A couple of days ago I posted a blog that noted the absence of direct information on the Fukushima nuclear crisis coming out of US Schools of Public Health. In it, I wrote
As events at the Fukushima power plant unfolded, I assumed – rather naively as it turns out – that Schools of Public Health across the United States would be mobilizing to provide expert analysis and advice on the health impacts of potential radiation releases.
In response to the piece, Mike Rodewald wrote this:
I must respectfully disagree. While I agree that it is useful for Google to centralize some information to cut through the noise (other commenters have pointed out that this is already happening). Providing expert analysis to news organizations is a more effective use of time for schools of public health than providing their own coverage would be. While I admire your enterprise, I don’t think many other people are trolling the websites of their local university for news on current events. Granted, outlets like newspapers and local news are prone to sensationalism, but they are still the primary and often only source of “news” for most people. And hopefully that sensationalism is tempered by input from experts at a school of public health.
Is he right or is he wrong? Should the media be the primary vehicle for experts to communicate to people as events such as those in Fukushima unfold? Or should they also be looking to communicate and engage with people more directly?
Please let me know what you think in the comments below
Mike is making the “it should be this way because it’s always been this way” argument, which I have little sympathy for. People may not be trolling the pages of their university, but who said anything about universities? Experts can have blog posts featured anywhere, in addition to talking to reporters. In fact, having a blog can cut down on the amount of talking to reporters one needs to do.
Journalists disseminate and translate expert opinion to the many. However, I think the public health schools could provide for the few who seek out more direct and in-depth information. Surely this would not require much more than posting versions of press releases written for news organizations, and maybe a few extra contributions by willing faculty?
I believe scientists who want engage more directly should be encouraged, but I also think most need the help of university press officers or science communicators.
I agree with Mr. Gunn above. I have referred others to your post on radiation health, since I thought it did a better job of explaining radiation measurements than available elsewhere. I also always appreciate Brian Zigmund-Fishers perspectives. In addition to website sources online, I have also received some information via e-mail newsletters, such as HEALTHbeat from the Harvard Medical School.
There are many ways of getting information out, in addition to the traditional press release.
What if a traditional media story refers readers to a website? How is that counted?
In answer to Dr. Girlfriend, I think that the following examples are pertinent:
In terms of some of the “cut through the noise” educational efforts that need to be done, I am disturbed by the conflating of tsunami pictures with nuclear disaster headlines, such as occurred this morning in my local newspaper, along with numerous online venues.
Also, I believe that the non exacting way that the New York Times and others used the graphic linked to below that was produced by Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization, an arm of the United Nations in Vienna has caused problems. Basically it shows wind flows over the Pacific. The test ban group actually has 60 stations which they routinely use to monitor for radiation spikes in support of the worldwide ban on nuclear arms testing. But it can easily be interpreted as showing that that clouds of radioactive material are headed in our direction.
See:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/03/16/science/plume-graphic.html
This has caused concern and confusion as shown here:
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_17642139
Did it help to have this information run through mainstream journalistic filters? I think not much. The test ban group, according to the NYT accompanying story, apparently did not give permission to the NYT, to use the photo and they then went to a secondary source. Would it help if experts could get more detailed information out? I think that the answer is yes.
Why does this have to be an ‘either or’? Even a single University press officer, and I am sure there are always more than one, can organise a series of TV/Radio interviews in one day and either transcribe, link to or adapt these for the University website on the same day. So both audiences are served. However, if Andrew’s original blog is right, neither seems to be the case.
However, as a situation like this is by no means clear, the thoughtful expert doesn’t necessarily have a quick fix opinion to trot out, or I would imagine, is wary of espousing firm opinions too quickly with little information to go on and is therefore rightly hesitant to leap in.
But, if for some weird reason there had to be an either or, ‘the more effective use of time’, I think Mike is right would be the media. It is particularly important that policy makers, opinion formers, the lay public and other media have access to thoughtful, articulate expertise, they are best reached through a strategic use of the mass media.
