. These days evenscience and technology need theskills of the spin doctor, the specia-list who knows how to turn newsinto something more appealing.To explain a new development ingeophysics, for example, it is alwaysbetter to try and link it to earthqua-kes or volcanoes. The classic trickto get a scientific congress in thenews is to save a piece of good

CHAPTER II - 29

Competing for attentionJust like the fighter plane that breaks the sound barrier, a concept today must have an aerodynamic shape to overcome the barrier of the excess of information.The thrust of the hyperbole is not, in itself, necessarily enough. There must also be the ability to penetrate found only in the elementary concepts, summarized in a slogan.Giuliano da Empoli

Page 30: Communicating Science En

news for the occasion. The articles’headlines will carry only that piece ofnews, but many articles will also talkabout the congress. The secret,then, is to start off with matters andmotivations which already holdpublic interest, and then little by litt-le perhaps lead the discussion toother areas.

The importance of a result, howeverbig it is, may not be enough to makeit news. Knowing how to communi-cate means, first of all, knowing howto transform what you want to sayinto what the public wants to know,

creating (or recreating) the reason,which exists naturally among collea-gues, to learn about it.

Only a few manage to escape anapparently relentless drift towardsincreasingly louder and potentiallymisleading forms of communication.Marketing experts call these people“gatekeepers” (the gate to people’sattention), for they have, in fact, gai-ned the authority and social positionto strongly influence the public’schoices. Bombarded with informa-tion, each one of us, in fact, tends todelegate the choices in specific

areas of knowledge to someoneelse.The gatekeeper is, thus, a filter thatacts as a guarantee for some typesof information. Today there are gate-keepers for vacations, computers,wines and fashion. Editorialists oflarge newspapers are gatekeepers.In science they are the importantpopularizers or Nobel prize winners,famous people that do not need toshout to make themselves heard.Institutions like NASA can becomegatekeepers too, as long as theywork effectively to build up theirimage and credibility over time.

30 - CHAPTER II

The power of emotionsWhatever the sun may be, it is certainly not a ball of flaming gas.D.H. Lawrence

Communication among scientists isneutral and lacking in emotions.Thus, only the facts speak, motivateand convince, not the person pre-senting them, nor the hope that thetheory is right, and not even fascina-tion they hold.In public communication, on theother hand, the quality of the dis-cussion or data is not enough. Thesame data that for scientists areanother piece to add to a well-known picture of knowledge (andemotions), for the public is only anisolated fragment of information,with almost no meaning. WhileWatson and Crick only needed ashort, dry article in Nature to captu-re the scientific community, that foryears had been anxiously awaitingthe solution to the DNA puzzle andperfectly understood its value (forscience as well as its discoverers), inorder to grab the public’s attentionthe Double Helix was needed, abook which recreated everythingbehind that research, including theurgency of the two young scholars’“mad pursuit”, pressed by the com-petition of many and much morequalified colleagues. In other words,

it was a person who talked about it.All scientists know very well howimportant passion is for their work,but they also know it must be setaside when it is time to evaluate theresults. Yet when communicatingwith the public it would be wrong towear this mask of detachment. Thisvery show of neutrality may benecessary to avert falling too deeplyin love with hypotheses which couldturn out to be wrong, or when pre-senting results to colleagues, but intime, it has been costly to the scien-tist’s public image, since it still car-ries connotations of reserve andcoldness.Indeed today it is crucial to makeone’s topics appealing, and if possi-ble spectacular or even sensational(of course within acceptable andethical limits); there is no longerroom for scientists who are disorien-ted by or even scorn the idea ofpopularising their research.

If confronting the facts of reality is thecommon denominator of all types ofscientific enterprise, arousing emo-tions is the common denominator ofall forms of communication.

In public communication emotionsare not a cheap trick to raise atten-tion, let alone something manipulati-ve (as long as it is intellectuallyhonest). To be sure, gaining publicconfidence and creating positive fee-lings can be more persuasive thanindisputable facts.The first step in any public communi-cation is, therefore, to identify whichemotions will win over the public. Anemotionally flat communication, infact, “does not filter through”, or isimmediately forgotten.This simple fact, already taught bythe ancient orators, has been,indeed, rediscovered by the neuro-sciences, which have re-evaluatedthe role feelings and emotions playon our cognitive abilities.There are infinite ways to lend emo-tions to a topic, some noble andothers base. The best way to chooseis to identify your own emotions as ascientist, and then find the closestpossible link with your audience: thefeelings of wonder at how natureworks, intellectual curiosity, thesearch for answers to importantexistential questions or world pro-blems, the pleasure of working in

Page 31: Communicating Science En

special areas and so forth. The HolyGrail, from this point of view repre-sents the reversal of man’s “disen-chantment with the world” by scien-ce, so despised by the Romanticpoets.Allowing your own passion totranspire will also help to make thatfundamental transition from “com-municating something”, typical ofcommunication among experts to“communicating with someone”.One aspect of communicationwhich is often neglected, in fact, isthat information is not exchanged inabstract terms, but within a rela-

tionship between speaker and liste-ner, in which the emotional factorhighly influences the ability to reco-gnise, evaluate, and possibly evenretain the information presented.For this reason a scientific work mayalso have many authors, while abook or a popular article has onlyone.

Effective communication has twolegs. The first is rationality, that in theplanning stage helps to identify theopportunities, but above all the limi-tations of communication. Thesecond is the ability to construct, as

in any literary text, a dialogue withthe public, imagining for a momentwhat the reaction may be to what issaid and consequently adapting it tothe answer.

The quality of communicationdepends greatly on the quality of therelationship which is establishedwith the audience. As in friendshipand marriages, the better you knoweach other, the more respect thereis, the better you will get along.

CHAPTER II - 31

The power of storytellingIt is not the voice that directs the story: it is the ears.Italo Calvino

While the scientific article was inven-ted only once, stories have alwaysbeen told in all human civilizations.The human mind seems to be spe-cially made for creating stories,which represent the most naturalway to receive information. Themental images created by storiesare precious cognitive referencessince they organize our experiencesand make them coherent. A story which captures our attention“forces” us to read or listen to it untilthe very end. A story is also animportant memory aid; in sciencewe can recall Fleming’s mould,Newton’s apple or the snake inKekulé’s dream. It is no coincidencethat in English journalism an articleis called a story.

Whatever the means, the format,the aim and the content, communi-cating science to the public meansknowing how to turn it into a story.

If we examine popularisation thatworks, we rarely find anything thatresembles a textbook or a scientificwork simply translated into simplerlanguage. Concealed to different

degrees we always find a story, or afact, a concept or a way of reaso-ning disguised as stories. This istrue for an article, but also for a tele-vision programme, a book, a docu-mentary or a lecture.Science stories have much in com-mon with the language of journa-lism. In a story, there is an adventu-re, with the characters’ deeds, thetime of action and a place, that evenit its simplest form must thereforeinclude the famous “5 Ws” ofEnglish journalism: Who, what,where, why and when, to which wecan add the H of how. The narratoris as close to the reader as (s)he isto the characters and, unlike thescientist, shuns abstraction. As theold journalistic saying goes: “Explain ideas with facts and factswith people”.Choosing what goes into a storydoes not depend on the need to bethorough and exact, but on how thecontents work in the narrative struc-ture, which then acts as a filteragainst the temptation to tell it all. Atthe same time, however, the contextof the news – usually absent in ascientific report – is recovered, by

adding the basic concepts in play,the history of the discipline’s internaldevelopment and the explanation ofits possible ties with the reader’spersonal experience.The need to involve the reader or thespectator means destroying the pres-cribed form of a scientific work.Instead of the usual sections, there is,what in journalist jargon is called the“inverted pyramid”, since theassumptions (the base of the pyra-mid) are the last thing to think about:the opening line needs to capture theaudience’s emotions, then the heartof the story is told, and only later arethe details given, beginning with themost important. When the detailsbecome less important, they can becut. The story does not necessarilyhave to reflect the order and reality ofevents, but there may be digressions,explanations, flashbacks, analogies,metaphors and so on.The text is no longer impersonal,strictly in the third person narrativeand with a wide use of impersonaland passive forms, but it becomesspoken language, which carefullyfollows the imaginary route andmental rhythm of the listener. The

Page 32: Communicating Science En

discourse must flow smoothlywithout any snags, because it isalso meant to be read (or listened to)just once.No science story, however excitingand readable, is, however effective if

it does not manage to also clearlyexplain what it is talking about. Ithas been said that the moment ofcomprehension is to knowledgewhat an orgasm is to sex. This iswhat distinguishes it from journalism

(effective journalism, which is notnecessary the best) and other formsof public communication.

32 - CHAPTER II

Why is science “difficult”?Science often explains the familiar in terms of the unfamiliar.Lewis Wolpert

Communication among scientistsincludes almost everything neces-sary to make it difficult, not only fornon scientists, but often for thosewho are not specialists in the field.Even when scientists try to speakclearly, however, they do notalways explain themselves well.Indeed, science is often difficult, orat least complex, in itself, and it isnot necessarily true that it can bemade easy or readable like the arti-cle in an illustrated magazine or atelevised news report. In any case,much can be done. You do notneed a natural gift for clarity, aslong as you understand whatmight make science difficult. Somereasons are almost obvious.

Language

Science thrives on specialized lan-guage, from mathematics to thevarious specialist terminologies, inwhich many words do not evenhave a direct translation, but referto concepts or entire processesthat can be very complex: justthink of “genetic expression”, “tec-tonic” or “inflation”.Communication requires, on thecontrary, the use of a shared lan-guage. Thus technical termsshould be avoided, and when it isimpossible to pass them up, theirmeaning should always be explai-ned, even when it might seembanal, as, for example, when we

talk about “DNA”. The same thingcan be said for concepts. Our mind also has a difficult timehandling dimensions, like nanome-tres or billions of years, that arevery different from the measure-ments used that can be encounte-red in daily life: this is a problemthat can be solved with appropria-te analogies.

Maps

Science is a network of knowled-ge that is connected on variouslevels of complexity, and thus it isdifficult to understand a topicwithout knowing the basics.Moreover, scientists hold the mapof their own discipline, but thepublic does not. Even if in publiccommunication there is usuallylittle space to outline the bases ofa topic, you cannot presume thepublic has the same motivationthat a university student has toknow them: at least those princi-ples crucial to understanding themessage need to be included. Nomore than this, however: a goodrule of thumb is to explain onething at a time.

Explaining means accompanyingsomeone from what (s)he alreadyknows to what (s)he does not knowyet. Thus, an explanation is always aline of reasoning as well, naturallysuitable to your audience’s level ofunderstanding.

A lack of meaning

In order to understand, you mustalso want to understand, and belie-ve you can.

The first problem is that scienceoften deals with objects and pheno-mena that are far, or at least seem tobe far, from real life experiences.Before explaining, these need thento be put into a context that high-lights their connection with thepublic’s experiences and motiva-tions. If you want to talk about thelife of a star, you might begin byexplaining that the atoms that makeup our body have not always exis-ted, but were moulded in a thermo-nuclear oven inside a large star.The fact that scientists have a men-tal map of their topic, and are alsoused to looking at their theme inminutia, often makes for an accountin which details tend to prevail overthe wider vision of the problem, andtherefore over the more generalmeaning of the topic, which is takenfor granted. Indeed, finding a mea-ning, its relevance or applicability isone of the problems in the commu-nication of scientific topics.For this reason it is hard to getexcited about the structure oforganic molecules, while cosmolo-gy, which provides answers toquestions that man has alwaysasked, is so popular.Finally, the lack of interest and desi-re to understand rooted in bad

Page 33: Communicating Science En

scholastic memories can never beunderestimated. These memoriesalso account for the sense of inade-quacy people experience when theyapproach science. A small demons-tration that science is not so difficultto understand would help to overco-me this psychological barrier: per-haps an initial simple line of reaso-ning could be used even if it is notclosely related to the main theme. Inother words, it is a matter of brea-king the ice, just as sciencemuseums and science centres dowith informal styles of education.

The unnatural nature of science

Science seems “difficult” for lessobvious reasons as well.The main reason is that, althoughpracticing science may seem likethe most natural thing in the world,science is actually a profoundlyunnatural way of learning. As LewisWolpert, the embryologist who hea-ded the British Committee for ThePublic Understanding of Science,emphasized: science implies a spe-cial way of thinking that is unnaturalfor two main reasons. In the firstplace, the world is not built on abasis of common sense. Thismeans that “natural” thought – com-mon ordinary good senses – willnever help to understand the natureof science. With a few rare excep-tions, scientific ideas are counter-intuitive: they cannot be acquired bysimply examining phenomena andthey often have little in common withdaily life. In the second place, doingscience requires a conscious awa-reness of the traps of “natural”thought: common sense is inclinedto error when it is applied to pro-blems which need sound and quan-titative thinking. The explanationssuggested by common sense areextremely unreliable.Our mind is, in fact, Aristotelian, notGalilean: for this reason becoming ascientist requires training in a diffe-rent way of thinking, and not onlythe simple acquisition of knowledge.If this were not true, we would haveunderstood earlier simple phenome-

na like motion or blood circulation,which have always been just underour nose. In cases in which unders-tanding requires thinking like ascientist, it is important to warn thepublic of this specific difficulty, gui-ding them through this different wayof seeing things.

Identifying the audience’s problems

Generally speaking, it is alwaysnecessary, to remember that whilecommunication is, first and fore-most, a dialogue – which at times isimaginary– with an audience, anyexplanation needs to be precededby an understanding of the difficul-ties the audience may encounter.Compared to journalists, or at leastprofessional communicators, scien-tists have the great advantage ofknowing the subject well, but thegreat disadvantage that it is not aseasy for them to understand whatthe public might find difficult.On the contrary, journalists, as nonexperts, are aided by their ownexperience and easily recognisethese difficulties. A skilled communi-cator does not take anything forgranted and saves readers, viewersor listeners the problems (s)he hasalready had her/himself, and perhapseven conveys the same, fresh enthu-siasm for what (s)he has just learned.If scientists want to make themsel-ves understood, then they mustmake a greater effort to become anobserver of their own topic from theoutside, as we will see in greaterdetail in the next chapter. Given thelarge asymmetry that exists bet-ween scientists and their audience,they need to carefully watch theirlevel, time and ways of explaining.

The imperative of being clear

It is very important, in this regard,that everybody understands. Oncethe segment of the public you wantto address is identified, it makes nosense to explain yourself only to apart of it, and forget about the rest.Every communication is actually

made up of a communication in thestrict sense of the word, whichinvolves the contents, and in ameta-communication which invol-ves the relationship established bet-ween the speaker and listener, andthat transmits the emotional spirit ofthe communication itself.

Not making yourself understood isworse than not being understood. Itmeans, in fact, communicating yourdisinterest in the public as well asthe low opinion you have of theirability. Whoever uses complicatedlanguage, perhaps because (s)hebelieves this will make him morecredible, runs the risk of seemingdetached and offensive.

CHAPTER II - 33

Page 34: Communicating Science En

The prescribed form for drafting ascientific paper helps to eliminate, toa large degree, those shady areaswhich might hide missing or shakydata, a logically weak point in theline of reasoning or an unclear expe-rimental procedure.On the contrary, in public communi-cation, if the large asymmetry in theknowledge held between the expertand non expert is added to thetechniques applied (narration, emo-tion, rhetoric devices, partial expla-nations) the potential for deceptionor manipulation is enormous.In short, scientific research’s greatinfluence implies just as great aresponsibility. The more sciencetouches everyday life of society withgreater speed and less mediation,the less scientists can disregard theethical implications of their researchand communication.

In order to open a channel for dialo-gue with public opinion, trust isnecessary. But trust is easy to looseand difficult to gain – or, worse, gainback – and the positive or negativeconsequences of scientists’ com-munication are often reflected ontheir professional circle, if not on theentire scientific community.

