During one of our first discussions we talked briefly about an anti-science movement, and the importance of science putting a good face forward to explain its relevance to the public. Some have termed the refusal to listen to scientific findings "denialism", whether it is the movements against vaccines (thank you Jenny McCarthy), evolution, or the scientific evidence for global warming. This week I would like you to do some investigating on this topic:
- Listen to this radio interview from NPR's Science Friday with Michael Specter on his new book "Denialism".
- Read this article from Nature about new research into how science on controversial subjects should be communicated.
- Use your newly found blog and online science sources to see what you can find out there about denialism and the anti-science movement. And then use this material as a source to write a new post for your blog on this topic.
And lastly, for now. Leave a comment to this post in the next couple of days addressing the following question:
What medium have you found can best communicate science - text, audio, video? Something else? What have you found to be effective in your travels on the web this semester, and why?
Don't be too shy to get the comments started, and check back every day for new comments. I will post another question for you on Friday.
I think that the best medium depends on the audience. For the general public, I think video probably works best (in my experience, the general public doesn't like reading). Whatever the medium is, it usually needs to be forced on people. Most people I know don't go out of their way to look up new developments in science. As for students like us, I find all mediums effective, its usually dependent on the material. A lot of the blogs I read use a nice balance of video and text. Text is preferable sometimes because it allows us to skim the material and determine our level of interest- Sometimes I start watching a video and if it's not interesting enough in the first minute or so, I stop watching it.
ReplyDeleteI find that the best medium to communicate science to the public would have to be: anything not in written form, unless it’s online”. As a student, I already have enough to read, so when I’m about to read that “one more thing”, I instantly wonder if I should even bother, and start weighing the costs vs benefits. (Study notes for the Clothing and Culture exam, or play Mario Kart?) And I agree with Jessica – most people would rather not read anything if it were up to them. But I don’t mind so much if the media is online because that usually means there are videos or links to follow for more information. Also, finding information with a few mouse clicks is way faster than ordering a book, waiting for the book, going to get the book when it arrives, checking the index, flipping to the page, …you get the idea.
ReplyDeleteIn a world whose efficacy seems to depend on how fast the internet is, how many emails your blackberry can receive and how much espresso you had in your morning coffee or caffeine through the morning energy drink, I think the best way to communicate science is first and foremost dependant on the audience, but also dependant on how easily and quickly it can be communicated. I would tend to believe that video is the best medium to communicate science provided it can be easily shown on the news as well as through comical videos such as “Flock of Dodos” by Randy Olson. I think that whatever the medium may be, the more comical, satirical or relatable the science being discussed is presented the more attention the public will pay. Regarding looking through the web this semester I think what is effective when making blogs is to have text along with numerous videos and photos to break up the writing. Like Jackie, I’ll generally watch a video for a few minutes and if it isn’t interesting stop. However, on blogs, if the video itself isn’t exactly the most exciting thing in the entire world, the text and other photos offer other outlets of knowledge that may better capture the reader’s attention. Not many people I know including myself are going to be willing to sit down and read a book when the exact same information can be obtained ten times faster with the click of the mouse. Also, I know a lot of my friends will casually look at the TV’s in convo with say the news or CNN on them. I know if the TV shows a story slightly science related they will pay attention however, I doubt on their own time they would sit and read a science article or listen to a science pod cast. The quicker and easier the information is related, the better the medium is.
ReplyDeleteAfter being exposed to many different mediums, I found myself enjoying video more than anything. I do like some text but it needs to be well written and intriguing. There are some people who know how to captivate their audiences but some who do not. For example, I love to read National Geographic because it incorporates pictures and text. It is not dry and is an easy read. I do not like material that is written with such seriousness and 'fluff.' Straight, captivating, plain english is the best. Pictures are also great to convey messages. When I see an article, I immediately look at the pictures to see if the story could interest me. If not, I move on. For me, video is the best medium. I love videos such as the BBC's Blue Planet and Planet Earth. They are educational as well as enjoyable. I'd rather watch the video than read an article on the same subject. I do believe it depends on what the individual is interested. However, I think more people do prefer video.
ReplyDeleteThanks for getting the conversation rolling. I was starting to get a bit lonely.
ReplyDeleteIn a world with so many different mediums for communication, radio, video, writing, etc. I think that the best way to communicate science to the general public is by video. I think video is the best way to communicate science because it requires little work on the part of the viewer, and could be easily accessed via the internet, on the news or even a public service announcement during a commercial break on popular television show. If new agencies would take a little more time to focus on science stories, the general public would be a lot more knowledgeable on what's happening in the science world. Over the course of a week I will often times look over the Science/health sections of a few different news websites, and at most they have two to three new articles every few days.
