We’re starting to see a drastic shift on the national level (and international level) for pandemic preparedness. In the United States, the White House released a new budget/plan for “Transforming our Capabilities”. Also, the Office of Science and Technology Policy was
As a professional communicator, I completely agree with the need for accurate, understandable communication about science.
Two things:
1. Effective communication is a learned skillset that takes years to master. Communicators who can communicate effectively about science are particularly rare. Most good communicators gravitate toward mainstream journalism, public relations and politics, because that is where the money (at least in the last two) and the "juice" is. You have to build (and pay) a cadre of science communicators. Far too many people think that they can talk and write effectively because they can talk.
2. Countering misinformation and disinformation isn't just a matter of correcting misinformed commentators. There is a well-funded, well-organized disinformation machine out there, highly skilled in the use of social media as well as unscrupulous false news media outlets. Combatting this machine and its products requires constant aggressive, professional communication. I believe it also includes some sort of legal reform so people and organizations that propagate false information that causes harm or death are held civilly and criminally liable for their speech.
Fantastic post—thank you. As an opera performance major at Indiana University who switched to major in chemistry (after an accidental explosion in an entry chemistry-for-majors lecture) and then went on to get an MS in Biochemistry, I FEEL THIS.
It is not difficult to understand the overall *stories* told by scientific discovery when science is treated as a fun and normal part of our world. Science is not the study of inaccessible ideas—it is the study of everything we care about and rely upon and the excitement and discoveries of this process can be shared with literally everyone *if* the jargon and ego can be dropped.
I got terrible undergraduate chemistry grades because I had to teach myself how to study science and how to make the the material make sense to me. I had literally no context for the words or ideas being thrown at me and had to create a framework to help me hold it all together. My core GPA was, like, The Worst.
I was discouraged from applying to graduate school…until the woman I had gone to for guidance changed her mind and said I absolutely SHOULD apply because the outcome (rejection) was guaranteed so there would neither be disappointment in the outcome nor regret for failing to try.
I got in to the program I applied to and ended up being an award-winning, independently funded graduate student who passed prelims while planning a wedding (and writing the real grant for real funding *and* teaching as an adjunct at the local community college). I ended up with an MS only because my advisor fired me following my request for medical leave and a reduction in training responsibilities so I could do my degree-earning research—he asserted someone interested in science education, as I was, had no need for a PhD.
I disagree.
And I disagree *vehemently* that there should be any allowance for any person with a PhD to be indifferent toward—let alone disdainful of—the importance of science communication and education. On one hand, my ability to communicate about science in such a way with new lab employees and graduate students was extremely useful to my advisor; on the other, that ability disqualified me from my position. That contradiction in attitude made my life very hard then and changed the entire trajectory of my life, but the pain I felt then is inconsequential to the pain being felt by all of us *right now* as we experience the real-world consequence of the failure of science to appreciate and *honor* the value of effective scientific communication and engagement with the public.
Thank you Katelyn, never stop! You make it easier for the rest of us to get the word out appropriately and understandably. Those of us educating our patients are grateful for you!
Your proposed communication strategy is 100% the greatest need in my opinion. The scientific community cannot currently "compete" with the monolithic social media platforms that are unfortunately the source for many Americans' "research." Having a national mechanism to communicate with, to EDUCATE the masses who will not (or perhaps are just uncertain how to?) retrieve reliable info is going to be instrumental in our nation's response to this ongoing crisis as well as future public health events. Keep up your tremendous work. You are appreciated!
I have deeply appreciated every word you've shared since the start of the pandemic. You've pulled together information from across the globe in a meaningful and understandable way. I look forward to your updates, and until I was kicked off Facebook (targeted by an anti-vaxx troll) I shared them freely. You are a gifted science communicator.
I have just one teeny quibble with today's post. I beg of you -- please use the phrase "1918 flu" pandemic, instead of the inaccurate, but distressingly too common, "Spanish flu."
One comment and one quibble on this morning's newsletter. First the quibble: the phrasing you used implied that the OSTP Director's elevation to Cabinet status was connected to the policy memo released last week. I think that news dates back to January, when Eric Lander's nomination was announced.
My comment is broader and it relates to your using the OSTP news as a springboard for your points about science communication, esp. re: the pandemic. I agree 100% with everything you said, but I found the connection to OSTP to be awkward. OSTP has traditionally had a minimal presence in the health arena -- largely because it get out-muscled by more powerful types like the HHS Secretary and the Domestic Policy Council. That's left OSTP to focus more on non-medical areas of S&T (and non-HHS aspects of policy).
The awkwardness I see is in placing an expectation on OSTP to lead on the issues you outlined. Maybe they can. It would be great if they did, and Lander being a life scientist is probably better positioned than previous OSTP Directors to be influential in that arena. But, given the history, I know it is not a natural fit for them.
Again, these are just thoughts I wanted to share. And, mostly I just wanted another excuse to let you know how much I appreciate the wisdom, insight, and clarity you have provided these past 18+ months.
Great post! Scinece communication is something that I have been struggling with the past 18 months in my day job as our work has gained a wider audience during the pandemic. I'm curious about the database you created for YLE that you mentioned at the end.
As a professional communicator, I completely agree with the need for accurate, understandable communication about science.