I also agree with Andrew that the devastation brought by the tsunami has been overshadowed by this nuclear story which seems wrong somehow. Could this perhaps be because it resonates with something which more people in the West feel more personally or because of the current discussion about the use of nuclear power the media feels is more relevant to people’s current concerns and therefore of greater interest to their readers? Not sure.
Anyway, at the risk of being appallingly smarmy, it does show that U of M was right to hire Andrew in this post to help us all understand these complex issues and promote reasoned debate about some of these very difficult areas. Perhaps if other experts saw this as part of their ‘duty to communicate’ we would have a better quality discussion everywhere. Keep up the good work!
My question in this regard is whether “experts” are in a reasonable position to comment on events like the one in Japan from afar as they are occurring. I heard a recent edition on On Point from NPR in which two academics extrapolated from news reports to make analogies to Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. It made me very nervous, as it wasn’t hard to imagine ways in which either the news report or their logic would lead them in the wrong direction about what was happening on the ground.
I think that more thought about the expert role in the 24 hour news cycle is necessary. I’m sure there is one, but I don’t know if we’ve found it yet.
If there’s any lesson to be had from the last three years of social media it’s that one form of communication is not enough.
While some people will get information from traditional media, others will look to enhance that through other sources, and others still will rely on links from friends. In my opinion it is no longer sufficient for experts to rely on PR intermediaries to feed traditional sources of communication. People who are thirsty for information will soak it up where they can find it, and the more experts can engage directly through research websites, blogs and yes, through Twitter, the better served the public will be.
Furthermore, linking to source information and references is inherent in the nature of blogs and Twitter. It’s rare to see original data linked in the media, and while not all bloggers are reference minded, the best ones are. So if people are questioning the fact base and trying to source original data, then having experts speak directly with links to more information can far more effective. The absence of expert knowledge allows rumours to seed and grow untouched.
So should experts be engaging directly? Yes. And in a time of disaster? Yes to that too.
Two sides needed: Media, being mainly part of corporate entities, have their own interests in reporting expert information; individuals within those organizations also have expert skills at reformulating dense information for public access.
Some experts and academics have those skills, but not all. An energetic reader can actively move through the funnel of media reports to access expert information in its rawest forms. I appreciated that you tweeted the IAEA report on spinach and milk contamination today, Andrew, along with USAToday’s… I can choose to engage with either.
Interesting question. But I would say the question addresses the issue from the wrong end. The issue is, how do we provide reliable information to people so that they get an informed picture of issues like the disasters in Japan.
In that sense, experts should engage directly with the public, of course! In the case like Japan of course, many suddenly become ‘experts’ and add their voice to the issue, which created a huge signal to noise problem.
That is even the case with experts. In relation to the Fukushima nuclear plants I saw people interviewed on TV who I know work on issues such as radiation damage to materials, but who do not work directly on say reactor designs. I am not sure how much one should trust even such opinion. Given also that there was a marked absence of detailed information from the reactors, it wasn’t surprising at all that expert opinions diverged quite a lot on the issue. Also, many of the real experts preferred not to say anything at all, and reliable information was hard to come by.
So in my view the media have an important role to play in mediating (in a neutral, responsible way) the discussion. On a topic like this we need both – experts directly engaging with the public, and media that mediate the different opinions.
The problem is that experts are not necessarily expert communicators. It is one thing to publish in peer review journals and speak at scientific conferences, but quite another to make yourself understandable those who have not dedicated years of their life to your area of expertise. I have observed accomplished scientists who fail to even make themselves understood to their undergraduates.
I am always curious to hear opinions on whether or not it is the ‘duty’ of scientists to communicate to or engage with the public.
Scientists of all levels blog, and I wonder if this makes them better scientists. And should grad students and postdocs be putting themselves forward as experts?
Some great comments here and I agree totally that multiple channels of communication should be used. Indeed, the more scientists engage directly with the media, the more likely that the public will get a more nuanced answer that is not simply black and white on a given issue. In my experience I all too often see communication of definitive answers that are simply not supported by the state of the science.