In this case too, there exists a moreobvious and a less obvious ethic.The first rule is to respect the factualtruth. A precise account, completeand honest, should be ready to cla-rify how the results were obtained,how reliable they are, whether theyagree with other studies, what creditis due to other scientists, and ifothers disagree and why.Moreover, results should not beemphasized more than is rightful: apublic that has been disappointedonce, will be sceptical forever. Oneof the key features of science is its

temporary nature, which is eventruer for the frontiers of science: ifthis is the case, it is better to ackno-wledge this fact immediately, so thatthose who are reading or listeningare aware of the nature of the infor-mation received.Results that are popularised shouldhave already undergone a peer-review. There is no easier way tolose public confidence than toannounce something that is thenchallenged or rejected shortly after-wards. This already happens fre-quently enough for physiologicalreasons. Nor should the appeal topublic opinion be exploited as asubstitute for the scientific commu-nity’s consensus. Respect for fac-tual truth alone may, however, notbe enough, because you can beguilty of omission.The possible negative consequen-ces of your research should not bedisregarded. Discovering the gene-tic basis for the predisposition of anillness, for example, opens the doorto improved prevention, but also topotential discrimination. The factthat the balance may be positiveoverall does not mean, in fact, thatnegative aspects do not exist. Theiromission might, indeed, be broughtto light by someone else, creatingserious damage to your credibility.Another error is the omission ofother options, when there is not justone to choose from. In other words,you should not offer one option, theone we are convinced of, as the onlypossible choice; not even in goodfaith. This situation is more commonin medicine and in the choices oftechnologies: consider, for example,the pros and con of the varioussources of energy.It can also be considered omissionwhen you do not dissociate your-self, publicly as well, from a collea-

gue that has behaved inappropriate-ly, accepting the attitude that “thereis honour among thieves”. As soonas the unprofessional conduct isdiscovered, people will note yoursilence and lump you together.Finally, possible conflicts of interestshould be declared. The increasingintertwining of public and privateresearch will offer more opportuni-ties for the mask of scientific objec-tivity to hide interests which havenot been or cannot be revealed.Never underestimate, though, thepublic’s discernment of which sour-ces of information can be trustedand which cannot.Since ethics is a question of values,the ethics of public communicationhas a dimension which is lessobvious, but perhaps more funda-mental.While it may be true that scientificknowledge does not have a moraldimension of its own, the methodsused to obtain it and its possibleapplications do. It is true that scien-tists sometimes lose or cannot havecontrol over how their results areapplied, yet there is nothing worsethan an attitude in scientists who ridthemselves of this problem byappealing to the “pureness” of theirresearch. On the contrary, scientistsshould not only declare the values atthe root of their work, but also beready to divulge the social implica-tions of their work as well the workof others, and their own opinion,positive or negative. Who is moreentitled to do so? What betteropportunity is there to communicatethat scientists are responsible citi-zens? As many considerations made inother fields have underlined, youcannot be convincing (or be so for along time) if you are not genuinelyconvinced that you need to work

34 - CHAPTER II

Ethics in science communication If one tells the truth, then sooner or later one will be found out.Oscar Wilde

Page 35: Communicating Science En

ethically and consequently do so,especially at the institutional level.In other words, if there is no sub-stance there is no effort greatenough in public relations toconceal your limits. In an opensociety, in which you are examinedunder the microscopes of many,there is no way to keep possibleflaws hidden. Thus, you must firstexamine your own values compa-red to the society’s values, and therespect owed to its citizens; onlythen can you begin to think aboutconstructing visibility and credibili-ty, which represent the most pre-cious assets for the individualscientist as well as for the commu-nity (s)he belongs to.

Never, never try to manipulateyour public, not even for a goodreason. If people realize what youhave done, they will feel humilia-ted, and where health or safety areconcerned, this can mean wipingout your credibility for who knowshow long. A policy made to exploityour credibility is a sure recipe fordisaster.

The first objective of a scientist’spublic communication policy is toearn a reputation as a crediblespeaker. As remarked by HansPeter Peters, an expert on the pro-blems between science and socie-ty: “It is always better to inform andexplain your reasoning as honestly,clearly and completely as possible.Even if we will not convince ourreaders or listeners, at least we willhave given them the impressionthat we respect them. This too canplay a part in forming their opi-nions, since information does notstand alone. At times, the percep-tion of honesty can obtain morethan the information itself”.

CHAPTER II - 35

Page 36: Communicating Science En

From NASA on down, many scienti-fic institutions have their own strate-gy for communication. No commu-nication, in fact, should be improvi-sed, least of all science communica-tion. Let us immediately clear thefield of one misunderstanding: theidea that communication is onlyintuition and creative impulse.Natural talents are rare.In any professional communication,subjectivity and the strike of geniusenter into play only later, after care-ful analysis has clarified its objecti-ves, constraints and opportunities.Even in advertising, a field that fromthe outside seems like a kingdom offree reigning creativity, the creativepair (copy and graphic designer)start work only after a long andoften extremely sophisticated analy-sis by the marketing team has defi-ned the constraints to work within.Think first: putting together intuitionand planning, which follows a preci-se sequences of stages and verifi-cation, is a valuable rule at all levels,whether it be for a single contribu-tion (an article for a magazine, aschool visit to a laboratory, a radiointerview or a book), or, even moreimportantly, for the planning of aninformation campaign. In this way,you can at least protect yourselffrom the most common errors.

The most common errors

The first is that you cannot makeyourself heard. This occurs whenyou are unable to access a channelof communication, because nonewspaper shows interest in yourtopic, but also when you turn to thewrong people, perhaps becauseyou have used a channel whichdoes not reach the audience youare interested in.You can also manage to talk to theright audience, but without beingunderstood. Comprehension in acrucial aim when you talk aboutscience, unlike, for example whenyou talk about politics or literary cri-ticism. This error might even backfi-re. You can also be clear but not inter-esting, usually because the contentor reasoning selected representpriorities for you as a scientist or theinstitution you belong to, but not forthe public. This category includesinformation on congresses orexpensive experimental apparatus,or in any case, what scientists holdcitizens should know. Today, howe-ver, as in many other sectors theconsumer is the focus of attention:communication must therefore be,first and foremost, a service offeredby those who do research to citi-

zens, and not to themselves.There are also content errors, likesuggesting the wrong message orcontradicting earlier statements,thus irritating or alienating somebo-dy.Even when these errors have beenavoided, a more subtle, but not lessserious error may remain: the lack ofan objective.

Rarely the scientific community isable to distinguish between theunderstanding of science and theappreciation of science and itsbenefits, as if making citizens littleexperts means automatically gainingtheir support.

The choice of one of the many thingsthat can be discussed or one of thevarious points of view on a topicmust, in other words, help to reachthe objective. If for example I want toconvince you of the usefulness of anew, very expensive accelerator, tal-king about the spinoffs of fundamen-tal physics or describing a chapter inthe history of the research, appealingto national pride, might be more use-ful than the fascination offered by thetheories of everything or Higgs’sboson theory. The opposite choicewill be made, of course, for a classvisit to a laboratory.

36 - CHAPTER III

CHAPTER III

PLANNING YOURCOMMUNICATIONStarting off on the right footIt sounded an excellent plan, no doubt, and very neatly and simply arranged; the only difficulty was, that she had not the smallest idea how to set about it.Lewis Carroll

Page 37: Communicating Science En

Think first

All the stages in the process ofcommunication are important. Inthis chapter we talk about planning,that is everything that takes placebefore getting down to work, name-ly before writing an article, contac-ting a journalist, commissioning acontribution, organizing an informa-tion campaign, etc. In fact, there isalmost never just one way to talkabout something and the choicemust be based on careful conside-ration of five essential elements:

- audience

- constraints

- opportunities

- message

Only later will the concrete oppor-tunities, or rather the resources,ability and access to the media, beconsidered. Here you will find acheck list of “filters” which the ideaor initial need should go through.There is no better way to evaluate

your planning than jotting down aconcept, which is a single page lis-ting and justifying the choicesmade. This is a tool widely used tocheck if everything is coherent andconvincing.These elements, chosen with ratio-nality but also with a pinch of crea-tivity, should produce a story. Butwe will deal with this point in thenext chapter.

CHAPTER III - 37

Clarify your aimsOur plans fail because they do not have an objective. If one does not know to which port one is sailing, no wind is favourable.Seneca

The first question to ask may seembanal, but in reality it is crucialbecause everything depends uponits answer: “Why am I doing this?”.The decision to communicate toooften expresses only the desire tocome out of isolation or obscurity bydoing something

Defining you objectives means deci-ding which category of people youwant to address and what type ofchange you want to obtain in them.

It is no coincidence that the first andmost delicate task of a communica-tion consultant is to help clients cla-rify their ideas on these two points.

Who do I want to address?

When asked this question, many stillanswer “the interested generalpublic” usually meaning the educa-ted audience. Now, apart from thefact that there are actually very few

educated people, and that they maynot be the ones who have to beinterested in us, and that we need toforce ourselves to interest them, thisattitude clashes with one of thebasic principles of every communi-cation.

Communication which has some-thing good for everyone has almostalways something bad for everyone.And it is more difficult.

The public, in fact, are heteroge-neous in sex, age, socio-economiclevel, interests, needs, backgroundknowledge and cognitive abilities.For a series of reasons whichconcern the transformations thatour society is undergoing, the publictend to be increasingly divided intocultural “tribes”. As advertisingexperts know very well, communi-cation functions best for each seg-ment of the public, when it is cut tosize: each audience needs the,

message, means and languagewhich work best .Today, there are truly few generalistmedia (actually, a few TV channelsand they are more expensive anddifficult to access, while usually spe-cialized media (scientific magazinesfor example), which are easier toreach, are a way to enter the cultu-ral market, gain attention and even-tually approach other more impor-tant and influential channels.If necessary, it is better, then, tomultiply and diversify your contribu-tions, packaging them for a homo-geneous segment, whether it is forschools, policy-makers, the localcommunity or journalists.More often than you can imagine,there is no need to speak to everyo-ne. It is important, in fact, to speakto your stakeholders, the peoplethat may be interested in yourresearch or the organization thathas produced it. Since the list isgenerally potentially very long, priori-

Page 38: Communicating Science En

ties should be established. Who doI most need to communicate with?

What change do I want to obtain?

Once your public have been identi-fied, it is necessary to clarify thechange you want to obtain. Usually,the objectives of a communicationare part of one of these categories:

- the exchange of information

- visibility/awareness

- dialogue

- persuasion

When you say you would like thepublic to know or understand some-thing, which is the most common

objective in technical or scientificfields, what is “this something”exactly (this needs changing).. Theproblem in this case is to be realisticand not give in to the temptation toexplain everything. Unless you arewriting an entire book, you shouldconcentrate on just one element.The most obvious choice would beto concentrate on a fact, which insome cases, for example when youtalk about risks and safety, cannotbe avoided. You might, however,prefer to discuss a concept, whichis often necessary in human gene-tics, since facts about molecularbiology are often too complex. Oryou might explain the meaning of aresearch project, as is often done infundamental physics, in which boththe facts and concepts require toomuch background knowledge andimpracticable languages.In the other cases the scientific expla-

nation, always present, must be use-ful in achieving the objectives pur-sued.The communication from a centre ofvolcanology, for example, might focuson various subject matters: you mightexplain to the local community, (fami-liar with its behaviour, that someone isalways monitoring the volcano; tou-rists might be interested in the fasci-nation this large and spectacularnatural phenomenon holds; themedia might want to know whattypes of forecasts can be made andhow reliable they are; politicians maybe interested in the fact that the cen-tre’s annual budget represents a smallfraction of what the forecasts canhelp save should an eruption occur.Thus, the choice of the fact, conceptor meaning will depend upon theinterests, expectations, needs andpossible fears of that particular seg-ment of the public.

38 - CHAPTER III

Know your own audienceWhen an ear grows sharper, it becomes an eye.Rumi, Persian poet and mystic from the XIII century.

The secret of Piero Angela, the jour-nalist that “invented” scientific popu-larisation for Italian television and itswell-recognised leader for 25 years,is an extraordinary sensitivity for hisaudience, whose interests, tastes,cultural level and reactions heknows perfectly. His audience, however, are differentfrom those which watch other televi-sion programmes, including scienceprogrammes.

Knowing the people you areaddressing is one of the first rules ofcommunication. No words canalways be clear or persuasive. Clearor persuasive words exist only for aspecific audience, which you musthave a reliable model of.

Once your audience have beenidentified, you should be able toanswer at least three questions:

- Who are they?

- What do they already know about the topic?

- What do they think about it?

When doing this, the researcher hasthe opposite problem from the jour-nalist. While the journalist must learnthe scientific knowledge, the resear-cher needs to learn the “lay kno-wledge”, including which mediatheir audience receives their infor-mation from. This information canbe found personally, or if possible, in

the press and through specific sur-veys. In fact, very few studies on thepublics of science exist, except forthe fields of biotechnology and infor-mation technology. Even if the sta-kes are just as high, there existsnothing similar to the very sophisti-cated surveys used in advertising.Identifying a segment of the publicmeans understanding how complexyour explanation can be, as well aswhat their expectations, motivationsand interests are. Different meansare better for reaching differentaudiences; for example adults mightprefer TV; teenagers, Internet; child-ren, museums and exhibitions; andthe establishment, influential new-spapers. To know a specific publicmeans choosing the right media for

Page 39: Communicating Science En

them and the testimonials they consi-der the most credible and listen to.It is easy to assess what the publicalready know about the topic: usual-ly they will know very little. Every oneof us can be compared to a curiousfourteen year old, more or less, inthose fields that are outside our pro-fessional field. The topic itself canbe of help here. It is more likely, forexample that the public know whathappens during a heart attack,which is often explained by themedia, than how chemical bondswork. The exception is the sub-group with particular interests, likepeople with a particular disease,who are particularly motivated andused to getting information from theInternet, or other sources.The next step is to understand whatour public want to know. Above all wemust consider their interests,concerns and hopes, along with themost popular topics of public debate.Subjects tied to energy saving, forexample, are of interest when thecost of oil goes up, and only to thepeople who actually pay the energybills. In effect, it is always necessa-

ry to begin your discussion with pre-existing interests and only laterintroduce new and important infor-mation.It is more difficult to understandwhat ideas the public have aboutthe topic, or rather what its publicimage is. A media analysis does infact help, but it is not conclusive. Amore refined analysis is necessary, ifpossible with special surveys andfocus groups, but meetings can alsobe useful. In order to find the righttopic for a conference on homeopa-thy, for example, it might be moreimportant to know what is apprecia-ted most in homeopaths and theirapproach to the patient, rather thanto get information on studies thatdisprove their effectiveness. In otherwords, it is necessary to learn to lis-ten and carry out some cultural andsocial analyses.A simple exam of the media doesnot provide an understanding ofwhat is at stake and where thepublic stand. Are they opinions orsimple frills on the surface of aware-ness, easily changed? Or are theyattitudes, stronger sympathies, hid-

den below the surface? Or are theyvalues, large public movements, asstrong as they are slow to change?If you decide to (or if you can) goalong with the popular public stan-ce, so much the better, becauseyou will find some extremely usefulallies. But if you decide (becauseyou have to) to go against them, youwill need to be very aware of yourposition and use more care in yourpresentation. In these cases, thebest thing is to calmly analyse thereasons behind the positions you donot share, listening more to thepublic than to your colleagues,trying to understand how they havecome to these conclusions usingcultural analysis or a history of thecontroversy.The most serious error that can bemade is to demonstrate that you arenot familiar with public opinion, oreven worse, do not respect it, in anattempt to force your point of viewon them because you know morethan they do. Rather, it is importantto be open and willing to an exchan-ge of ideas, and only later, calmlyexplain your position.

CHAPTER III - 39

Assess constraints and opportunitiesThe ideas of new opportunities do not just wait around to be discovered. These ideas have to be produced.Edward de Bono

Whatever topic you want to discusshas constraints to consider andopportunities to exploit, and they maynot be easy to identify, especially ifyou are involved in the minutiae of theproblem. Considerable personal kno-wledge and investment do not help,in fact, to see the subject from theoutside Seeing through the public’seyes, is, however, essential during theplanning phase as well as in asses-sing what has been done.Let us forget, then, that our topic isthe simplest and most interesting inthe world and try to asses it objecti-

vely from different points of views,exploring all the possibilities.

Is it news?

Everything that is news has a built-in appeal, just like everything thathas to do with popular issues.Often, in science, the news initself, is not as important as thematuration of a line of research. Inthis case a curious piece of newsmight represent the opportunity totalk about the rest as well.The detachment of a particularly

large iceberg might represent theopportunity to talk about climatewarming at high latitudes, and per-haps the activity of a national labo-ratory in Antarctica. For the samereason those researches can belinked to a subject of currentevents.A recent blackout can be, on thecontrary, the opportunity to talkabout topics tied to new sources ofenergy, while the death of a celebri-ty, the starting point for a discussionof your own research on the diseasewhich (s)he suffered from.

Page 40: Communicating Science En

Fascination or surprise

Can your topic make the imagina-tion fly?The popularisation of science hasalways used fascination and surpri-se; just think of the relative weightcarried by topics like space, dino-saurs, human evolution and animalbehaviour.Even if not all subjects stir the ima-gination, many lost causes may besalvaged to some degree by “para-siting” more popular subjects: themicrofauna of the soil becomes aminiature savannah; material scien-ces, modern day alchemy; a resultin the field of cosmology, a fruit ofEinstein’s theories.

The size of the natural public

How many people are potentiallyinterested in the subject?Niche subjects are always more dif-ficult to sell than subjects whichtouch a large number of people.A result, small as it may be, in thetreatment of breast or lung cancerreceives greater publicity than thedefinite cure for medullary carcino-ma of the thyroid, which is extreme-ly rare. A study on global warming inItaly will attract more attention thananother on the growth rings inAlpine fir trees. While it may be truethat scientists naturally tend to ove-restimate the potential interest theirown sector holds, they should notcommit the error of underestimatingit either. Sometimes a little bit ofimagination will help find a particularpoint of view that can make it inter-esting to a wider audience. An elec-tronic nose, for example, can beseen in another light if it can helpdiscover explosives in bags at theairport or used for the quality controlof foods.

Importance

Why do we need it? What will chan-ge after this discovery?The more a result influences ourway of living, the more interest itarouses.

The outbreak of a new infectiousdisease, even if few people havecaught it, stirs more interest than aparasitosis that has run havoc inagriculture. An asteroid which pas-ses close to the Earth receives moreattention than another that crasheson Jupiter. A mathematical modelapplicable to the fluctuations in thestock market attracts more attentionthan the birth of an entire newbranch of mathematics. In this casetoo, if the topic handled does notseem immediately useful, it can beworthwhile making an effort to findan application or a consequencethat it might have, perhaps in thefuture. Generally speaking, thepublic appreciate concrete benefits,and more than anything else theyappreciate whatever might benefitour health. Just look at the warm wel-come biotechnological products inmedicine received compared tothose in agriculture and food industry.

