By Maddie Burakoff

A panel of scientists and science writers gathered at Professional Development Day 2019 to discuss how to bring more diverse sources into science journalism and why it matters.

Inclusion requires consistent effort, NPR’s Nell Greenfieldboyce said. When Greenfieldboyce started tracking her own sources on a spreadsheet, she was shocked to find she was quoting men much more often than women, even though she was all for gender equality. After she became aware of the problem, she made an effort to diversify the voices she used.

One tip she suggested was to go beyond calling just the lead author on a study and instead talk to other authors for more varied perspectives, particularly if those authors come from a different background.

Though Greenfieldboyce admitted bringing in diverse voices required more effort (“I’m thinking about it all the time,” she said), she described it as “worthy work” that can also help lead to the discovery of unique, untold stories.

Freelancer Mollie Bloudoff-Indelicato brought up another resource for journalists to be more inclusive in their coverage: the Diverse Sources Database, a project she founded to counteract the excuse that journalists simply can’t find diverse sources quickly enough. The website lists hundreds of experts in different fields, all of whom have been vetted for credibility and agreed to talk to reporters on deadline.

Beth Linas, an infectious disease and digital health epidemiologist, also discussed the initiative 500 Women Scientists, an international organization that broadly aims to support women’s participation in science fields. The group created the platform Request a Woman Scientist to similarly give journalists a resource for finding sources on deadline, and promote the inclusion of women scientists in other contexts like conference keynotes and panels.

Taking steps to diversify source lists is essential to correcting an inaccurate portrayal of scientific fields — as Linas put it, the idea that all science is “pale, stale and male.” More diverse representation, panelists said, can help break down barriers in science instead of reinforcing them.

“The media has a lot of power,” Bloudoff-Indelicato said. “We have the ability to make change, for better or worse. And how individuals construct their identities … it’s shaped by the media.”

By Lissie Connors

If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Conversely, if a scientist publishes a paper, but they’re unable to communicate their results, does it make a broader impact? Probably not.

A panel of public information officers teamed up at Professional Development Day 2019 to discuss the trials and tribulations of teaching scientists to be better communicators.

For scientists, the most rational way to explain a topic is to first provide exhaustive background information, but by the time they reach their main thesis, they’ve usually lost the audience. Most people think in the exact opposite manner; they want to know the bottom line. If their interests are piqued, then they’ll ask questions to learn more information.

This difference in communication can cause a potentially groundbreaking scientific study to fall on deaf ears. The key to being a better science communicator is to plan your goals and know your audience.

To engage in a public dialogue, its important to know how different groups of people think. Scientists are usually focused about the discovery, while journalists think about the story. Policymakers, on the other hand, are thinking about how this affects their decision-making. To maximize success, a scientist must know who they’re talking to, and why.

Science communication is a two way street. Resources like graphic design are incredibly important in communicating science to the general public, and they can also provide the researcher with a polished representation they can use on their website or at conferences. Successful PIOs should be able to work with scientists to help them see why science communication is mutually beneficial.

COMPASS, a nonprofit organization that trains scientists on how to effectively communicate with their representatives about science policy issues, helps scientists flesh out their plans to address public officials using “Message Box Method.” Using this tool, scientists can break down their issue and underscore the broader picture of their research, leading to a better conversation with policymakers.

There are many opportunities for scientists to work on their communication skills, such as AAAS workshops and AGU Sharing Science, and scientists should be encouraged to attend them. SciLine, an organization that connects journalists to experts in various fields, is a great way for journalists to find reputable sources, and for scientists to practice engaging with the media.

By Hussain Ather

When facts are under fire, science communication should value truth and evidence. That was the message of a panel of at Professional Development Day 2019.

Assistant professor at the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University John Cook emphasized the mental models people build as they process information.

People prefer models that are complete and less accurate than those that are incomplete and more accurate. As a result, science has a tough uphill battle. Cook suggested replacing myths with memorable and compelling facts, warning people before mentioning myths, and explaining techniques by which a myth may distort facts.

It’s also useful to point out the flaws in people’s logic. For example, if someone says something like “What happened to global warming?” in response to cold weather, Cook may respond with “What happened to the sun?” during the darkness of nighttime.

When people are confronted with two contradicting pieces of information, they choose to believe in neither, as though the two pieces of information “cancel out.” This is why he suggests suggests warning readers before presenting them with a myth or other type of false information. This means providing frameworks for explaining invalid reasoning such as through fake experts, cherry picking, and conspiracy theories.

Journalists value transparency, said Laura Helmuth, health, science and environment editor of the Washington Post. Helmuth mentioned President Donald Trump’s tweets on fake news from media publications.

The Washington Post has used this as an opportunity to have journalists explain their sources and reasoning to be more transparent in response. They also clarify which writing represents a point of view or personal experience.

Helmuth argues that giving simple, clear brief rebuttals that emphasize facts, avoid repeating myths, and replace myths with true information can lead to fighting the issues of alternative facts. Helmuth used the example of writer Christie Aschwanden’s article “Athletes, Stop Taking Supplements” as an effective response to false information of dietary supplements that purport to benefit the body.

Rebecca Hersher, science reporter for NPR, suggested surprising readers with true, declarative headlines that draw the reader in while remaining truthful to the content of the article.

It’s a difficult balance to pull in readers while refraining from making misleading statements. She noted that in many cases people only read the headline and the search engine optimization keywords of the article. so this wording is extremely important.