But if as scientists we are to communicate directly, then i feel we have a responsibility to not make things too simple when they aren’t, and to convey in understandable terms the uncertainties, and assumptions and limitations of out state of knowledge. This is not something that comes easy to many, and really does requires communications training; something that likely is not high on many scientists’ to-do-lists.
As scientists i feel one of our core missions and obligations is to communicate to the public information and knowledge we gain, especially since in many cases we are funded directly or indirectly by taxpayer money. Communication should not only mean the writing up of data in peer reviewed papers or presentations of seminars and lecturers at workshops and symposia, but direct and engagement in more public-friendly channels.
Thanks for your comments so far – as many of you have noted, I think it’s clear that multiple approaches are needed to connecting expertise with people looking for it.
One of the reasons for posing this question was to make sure my own thoughts weren’t completely out of step with those of others. But at this point it’s probably worth saying a little more about why I raised the question in the first place.
I have what is probably an odd notion that organizations have certain responsibilities to their stakeholders. In the case of a School of Public Health in a public university, those stakeholders include students, faculty researchers and staff (in the school and across the university), public health professionals, policy makers, people working in business, the public sector and non-government organizations, the media, and citizens.
When a major incident occurs that has implications to public health, I would anticipate engagement to varying degrees with all of these stakeholder groups. Of course, it may well be that incident-specific expertise isn’t available. But an organization that has broad expertise in public health should be able to provide context and insight to events such as those unfolding in Japan, and – importantly – should be able to engage with stakeholders in knowledge-grounded dialogue at multiple levels.
In my own institution there are many people trying to do this. But as group of organizations, I wonder whether we need to think more closely about what our stakeholders are looking for at at time like this, and how we can best connect and engage with them.
I think that one of the ways in which blogging works to overcome some of the issues raised above, is that it is interactive. So if something is too simple, too complicated or in error it can be corrected. Also, I think that this exchange back and forth is enlightening and educational and helps to hone communication abilities.
Furthermore, in the case of something that is in flux and ongoing, it allows for updates and expansions to existing information.
In terms of institutions, many land grant universities, such as Colorado State University, have long had Extension Services. In the past, these have been primarily agricultural, but also include gardening, nutrition and other topics. I think that these can be used as models as to how community outreach and communication can be accomplished.
I started doing direct outreach because my friends and colleagues started asking. They trust me more than they trust news organizations, both to be competent, and to give the science without exaggeration or hyperbole. Every time they heard something on the news that confused them, they asked me. When I was asked a few times, I’d write up more extended explanations, and give them the links.
The links spread, passed on to their friends, who trusted me by proxy. Links spread further, going by word-of-mouth. No one is trolling my university website, and the number of keyword-searches finding my pages is very small, but I’m getting a steady stream of visitors via Twitter and Facebook even more than a week later.
I am not a Communications specialist, but from half-understood conversations with them, this is what the world does now. Previously, news organizations were gatekeepers to information, and journalists were trusted for their judgment and analysis. Now, information is more freely available, and people prefer to look within their own extended social networks for trusted experts who change for each new topic. In this light, I am deeply grateful that my network considers me a trusted source, and will gladly put in the time and effort to thoroughly and honestly answer their questions any time it falls within my expertise.
Thanks Mika – I also suspect a growing number of people are deeply grateful that you are taking the time and effort to reach out.
The link to Mika’s blog by the way is http://www.geomika.com/
And now I too know that Mika is an excellent explainer! Check it out.
Chalk up my tardiness in joining this interesting conversation to lost productivity due to the NCAA Tournament. It can be hard to be nuanced in a paragraph, but I do agree with some of the other commenters that some experts should directly communicate with the public. The problem is that not many people are as good at it as Prof. Maynard.
Communication is a difficult job. With something as fluid as the tsunami in Japan it can be hard to keep up with events, especially for someone who does not do it full-time. The issue as I see it is people who are not effective communicators being forced into directly communicating with the public. Either wasting their time with a very small audience, or more likely, causing unintended problems through poor communications.