Two things:
1. Effective communication is a learned skillset that takes years to master. Communicators who can communicate effectively about science are particularly rare. Most good communicators gravitate toward mainstream journalism, public relations and politics, because that is where the money (at least in the last two) and the "juice" is. You have to build (and pay) a cadre of science communicators. Far too many people think that they can talk and write effectively because they can talk.
2. Countering misinformation and disinformation isn't just a matter of correcting misinformed commentators. There is a well-funded, well-organized disinformation machine out there, highly skilled in the use of social media as well as unscrupulous false news media outlets. Combatting this machine and its products requires constant aggressive, professional communication. I believe it also includes some sort of legal reform so people and organizations that propagate false information that causes harm or death are held civilly and criminally liable for their speech.
Fantastic post—thank you. As an opera performance major at Indiana University who switched to major in chemistry (after an accidental explosion in an entry chemistry-for-majors lecture) and then went on to get an MS in Biochemistry, I FEEL THIS.
It is not difficult to understand the overall *stories* told by scientific discovery when science is treated as a fun and normal part of our world. Science is not the study of inaccessible ideas—it is the study of everything we care about and rely upon and the excitement and discoveries of this process can be shared with literally everyone *if* the jargon and ego can be dropped.
I got terrible undergraduate chemistry grades because I had to teach myself how to study science and how to make the the material make sense to me. I had literally no context for the words or ideas being thrown at me and had to create a framework to help me hold it all together. My core GPA was, like, The Worst.
I was discouraged from applying to graduate school…until the woman I had gone to for guidance changed her mind and said I absolutely SHOULD apply because the outcome (rejection) was guaranteed so there would neither be disappointment in the outcome nor regret for failing to try.
I got in to the program I applied to and ended up being an award-winning, independently funded graduate student who passed prelims while planning a wedding (and writing the real grant for real funding *and* teaching as an adjunct at the local community college). I ended up with an MS only because my advisor fired me following my request for medical leave and a reduction in training responsibilities so I could do my degree-earning research—he asserted someone interested in science education, as I was, had no need for a PhD.
I disagree.
And I disagree *vehemently* that there should be any allowance for any person with a PhD to be indifferent toward—let alone disdainful of—the importance of science communication and education. On one hand, my ability to communicate about science in such a way with new lab employees and graduate students was extremely useful to my advisor; on the other, that ability disqualified me from my position. That contradiction in attitude made my life very hard then and changed the entire trajectory of my life, but the pain I felt then is inconsequential to the pain being felt by all of us *right now* as we experience the real-world consequence of the failure of science to appreciate and *honor* the value of effective scientific communication and engagement with the public.
Thank you Katelyn, never stop! You make it easier for the rest of us to get the word out appropriately and understandably. Those of us educating our patients are grateful for you!
Your proposed communication strategy is 100% the greatest need in my opinion. The scientific community cannot currently "compete" with the monolithic social media platforms that are unfortunately the source for many Americans' "research." Having a national mechanism to communicate with, to EDUCATE the masses who will not (or perhaps are just uncertain how to?) retrieve reliable info is going to be instrumental in our nation's response to this ongoing crisis as well as future public health events. Keep up your tremendous work. You are appreciated!
I’d love to see this become a topic of importance in every research lab in the World, Thank you! 😻
100% agree! Fighting the misinformation pandemic is just as important as battling the viral pandemic.
I have deeply appreciated every word you've shared since the start of the pandemic. You've pulled together information from across the globe in a meaningful and understandable way. I look forward to your updates, and until I was kicked off Facebook (targeted by an anti-vaxx troll) I shared them freely. You are a gifted science communicator.
I have just one teeny quibble with today's post. I beg of you -- please use the phrase "1918 flu" pandemic, instead of the inaccurate, but distressingly too common, "Spanish flu."
Thank you.
Good morning,
One comment and one quibble on this morning's newsletter. First the quibble: the phrasing you used implied that the OSTP Director's elevation to Cabinet status was connected to the policy memo released last week. I think that news dates back to January, when Eric Lander's nomination was announced.
My comment is broader and it relates to your using the OSTP news as a springboard for your points about science communication, esp. re: the pandemic. I agree 100% with everything you said, but I found the connection to OSTP to be awkward. OSTP has traditionally had a minimal presence in the health arena -- largely because it get out-muscled by more powerful types like the HHS Secretary and the Domestic Policy Council. That's left OSTP to focus more on non-medical areas of S&T (and non-HHS aspects of policy).
The awkwardness I see is in placing an expectation on OSTP to lead on the issues you outlined. Maybe they can. It would be great if they did, and Lander being a life scientist is probably better positioned than previous OSTP Directors to be influential in that arena. But, given the history, I know it is not a natural fit for them.
Again, these are just thoughts I wanted to share. And, mostly I just wanted another excuse to let you know how much I appreciate the wisdom, insight, and clarity you have provided these past 18+ months.
Michael Sieverts
Great post! Scinece communication is something that I have been struggling with the past 18 months in my day job as our work has gained a wider audience during the pandemic. I'm curious about the database you created for YLE that you mentioned at the end.
Is there a way to get a question to you besides commenting on a post? Seems wrong to ask something unrelated to the topic.