Expectations

And what happens now?Every discovery or new applicationopens a brand new scenario, andinterest will be higher where theexpectations tied to it, good or bad,are important.Cloning the sheep Dolly, for exam-ple, raised as many strong negativeexpectations as the announcementof “cold fusion” produced positiveones. Without bothering with eventsof this size, important expectationscan be created by the perfecting ofa new genetic test, the discovery ofnew planets outside our solar sys-tem, the raising of spermatozoa inthe laboratory or a new agriculturevariety. When dealing with a topic, itis also important to carefully explorethe considerations, especially extra-scientific, that the public couldmake.

Emotional significance

What emotions can it arouse?Emotions and feelings are theindispensable salt for every commu-nication, because they the spark thereader’s or listener’s interest.

The discovery of a 1 meter tall homi-nid that lived up to eighteen thou-sand years ago on an island inIndonesia was, for example, linked,even in Nature, to the possibility thatthe famous yeti found in theHimalayas might also be more thanjust the fruit of the imagination.Many results in robotics receivedisproportionate coverage compa-red to their actual import because ofthe fears and hopes tied to thedevelopment of robots.When a topic seems to be, however,wanting in emotional charge, thisshould be sought, naturally withoutexaggerating. It may be found, forexample in the circumstances inwhich it was discovered, in theconnection to a particular celebrityor even, in an exciting hypothesis,even if it has not yet been explored.The discovery of prions, before madcow disease made them famous,gained fame, largely because theywere found during the study of theirtransmission during a ritual in a NewGuinea tribe, whose members atetheir dead relatives’ brain.

Contextualization

How pertinent is it to every day life?Many studies in psychology haveshown that the closer a topic is to ourworld, the stronger our interest is: thatis why medicine takes the lion’s sharein the popularisation of science.When, on the contrary, the topicseems remote, the initial step is tounderstand how to relate it to some-thing the public consider relevant.When you want to discuss the studyof solar neutrinos, it would be best toexplain that we live under a continualshower of these particles.If you talk about macromoleculardesign, it would be worthwhile recal-ling that the origin and cure of manydiseases depend on their structure.

Comprehensibility

Can it be easily understood?If a topic is not understood, thennothing is gained from the com-munication.Many topics, like chemistry, the

40 - CHAPTER III

Page 41: Communicating Science En

theory of the superstrings and mostof mathematics, remain almost com-pletely excluded from popularisationsimply because they are too difficult.In these cases, after considering theinstruments which can be used tomake the topic clearer (we will talkabout this in the next chapter) it canbe helpful to avoid concentrating onthe explanation of the facts, verifyingwhether it might be easier to explainthe concepts, or the meaning of theresearch or only its application.

Spectacularity

Does it lend itself to a spectacularshow?Images can be extraordinary pro-moters of a scientific topic. Justthink of ethology, made popular bytelevision documentaries, or spaceexploration, made familiar with the

help of enormous numbers ofphotographs, films and cartoon ani-mation made available for free fordecades by NASA. The availabilityof good images is essential if youwant to offer a topic to illustratedmagazines and television, and oftenit is the deciding factor in whetherthey choose to cover it. The topicthen becomes a so called photoopportunity, that is, an excuse toshow pictures. For this reason thereare increasingly more scientific labo-ratories or institutions that produceor have produced visual documen-tation of their activities, and make itavailable to the media.

Service

Which service can be offered to thepublic?Communication should not be sim-

ply the opportunity to explain to thepublic what interests a scientist.Every time it is possible, you shouldmake the effort to also offer thepublic something that lasts and thatis considered useful, interesting orthat they can tell family and friendsabout, even if it is only marginallytied to the main topic.If for example you talk about geneti-cally transmitted deafness, it is use-ful to give information on new instru-ments to discover it at birth. If youtalk about the importance of flavo-noids in a healthy diet, it is right togive nutritional advice about eatingfruit and vegetables. In addition toan opportunity to spread importantknowledge, it is a way to thank thepublic for their attention.

CHAPTER III - 41

Choose your messageThe greatest book is not the one whose message engraves itself on the brain - but the one whose vital impact opens up other viewpoints.Romain Rolland

After your aims have been clarified,your audience identified and thetopic’s constraints and opportunitiesanalysed, it is necessary to focus onthe message. The message is theextreme synthesis of what you wantto communicate, or rather theessential core of the contents or lineof reasoning that should, in anycase, be learned and rememberedby the receiver: everything, in thecommunication, must contribute togetting it through to the public. Themessage is almost never as obviousas it is in the communication. Indeedit guides it like the north star: it helpsto give focus to an interview, it is thenut of the question that you want ajournalist to address immediately, itis the first input that you give a pressoffice or whoever has to produce acommunication for us.In order to be effective, the messagemust take account of the objectives,

but above all, the public’s needs,and it should be summed up in justone sentence. “Ninety percent of theresearch on rare genetic diseaseswas conducted by Institute X andhelped to discover the cause of themost serious and widespread nongenetic diseases”, could be themessage for a fund-raising cam-paign for research. Whereas “Thenew polymer is the first worldwidewhich can substitute silk and willrenew the national textile industry”,might be the gist of the announce-ment for a new patent.Careful attention should be given topossible incomprehension or misun-derstandings.A message must be brief and clear,but not generic. “The catalogue ofhistoric earthquakes will help to clas-sify the Italian territory more precise-ly in terms of seismic danger, thuspreventing damage produced by

earthquakes more effectively” is bet-ter than “The catalogue of historicearthquakes is a fundamental contri-bution, the pride of European seis-mology”.Focusing on a message is essentialespecially when using “fast” andambiguous means, that leave limitedspace to reflection, like the radio ortelevision; because it is that morselthat will remain in the heads of anaudience which is often distracted.In defining the message it is impor-tant to make an effort to go beyondthe initial hypotheses that come tomind, remembering above all whoyou are addressing. If for examplewe want to promote a university’sdegree courses in science, differentpublics are sensitive to different mes-sages. A government or a bankingfoundation might be asked to contri-bute because “the graduates in thefield of science are important to eco-

Page 42: Communicating Science En

nomic development”. If we areaddressing young prospective stu-dents you can appeal to the factthat “ a science degree opens thedoor to a fascinating world and canbe the gateway to an internationalcareer”. Whereas their parentsmight want to know that “it is nottrue that you cannot find a good jobwith a science degree”. If there ismore than one group being addres-

sed, it will be necessary to weighand balance these messages.Wherever possible, the messageshould first be tested and if neces-sary adapted, and subsequently itsimpact should be assessed.The aims chosen, the public beingaddressed, the topic’s constraintsand opportunities, and the messageare the elements to put togetherwhen you move on to the actual

drafting of any communication.The subject in the next chapter iscommunicating in person, while thechapter that follows deals with com-municating through journalists.Before dealing with them, however,it is necessary to consider the exis-tence of at least one other aspect ofplanning.

42 - CHAPTER III

When communicating is an uphill battleVictorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.Sun Tzu

Not always can you announce thediscovery of a simple cure with noside effects for a terrifying disease,or a new source of clean and cheapenergy, or the intention to carry outa research project at no cost, whosebenefits are clear to all and have nobioethical and environmentalcontraindications. In the real world,things are almost always more diffi-cult.Very often, public communication ofscience helps to face complexsituations, but at times the work isall uphill. This is what happens withtopics like GMOs, the chemical ornuclear industry, or simply basicresearch in fields that may seemesoteric.In these cases a single contributionis not enough and a more complexand concerted effort is needed.Generally speaking, it is more

expensive and usually extendedover time and requires a moresophisticated approach: when tac-tics are not enough, you need astrategy.Having a strategy means, first andforemost, knowing how to identify allstakeholders with interests in theissue, and being able to interpret thecomplex relationships that tie themtogether: particular segments of thepublic, policy-makers, non govern-ment organizations, the media, thescientific community and opinionleaders.It is then necessary to analyse thepublic images circulating within thesocial body, to measure public opi-nion with special surveys or otherinstruments and reconstruct whyand what caused these problems.On these bases, then, it is importantto form alliances with groups that

have our same interests, such asparticular industrial associations orassociations for the sick, environ-mentalist organisations or politicalforces. Together a course should betraced and agreed upon to createknowledge and awareness aboutthe topic, or to change the existingperception of it.Finally it is necessary to ensure thefinancing to be able to carry it out.There are no recipes or simplecheck lists to create and implementa strategy of this type, which goesfar beyond the single scientist’s pos-sibilities, if for no other reason thanthe fact that in the field of sciencesuch previous experiences are few,even at the international level. Norcan a simple survival kit deal withthese problems. Yet it is importantto know they exist.

Page 43: Communicating Science En

1 It's not what our message does to the listener, but what the listener doeswith the message, that determines our success as communicators.

2 Listeners generally interpret messages in ways which make them feel comfortable and secure.

3 When people's attitudes are attacked head-on, they are likely to defend those attitudes and, in the process, to reinforce them.

4 People pay the most attention to messages which are relevant to their own circumstances and point of view.

5 People who feel insecure in a relationship are unlikely to be good listeners.

6 People are more ready to listen to us if we also listen to them.

7 People are more likely to change in response to a combination of new experience and communication than in response to communication alone.

8 People are more likely to support a change which affects them if they areconsulted before the change is made.

9 The message in what is said will be interpreted in the light of how, when,where and by whom it is said.

10 Lack of self-knowledge and an unwillingness to resolve our own internal conflicts make it harder for us to communicate with other people.

CHAPTER III - 43

The ten laws of human communicationBefore getting down to work, it might be useful to check the planning of your communication in the light of a small Decalogue that recalls a few psychological truths (from Hugh Mackay, Why don’t people listen?, 1994).

Page 44: Communicating Science En

If we run through the list of interna-tional bestsellers from the last fewyears the science books we find areusually stories.It is a lot more difficult for an essay,in the strict sense of the word, tomeet with success. In Oliver Sack’sstories, for example, the oddities ofthe human mind are investigated byneuropsychology with stories of realpeople, stories in which every scien-tific discourse apparently disap-pears. The writings that madeStephen Jay Gould famous areoften inspired by real events orfamous people. Stephen Hawkingexplained the frontiers of astrophy-sics in A Brief History of Time.Indeed a trend in publishing whichhas become extremely popular andparticularly successful, uses sciencestories to talk about entire branchesof learning. Fermat’s Last Theoremby Simon Singh represents perhapsthe most famous case.A story can be found anywhere, indocumentaries, on television showsand radio programmes as well as inmagazine articles. It may be onlyone of the ingredients used, per-haps as a device to catch theaudience’s attention right from thestart. The exceptions are relativelyrare, however, at least in successful

communication, and are usuallyfound in those areas in which thecommunication reports on sociallyuseful information, like informationfor people with a particular diseaseor information on risks.Public communication should neverbe a simple list of information, likean instruction manual, even if it istranslated into simpler language.Our mind, faced with new informa-tion, always looks for a meaning, anunderlying theme to latch onto. Atthe very least, the line of reasoningpresented should be introducedwith an opening question, followedby an exposition of facts and then adiscussion and answers. The mosteffective solution, however, consistsin “disguising” the line of reasoninginside a story. This story acts as theaudience’s guide through the thickforest of unfamiliar subjects, so thatthey will not feel lost, and will actual-ly encourage them to continueonward.

Turning a scientific discussion into astory means making a discussionthat is not natural, natural; makingthe abstract concrete, or rather, tur-ning what the author wants to sayinto what the audience prefers tohear.

44 - CHAPTER IV

CHAPTER IV

TELLING A SCIENCE STORYTelling a story, or rather getting readAlways do what you are afraid to do.Ralph Waldo Emerson

Page 45: Communicating Science En

A story is a type of substitute expe-rience that draws the reader, or thelistener, into a situation which (s)hewould never have experiencedotherwise. For this reason we findcertain recurrent elements develo-ped (and not simply cited):

- characters we get to know andcan identify with, including somegood and perhaps even some bad(a researcher, a group of sick peo-ple, an animal population, a cyclo-ne, a photon inside the Sun…)

- the driving force behind the waya character behaves whichappeals to public interest (revea-ling a mystery of nature, solving anenvironmental problem, savingsomeone, predicting a natural phe-nomenon)

- the setting (a laboratory, an exo-tic forest, the upper atmosphere, acoral reef…)

- the time period (today, Galileo’era, twenty years from now whenwe will have landed on Mars…)

- the action which takes place overtime, or rather the structure whichorganizes the whole story

How to find a story

The choice of a story, from the manythat can be constructed around thesame topic, should be based on youraudience, the medium, the spaceavailable and your objectives.At times the story will choose itself, ina manner of speaking. In order toexplain what gene therapy is, forexample, you might tell the story of achild affected by a serious autoimmu-ne disease, beginning with the disco-very of the disease up to its cure.At times the choice is less banal. Inthis way, physics in the twentieth cen-tury could become a Biography ofPhysics; the developments in evolu-tionary biology might fill the history ofthe research carried out by theGrants, a married couple that fordecades on the Galapagos islandshave traced the evolution of Darwin’schaffinches as it has occurred; whilethe climax towards the explosion ofKrakatoa might provide the idea for alarge fresco on the progress of geo-physics and the impact of geophysi-cal phenomena on the biosphere andhuman life.If you are not able to find a suitablestory right away, the best thing to dois take the elements identified duringyour planning, beginning with what

you found in assessing your topic,and find a narrative map which canput them together. You could beginwith the most promising element andthen make sure the others fit in cohe-rently.To talk about the carbon cycle innature, for example, if the mostappealing idea seems to be the linkbetween the worlds of living and nonliving things, you might try the trickPrimo Levi used in his famous storyCarbonio. In this story he describesthe element’s biogeochemical cyclethrough the adventures of a singlecarbon atom in rocks, the atmosphe-re, plants, animals and men. During this stage it is necessary tofind the right images. In most storiesthat work, certain standard figures ordevices can be found; very often theycan also be used to tell science sto-ries. One of these is the struggle toovercome apparently undefeatableobstacles, another is the countdowntowards a dreaded event, or perhapsthere might be a contest betweendishonest opponents, the misunders-tandings of others, the “crossing ofthe desert” etc. In Primo Levi’s storythe theme is a journey and the returnhome. At the beginning of the storythe atom is freed from a calcareousrock and after thousands of adventu-

CHAPTER IV - 45

WHAT IS A STORY

Page 46: Communicating Science En

res returns to form another one.These images are especially useful atthe beginning of the story, where it isimportant to establish a relationshipwith the reader, and at the end of thestory, where they help to reinforce itsemotional aspect.Once a satisfactory storyline is outli-ned, it is necessary to verify that it iscoherent with the objectives set andthe message chosen. Primo Levi’sjourney of a single atom of carbonmay be suitable to describe the

importance of carbon in the biosphe-re, but not in a discussion on climaticchanges: in this case it would be bet-ter to follow a group of carbon atoms,in which only a few manage to return“home” to a rock, while others are for-ced to remain in a purgatory calledatmosphere, as molecules of carbondioxide. A good science story, inaddition to transmitting informationand stirring emotions, should thenmake its public fly higher, offer animportant interpretation or communi-

cate the meaning of the topic. Tocontinue our example, it must explainthat a thousand different strands, visi-ble and invisible, join the biosphere tonon-living components of the planet.The story, in other words, should sim-plify the complexity of topic to a “legi-timate” level, without sacrificing itsconceptual depth.The story, finally, must be easily told inthe space and time available, which isusually limited.

46 - CHAPTER IV

HOW TO CONSTRUCT A STORY A GOOD IDEA IS ONLY THE BEGINNING, BECAUSE THE STORY NEEDS TO BE CONSTRUCTED.THE FIRST STEP IS TO MAKE AN OUTLINE. PROFESSIONAL WRITERS KNOW WELL THATWRITING WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY IN ONE SITTING IS ALMOST ALWAYS A UTOPIA, ANDTHIS IS TRUE FOR BOTH LONG AS WELL AS SHORT TEXTS. IN FACT, OFTEN THE MORECONCISE THE TEXT NEEDS TO BE, THE MORE DIFFICULT IT IS TO WRITE. THE OUTLINESHOULD DEFINE THE PHASES IN THE STORY, ASSIGNING EACH PART A PURPOSE ANDARRANGING THE NECESSARY MATERIAL IN THIS ORDER. WITH THE HELP OF THIS GUIDE,WRITING BECOMES MUCH EASIER.

