POP-SCIENCE: FACTS OR FICTION? FRIEND OR FOE?

Miguel A.R.B. Castanho

Miguel A.R.B. Castanho. Ph.D. Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal. Profesor, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, School of Sciences, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal. Address: Campo Grande Ed. C8, 1749-016 Lisboa, Portugal. e-mail: castanho@fc.ul.pt

Summary

Scientific production and public understanding of science are linked but public images of science are not always realistic. Scientific work is mostly pictured in the media as in-lab activity and evolving in big steps, overlooking the "extra-lab" work and all the daily small-step contributions to scientific progress. Misconceptions in public awareness of science may seriously hinder scientific progress (e.g. in chemistry). Journalists play a role in building a more realistic image of science. Unbiased communication between journalists and scientists is thus crucial. Unfortunately, such communication is not always simple. This essay is a scientist’s view on the interplay between journalists and scientists.

Resumen

La producción científica de un país está asociada a la comprensión pública de la ciencia, pero la imagen que el gran público tiene de la ciencia no siempre es realista. La actividad científica es difundida por los medios de comunicación social, sobre todo como trabajo de laboratorio que avanza a grandes pasos, en detrimento de una concepción del progreso lento y laborioso que involucra gran actividad fuera de los laboratorios. Las deformaciones conceptuales en el entendimiento de la ciencia por el público pueden afectar seriamente el progreso científico, siendo la Química un ejemplo. Los periodistas desempeñan un papel fundamental en la construcción de una imagen más realista de la ciencia. Es por ello importante mantener una comunicación abierta y constante entre periodistas y científicos. Infelizmente, tal cosa no es siempre posible. Este ensayo es una visión de un científico sobre las relaciones entre científicos y comunicadores.

Resumo

A produção científica de um país está associada ao entendimento público da ciência mas a imagem que o grande público tem da ciência nem sempre é realista. A actividade científica é difundida pelos meios de comunicação social sobretudo como trabalho laboratorial que evolui em grandes passos, em detrimento de uma concepção de progresso lento e laborioso que envolve muita actividade exterior aos laboratórios. As deformações conceptuais no entendimento público da ciência podem afectar seriamente o progresso científico (a ciência Química é um exemplo). Os jornalistas desempenham um papel crucial para a construção de uma imagem mais realista da ciência. É portanto fundamental manter uma comunicação aberta e constante entre jornalistas e cientistas. Infelizmente, tal nem sempre é possível. Este ensaio é uma visão de um cientista sobre as relações entre cientistas e jornalistas.

KEYWORDS / Public Understanding / Media / Journalist / Science Communication /

Received: 09/16/2003. Accepted: 10/09/2003

Science at the Bench and at the Couch

When the scientific activity bursts in the labs of a nation, there is a natural burst in the public understanding of science among its citizens. Portugal is an example. Settlement of a democratic regime in 1974 and its adhesion to the European Economic Community (now European Union) 12 years later re-launched the scientific activity, now regarded as an engine of progress and development. From 1990 to 1999, for instance, scientific production increased continuously, both quantitative and qualitatively (Figure 1). Concomitantly, new scientific magazines started to emerge. Large editorial groups became interested in the Portuguese market, in spite of its small demographic dimension. The readership of broad-spectrum scientific magazines in Portugal has been characterized in sociological studies (Costa et al., 2002). Portugal is just an example of the fact that science does not confine itself to labs; it floods public life and powers social awareness. Science becomes part of popular culture (pop-science).

Exposing science to the public is rewarding and should be felt by the scientist as a duty. After all, the money spent in R&D programs comes mostly from taxpayers. Nevertheless, caution is mandatory. Misconception in scientific issues may be severely costly. Pop science can be dangerous too.

Cautious Science

Nuclear physics was regarded in the 50’s as a solution-provider science. It was common belief that nuclear power would be greatly beneficial to the world, and no one would imagine that by the end of the XX^th century, an energetic crisis would be a timely issue. The drawbacks of civil use of nuclear power and the fear of its non-peaceful use led to a generalized "no-nukes" political option, which is now comprehensible in social terms. However, the social disgrace of nuclear physics had dramatic scientific consequences. Nuclear physics and nuclear chemistry suffered dramatic and ever-increasing budget cuts. In a paper conveniently entitled Where will nuclear chemists come from? Jonathan Beard (2003) analyzes the current shortage of experts in this area, when the nuclear issue is being brought to the political agenda again.

Chemistry is now in the process of becoming a badly wounded victim of misconceptions being generated and diffused among the public opinion in most countries. Rather than being regarded as the solution for environmental problems, chemistry is taken as the cause of such problems. The concept of "green chemistry", familiar to scientists in chemistry-related areas, has no social counterpart. Chemistry is increasingly regarded as a dark science; as dark as smoke and oil spilled over the oceans. The concept of "chemical", as opposed to "natural product", is intuitively associated with health threatening compounds (e.g. pesticides or dangerous drugs). "Chemical-free" consumer products are nonsense, but only experts seem to notice; for the majority of citizens, the expression bears no ridiculous fault. In the 60’s chemical engineering was regarded as a source of progress and the support of the industrial wealth of nations. Nowadays, the prestige of this discipline is declining and universities in many countries experience reduction in the number of students wanting to enroll chemistry courses, except for biochemistry.

