Last Saturday, we witnessed our nation’s scientists don their lab coats and goggles in resistance. They flooded the streets to protest against both the recent attack on facts and the arguably more insidious popular indifference to these data-driven conclusions. Fittingly, many of the desperate messages paid homage to Earth Day, lamenting the current administration’s baseless denial of climate change and the proposed slashing of the EPA’s budget by 31 percent. To the chagrin of the scientific communities, these dramatic cuts are just the tip of the iceberg – which is, if we are to rely on fact, melting at an alarming rate. The Trump administration has proposed cutting NIH funding by about $6 billion, which is 18 percent of its total budget. The budget aims to leave the arts and humanities reeling as well, calling for elimination of the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Endowment for the Arts, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the Institute for Museum and Library Services.
Marches took place in about 600 cities around the world, featuring signs and symbols that ranged from humorous to foreboding and often an amusing combination of the two.
A personal favorite read, “What do we want? Evidence-based science! When do we want it? After peer review!”
What was most telling about the state of science communication was the simplicity – however exasperated the sign holder – of some of the messages. “Climate change is real, Donald,” chastised one sign. Others stated, “Without science, there is no medicine,” and another even just, “Science Matters.” In the setting of a protest, academics were forced to pare down their messages to the length of sound bites so they could be heard. Is this a step forward in communicating with the everyday American, or is it merely a shameful manifestation of diminishing regard for scientific inquiry?
It is no surprise to the scientific community that communication is not one of its many indispensable strengths. There are factors beyond the stereotypical mantra that scientists are a self-selecting group of poor communicators. To an academic, the importance of a scientific finding is self-evident. Being asked to make one’s research “palatable” to the general public can be uncomfortable for a researcher; it can strip a discovery of its nuance and leave it open to questioning from those outside academia and other relevant circles. The key word in this issue, however, is “ego.”
As an aspiring scientist, I have undeniably fallen prey to the aforementioned mentality when contemplating issues of insufficient science communication. The default position, while comfortable, is narrow-minded: If someone does not acknowledge the evidence, why make an effort to convince them otherwise?
We should be careful, though, not to mistake skepticism – however uninformed – for disrespect. “Democratizing” discoveries is a way to make scientific findings actionable outside of academia. What is more, reaching out to the general public is an acknowledgement that data belongs to all of us, and this outreach may have the potential to help mend relations between the “elite” and everyday Americans. This broken relationship has been proven to be a point of vulnerability through which politicians rally those who feel neglected by academia and the “elite,” and thus far, the results have been disastrous.
There is no need to minimize one’s work in translating it; the sole imperative is that we adapt our language to reach a broader audience.
Contact Alizeh Ahmad at alizeha ‘at’ stanford.edu.