There are no rules to construct astory, which is the result of personalplanning, but some advice could beuseful.For a start, it is necessary to find apoint of view which stirs an emotion,or at least is already of public inter-est. In order to talk about sharks, forexample, it is better to begin withthe fears that they might arouse,even if the objective is, in fact, toshow that these fears are unfoun-ded. The public need to be accom-panied step by step to this conclu-sion. In order to discuss the mole-cular bases of some heart diseasesit is better to begin with the suddendeath on a playing field of a famousfootballer, than with the ionic chan-nels in heart cells. Capturing youraudience’s attention must be doneat the start, otherwise the public arelost before you have even begun.Be careful though. Do not play allyour best cards at the beginningbecause the narrative path needs tobe paved with golden coins. Newand interesting information acts likebait drawing the audience to theconclusion, where it would be fitting

for them to find a few surprises. Forexample, you might show that thestudy of these rare heart diseasescould lead to a cure for heart disea-ses which could touch anyone ofus. After the opening, a brief andclear account of the facts would beappropriate to clarify what you wantto discuss. In our example, we des-cribe how a heart is made, how theelectric signal which orders thecontraction is emitted, how theheart cells are connected and coor-dinated. Then the narration itselfbegins.A story that works is not a simpleseries of facts placed in order. Onthe contrary, it is the result of aselection of events that lead tosomething significant. The narrationthat “captures”, then, is not sequen-tial, but consequential. It needs aplot, which is nothing more than aconstruction of events meant toproduce a particular effect on theaudience. In our case this effect isthe explanation of a phenomenon;thus, the plot follows the variousphysiological mechanisms whichensure the normal functioning of the

heart pump, highlighting the weakpoints which might give out afterproblems in the ionic channels, butwhich can also be protected if theseproblems are discovered in time. Ifthere is not much space – or time –available (thus almost always) it isbetter to follow just one line, withoutsidetracking which makes the rea-der or viewer go back and forward,because they will get lost easily.Unlike what happens in fiction, inwhich digressions and flashbacksare commonly used, in sciencecommunication the story contains aline of reasoning, that the publicshould follow effortlessly in only onedirection. To conclude, it is usuallyworth going back to the initial ques-tion or situation, thus closing thenarrative circle. If the story openswith a question, the end mustcontain the answer. The finaleshould also leave the public withsomething, usually a clarification ofthe message you decided on in theplanning stage, because the last thingread or listened to is normally what ismost easily recalled, and what willcontinue to echo in their minds.

Page 47: Communicating Science En

CONTROL

Just like an evaluation of the topic iscarried out during planning, the out-line needs to be checked by puttingyourself in your public’s shoes. This

is the only way to verify if the narra-tion flows, if there are any gaps orincongruences, if there are times inwhich the attention fails, or on the

contrary, is too heavy, anticipatingemotions and reactions stirred byeach passage and consequently,adjusting them.

CHAPTER IV - 47

Arguing, or rather persuadingPeople are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discoveredthan by those which have come in to the mind of others.Blaise Pascal

The power of a story that rings true isvery strong, because it helps themind “to see” something that isoccurring, and we all tend to believewhat we see, even if only in our ima-gination. Yet, it is not necessarily truethat this is enough to convince.Often persuasive arguments are nee-ded that do not necessarily coincidewith the nude facts, which are what isfound in scientific papers. This is truesimply because the public do notknow everything that an expert in thearea knows. Thus, it is necessary tolearn to weave not only a line of rea-soning around a story, but also aconvincing argument, or more speci-fically, instructions for interpreting thefacts and correlations in the argu-ment, which clarify.If for example you discuss introducinga gene into a plant with molecularbiology techniques, it might be usefulto clarify for those who are not familiarwith the improvement of cultivatedvarieties, that genetic modification ismuch more limited, precise and bet-ter known than modifications carriedout with traditional techniques.In one word, it is important to use a

bit of rhetoric. This art does notalways get good press, particularlyamong scientists, but in some cir-cumstances it is simply naïve to disre-gard its basic principles. If appliedwith honesty, in fact, it can make thecommunication much more effective.

Thinking about the public

Convincing is not only a problem oftechnique. As the ancients alreadytheorized, it first requires taking yourpublic into consideration.The first fairly obvious condition tobe persuasive is, in fact, adoptingthe type of argument that your par-ticular public are more inclined toaccept, and appeal to the motiva-tions most important to them. If, forexample, you want to persuasivelypromote the opportunities offeredby the use of GMOs in agriculture, itwould be more convincing to talk tofarmers about why these productscan help the competitiveness oftheir farms, also in the long term; toconsumers about why genetic engi-neering can safeguard local pro-ducts by protecting them in the least

invasive way from parasites; to poli-ticians about why the rest of theworld is using them. The second and less obvious condi-tion is to establish the right type ofrelationship, because this willinfluence how the information givenis received. To affirm, for examplethat “any serious scientist will tellyou that no genetically modifiedfood is harmful to your health” is oneof the best ways to irritate your liste-ner. Persuading means, in fact,deciding not to impose a powerbased relationship and recognisingyour public’s ability to understandand decide for themselves. In otherwords, it means respecting them.Moreover, it also means respectingtheir opinions. When you argue apoint, in fact, you admit that at leastin principle there are other possibili-ties. To begin by saying that “oppo-sition to GMOs” is based on irratio-nality, or unmentionable interests”denies that there are any others:your own thesis, when you are tal-king to a sceptical audience, mustbe demonstrated.

Page 48: Communicating Science En

How to construct a line ofreasoning

A solid line of reasoning is impor-tant, and should include elementswhich need to be identified or defi-ned carefully:

- the thesis, or rather what youwant to convince your public of(“Tests for approval have success-fully demonstrated that GMOs donot pose health risks”);

- the arguments, or rather the sta-tements underlying the thesis (theapproval procedures make it pos-sible to exclude with certainty theproblems feared.”);

- the proof, or rather the factualdata which supports the argu-ments (“in ten years, althoughGMOs have been consumed byhundreds of millions of people, noteven a stomach-ache has beenreported”);

- the premises, that are the explicitstatements at the basis of the enti-re argument (“all plants we cultiva-te are the result of genetic modifi-cation, including radical modifica-tions, brought about on the wildprogenitor plants for thousands ofyears”);

- the assumptions, statements orcircumstances that are not evenmentioned since it is presumedthat the public already agrees withyou on them (“we all want pro-ducts that are safe for our health”);

The actual construction of your lineof reasoning with the help of theseelements can be carried out withvarious methods. The classicmethod based on Latin rhetoric isusually the most effective and canbe suitable in extremely different cir-cumstances. This includes the follo-wing sections:

- exordium: the introduction usedto win over the public and explainwhy the speaker is important forthe topic;

- narratio: the exposition of thefacts which introduce the topic;

- confirmatio: the exposition ofthe arguments and the proof intheir favour;

- refutatio: the exposition of thearguments against the opposingthesis;

- peroratio: the explanation ofthe conclusions’ meaning for thepublic and the declaration ofwhat you expect the public to door think.

As you can see, the classic rheto-ric model is not very different fromthe prescribed format for a scien-tific paper. A persuasive commu-nication based on an argumenta-tive construction uses, in fact,what psychologists call a “centralpath”.This path requires the listener topay attention, reflect carefully onthe information provided, relateand integrate the information withwhat (s)he already knows andelaborate a new assessment. Inother words, it requires a certainamount of cognitive energy.The problem is that in a societycharacterised by informationoverload we cannot think careful-ly about every message that rea-ches us, and very often the spa-ces available are very brief, as ina TV interview for the news. Inthis case you can use “short-cuts”, or rather what psycholo-gists call a “peripheral path”. Inthis instance, force of persuasionwill not be left only to argumentspertinent to the thesis, but willalso depend on the attractivenessor the charisma of the speaker (awell know scientist or a Nobelprize winner, for example), thesurprise offered by a partialdatum (soya and kiwi cause aller-gies, not GMOs”) or even to a fewwitty words.Other tools of persuasion can beadded to the classical ones, andare often effective when talkingabout science.

The counterintuitive result

Catching the public by surprise candestabilise the public’s assumptionsand help to open the door to newinformation, thus creating a newcognitive equilibrium. In food infor-mation, for example, popular fadsand clichés, like the importance ofiron in spinach the dissociated diet,that pasta makes you fat or fruitshould be eaten with the peel, canbe disproved. (these cannot reallybe considered fads because theyhave been considered “true” bygenerations of mothers)This tool works well when the topicis not particularly controversial.Otherwise it could turn out to becounterproductive, for it may triggerconfrontational feelings.

Comparisons

For the same reason you can alsomake a comparison with a similarsituation, usually in another country.In order to convince your public ofthe importance of earthquake-proofbuildings you can talk about the dif-ferent consequences that earthqua-kes of equal strength have onTurkey and Japan, perhaps compa-ring two equal-size earthquakes thatactually occurred. The idea in thiscase is to help understand howmany things we take for grantedthat we should not (like “earthqua-kes kill”, while “it is the house whichcollapses that kills”).

The use of data

Few but well chosen data can chan-ge the premises of the discussionthemselves. Showing, for example,how the number of animals used inexperimentation has declined overthe years, is better proof than manystatements of principle that resear-chers want to avoid useless suffe-ring and use alternative methodswhenever possible.

The ace in the hole

A few significant cases can saymore than an entire discourse.

48 - CHAPTER IV

Page 49: Communicating Science En

When discussing the importance ofanimal experimentation, you cantalk about how the discovery ofinsulin used to control diabeteswould not have been possiblewithout experimentation on dogs.Or, to demonstrate the importanceof curiosity-driven research, youmight explain that the computer isthe result of studies of pure logic byAlan Turing. And again, on thehome page of the website for theSociety of Neuroscience there is alink to a page called “Brainresearch success stories”, explicit-ly dedicated to those stories able topersuade the public and policymakers of the need to increasefederal financing of biomedicine.

Forecasts for the future

A story told is something in someway real, and an extrapolation ofsomething that already existsacquires the flavour of certainty.To persuade your public of thepotential of stem cell research youcan help them to see how differentthe future will be for a person dia-gnosed with diabetes orParkinson’s disease in twentyyears, when regenerative medicinewill have achieved the hoped foradvances. This can be an extreme-ly useful tool as long as your extra-polations are not too farfetched.

Changing the premises

Sometimes it is not easy to unders-tand why the public have such adistorted idea of a subject, butonce the reason has been discove-red you hold the key to changingthat idea.The lack of appeal in the study ofmaterials science, for example, is ingood part owed to the very prosaicand sectoral image that outsidersmay have. To disprove the prejudicesurrounding this discipline it mightbe sufficient to associate it withcreativity and explain how the wide-ranging use of advanced materialsmeans that graduates in this fieldwill have the opportunity to pursuetheir own individual interests.

Opening up to the otherside’s reasons

If the public have different ideas on atopic, these should be recognised,and if possible appreciated. On themore controversial issues in particu-lar it is better not to set off uselessopposition. On the contrary whene-ver possible you should try to bereceptive to the adversary’s opi-nions.Take for example a television pro-gramme dedicated to the centennialof the birth of Giulio Natta, an Italianchemist who won the Noble prize in1963 for the discovery of some ofthe most frequently used plasticstoday. In addition to talking aboutthe social value of the introductionof plastics and the thousands ofbenefits that they brought at alllevels, it also cited some of the pro-blems tied to the production ofwaste. This fact created some ill fee-lings in one of Natta’s biographersbut gave credibility to the program-me, thus avoiding any accusation ofpartiality (for “polluting chemicals”).In the same way, when speakingabout homeopathy it is better to dis-cuss the importance of a good rela-tionship with the patient, somethingusually highly appreciated inhomeopaths, with the hope that thesame relationship might characteri-se the relationships with allopathicdoctors, who can also offer effectivetherapies.

Playing on positive feelings

Sounding an alarm, playing on fearor widespread criticism is oftencounterproductive. The idea of adead end situation may tempt youto dismiss the problem, or in anycase, put off any type of engage-ment with the public.Optimism of the will is almost alwaysmore effective than pessimism ofreason.The success of Italian televisionreporting on science and societygrew decisively when it stopped dis-cussing only the negative side ofthings. The new reports, in fact, usesuccess stories to discuss more

general topics, including the impor-tance of high tech companies, uni-versity startup and the value of basicresearch. Only at the end of eachreport does a short data-filled fileexplain that the success story wasreally a happy island in a sea of trou-bles.

Method is more importantthan the result

At times, understanding how scien-ce works can be even more convin-cing than the results achieved. Thismight be the case, for example, in acomparison of science with thepseudo sciences and the paranor-mal, in which showing how a scien-tist searches for the truth is moreuseful than tying to disprove, timeand time again, the thousands ofstatements which continue to re-present themselves on extrasensoryperceptions or UFOs.Teaching the public to use scepti-cism regularly, rather than explainingwhy a certain phenomenon isimpossible, is like teaching someo-ne to fish rather than providing thefish.

Control

Just as you checked the story,controlling your line of reasoningrequires you to put yourself in youraudience’s shoes; this time youwant to look for weak points in yourreasoning, foreseeable perplexitieswhich you did not account for orgaps in your logic.

CHAPTER IV - 49

Page 50: Communicating Science En

An explanation is the lowest com-mon denominator of any type ofscience communication and the firstmeasuring stick it is judged by.In communicating with the public,then, the pleasure of understandingmust be second to the pleasure ofthe explanation, because the publicshould not feel as if they have to dohomework, otherwise, they will giveup.It is not easy to be clear. If descri-bing and convincing require a goodamount of intuition, explaining pri-marily requires practice. A series ofsuggestions and the knowledge of afew tools, however, help avoid rein-venting the wheel.

Clear ideas

The first condition is to clarify yourideas: it is not possible to be clear ifyou do not think clearly, if the mea-ning of the topic, in addition to itstechnical contents, is not clear.If there exists one small secret in thepopularisation of science, it consistsin identifying one interpretation. Thisshould be single unifying idea that isobviously suitable for your aims andpublic, and can act as a filter for theinformation so that the entire dis-course revolves around this inter-pretation. Talking about the life ofthe stars, for example, can meanconcentrating on the importance oftheir mass in predicting their destinywhile omitting other considerations.

How much should be explained?It is necessary to explain everythingthat helps to understand the topic orto make the message convincing,but nothing more. You should resistthe temptation to talk about as

many things as possible. Your publi-c’s most limited resource, after theirattention, is the their cognitive energy.

How much should I simplify?

It is important to offer your audiencea mental challenge that they canhandle; therefore it usually needs tobe relatively simple.Every time you engage in scientificpopularisation, in fact, to some deg-ree a compromise needs to bemade, thus losing a part of the topi-c’s complexity or depth.To understand how much you needto simplify, you can weigh the costsof simplification against its benefits:if further simplification means distor-ting the message, then you shouldgo no further. If however, precisionand thoroughness means that themessage will be lost or the publicwill lose interest, greater simplifica-tion is needed. Often it is preferablefor the public to grasp the overallmeaning of the discourse, ratherthan only parts of its contents com-pletely.As a rule, you can adjust your infor-mation by thinking about what typeof specialist knowledge you wouldunderstand in a field that is differentfrom your own, perhaps outside thescientific world.

Developing a line of reasoning

Presenting a line of reasoning, evenin story form, is one way to tell thepublic that what follows needsconsideration, and that they willneed to pay a bit more attention

than usual, or in any case focus alittle bit differently. The line of reaso-ning will be the foundation that sup-ports your explanation, but compa-red to what is usually presented tocolleagues, there will have to beenormous differences.

Points of reference

The main difference is that when tal-king to a non peer audience it isnecessary to reconstruct an over-view of the topic, an absolute mustfor the public. And to do this youneed to begin with familiar exam-ples, since it is easier to understandsomething that you have a mentalpicture of. In other words, it is amatter of providing the public with amap they can use to orient themsel-ves with.The first type of map is used to iden-tify the position of the topic in theterritory represented by scientificknowledge of the world. Let us ima-gine we must explain the meaningof a sexual signal in the female bodylike the 2:3 ratio between the waistand hip measurements, an indicatorof a good ability to reproduce sinceit is the result of an excellent hormo-nal balance. In this case it is betterto remind your audience first that weare the product of an evolutionaryprocess that rewards those charac-teristics which assure the highestnumber of offspring. And then thatthere are other characteristics to beselected including psychologicalfeatures like personal preferences,especially the ones tied to the choi-ce of a partner.Those who do not have theseunderlying concepts in mind mightfind the idea of choosing something

50 - CHAPTER IV

Explaining, or rather making what is difficult easyEverything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.Albert Einstein

There exists a threshold of difficulty below which the mental machine does not turn on, and another above which it gets stuck.Piero Angela

Page 51: Communicating Science En

based on an unconscious elementalmost absurd.Similarly, the public might need areal map if you are talking about anobject that is not familiar, usuallybecause it is invisible.If for example you discuss thehuman genome, not everyoneknows exactly where it is and whatrole it plays. It would be a good idea,then, to recall straight away that ourbody is made of thousands ofbillions of cells, and that each oneholds the nucleus of a genome cou-ple, that is a bit like its “instructionmanual”.Every map must therefore beginwith something familiar. From thispoint you can circle in on the subjectuntil you have reached the core ofyour explanation.

Warnings

At times the place you bring thepublic to is particularly unusual, diffi-cult, or in any case far from the eve-ryday world. In these cases it is bet-ter to warn them, presenting thetopic as an adventure into a strangeand fascinating land. This may benecessary when you explain hownew particles are created with thehelp of an accelerator, thanks to thetransformation of energy into mat-ter: here you can show howEinstein’s famous formula works,E=mc2. You ask the public for asmall act of faith, because nobodyever notices this type of transforma-tion in their daily life; but to be sureno doubts remain you remind themthat the inverse transformation is theone which occurs during the explo-sion of an atomic bomb.

Terms and concepts

Technical terms should be avoidedwhenever possible. Any communi-cation, in fact, must use sharedcodes. The terms coined to allowspecialists to communicate morequickly and “economically” are use-ful to them and those training tobecome like them, for example, uni-versity students. Yet, in general,they are only obstacles that cause

us to give up, even if they areaccompanied by a definition.Mitochondria are “the cell’s powerplants”, but it is not always neces-sary to use their name. The criterionto decide whether or not to use atechnical term is its usefulness, orrather if it needs to be used often orif the public will have to use it again.To avoid creating problems for youraudience it is always better toexplain terms and concepts, even ifit may seem banal to do so, becau-se they often reflect semi-knowled-ge that is not well understood.Among these we can include, forexample, “DNA”, “natural selection”,“scientific theory”, “immune sys-tem”: never take anything for gran-ted.For the same reason it is advisablenever (or almost never) to usemathematics, which is almost com-pletely absent from popular books inthis field.The most important concepts of theexplanation, then, should be repea-ted if necessary, to be sure that theyare understood. Repetita iuvant.