ReplyDeleteI think that if scientists could produce fun and exciting videos to teach the public about science, then that's by far the best medium to do so...I mean, I loved Bill Nye the Science guy back in the day, we need to make science funa na interesting to the public again.
I'm going to have to agree with Jessica in saying that the best medium for communicating science would have to depend on the audience. For the every day, non-scientist, business men and women, the best way to get their attention and hold it would be if an article popped up in the business section of the New York Times (highly unlikely). The computer science major at Ohio State University would only be interested in a scientific article if it was posted on YouTube with a catchy title. For people constantly on the go and could not survive without their BlackBerry, texting and email updates may be their only form of communication.
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm saying is that for everyone to be interested in science, we will need to advertise it in many different ways. In order for people to first take interest in it, it must be communicated in a way that they understand first. Personally, for me, I found it easier to read articles on the web rather than videos or audio. In reading things myself, I can read and comprehend the material at my own pace rather than trying to keep up with a complicated movie or just listening to someone talk to me.
Like many people have already stated, the means of communication needs to captivate the audience member. I've recently delved into all of these mediums to see what I'm most captivated by. All of these have their pros and cons of course. Podcasts (and other audio) are great because you aren't looking at lifeless text. You get to hear real people interracting and many times you can hear their interest which can make the subject more interesting. On the flip side, audio can contain boring scientists just telling the facts. In addition, we crave visual stimulation which audio alone cannot provide. Text and video are my personal favorites, and I think these appeal to the masses more. Video can be bland but it is more likely to be stimulating enough to keep someone watching. However, if it isn't, that person is going to have to rewind and see what they missed or stop the video altogether (which is more likely). Video or text that is intersting and stimulating, but also has enough substance is the best. Text is great because it allows the facts to sink in- however a writer must take great care to integrate pictures as well. Personally, I'm interested by vieo and text. It really does come down to the audience member though- to each his own.
ReplyDeleteWow. Holy huge responses batman!! Since it appears that we already have a small novel written on the best way to communicate science to the masses, I'll keep my response short and sweet. It seems as though most of agree that the best form of science communication is dependent upon the audience. From my experience, the hands down best form of scientific communication is face to face, person to person. Could there possibly be a more interactive, engaging form of scientific communication? Of course this form of communication depends on how well the scientist is at speaking in front of audiences as well as engaging in other social interactions (which scientist are notoriously bad at), but this is an important part of communication that aspiring scientists should focus on.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the most effective form way to communicate science via the web, I find humor to be very effective at not only grabbing the reader's attention, but also making it relatable, enjoyable, and easy to read. It takes the edge off the nerdy scientist stereotype. Facts are interesting, but a keen sense of humor and wit make blog posts fun to read and will ensure that your blog attracts plenty of followers (even if you're a mediocre scientist at best)!
I believe Communicating is by introducing people to a topic verbally, followed by watching a video where you can see how the science is done. Watching the Planet Earth series is a great way to show the public how awesome the Earth is. After, watching my first Planet Earth video, I realized how much I wanted to learn by watching that video. Watching Planet Earth stimulated my interest in animals and the ocean. So this semester I am taking marine biology to help me understand how the ocean survives. While in my marine biology course I have learned about some major themes that interested me while watching Planet Earth. Using audio and visual techniques together,I believe, is the best way to communicate science.
ReplyDeleteWith so many different ways to communicate science to others now,I personally don't think that there is one concrete or perfect way to get a point across. I also believe that it would greatly depend on the audience on which way would work the best. I think that for me text is not the best source to communicate information because we have so many other ways toget knowledge out there to the public. From my experiences I feel that I generally learn the best by watching a video about a subject instead of just reading about it. Another thing that kind of dissapoints me is that there are so many publications out there that have to do with science but it is so easy for the regular person to get confused and bored by it so adding video and audio is always a way to lighten up the seriousness of a subject. Even though a subject may be important and extremely serious, the reader may not want to view it, but if there is something that catches that persons attention that would be the best way to capture an audience.
ReplyDeleteCommunicating science through visual aides as well as text is the best route for understanding science. From my experiences, using text will only help a reader to better understand what the video is trying to deliver. Pages and pages of text without some sort of example (video or audio) will only make things worst for the public and their view of science. With there being easier and faster ways to communicate and understand subjects, people tend to shy away from just text.
ReplyDelete