It is not an either or situation where experts should only communicate with the public, or with the media. But I would rather see the communication with the public come about organically, like as the commenter Mika described. The media already has the communication skills and access to large audiences, hopefully when needed they can be guided by expert opinion. There is high quality scientific communication available from the media, New Scientist has done a wonderful job avoiding the scare stories and breaking down the science of the situation, and they have the resources to address all the angles of a rapidly developing situation.
Thanks Mike. I must confess that I have a tremendous amount of respect for journalists and other media specialists, most of whom in my experience do work diligently to try and cut through the noise and bias to provide people with clear and accessible information and insight. Of course, there are high profile and often controversial areas where the practices of the established media are questioned (and even questionable) – but often these areas distract from the effective dissemination of information that does go on.
Yet there is clearly a need for effective multiple routes of dissemination, communication and engagement – especially as the way people seek out and receive information is changing rapidly as the web develops. And I do think that the expectation of accessibility is placing a greater responsibility on experts and expert institutions to engage directly and effectively – not as an alternative to professional media, but as a a compliment to this.
The danger is of course – as you point out – that being a technical expert in one area doesn’t necessarily make you an effective source of information – communication is a skill, and one that comes with responsibilities. But I think that this means that institutions and experts who engage need to develop these skills and become accessible and trusted sources of information – Mika’s comment above is a great example of this. Because if they don’t, the space will be filled with others who are less bashful (and possibly less informed), and institutions at least will run the risk of being marginalized in the ensuing dialogue as situations such as we are seeing in Japan unfold.
Andrew’s concern (“…that being a technical expert in one area doesn’t necessarily make you an effective source of information…”) pairs with Dr. Girlfriend’s question (“…should grad students and postdocs be putting themselves forward as experts?”)
In my experience, a lot of questions do not require a high level of expertise. The questions I’ve answered about tsunami are literally to the level of knowledge I teach for an introductory course for non-science students. Any of the graduate students TAing for my course are easily expert-enough to provide solid scientific answers. In that context, I think being a capable and willing communicator with enough expert background knowledge is more important than being a specific technical expert with limited communication skills.
In Canada (and the US, and Australia, and I assume in many other countries), the standard of ethics for engineers and geoscientists codifies we must only do what we are qualified to do, and may not claim to be qualified when we’re not. This should apply to as much to science communication as it does to any other science job. The moment the questions require more technical expertise than you have, it’s your responsibility to stop answering and refer the question to someone who does have that expertise. So, yes, I think it’s completely appropriate for graduate students and postdocs (particularly those skilled at communication) to represent themselves as experts to a certain extent, provided they are comfortable and capable of avoiding speculation and pass the questions on to another more qualified expert if the questions go beyond their level of expertise. When scientists get caught up in trying to answer all questions, even those beyond their experience and knowledge, we end up with that unfortunate signal-to-noise ratio Joerg Heber brought up.
Agree that there should be a ‘responsibility’ to stakeholders (so quaintly European, you can take the man out of Europe… etc!), especially as these stakeholders are often footing the bill for the research and expertise.
But if these Universities were companies, or at least the ones who are good at comms/engagement, you have have a strategy for engagement on key issues, you would have at your finger tips the names on the faculty who can speak on what areas, (perhaps an informal note about who is any good or not!), and a 24/7 list of mobile phones. Your job is to represent the University well in its areas of expertise, don’t let people get in above their head and provide rounded feedback to all stakeholders, including students, policy makers etc and keep the website as a hub of timely information.
Obviously many of the experts are in direct contact with media and others, but they should also communicate well internally to let the head of comms know what is going on. Sometimes this gets out of hand with companies and no-one dare breath outside without the say so of the comms person, also the comms people are too conservative and try to keep you out of the news, or to promotional and try to get you in regardless of your expertise. This is part of the trick of getting a good one and a good strategy.
Perhaps it does or doesn’t work like that in Uni’s, (perhaps it doesn’t work like that in companies!), but that’s the theory at least!