Examples

In general, concrete things are moreeasily communicated than abstrac-tions. For this reason, as soon as itis possible, examples should beprovided: a prediction of Etna’seruption helps to understand how avolcano is monitored. A demonstra-tive case makes it possible, in fact,to “see” a general concept, that youcome to or return to, by extrapola-tions, similarities or differences.Multiple cases can help, but becareful: one example explains, twodivide, three contextualise, but fourare already an inventory list.

Dimensions

In science often such large or suchsmall dimensions are used that it isdifficult for our mind to conceive ofthem. Two hundred million years, 1nanometre, 10 megapascals, arealmost abstractions for a personwho is not used to these units ofmeasurement. If you put two or

three of these in a row in a talk, youwill irreparably disorient your readeror listener. Thus it is necessary touse this type of data with parsimony,aided perhaps by an analogy.To explain the size of a molecule ofDNA, for example, you can explainthat, if it were enlarged 100 milliontimes its atoms would be as big asa golf ball and that the human geno-me would be 80,000 kilometreslong, about twice the length of theEarth’s meridian.

Metaphors

A very important tool for explainingis the metaphor, the rhetorical figurewhich replaces a word or expres-sion with another that offers an intui-tive analogy.It becomes particularly useful whendescribing phenomena that cannotbe described with terms or exam-ples relative to daily life experiences.When explaining research on theprevention of new blood vessel for-mation in tumours, for example, youcan talk about “cutting off supplies”.Nuclear particles become “smallballs”. The co-evolution betweenprey and predator is described asan “arms race”.A metaphor can also help to providean interpretation of the topic. In atelevision story on physiology andpathology in different age groups,sexual organs were compared to anall-terrain vehicle (youth), a salon car(adults) and a vintage car (the elder-ly), to explain how they do their jobover a lifetime, highlighting however,their changing ability to face surpri-ses.The power of a metaphor lies in itsability to provide an image: it is morenatural than an abstraction andmakes it possible to achieve the clo-sest possible idea of something. Ingeneral, metaphors are extremelyimportant social representationsbecause, like bridges, they make itpossible to insert new ideas into thecognitive world of society; for thisreason they have even won a placeeven inside mainstream science(just consider “The hypothesis of theRed Queen” or the “selfish gene” in

CHAPTER IV - 51

Page 52: Communicating Science En

evolutionary biology). As such, theyare, however, very frequentlyresponsible for the distortion or tri-vialization of the facts of reality.Therefore, after it has been used tointroduce a subject, a metaphorshould be dismantled thoroughly,cleaning it up and refining it, in orderto attain (or at least get closer to) amore correct explanation. Thus,atoms stop being little balls andgenes lose every moral connotation.

Discoveries

A particularly effective strategy,which is easily combined with narra-tion, is to take the public through thephases leading up to a discovery. Inorder to explain that matter is madeup of atoms and molecules you canstart with Dalton and end up at theatoms “photographed” by the tun-nel effect microscope, usingEinstein’s explanation of Brownianmotion. In this case the author is a“facilitator” who provides the rightelements, one by one, so the publiccan reach their conclusions bythemselves.This tool is very effective for variousreasons. First of all it induces the

public to put themselves in thescientist’s shoes so they understandthe way (s)he works and thinks, butmost importantly it gets them invol-ved.Thus, the discovery of somethingstimulates a trust in their own abili-ties to understand, and helps themto learn to stop waiting for others togive solutions. In addition, since thepublic must use the information thatthey are given each time, it beco-mes easier for them to digest andremember it.

Experiments

When something hard to believe isat stake an experiment can be auseful resource; it can be real or onlymental.In the first case a real experience isprovided: for instance, ScientificAmerican ran an article on hypnosis,supplementing the experiment withthe story and photos (and a videoon the web site) of a session of hyp-nosis that some magazine editorialstaff members participated in.In the second case the experimentsare mental, similar to Einstein’s liftexperiment, Schrödinger’s cat or

Maxwell’s little devil. They make itpossible to observe an invisible phe-nomenon from a privileged point ofview, concrete and without theambiguities of metaphor.

Controls

Verifying the effectiveness of anexplanation is usually, for a resear-cher, more difficult that judging whe-ther (s)he has successfully descri-bed the topic or persuaded theaudience. There is a tendency, whenyou speak or write on a subject thatyou know very well, to assume thatothers know what you know aboutthe topic. Furthermore you do nothave the experience with “lay” pro-blems that journalists have.Nothing is more important in thiscase than knowing how to put your-self in somebody else’s shoes andchecking your work again to see ifthere are any grey areas. Nothingshould be taken for granted. It isnecessary to review your work,trying to foresee any problems thepublic might find, and trying to bestill clearer.

52 - CHAPTER IV

The text: short, clear and effectiveThe less we know, the longer our explanations are.Ezra Pound

Whatever the medium you use, thequality of the text is always extreme-ly important. A poorly written textcan, in fact, thwart all the energypoured into the work. Ever since theexpression “knowledge-basedsociety and economy” stoppedbeing a slogan and turned into atrue description of reality, all sectorsof communication have begun toappreciate this, and consequentlyprofessional writing has become asubject taught in universities.

A good text does not uselessly over-work the reader, it provides its

contents naturally and has a distinct“personality”, for it establishes arelationship with the reader.

Here below we summarise a fewgeneral rules for good writing thatwe all know but do not alwaysremember to use.

Brevity

The longer a text is, the more it abu-ses of a scarce resource, the reade-r’s time, lowering the odds that thelatter will read it all the way through,but also that (s)he will begin reading

it at all. As a rule, the probability forany document to be read andunderstood is directly proportionalto its brevity. Today, most spaces and formatscall for brevity, reflecting the public’snew habits.The fact that every communicationbecomes faster can penalise theexposition of complex topics likescientific topics, but brevity andconcentration also force the authorto be clear, pruning the text ofexcess words and digressions thatmight hide or confuse the messa-ges. During revision you should not

Page 53: Communicating Science En

hesitate to cut: most texts improveafter a good trimming.The other side of the coin is that,contrary to what you might think,the effort needed to write (like theneed for good planning and a goodoutline) is inversely proportional tothe space available.

Clarity

Just as for an explanation, the firstsecret of clarity is simplicity: whenchoosing between two expressions,it is better to choose the simplerone, the one that uses fewer words,discarding the longer and moreinvolved ones.Here are a few suggestions for sim-plifying a text.

- Begin sentences with the subjectand verb and leave the subordina-te clauses to the right side. A clearsentence can also be very long, aslong as the subject and verbannounce the theme and meaningimmediately.

- Observe the “rule of closeness”:keep together subject, verb anddirect object; the noun and theadjective; the preposition and itsobject. Do not separate them withuseless parentheses, forcing thereader to go up and down to putthe sentence together. If there is alot of information to give, do not tryto use just one sentence. Putparenthetical clauses at the ope-ning or closing, or break up thesentence using adverbs to tie thesentences together.

- Avoid clusters of relative clauses.There should never be two “that”or “which” in the same sentence:use a nice full stop and begin anew sentence.

- More emphasis is given to thebeginning and the end of a senten-ce. Thus, place the most importantthings you have to say there.

- Repetition of key words helps toattract attention to the most rele-vant elements.

- One piece of information foreach paragraph. The paragraphis more incisive if the first senten-ce states the information, andthose that follow explain it.

- The rhythm of a text is largelycreated by varying sentencelength. Long sentences carry thereader more quickly to its com-prehension and for this reasonthey must be perfect in readabili-ty, fluency and clarity. Brief sen-tences create pauses.

- When the subject and the line ofreasoning become complicated,short words and paragraphsshould help. A sentence thatmost people can read easily hasat most twenty five words.Slowing down the rhythm of theinformation, in fact, helps com-prehension. If the sentence isshort, the reader will read moreslowly and will take the timenecessary to think, digest, com-pare and learn.

- The presentation is also impor-tant: avoid long and monotonoustexts and provide visual variety tothe page. Use as many titles, sub-titles, paragraphs and lists aspossible: breaking up the texthelps the reader.

- Choose words and expressionscarefully: always select wordsand expressions that are short,precise, concrete, familiar to thereader, avoiding jargon, incom-prehensible abbreviations andpointless foreign words.

EffectivenessA text is effective if it adheres to thecontents naturally, and successfullyengages the reader or listenerdirectly and personally. For this rea-son, in addition to practice, empa-thy with the reader or the listener isparticularly valuable. Thus, here area few suggestions:

- While you are still thinkingabout your text, try to “portray it”as a story and put it on in your

mind. This is the first way towrite it.

- Give your text a real “voice”,lively and clearly identifiable.Whoever is reading must havethe impression that you arespeaking to them directly, with alanguage (s)he recognises. To besure, re-read it aloud.

- Talk, whenever possible, in thefirst person (do not use imperso-nal forms), perhaps using the“we” to eliminate the distinctionbetween the reader and author,put yourself in their place.

- Always choose verbs ratherthan nouns, use them in the acti-ve voice and include lots ofgerunds and infinitives, filledwith power, action and energy.

- Be careful with adverbs, thatvery often dilute the meaning ofthe verb and prevent it fromexpressing its strength comple-tely.

ß Check punctuation, whichorganises the text and gives itmeaning: listen to what you arewriting and check how it sounds.

- Try to play with words, even invery serious texts and articles.Choose common, everydaywords for contexts where theyare not usually used. This is agood rule of thumb especiallywhen writing in and for sectorscharacterised by jargon andtechnical words, like scienceand technology to be precise.

- Avoid clichés and overusedexpressions, like “from the infini-tely large to the infinitely small”.As the English writer GeorgeOrwell suggested, do not everuse a metaphor, a simile or ano-ther rhetorical figure that is ordi-narily found in publishing. Thereader feels as if (s)he has alrea-dy read or heard it and thereforepays less attention, when (s)hedoes not stop reading entirely.

CHAPTER IV - 53

Page 54: Communicating Science En

- Do not be afraid to use repeti-tions intelligently but sparingly toemphasise your messages andincrease their impact. Repetitioncan cause monotony, but if it isdosed correctly it is an importanttool for strengthening and high-lighting key words at key points.

- The reader must feel as if (s)heis sliding naturally from sentenceto sentence. Make sure, then,that one sentence flows into thenext. Connectors and transitionalphrases – despite, and yet, but, inthe same way, however, then,thus, in fact, therefore – are whatjoin your sentences together andfunction as signs which show uswhere we are going; they arewhat makes a group of sentences

a coherent and convincing dis-course.

- Telling is not enough, it is alsonecessary to show. The “ladder ofabstraction” should be climbedquickly upwards and downwards:at the bottom there are objectsand things; at the top, ideas andconcepts.

- When the subject is serious use alight tone, or if possible, humour.When it is not, go ahead and exag-gerate especially when talkingabout science, which is usuallyassociated with heavy ideas.

- Never underestimate the useful-ness of titles, subtitles and hea-ders; this so called “paratext”

helps readers understand how adiscourse is arranged.

Control

To revise a text means exchangingthe writer’s for the editor’s hat: thetext is usually read aloud. Yourears, in fact, are more sensitivethan your eyes to contorted or dis-connected transitions, a pace thatis too slow or too quick, errors,misplaced words, excessively longsentences and irritating repetitions.The text should be re-read at leasttwice, the first time immediatelyafter writing it, and the secondtime after letting the text sit for awhile, which also helps to overco-me any aversion you may feeltowards picking it up again.

54 - CHAPTER IV

The use of picturesA photographic image is a message with no code.Roland Barthes

The fact that ours is a “civilization ofimages” is not simply a cliché. Thereis an ever increasing number of pic-tures, fixed or moving, requested forevery type of science communica-tion, so that at times the picturesthemselves become the opportunityto talk about a subject.

Pictures attract attention and stiremotions instantly; they can help totell and explain why with less des-cription or even hold a metaphoricvalue, creating synergy with thewritten text. For this reason it is truethat “a picture is worth a thousandwords”.

Even if a picture may holdextraordinary power to communi-

cate, their use must followvarious rules and requires specialattention. Unlike written langua-ge, a picture does not tie thespeaker to the listener with wellcodified meanings. In otherwords, it can be ambiguous.

In the video of a microchip manu-facturing company, for example, youcan see technicians at work in awhite room and wearing suits thateven cover their heads, hands andfeet. Yet it is never said that thoseclothes protect the chips fromhuman contamination, and not viceversa. For a lay person those suitsevoke the need of protection fromsomething harmful: as a result,instead of transmitting the idea of

technological excellence, the videocommunicated the idea, counter-productive and damaging to thecompany’s image, that in that facto-ry dangerous material was beinghandled.

Pictures communicate without anymediation, and do so always andin any case by stimulating ourinterpretation. The outcome of thisinterpretation depends, however,on who, when, where and in whatcontext it is observed. Beforeusing pictures, then, it is importantto reflect not only on their beauty,effectiveness and comprehensibili-ty, but also on the meanings thatthe public you are addressingmight attribute to them.

Page 55: Communicating Science En

To be in the media

In April 1992 NASA’s satellite CoBE(Cosmic Background Explorer),practically unknown to the generalpublic, sent pictures to Earth ofsmall irregularities in the cosmicbackground radiation dating back tothe Big Bang. These represent theearliest signs of the future organiza-tion of the galaxies in the universeand a long awaited confirmation thatthe universe began with a Big Bang.Despite its scientific value, therewas little hope that this news mightmake its way into the media.George Smoot, a researcher fromBerkeley, did something that per-haps none of his colleagues werewilling to do. Talking to journalists,Smoot declared that watching theimages transmitted by CoBE was“like observing the face of God”. Hesensed that a catchy phrase wouldbe able to speak to the imaginationof all those who might otherwise notbe able to understand the news,and he won over the global scene.An English journalist even wrote that“The annoying thing is that besidesbeing one of the greatest astrophy-cists he’s also modest, charming,funny and nice. Worse still, he’shandsome.”

If you want to communicate withsociety, you have to be in the media,first of all in newspapers, on theradio and television. Not only are themedia extraordinarily effective in rea-ching an extremely large number of

people, but they are also in thearena where most of the socialnegotiation of knowledge and opi-nions takes place. In fact, it is inthe newspaper or on the radio andtelevision that public images,consensus and credibility ofvarious social groups – scienceincluded - is made or destroyed.

Contact with business and politicaland interest group stakeholders ismade through the media as well.For politicians, in particular, scien-ce-related themes, discoveries orproblems become “real” only whenthey appear in a newspaper,because they develop into apotential subject of political debateto be used for or against them.

Gaining space in the media is notalways easy and in general requi-res investments in terms of time,effort and resources that cannotbe ignored. The return on theseinvestments is often long term andalmost always difficult to measure.The simplest way to access themedia is the press review, but it isalso important to know how toevaluate the effectiveness of thearticles published or the radio-tele-vision coverage aired, not only thequantity.

The point is not to communicatewith the media, but to use the mediato communicate with certain cate-gories of people: the media are themeans, not the end.

Scientists vs. journalists

Journalists are your way into themedia. Not only do they know howto pick out the right words andarguments, but their professionalexperience has also made themexperts at listening to society, andconsequently identifying its inter-ests, opinions, moods and values.For this very reason they should beconsidered as potential, extraordi-nary allies, rather than intermedia-ries that must be put up with, oreven worse simple targets of cut-ting remarks. Even if it is not alwayseasy to work with them.

Scientists generally view journalistsas people who do not understandthe nature and value of science andfor this reason they do not dedicatetheir attention to it, or they distort it,normally in an attempt to make itmore sensational.

From their point of view, journalistsaccuse scientists of not being clear,and often they do not believe thatscientists or their work might be ofinterest to readers or viewers.

It is necessary to learn to acceptjournalists for what they are and findacceptable compromises with theirway of seeing things. Journalistsalso have good reasons for whatthey do.

To do this successfully it is impor-tant to clearly understand how the

CHAPTER V - 55

CHAPTER V

USING JOURNALISTS

Journalists and scientists: two different culturesJournalists are ignorant? If we were scholars we certainly would not be doing this job.Natalia Aspesi

Page 56: Communicating Science En

interests, goals, values and routinesof researchers and journalists differ.

- Journalists, like public opinion,expect science to give answersand certainties, while sciencechiefly produces doubts andquestions that it tries to answer.

- The first thing journalists lookfor in a story is an emotion, whilescientists attempt to see thingsas neutrally as possible. At timeswhat the scientist sees as sensa-tionalism is really sensationalism,at others it is only the spices nee-ded “to sell” the story.

- Journalists look for results,even if they are only partial ortemporary and at least potential-ly sensational. Scientists, on theother hand, rarely leave the labo-ratory shouting “Eureka!” andprefer to tread carefully.

- Journalists love writing aboutsingle scientists that have madea revolutionary discovery, whilescientists see science as acumulative and co-operativeenterprise. Even Newton admit-ted standing “on the shoulders ofgiants”.

- Journalists look for controver-sy; scientists, consensus. Whilethe latter think that being precisemeans speaking with just oneauthoritative voice, journaliststhink that diverse voices (evenbetter is they disagree) give amore complete picture, and are,in fact, used to reporting opi-nions that they do not agree with.

