In front of the American Museum of Natural History in New York stands a bronze statue of President Theodore Roosevelt on horseback. Roosevelt was an avid horse rider, and the natural world fascinated him tremendously since he was a kid. He authored scientific articles and about 18 books. His father was one of the founders of the museum, and Roosevelt Jr. donated his private specimen collection to the museum when it opened its doors. “Teddy” Roosevelt is best remembered for his impressive record of saving the American landscape from further exploitation. The state of New York created the Equestrian Statue of Theodore Roosevelt (1940) to honor his enduring legacy.

That the statue stands in front of this museum is no coincidence. The Progressive movement at Roosevelt’s time sought scientific solutions to social and political ills, and scientific education fitted into that agenda as it would create competent, responsible, and productive citizens. “Truth, Knowledge, Vision” is inscribed above the templelike museum entrance, representing the museum’s mission to educate society on the science of the natural world, human cultures, and the universe.

But there are some troubling aspects to the statue: Roosevelt sits heroically on a horse and next to him stand a Native American warrior and an African man, representing colonial power and the primitive society. The racist connotation the sculpture has for decades has led the museum to organize an exhibition on the statue, combined with Roosevelt’s troubling ideas on race, and the museum’s own faults (Addressing the Statue).

That scientific literacy elevates people has motivated science education since Roosevelt’s time. That ideal still stands today, next to pragmatic considerations that scientific literate people likely will support scientific education of the younger generation and public funding of science. Yet, a noble horse rider spreading science to the population from on high has become an obsolete metaphor.  

Meaningful communication requires a sender, a receiver, and a medium. Science communication requires scientists willing to share their work, publics willing to listen carefully, and media to connect the two. It can go wrong on all sides as I will illustrate with three metaphorical elephants. 

In the famous children’s book The Little Prince (1943), the author Antoine de Saint-Exupéry shares his disappointment when he was young that no one was frightened by the drawing he had made of an elephant eaten by a snake. Everyone thought it was a hat. After that experience, the author gave up his ambitions of becoming a great artist. Likewise, scientists often feel disappointed that so few people are interested in their expertise. Or worse: that the publics and journalists misunderstand them. And indeed, it takes effort for laypeople to wade through scientific insider language, to distinguish scientific information from “factoids” (science myths that people commonly believe), and to make sure the information is not politically infested. Even scientific words like theory, uncertainty, experiment, and bias can create the utmost confusion in the media and among the public. This inability to communicate is the first barrier for science communication.

The second elephant comes from an ancient Buddhist parable. A group of blind men encounters an animal but they cannot figure out by feeling what animal it is because they only feel a part of the beast. A wise old man passes by and they desperately ask him who is right. The old man says … all of you, after which they conceptualize the animal as an elephant. Social constructivists often use this metaphor to clarify their epistemological position that the truth can be approached but never be directly assessed and objectively and universally known. Scientists, journalists, and the publics are all “blind” and may have completely different claims of “reality.” This is a hard nut to crack in effective science communication.

The third elephant is the proverbial elephant in the room. This metaphor means that something enormous is present and sensed, but no one dares to bring it up. There are many elephants in the room in our daily personal, social, and political life. Related to science, former vice-president and climate activist Al Gore can be praised for bringing up the climate elephant. Yet, in all the, often high-quality, communication about global warming, the existential threat for humankind and people’s lives remains hidden. The fact that scientists, journalists, and the publics don’t communicate what really keeps them busy is the third elephant that stands in the way of meaningful science communication.

Science communication: A tale of a horse and three elephants that stand in the way of meaningful communication between scientists, the media, and the publics. It is only logical that each goes their way. Scientists immerse in their scientific work (publish or perish!). The publics seek recourse on the World Wide Web. And science journalists are dragged along in “yellow” journalism, “gonzo” journalism, and improper “balanced reporting.”

Let’s pause here for a moment. The tide is unfavorable for science communication (Otto 2016, Chapter 7). Since the abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine (1927) in 1987, journalists are no longer bound to “honest, equitable, and balanced” reporting as the doctrine required. Sensational “yellow” journalism, common at the end of the 19th century, became popular again. Any form of reporting was justified as long as it increased sales. And emotions sell better than science. As a result, scientific journalism suffers from cutbacks and competition for readers and the scientific topics that can be reported. The doctrine of “balanced reporting” persisted though, meaning that for a “true” story two sides of a topic need to be told. Yet, for science communication, this doctrine creates a false balance when “heavy” scientific information is balanced against “light” pseudo-science or even worse, opinions. Another problem for science communication lies in “gonzo” journalism, a journalistic style that conflates a “full story” based on first-hand, personal experiences and emotions, with objective truth. 

The “ethnographic turn” in science communication tries to restore effective and meaningful science communication by researching the receiver. Yes, the public should understand science, but the scientists should also understand the publics. Why is only about half of the population interested in science (Science & Engineering Indicators)? Do scientists only reach this half? What about the people who cannot, don’t need to, or don’t want to be educated on science? What are their truth claims? What keeps them busy?

Throughout their careers, scientists can try to become science communicators. There is no magic bullet for effective and meaningful science communication, but for starters the assignment below can be of little help. Eager to learn more? Take a course in science communication.

 

Review Questions:

Pick a topic you want to share with a lay audience and ask yourself the following questions when preparing for the talk:

• Why should my audience be literate about this topic?
• What is my narrative, what are my storylines and metaphors?
• Is my presentation easy to understand, unambiguous, and respectful?
• What are some possible misunderstandings? What does my presentation not address?
• What critiques may others have on my topic?
• How may the audience get confused by doing their own research on your topic on the internet?
• What is the take-home message?