- Journalists are always in a hurrybecause they have very tightdeadlines and have to remainwithin the space given to them,whether they are words in a text

or minutes in a transmission, andin any case they have to bring aresult home. On the contrary,scientists work at the rate impo-sed by the nature of the research,that can have (and often has)negative outcomes.

The main aim scientists have is toproduce new knowledge about thenatural world, and their success ismeasured by the approval theyreceive from other scientists.The main aim journalists have is,on the contrary, to entertain andinform, and their success is predo-minantly measured by the numberof copies sold or audience share.

The media, in fact, are above alleconomic enterprises, and thenews they report is what sells themost.

56 - CHAPTER V

What is a “good” piece of news?We expect some new disaster with each newspaper we read.Abraham Lincoln

Scientists and journalists oftenhave very different opinions onhow important a fact is. If you wantto communicate through themedia, then, you should identifywhat might make a news itemvaluable to a journalist. In thenewsroom, much is based on theperception or “instinct” developedwith experience and handed downfrom generation to generation, butsome studies have attempted toidentify the components of a“good” piece of news more preci-sely. Here are the main ones:

Threshold

First of all, there is a size threshold.Something “big” must really be big,or at least look so. “A small earth-

quake tremor in Sicily” does notmake for much news, while“Thousands of people seek safetyfrom an earthquake in Sicily” is a litt-le better.Where journalists tend to magnify,scientists tend to tone down: this isfine for academic environments, butit does not help with the media.

Meaningfulness, relevance,and consonance

To the public, good news also hasmeaningfulness, relevance andconsonance. It must have a mea-ning in relation to what they know;it must be pertinent and possiblynot contradict what they alreadyknow or think. A new measure ofHubble’s constant, for example, is

a problem that the general publicdoes not know or understand; ithas no impact on their life, andperhaps contrasts with their reli-gious convictions. A title like“Cellular phone waves are hazar-dous to your health” responds tothe requirements: it refers tosomething very familiar, raises aproblem that concerns owners ofcellular phones, thus all of us, andis in tune with the climate ofsuspicion surrounding new tech-nologies. But “Chocolate stimula-tes because it contains anti-depressive substances” alsoworks well. The journalist’s slanton the applications or consequen-ces of a discovery is what willmake a particular piece of newsrelevant.

Page 57: Communicating Science En

Co-option

The co-option is a tie between apiece of news and an important eventof the moment. Political disagree-ments between Europe and theUnited States can transform the racebetween American and Europeanscientists to find a vaccine againstAIDS, or the technological challengesof the new Galileo satellite navigationsystem, into news. Even news of anatural clonation in the animal or plantworld can secure a short article, sinceDolly the sheep has brought thetheme of clonation into the limelight.

Frequency, unexpectednessand continuity

Another value appreciated by jour-nalists is frequency, which allowsthem to prepare themselves to coveran event beforehand– just as they dowith sports every Monday. This hap-pens rarely in scientific fields: by defi-nition, discoveries are not predicta-ble. In the same way, the possiblecontinuity of a news item is appre-ciated; meaning that it will be dis-cussed for a while. An examplemight be the so-called “mad cowdisease” or climatic changes. Thus,for the journalist it is worth investingtime to collect more information orfind the right contacts.

Competition

The opportunity of reporting newsexclusively, thus reporting a scoop,is cause for professional pride in anewsroom, but scientists andscientific institutions are notaccustomed to providing exclusivenews (or they are not yet, since it isbeginning to be required by somelarge scientific magazines).

Nothing is better than bad news

In a newsroom very good news iswelcome (“a wonder drug againstcolon cancer found”), but evenmore so is very bad news (“theEarth was skimmed by a largeasteroid”). The most commonscientific news, unfortunately, ismoderately good.

Reliability

Fortunately, however, scientificnews is very often reliable.Journalists only need, in fact, to citethe fact that the news was publis-hed in Nature or the New EnglandJournal of Medicine, or that it wasannounced by this scientist or thatuniversity, to have a clear conscien-ce. This is a real advantage compa-red to other fields.

The power of fame

One last important component in“good” news is the fact that it canbe linked to an important orfamous place or a person, a cele-brity. For this reason the awardingof Nobel prizes always makes thenews, even if the research theprize is awarded for usually datesback to many years before.

Many factors come intoplay in deciding whatmakes the news.

The most important have to dowith public demand, rather than thedesires, advantages, or the possi-ble ignorance of journalists.Before contacting a journalist it isimportant, then, to consider careful-ly how to present your news, tryingto make the most of it using the cri-teria listed above. In other words, itis a matter of adding a bit of spin,something that can attract attentionto it. If an interplanetary probe isexploring Europe, Jupiter’s famousmoon, it is better to underline thatthere is water there, and thereforethere could also be life.

CHAPTER V - 57

Not all journalists are alikeBeing a journalist is always better than working.Luigi Barzini

There are science journalists…

How easy it is to overcome the cultu-ral gap depends on the type of journa-list you are working with. In fact, twocategories of information professionalswork on science and technology.

The first are science journalists. Inaddition to knowing more science,they are more concerned about their

reputations in the scientific communityand are more willing to invest time andeffort to study their topic and avoiderrors. They usually have more time tocomplete an assignment. Therefore,they can research the subject, thinkabout it, check what they have writtenor have it checked. Since they oftenhave a science degree and sometimesa brief experience in research, theyspeak the same language and sharethe same values as the scientist. They

are natural allies and feel as if they are“on science’s side”.

Science journalists are the ideal chan-nel for routine communication withsociety. Working with them is easier,but if (as often happens) they work forspecialized magazines, pages orshows, they may also be of limiteduse. With rare exceptions, they arenot the ones, in fact, who haveaccess to the most influential media.

Page 58: Communicating Science En

… plain journalist…

The second category includes new-spaper reporters, editors or editors-in-chief who normally work on othertypes of news, like the daily news,politics or foreign news, but occa-sionally have to deal with scientifictopics. They are people who work ina hurry, with very little time forresearch or controls, especially ifthey are employed in press agenciesand daily newspapers. They almostnever have a scientific backgroundand they feel like foreigners in theworld of science, or can even besuspicious of it.In normal situations, the result mightbe the simple publication of some

howler to smile at. At times, however,a science-based story becomes soimportant that it captures the frontpage of daily newspapers and theopening of the TV news. This is thecase, for example, of debates on theuse of embryonic stem cells or “madcow” disease.When this happens, science journa-lists are often brushed aside, and thestory is handed to other reporters,may oversimplify the issue and trans-form it into a controversy betweentwo opposite points of view, givingthe scientific community’s opinionsthe same weight as minority or otherstakeholders’ opinionsThey areconvinced that this is the way to givea more balanced view or simply that

the difference of opinion sells better.Working with plain journalists is moredifficult because the cultural gap iswider, but it is very important: gettingto know each other and gainingmutual support and respect in timesof “peace” can be precious in a crisissituation.

… and the journalists that really count

Finally, there is a particularly valuablecategory of directors and editoria-lists, whose voices are extremelywell-liked and accepted (whetherinside or out of the headlines):access to them is the Holy Grail ofcommunication through journalists.

58 - CHAPTER V

How to access the mediaWooing the press is an exercise roughly akin to picnicking with a tiger. You might enjoy the meal, but the tiger always eats last.Maureen Dowd

If the media are the means and notthe end, the first step is to choosethe right ones, namely, the mostpopular and listened to by thepublic you want to address. Theyshould be the most suitable fortransmitting your message. Thesecond is understanding whichones are most accessible. Generallyspeaking, in fact, there are twolarge categories of media: those inwhich competition for the spaceavailable is high (influential press,the radio and above all television)and those that never know how tofill their spaces (thematic televisionchannels or news channels, Internetsites, local newspapers and specia-lized periodicals). The first groupreaches large numbers of people,but is difficult to access. The

second reaches a more limitedpublic, but is useful to hone yourskills for more ambitious goals.

Before making a move of any kind itis a good idea to read papers ormagazines, watch television pro-grammes and listen to the radio.What are the topics they like dealingwith? How are they presented?Who works on them? What are theiropinions? At this point you can askyourself how a story is “sold”.

The press release

If you do not have a contact with ajournalist yet, or if you want to publishyour news widely, the first tool is apress release, a brief presentation ofthe news sent by fax or email. A press

release is inexpensive but also of limi-ted value. Newsrooms, in fact, areflooded with press releases of everytype and the competition for theattention of a journalist, who mayhave only a handful of seconds foreach news item, is ferocious.

A press release must convince thejournalist that your piece of news isimportant, and to do so you havetwenty to thirty lines available to you.Actually you have fewer: usually, if thefirst paragraph does not grab theirattention, the press release ends upin the waste paper basket, and thejournalist will move on to the next.

For this reason, how you arrange theinformation in a press release isexactly the opposite of what you do in

Page 59: Communicating Science En

a scientific paper. First comes theconclusion, namely, the news with allthe essential information, beginningwith the most important, then theaim of the research and finally theresults and implications. Separately,at the bottom, you can put in infor-mation that may be useful to unders-tanding the context of the topic.

The text should be arranged inparagraphs and blocks, and eachone should discuss one point,using graphics that make for quickeasy reading (titles in capital let-ters, short synopses in italics, keywords in bold).

The text must be concrete andspecific with no flights of the ima-gination, because the journalist willsee to that.

The embargo, the date before whichthe news cannot be published,should go at the top of the pressrelease, while at the bottom youmust not forget to put your ownaddress, telephone number andemail and possibly a web site wheremore detailed information can befound.

An email or a telephone call can helpto prepare the interest and attentionof a journalist you are particularlyinterested in.

In some countries the scientific com-munity has created programmes forscientific news based on the web,with daily releases. The most famousis Eurekalert (www.eurekalert.org)managed by the AmericanAssociation for the Advancement ofScience.

Face to face meetings

At times it is better not to remainbehind an anonymous press releaseand to organize a meeting. It can takeplace in a café or a bar, or at a pressconference or during a visit to thelaboratory. A meeting is an opportu-nity to establish a personal relations-hip, but it is necessary to have some-thing really important to say (and/or

show) because time is a scarceresource for journalists as well.

If you do not have truly big news inhand, or it is difficult to explain itsimportance clearly beforehand, itwould be a good idea to at least thinkof an experience you could offer jour-nalists: the opportunity to interview animportant person, a visit to a labora-tory with really special instruments, anouting to a volcano, an excursion onan oceanography ship, a glimpsethrough a telescope. What is impor-tant is that you do not invite them tosee or hear something that mightinterest a scientist but which holdslittle interest for them. Be careful,then, with congresses: they are soboring for non specialists that an invi-tation might well backfire.

Press agent

Working with the press requires a lotof time, effort and many many tele-phone calls and emails, in additionto a particular talent that not allscientists can be expected to have.For this reason, this task is left moreand more often to a press agent, ora public relations officer. Having aperson responsible for media rela-tions has many advantages: econo-my of scale on time and resources,continuous attention and a coherentmedia strategy, construction of alaboratory “brand”, creation of amedia relations network, greatervisibility on the outside for all lines ofresearch, not only those led by themost media savvy people.

The success of this professionalfigure depends on the person’scompetency and quality, naturally,but also on the constraints (s)he hasbeen given.

A press agent is, in fact, useful whenacting as a “facilitator” and not as acensor (as sometimes happens) ofthe relationships between journalistsand scientists. Their role, in additionto producing and distributing pressreleases and other material for thepress, is to identify the most promi-sing stories and guide journalists to

the people or figures they want tospeak with. (S)he should not be,then, a spokesperson, becausejournalists may hold that (s)he is notsufficiently knowledgeable on thetopic or not qualified for an interviewor a comment; in other words, that(s)he is not a substitute for the realthing, the scientist.

Materials for the media

Once you have managed to attracta journalist’s attention, you must beready to give them more. The sec-ret is “make his work as easy aspossible” by collecting or preparingspecially made materials which willhelp to evaluate a topic and then towrite the piece or prepare thereport. You should include details,arguments, and simple effectiveexamples, well written articles fornon peer audiences, press reviews,photographs with captions, ready touse Video News Releases or unedi-ted footage (B-rolls).The scientistshould of course be willing to beinterviewed.

CHAPTER V - 59

Page 60: Communicating Science En

Scientists are often contacted byjournalists with requests for expla-nations, comments, or interviews.

A journalist’s request is an opportunity,not a bother: remember that you arenot doing them a favour, but you areusing the media to reach the public.

If that telephone call is to turn intoan article, a report or at least aninterview, and hopefully a goodlong-term personal relationship, afew tricks can be useful.

Always keep the door open

Always be ready for every type ofrequest, even impromptus. An inter-view is usually made by telephone,but if you think it is more appropria-te, invite the journalist for a personalmeeting.

Are you the right person?

If you have been contacted by ajournalist, be sure you are the rightperson to answer their questionsbased on your competency andnot on your position in your institu-tion’s hierarchy. If you are not theright person, suggest the name ofa more competent colleague.Often, however, journalists do nothave much time to close a newsitem: if you can be of help, clarifyyour position, but help them.

Who is the journalist?

When you are contacted, get infor-mation on the publication (s)heworks for and try to understand ifthis will influence the way yourwork or comments will be presen-ted. If necessary, consult your col-leagues.

Be prepared

Even if you are the world’s highestauthority on the subject, take timeto prepare for the interview. Whenthe journalist calls, try to unders-tand their approach to the topicand what questions you will beasked. Then think about how topresent the results of yourresearch. What is new or unexpec-ted? What impact might this haveon this particular public? What arethe wider implications of yourwork, for example, from an ethicalpoint of view? Can you offer anystrange, funny, and perhaps per-sonal anecdotes?

Work within their time constraints

Journalists always have little time. Ifthey say they have an hour to finisha piece, it is usually true. Try then toanswer their requests as soon aspossible, putting aside other possi-ble commitments. If you offer to findinformation, make sure you can getit for the journalist in time.

Keep it simple

The journalist and their readers pro-bably know very little about yourfield. Explain your work, or com-ment on the work of others as sim-ply as possible and with the easiestwords you can use, as if you werewith a friend. If you must use a tech-nical term, explain its meaning. Alsotry to use as few numbers and sta-tistics as possible. The more youuse, the more likely you will be mis-understood, badly cited or notunderstood at all. In these cases,even if it means being less precise, itis better to use a good analogy.

Help the journalist to help you

Just as you need to convince thejournalist about the importance ofa news piece, the journalist needsto convince their director or editor-in-chief of the same thing. They arethe people who decide. Help thejournalist, then, to grasp the heartand meaning of the news, becausethis is what (s)he will need in thenewsroom.

Be careful with verbatim quotes

There usually is not enough time togo over a piece before it is printedor aired, but you can insist onchecking your answers that arereported as quotes, especially ifthis has been made clear from thevery beginning.A request for your opinion onsomebody else’s work or any otherdelicate question should be ans-wered “off the records” or “with therecorder off”, and only for journa-lists that you know and trust.Generally speaking it is better notto give a journalist a “no comment”answer, but you should not feelobliged to give an answer youmight be sorry about later, either.

Expect errors

You are just going to have toaccept it: journalists often makemistakes. We all make them, sojust imagine those who are notvery familiar with the subject. If it isa matter of minor mistakes, youcan let them go. In other cases it isworthwhile explaining them, aspolitely as possible. A few errors in

60 - CHAPTER V

How to answer the media’s requestsFacing the press is more difficult than bathing a leper.Mother Teresa of Calcutta

Page 61: Communicating Science En

good faith should not, then, com-promise your relationship with ajournalist. If they were deliberate,however, it would be a good ideato avoid this journalist and publica-tion in the future.

Understand the journalist’s constraints

Do not get upset with the journalist ifthe title of the piece you worked ontogether has got little to do with thecontents. In fact, the author of a piece

has no control over what appears inthe newspaper. It is the editor-in-chiefwho decides on the paging, possiblecuts, pictures and title. Perhaps (s)hedid not understand it well or decidedto give it a little bit more “life” to makeit more appealing to the readers.

Trust their judgement

To write ten, a good journalist needsto know one hundred. If you do notfind all the details you explained andheld essential in the piece or report,

do not be surprised. The journalistknows much better than you howmany details the readers or viewersare able to digest. The journalistwants your ideas, not your data.

Afterwards, always say thank you

After the article or report has comeout, always thank the journalist and,unless it was a disaster, pay them yourcompliments. Just like ascientist, (s)hetoo puts their best into their work.

CHAPTER V - 61

Working togetherIf you have an apple and I have an appleand we exchange these apples

then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas,then each of us will have two ideas.George Bernard Shaw

Two complementary figures

Science communication can be par-ticularly effective if the scientist andthe journalist manage to overcometheir mutual distrust and the culturalbarriers that divide them, and co-operate.

Their competencies are, in fact, per-fectly complementary, as long asthere is mutual respect for eachother’s role. The scientist should beresponsible for the contents and thejournalist the communication’s for-mat, while the selection of thecontents and the choice of the mes-sage can be made together. Ofcourse, this is more easily said thandone.

The journalist must accept the roleof the amateur and give up a bit ofcontrol over the texts. On the

contrary, the researcher mustaccept the journalist’s way of arran-ging the work and agree to introdu-ce changes only for the sake ofgreater accuracy.

The easiest formula for co-operatingis a final review of texts, to assurethat factual errors have not beenoverlooked. A good journalistshould always agree to this: contentaccuracy is the last effort (s)heneeds to make, but it is the first obli-gation (s)he has to their reader orviewer.

The importance of personal relationships

Co-operation will be much greaterand more productive if you worktogether from the very beginning.For this to happen it is necessary tohave a good personal relationship.

Few things can improve how scien-ce is covered and portrayed in themedia as routine working partners-hips between single scientists andjournalists who know and trust eachother.

A good personal relationship deve-lops out of shared interests first, andthen from the fact that you getalong. Let us take a look, then, atpublic communication of sciencefrom a journalist’s point of view.

The world of science, even just inthe more popular sectors, is toolarge for journalists, even speciali-zed journalists, to figure out bythemselves. Covering science ismuch more difficult than coveringsports, politics or the daily news.Journalists are always looking fornew interesting stories, details,checks and opinions. Even if the

Page 62: Communicating Science En

Internet facilitates their work, theyoften have to look for the classicneedle in the haystack, and nothingcan substitute a person’s answer toa specific question, that begins per-haps with a very particular point ofview or requires a value judgement.Asking a scientist is much more sim-ple, useful and gratifying than ques-tioning a database. Often it is actual-ly irreplaceable.

The right scientist can solve a jour-nalists’ problem in a few moments.That is why a network of contacts inthe world of research is one of everyscience journalist’s professionalassets.

On the other hand, and rightly so,journalists do not want to be toldwhat to write, because they have nointention of becoming a tool insomeone else’s hands, nor do theyknow what to do with the scientistpoint of view as it is. Journalists

need an “honest” person whoknows how to see things from theirpoint of view as well.

Thus, many journalists look forscientists in wide disciplinary sectorswhom they can consult when neces-sary. This science consultant is theperson who journalists can calldirectly because they know them,they know that their judgement isreliable and (s)he is on their side.

In exchange for this privileged posi-tion a scientist’s work or sector willreceive greater visibility, and (s)he isgiven the opportunity to influencethe way certain topics are reportedor to express their opinion during anemergency.

As long as they do not act like une-thical know-it-alls, colleagues whobecome media experts are notnecessarily motivated by personalvanity or guilty of grandstanding. The

overall image of scientific enterprisealmost always has something to gainfrom them.

Consequently, contact with journa-lists needs to be cultivated by offe-ring the help requested and infor-ming them of new developments inadvance. There also need to be per-iodic meetings, however, and youneed to keep track of their work,trying to understand their interestsand necessities, by understandinghow they work. This all requires time,because each one has a great dealto learn.

In addition to being useful, workingtogether can also be very gratifyingfor both, and at times it representsthe beginning of a researcher’scareer as a science communica-tor.(S)he may turn into a writer or ajournalist, but sometimes (s)he mayeven take on the very valuable roleof columnist.

62 - CHAPTER V

Page 63: Communicating Science En

When, in 1624, Galileo decided to setout his reasons and began writing theDialogue Concerning the Two ChiefWorld Systems he was aware of theproblems that this work might causehim with the Church. However, he didnot have to choose which means ofcommunication to use, nor fear thathis message might go unnoticed. Thefew hundred copies of the bookpublished by Ladini, a typographer inFlorence, assured that this purposewas achieved remarkably well.

But, what about today? Is an interviewwith the Corriere della Sera (or LeMonde, Frankfurter Allegemeine, ElPais, or The Times) better than an arti-cle in Scientific American? Should youchoose a television story or a book?The cover of an important weeklymagazine or an exhibition in a sciencemuseum? A press agency take or anarticle on a most popular webzine? Thenews on the morning radio show or apress conference with a related event?

In any case, this question constitutesthe first step forward. The contentsare often given so much attention thatthe choice of the medium is neglec-ted, and yet this choice represents akey decision.

The media are much more than sim-ple technologies for the transmissionof information. There is no need tobother Marshall McLuhan, the famousCanadian media expert who main-tains that every message becomessomething different depending on themedium used. Just glance aroundand you will realize the profound diffe-rences between one medium andanother.

Daily newspapers reach an adultpublic. Science museums are particu-

larly popular among children; websites reach small tribes of people withvery specific interests. Television iswatched by almost everyone, andeven a science programme can talk toa few million viewers, while it might beexpected that a book, at best, be readby a few thousand people. On theother hand, if we examine the quanti-ty of information transmitted, the rela-tionship between books and TV isinverted, while on the web the numberof details can be chosen by the user.

Different languages are used for diffe-rent media. The radio, for example,uses only words, while an exhibitionspeaks mainly through its objects.This explains why, among otherthings, each medium lends itself moreto certain topics and less to others. Itis much easier to talk about ethologyon television than on an Internet site,and the opposite can be said abouthuman genetics. It is much morestraightforward to show the personali-ty of a scientist on the radio than in amuseum, while a simple experimentfrom classic physics is betterdemonstrated by a museum exhibit.What influences the choice of sub-jects is also the size of the public. Ontelevision you deal with subjects thatcan really interest everyone, while onthe web you can talk about any topic,even if there are only a few people inthe whole world interested in it.

In selecting a medium time beco-mes an important factor as well asthe way it is used. The radio is liste-ned to in the morning and televisionis watched in the evening. Dailynewspapers are skimmed and readquickly, specialized periodicals aregive more time and attention. Ontelevision, entertainment is the mainobjective; on the web, information;

in a museum, experiences and fee-lings.Communication times also vary. Apress agency or a web site run a pieceof news in just a few minutes; a wee-kly, in a few days; an exhibition, in afew months; and a museum, a fewyears.

Other differences?

Functions and values in the publicarena differ from one medium to ano-ther. TV news and daily newspapersinfluence public opinion, while websites and conferences make it possi-ble to feel it out. It is a lot more simpleto appear in a popular science maga-zine than on television, while theInternet is infinitely more accessiblethan the cinema (but Carl Saganmanaged to do even that!).A television interview takes much lesspersonal time and energy than writinga book, while updating a web siterequires greater continual effort than alecture given every once in a while. Onthe other hand, not everyone is giftedwith the same personal abilities. Abeautiful voice is helpful on the radio;on television, a captivating face; for adaily newspaper or a non peer maga-zine, a brilliant writing style.Finally, costs vary from one medium toanother. It is very different to give aninterview, distribute an electronicnewsletter or publish a house organ. Itis very different to call a journalist-friend or have a press office work foryou. There is a big difference betweenwriting a book or setting up an exhibit.There is a big difference between hos-ting a television crew in the laboratoryor producing a video on your own.If the media are means and not ends,before using them it is necessary to befamiliar with at least their main cha-racteristics.

CHAPTER VI - 63

CHAPTER VI

KNOWING THE MEDIAChoosing the right mediumThe medium is the message.Marshall McLuhan

Page 64: Communicating Science En

Television is the only means whichcan potentially speak to everyone.In an era in which the media tend tofollow the tastes and interests ofincreasingly narrow segments ofthe public, television has, in fact,remained a truly generalist medium.It is the only one that can bringscience closer to those that do notknow it, and therefore, would notgo looking for it elsewhere. This isespecially true for each one ofthose citizens for whom it repre-sents the only means of access tothe world and culture.

This medium, however, has distinc-tive characteristics that do notalways mix well with science.

Television uses more images thanwords to communicate, becausethe former tend to prevail over thelatter. Contrary to words, which canbe put together and taken apart asone likes, giving them the exactmeaning desired, images can bevery strong and carry differentmeanings for different people, andthey are not always tailor-made.Thus, because it is so dependantupon images, television lends itselfto telling facts, more than explai-ning concepts.

This is not all. On television very fewwords can be used: in five minutes,the average length of a report on aspecialized programme, you canuse the same number or words thatyou would use in a brief newspaperarticle. The length of a TV news spotis actually measured in tens ofseconds.

Television communication alsotends to be elusive. The limitednumber of words available requiresan extremely succinct synthesis of

the topic. This leaves the mind littletime to understand and absorb, dis-courages the repetition of conceptsand rarely includes an introductionto the topic or background informa-tion. Television also has short timeperiods and an increasingly fastpace, and it is not possible to goback if something is missed, as youwould when reading a book or anewspaper article. Furthermore, vie-wers are often distracted: a familymember’s remark can be enough tosidetrack their attention so theymiss something forever.

In addition, television is used andperceived essentially as a form ofentertainment, and the audience’swillingness to apply themselves andfollow a rather complex explanationis usually very limited.

In fact, science on television is limi-ted to explaining only a few funda-mentals and the meaning of thetopic. You do not learn from televi-sion, at least in the full meaning ofthe word. On the other hand, televi-sion can be extraordinarily effectivein stimulating interests and the desi-re to learn, directing the publictowards other means like magazi-nes or books.

The lion’s share in science televisionprogramming is dedicated, naturally,to natural history and health, andthis leads us to television’s greatconstraints.

The first is the constraint set by pictu-res: no pictures, no story, as they sayin America. Even if a bit of creativitycan work miracles, on television youusually have to talk about what youcan see and that possibly also has agood visual presentation.Consequently animal behaviour, vol-

canoes and space exploration dowell, while chemistry, molecular biolo-gy or nanotechnologies do badly. Donot even mention mathematics!Unfortunately, a good part of contem-porary science cannot be madedirectly visible because it deals withinvisible things. Computer graphicscan help, but they are expensive,become boring quickly and may notreally be helpful.

Even if well represented, the synthe-sis of proteins or crashes betweenparticles, for example, do not speakfor themselves. Even pictures oflaboratories all look alike these days,and they do not make for a greatshow.

Thus, before suggesting a topic it isnecessary to make sure that it canbe made visible, perhaps by gettingpictures directly or through your net-work of international contacts.

The second restriction is that on tele-vision you usually can talk aboutthings which naturally interest a wideaudience, while it is unlikely that youwill find space for niche subjects.Television production requires, in fact,large resources and the programmecan generate large incomes throughcommercials, proportional to thenumber of viewers. Thus competitionwith other types of programming isvery high. This means that the topicsdealt with and the level of explanationmust appeal to a wide number ofpeople: television always looks for theleast common denominator amongits potential viewers.

Television is one of the most difficultmeans to access, if for no other rea-son than the very limited number ofspaces available: there are only afew hours of programming a week,

64 - CHAPTER VI

TelevisionTelevision – unlike other communication tools that preceded it – destroys more knowledge and more understanding than it transmits.Giovanni Sartori

Page 65: Communicating Science En

at least in the free-to-air channels.Many more spaces are opening upon satellite theme television chan-nels which are gaining ground. Theproblem is that compared to thefree-to-air channels, which are morepopular and financed by commer-cials, they have less money availa-ble, and just like specialized periodi-cals they are not meant for everyo-ne, but only for people who arealready interested in the topic.

Appearing on television may be inti-midating, and if you do more than a

brief interview it requires personaltalents (having a natural screenpresence) that are not particularlycommon. Before you go on air, itwould be a good idea to try andunderstand what type of program-me it is and what objectives it hasset. A science programme and atalk show are two completely diffe-rent situations. And, is the interviewlive or recorded? What questionswill be asked? Who are the otherguests? Usually the host wants tokeep the tension high during theprogramme, and if the subject is

controversial (s)he might evenchoose to set a researcher againsta real quack as if they had thesame qualifications.

Answers on television are alwaysvery brief, just long enough to high-light a few key points. Therefore, it isbetter to be prepared and not openup the discussion. In front of thetelevision camera, finally, you mustmove as little as possible, speakslowly and avoid technical termino-logy, extremely complex conceptsand numbers, as much as possible.

CHAPTER VI - 65

The radioAn equal must talk to an equal, a free citizen to a free citizen, a thinking brain to a thinking brain. The radio contributor must not present himselfas a teacher to the radio listener, nor as a pedagogue, much less a judge or a prophet,but as an informer, a pleasant interlocutor, a friend.Carlo Emilio Gadda

In contrast to television, radio is thekingdom of the pure word, not cove-red by music or background noises,but highlighted.

Radio communication is direct, hot,stimulating, and if necessary also in-depth. The radio evokes, stimulatesthe imagination, induces listeners tolisten more closely. It is also a mediumthat uses few intermediaries betweenthe scientist and the public. Peoplecome out directly: the opportunity forpersonal and direct contact makesthe radio the best place to show whoyou really are and disprove thestereotypes of the scientist that getson a high horse and starts explainingthe “arcane worlds” to the ignorant,and of the crazy scientist, a geniusbut basically a bit pathetic.

Television’s younger sister, the radio isoften underestimated. In the newspa-pers, for example, you never readabout it, but it is really listened to fre-quently, especially by young people,

and because it does not interfere withother activities, like driving, but it pro-vides a background.As for topics, the radio allows for amuch wider choice than television,because words are much more ver-satile than pictures. Certainly, visuallyspectacular topics, like tigers andtyphoons, inevitably loose somethingof their appeal, but in return it canalso deal with more conceptual sub-jects, without having to refer to some“fact”.

Even if the choice of news must satis-fy the normal journalistic criteria, thereis also room for slightly niche areas.Since it costs less and is less profita-ble, radio is influenced less by thenumber of listeners and it is possibleto fly higher, satisfy particular groupsof listeners or carry out experimentsthat are prohibited on TV. Of course,the topics have to be interesting. Ifone distinctive criterion exists forchoosing the news, it is the need forsomething to discuss or reflect on

with the host and listeners, ratherthan a simple explanation of the topic.

Researchers almost always haveaccess to the radio through inter-views; at times it is the newsroomthat asks for the interview, at others itis the researcher who sends in a pro-posal or calls directly.

A radio interview is simpler comparedto a television interview because it isusually on the phone, and it requiresfewer personal talents since it iseasier to speak on the phone fromhome or the laboratory than in front ofa camera.

A nice voice is important, but not toomuch. Rather, it is useful to be syn-thetic, appear spontaneous andknow how to transmit your own pas-sion for the topic. In general, it is bet-ter to speak off the cuff, guided by thehost’s questions, possibly just prepa-ring a starter to break the ice with thehost and listeners. The opening

Page 66: Communicating Science En

should be clear and captivating, statesynthetically what you will talk aboutand then throw out some problematicelement or mystery that will be develo-ped during the interview.

Each time you talk, you should be brief,at most 20 to 30 seconds, then givethe floor to the host (who will otherwise

have to take it himself) for anotherquestion. Since the listener’s attentionmay be discontinuous, perhapsbecause (s)he may be doing some-thing else, you should repeat the mostimportant points more than once.

In front of a microphone (or the tele-phone receiver) you need to pronoun-

ce the words clearly. Uncertainties andsmall slips of the tongue, if correctedwell, can, in any case, add to the spon-taneity of the interview. The importantthing is not to mumble, or worse,remain silent: five seconds of silenceand listeners will think their radio is bro-ken.

66 - CHAPTER VI

The generalist pressTo be completely frank, despite my horror for the press, I would really like to rise out of my tomb every ten years or so and go buy a few newspapers.Luis Buñuel

To talk about the press means talkingabout a boundless world, diversifiedand not sufficiently studied. Even iftrue investigations on the subject arelacking, it is not far from the truth tosay that the generalist press dealswith science infrequently and badly. Itis also very difficult to access.

This can be explained by the evolutionof editorial processes developed overthe last fifteen to twenty years. Sincethe use of wired news, and fax oremail for the transmission of pressreleases, newspapers no longer lookfor the news but the news pours in onthem, and there are increasingly morepieces to choose from.

The first consequence is that scientificnews has to face strong competition.In large newspapers, in fact, there canbe thousands of number of newsitems to choose from every day, bet-ween wired news and press releases.

The second consequence is thatnewspapers have a diminishing num-ber of internal experts, such as thescience editors who had thecontacts and knowledge to find andjudge the news. Today the most fre-

quent figure is the desk-reporter whore-writes the news provided by agen-cies or press releases. This news isthen selected by a hierarchical orga-nization of managing editors, featuredirectors, assistant directors that areusually just as badly informed in sec-toral knowledge.

Not only is there less available kno-wledge provided by specialists,science included, but specialist voi-ces are also disappearing from theselection process. Specialised jour-nalists, like science journalists, arenow almost completely externalfigures who depend on the deci-sions made by those who work insi-de the newspaper.

In this way the normal criteria forselection are biased, and emotionsand a herd mentality tend to prevail.If yesterday a newspaper asked“what have the others not written?”;today the first question risks being“what have the others written aboutthat we have not?”.

Furthermore, recently the influencemarketing has on a newspaper’sorientation has grown. For marketing

people the importance and even theinterest of the news often count lessthan page layout, the type of topic torun and especially the reader profilewhich can be sold to advertisers, thereal clients in the publishing business.Insurance advertisers, for example,typically want the newspaper to talkabout health. But who might be inter-ested in mathematics, biodiversity orfundamental physics?In short, it is very difficult to accessdaily newspapers and generalistmagazines if you can only count onyour efforts, for example sending apress release. It is hard to guess whatmight interest a journalist, it is difficultto get a hold of them, and even if youdo, it is difficult to strike the right note.Things improve in less popular press,like local newspapers.

In practice, in order to appear in themost important newspapers it isalmost indispensable to have a pressoffice in the hands of good professio-nals. It is these people’s job to knowwhat is behind the choices made byvarious newspapers and to nurse thecontacts with key people inside thenewsrooms. Today, in fact, the institu-tions present in the most influential

Page 67: Communicating Science En

media are those which are equippedwith a good press office.

Deciding whether it is worthwhile ornot to invest in such an office essen-tially depends on your objectives.Being in the large daily newspapersand national weeklies makes youmore visible to policy makers, bothpublic and private; they receive thepress reviews. If you have other objec-tives, for example creating a relations-hip with a local community or makingcitizens more aware of a certain topic,other routes may be simpler.Magazines with wide circulation dedi-cated to scientific dissemination are aphenomenon that exploded in the

Nineties in several countries. The rea-ders are prevalently male and young,with variations depending on the dif-ferent publications. Usually they areread carefully and thoroughly, unlikedaily newspapers.

The criteria for topic selection aresimilar to those used for daily new-spapers, magazines and television,but the choice is broader and more“relaxed”, with a minority share alsofor the hard sciences, often comple-tely absent in other media. Being illus-trated monthlies, one important crite-rion for selection is the availability ofeye-catching pictures, both photo-graphs and drawings.

Ample space is available in these maga-zines, and since almost only scienceand technology are discussed competi-tion with other news is not as high.Thus it is realistic to consider sendingpress releases or true proposals tothe newsroom without resorting toprofessional intermediaries. In fact,various researchers write regularly forsome of these publications, but theymust obviously abide by the editorialpolicy and norms. More often thescientist acts as a consultant or theinterviewed expert. Perhaps this roleoffers less personal satisfaction, but itis surely simpler and less tiring.

CHAPTER VI - 67

The specialized pressA true journalist explains what (s)he does not know very well.Leo Longanesi

BooksAll of the books in the world contain no more information than is broadcast as video in a single large American city in a single year. Not all bits have equal value.Carl Sagan

Obviously there is no need to pre-sent the book, which from way backhas been the least short-lived, andthe most influential means for kno-wledge dissemination. It is also themost suitable for passing on infor-mation and lines of reasoning. It canalso lead to medium to long termvisibility, especially as opposed tothe other media.

It is no coincidence that it is the firstmeans of communications to cometo mind. The decision to write a bookmust, however, be well thought out. Itinvolves an enormous investment of

time (including evenings, weekends,vacations) and self-discipline. Themoments of doubt and discourage-ment cannot be counted. And such alarge effort is rarely rewarded with asimilar size result.

Books talk to a minority of people; aminority that surely counts, but it isusually very small. Books are also very difficult to promote.

Among novelties and re-publica-tions, tens of thousands of titles arepublished every year in a typicalwestern country, a mass which it is

extremely difficult to emerge from,and in which it is easy to perish,even if only due to an oversight. Infact, publishers have resources topromote only a small number of thebooks they publish. The others arehanded over to fate. Competitionalso takes place within a sales cir-cuit, usually in small bookstores.Even if science essays have a longshelf life, a book can remain in dis-tribution for a few weeks only, andthen it is gone. If the publisher, theholder of the rights, believes that anew edition is not reasonable, theauthor’s work is literally nullified.

Page 68: Communicating Science En

Naturally, these caveats are notmeant to discourage an author, butonly to make them think well beforemaking the crucial decision.

The first question to ask, then, is ifthe topic is worth a book. Is itimportant? Does it deal with a parti-cularly active frontier in research likeastrophysics or human genetics?Does it examine the areas at thecentre of public debate like stemcells or hereditary intelligence? Isthe subject of personal interest, likepsychology or medicine? Are therecaptivating stories of people to tell,to bring the discussion alive? Andabove all, is there really somethingnew to say?

If the answer is yes, are therealready other similar books?Bookshelves and catalogues arefull of duplicates, so it is better tomake a market survey first.

If the outcome of these examina-tions is positive, you can prepare aproposal for the publisher. First of allthis includes a concept, or ratherthe development of the idea from aneditorial point of view, with a discus-sion of the topic, the approach andthe public interested in the book,which demonstrates the opportuni-ties it represents. A good conceptmanages to reduce the book’s topicand reason of being to a simple andclear idea. Moreover, the story andcharacters need to be identified (abook for dissemination is not amanual!), and a summary and pos-sibly even a sample chapter shouldbe included.

Before convincing the publisher, theproposal is useful to the author, so(s)he can begin to understand thesize of the undertaking and tho-roughly verify whether it is truly what(s)he wants to do. If the publisher

has accepted the proposal andbelieves in it, then (s)he should bewilling to invest in the idea, and itmight be possible to reduce thework by sharing the writing with aprofessional writer, usually a journa-list, who takes over writing the draft.A four-handed book (not always allprinted on the cover), is fairlywidespread in the Anglo Saxonworld, and allows each of the twoauthors to take advantage of theirown competencies, but requiresteam spirit and good mutualunderstanding. If mutual understan-ding and trust are not created, thejob might well end with a quarrel.

Finally, when the book is comple-ted, it is necessary to be ready topromote it with presentations, inter-views, calling all possible contactsin the media. Without this finaleffort, the book may end up in pre-mature oblivion.

68 - CHAPTER VI

Science museums and exhibitionsIf the young people themselves see science as something for children, it is not surprising if puberty seems to be the main enemy of the Public Understanding ofScience. Science centres, made to encourage and involve people in science, mightactually lay the foundation for a total and deliberate rejection of science by young people as soon as they find out about more attractive choices.Neil Cossons

Over the last twenty years morescience museums have been ope-ned worldwide than ever before,including these so called sciencecentres.These are collections ofinteractive exhibits that illustrate thebasic principles and mechanisms ofscience and technology, and unlikeother museums they have little or noroom for the conservation of objectsfrom the past. In the United States,for example, from 1970 to 2000 sixhundred museums and sciencecentres were opened, and in thenineties alone five billion dollars

were spent. This infatuation, howe-ver, has struck the entire westernworld. In an era of indirect or evenvirtual experiences, citizens areincreasingly hungry for the direct,concrete, personal and “special”experiences that only these placesor events seem able to provide.

Although some large historic institu-tions still show signs of the past,science museums have come along way since the end of theNineteenth century, set up as uni-versal fairs that brought in millions of

people and exhibited (to celebratethem) almost exclusively the impor-tant industrial inventions like thelocomotive engine, airplanes, turbi-nes or reconstructions of mines.

The turning point was marked bythe inauguration, in 1969, of theExploratorium in San Francisco,which opened the era of the sciencecentre. Over time, museums alsoadapted to the new hands-on philo-sophy, and many different mediacan be found there: objects to lookat, interactive exhibits, films, theatri-

Page 69: Communicating Science En

cal productions, projections, labora-tories, animation and most impor-tantly, activities, from lectures to roleplaying.

In short, for each subject the mostsuitable means is used.

During this development, however,these organizations basically lostthe adult public. Today, between 80and 90% of the visitors are made upof school children and families withchildren. On average, 44%, almosthalf of the visitors is under fourteenyears of age. More specificallyscience museums and science cen-tres are having enormous problemsattracting teenagers and adultswithout children. In terms of itscontents, a museum or an exhibitposes still more restrictions thantelevision.

An examination of which subjectsare dealt with in science museumsand science centres confirms theimpression of any visitor: in theseplaces the great majority of exhibi-tion space is dedicated to classicalphysics or a selection of a fewtechnological areas. A few projectsare offered on astronomy, earthscience, perception psychology, inaddition of course to natural histo-ry collections.

Perhaps what is missing is morenoticeable than what there is. Littleor nothing deals with the mostimportant advances in science andtechnology from the last one hund-red years. Very few exhibits arededicated to nuclear physics, mole-cular biology or cosmology, just tocite a few examples in the puresciences. If we look at technologies,it is difficult not to note the absenceof (except for, as usual, a few rareexceptions) microelectronics andrecombinant DNA, telecommunica-tion systems, industrial agricultureand new materials technologies.

Furthermore, at least in terms ofexhibitions, there are problems inpresenting the major debates thathave emerged over the last hundred

years on the relationship betweenscience and society. In this regard itis surprising to note the differencebetween the subjects which aremost successfully dealt with inmuseums and the subjects whichdominate the pages of newspapersand popular magazines and televi-sion programmes dedicated toscience.

The reason for all this can be foundin the medium’s strong constraints.An exhibition must speak through itsobjects, not through words. “Threedimensional books”, with dozens ofpages on wall panels and objectsthat substitute photographs, are ofno use, although some museumsstill use them.

Visitors do not necessarily enjoyintellectually gratifying or emotionalexperiences. Young visitors walkthrough these places, packed withinformation and experiences quickly,like adults reading a daily newspa-per. And they will stop at an exhibitfor reasons which are often very dif-ferent from those imagined by theperson who planned the exhibition.

If and when they stop to look atsomething more carefully, it is usual-ly for about thirty seconds. Half theirtime is typically spent at the café,restaurant and bookshop.

In addition, it is extremely difficult toassess how educationally effectivemuseums and exhibitions are.Generally, except for guided tours,few facts and theories are learned inthese places.

Finally, access barriers to these pla-ces are very high. A museum, ascience centre or an exhibition arevery expensive and need to involvepublic administrations, foundationsor large private sponsors. You haveto pay for the use of the buildingspace, the display, but in particular,the management . Because of themaintenance and activity expenses,management costs tend to increasewith the number of visitors. It isimportant to resist the temptation of

doing it on your own, because theyare complex and sophisticatedobjects from all points of view, fromthe planning to the realization. Evenif the ideas often come from and areguided by scientists, the collabora-tion of specific professionals isabsolutely indispensable.

Why then are museums and sciencecentres so successful? The mainreason is that the visit provides astrong emotional experience, chieflymeant to provide a mental map ofthe topic and stimulate interest in it.The true function of science in anexhibition is to fascinate, and there-fore to direct people towards othermedia, such as books, or a greaterpersonal commitment to studyingscience at school.

CHAPTER VI - 69

Page 70: Communicating Science En

The last to arrive, and not yet themost popular, the Internet is, howe-ver, the most quickly growingmedium in importance. This is truebecause it is a ripening means, andwe are probably far from havingexplored all the opportunities it hasto offer.

It seems to have everything requiredto become the paradise of commu-nication, without most of the restric-tions set by traditional media.Everyone can publish on it, thanksto its technical simplicity, the lowcost of the hardware, the zero costdistribution and printing, and becau-se there is space for everyone.

Its contents can remain in the archi-ves. Today’s newspaper will be usedto wrap up fish in 24 hours, while adocument on the Internet canremain available for as long as youwant it to. In the same way, theInternet is accessible to everyone,as long as they are connected to theweb. It is not necessary to go outand look for it or buy it somewhere,because it arrives directly at homeor the office. Moreover, most of thecontents is free.

For these reasons it works wellwhen you want to reach many peo-ple or small communities united bythe same interest.

Family access to the Internet, alsowith broad-band connection, isalready very high. Although its use

for the moment is still rather rudi-mental – limited to searching forinformation, games or sex – in thefuture it will become more widesp-read and sophisticated just likeother communication technologiesdid in the past.

The problem is that being on theweb is not enough in itself to beseen. Most sites are, in fact, visitedby very few people, or just once in awhile, perhaps by chance. Mortalityon the web is very high. A site mustbe well made and constantly upda-ted, offer interesting contents oruseful services, but most important-ly it must be linked to other sites.The higher the distance is in termsof intermediary links to the most fre-quently visited sites – that 25% ofsites that makes up the super-connected heart of the web globally– the lower the probability thatsomeone will end up there. Despiteall these considerations, the poten-tial is truly enormous. At themoment, science on the Internetmeans various things. The mainuses are online versions of papernewspapers, free or subscription,the webzine (magazines only online)and institutional sites for researchinstitutes and newsletters. The lasttwo instruments are the mostimportant for a researcher.

Every university, research institute orlarge company now has a web site.Too often, however, at least inEurope, its contents and services

are almost exclusively for internaluse only. An extremely preciouschannel of communication withsociety is therefore not being used.Just take a look on the web and youwill see that in the United States allthese institutions offer their citizensevery type of useful resource, upda-ted and certified. For any health pro-blem, for example, you can consultthe site offered by the NationalInstitutes of Health, for questions onthe weather the site by the NationalOceanic and AtmosphericAdministration, just for curiosityabout space, NASA’s site. Similarservices, although on a smallerscale, are also offered by smallerorganizations. There are probablyfew more effective ways and thatare easily available, to make yourselfheard by society, for routine com-munications that we have seen arethe basis for a good relationship.Finally, for those people who aremore interested and request it, thereis the plain and simple newsletter, abit more than an email sent periodi-cally to the addressee: the simplestand most economic way to keeppeople informed.

70 - CHAPTER VI

The InternetI had (and still have) a dream that the web could beless of a television channel and more of an interactive sea of shared knowledge.I imagine it immersing us as a warm, friendly environment made of the things we and our friends have seen, heard, believe or have figured out.I would like it to bring our friends and colleagues closer,in that by working on this knowledge together we can come to better understandings.Tim Berners-Lee

Page 71: Communicating Science En

AS THE SAYING GOES, THERE’S MANY A SLIP ‘TWIXTTHE CUP AND THE LIP’.READING A BRIEF MANUAL WILL CERTAINLY NOT BEENOUGH TO TURN A SCIENTIST INTO A SCIENCECOMMUNICATOR, BUT I HOPE THAT I MANAGED ATLEAST TO PROVIDE THE MAIN STEPS: WHY TO MAKETHIS CHANGE, WHICH CHANGES TO MAKE IN YOURHABITUAL WAY OF THINKING AND DOING, HOW TOPLAN YOUR COMMUNICATION, HOW TO DO IT AS ANAUTHOR OR WITH A JOURNALIST, HOW TO CHOOSETHE MOST SUITABLE MEDIUM.NOW YOU HAVE TO GET TO KNOW AND ANALYSE THEBEST EXAMPLES, TRY AND TRY AGAIN, AND THENEVALUATE WHAT YOU HAVE DONE, AND SEE IF ITREALLY WORKS. AS WITH ANYTHING ELSE. IF,HOWEVER, THERE IS ONE SECRET, IN THIS JOB, IT ISTO CULTIVATE THE HABIT OF PUTTING YOURSELF INYOUR AUDIENCE’S SHOES, EVEN WITH YOUR IMAGINA-TION. HOW? BY LEARNING TO SEE THROUGH THEIREYES, REASONING WITH THEIR HEAD, BELIEVING ORDOUBTING WITH THEIR JUDGEMENT, FLYING WITHTHEIR IMAGINATION. COMMUNICATING, I WOULD LIKETO RECALL JUST ONCE MORE, IS ESTABLISHING ARELATIONSHIP. YOU CANNOT DO WELL IF YOU DONOT LET YOURSELF BECOME INVOLVED. IN THIS,COMMUNICATING IS DIFFERENT FROM ANYTHINGELSE. EVEN FROM SCIENCE.

TO WORK!

Page 72: Communicating Science En

SUGGESTED READING

Page 73: Communicating Science En

Solid basesJane Gregory e Steve Miller, Science in Public: Communication, Culture and Credibility, Basic Books, 1998

Deborah Blum, Mary Knudson, A Field Guide for Science Writers, Oxford University Press, 1997

Online ResourcesOffice of Science and Technology, Going Public,An Introduction to Communicating Science, Engineering and Technologyhttp://www.dti.gov.uk/ost/ostbusiness/puset/g_public.htm

English Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, Communicating with the Public:http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/tools/download/communicating_notes/ Welcome.html

Lars Lindberg ChristensenA Hands-On Guide to Science Communication, aimed at public information officers, 2003http://www.eso.org/~lchriste/scicomm/

People Science & Policy Ltd e Taylor Nelson Sofres Research Councils UK,Dialogue with the Public: Practical Guidelines, 2002http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/guidelines/dialogue/

The Royal Society, Scientists and the Media, Guidelines for Scientists Working with the Media, 2000www.royalsoc.ac.uk/files/statfiles/document-105.pdf

European Commission, European Research, A Guide to Successful Communications, 2004http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/science-society/sciencecommunication/index_en.htm

To Know Science is to Love it? Observations from Public Understanding of Science Researchhttp://www.copus.org.uk/pubs_guides_toknowscience.html

Now for the Science Bit! Concentrate Communicating science:http://www.riverpath.com/library/science/science_bit.asp

An e-Guide to Science Communication:http://www.scidev.net/ms/sci_comm/

Communicating Science News. A Guide for Public Information Officers, Scientists and Physicianshttp://www.nasw.org/csn/

To keep updated

Public Understanding of Science, the main international academic publication dedicated to therelationships between science and society and the communication of science:http://pus.sagepub.com/

The international portal dedicated to resources on every aspect of communications betweenscience and society:http://psci-com.org.uk/

Page 74: Communicating Science En

European Commission

Communicating science - A scientist’s survival kit

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

2006 — 76 pp. — 21.0 x 29.7 cm

ISBN 92-79-01947-3

Price (excluding VAT) in Luxembourg: EUR 25

Page 75: Communicating Science En

SALES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS

Publications for sale produced by the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities are available from our salesagents throughout the world.

How do I set about obtaining a publication?

Once you have obtained the list of sales agents, contact the sales agent of your choice and place your order.

How do I obtain the list of sales agents?

• Go to the Publications Office website http://publications.eu.int/• Or apply for a paper copy by fax (352) 2929 42758

Page 76: Communicating Science En

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation,Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation,Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation,Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure human resources international cooperation research and development environment and health societal issues industrial innovationInfrastructure human resources international cooperation research and development environment and health societal issues industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation,

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation,

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation,

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

Infrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovationInfrastructure, human resources, international cooperation, research and development, environment and health, societal issues, industrial innovation

KI-76-06-019-E

N-C