Pop science has since then shifted its goodness paradigms to other disciplines, such as biotechnology and information technologies. Biomedicine / Molecular Medicine seems to be the most recent tide in pop science paradigms. Interestingly, one cannot help noticing that despite the potential wonders of this discipline and its direct effects on mankind, the fears of biological war and terrorism, transgenic food and human clones, are granting a not too enthusiastic perception in the public domain. Biological war, transgenic food and clones are now replacing the old fears of chemical war, pesticide contamination and mutants, respectively. Unless one is able to show that ignorance is always the worst alternative and ethics-driven science is possible, the future may not be promising for life sciences.

The image of a scientific area in a nation’s population may have plenty of erroneous concepts and misguided ideas. If pop science drifts from science itself (factual lab-science), the ultimate goal of social development and progress may be seriously jeopardized. Pop science must exist but not just any pop science.

How can one contribute to a better pop science? Who regulates and what are the rules that govern the relationship between scientists and the public? Before trying to answer these core questions, let’s try to review the public image of a scientist. Does it make sense?

Sneaking into the Lab; Who do you See?

The public image of a scientist is largely settled by movies (Palevitz, 2002; Cohen, 2002). Sometimes, a fantasy scenario is chosen where a real factual portrait of a scientist is clearly not sought (e.g. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein). Indiana Jones and Mr. Q (Ian Fleming’s 007) are examples of adventurer and gadget inventors, respectively, still far from a serious image of a scientist. Steven Rose (1997) analyzed several movies and selected The Man in the White Suit (1952), ET (1982) and Life Story (1987) as representative examples of movies where there was an attempt to make scientific activity look credible and realistic, regardless of the script story itself. A Brilliant Mind (2002) and The Rock (1997, where the lives saving hero is a biochemist) can be added to the list. All these movies have in common the portraying of science as being composed of giant-steps that change the course of human evolution. However, reality is not so impressive. Scientific progress is made of many small steps that sum up and, occasionally, reach a big achievement. Science as seen by the public diverges from science as made by scientists.

Another important difference between science and its social public image is related to non-experimental scientific activity. A lot of library research is needed before entering the lab to start producing results to solve a problem. Even later, when the results are enough to "solve" a problem, the scientist has a lot of work ahead, while turning knowledge into information by writing papers, communications, etc. (Castanho, 2003). Scientific research activity is much broader than it appears to be. The public largely overlooks pre and post-lab activities. Who can bring the public image of science closer to reality?

The Scientist, the Public and the Middle-man

Scientists become visible to the public when they are asked by journalists to comment on breaking news. It also happens, although not so often, that scientists are themselves the news. In this last case the "middle-man" between the scientist and the public is a reporter. So, the answer to Who can bring the public image of science closer to reality? is: scientists and journalists as long as they understand each other. Unfortunately, this mutual understanding is far from being simple or easy. There are published communication guidelines for scientists meeting the press (Finn, 1997a-c; Edwards, 1999; Granado and Malheiros, 2001; Gastel, 2002; http://nasw.org/csn). What can go wrong? Scientists value scientific soundness, whether talking of a mathematical theorem, a chemical process or a medical application. Journalists value immediate social impact; therefore, mathematical theorems are hardly valued by journalists as opposed to medical applications, which are frequently considered as news. In this sense, the interplay between the different scientific areas (math, physics, bio/chemistry, medicine, etc.) becomes an iceberg, where some of these areas are made invisible and only the tip is clearly visible to all (Figure 2). Even medicine, considered in a broader sense than clinical applications only, becomes itself an iceberg; phase 3 of clinical development (efficiency and safety of treatment confirmation) is more likely to attract journalists’ attention than basic research.

Communication between scientists and journalists is mostly biased by the clash of values between them. Nevertheless, other reasons exist. The perfect answers for journalists are "yes" or "no" (the top of simple and clear messages). The scientists however live in a probabilistic world: "yes" and "no" have abstract meanings. "If", "maybe" and "probably" (the journalists’ nightmares) are scientists’ most used words. Moreover, acronyms and technical terms may lead to strong reasoning in labs but prevent any glimpse of communication outside lab walls. "I applied DSC on DPPC and found T_m above room temperature", for instance, maybe a very strong proof in the lab but is not at all convincing for the journalist and the public.

However, the problem not only arises from the interplay of scientists and journalists. It is hard for a scientist to renounce his strict rules in correct and precise use of language to clearly communicate with the public/journalist. Two classes of problems strike the scientist:

Identity problems

It takes a long time to train a scientist. During university years (graduation, doctorate and post-doc), we are educated to a thorough usage of words and concepts. Consider some examples. Lipid, fat or grease are not synonyms. Polysaccharide and sugar are not overlapping concepts. To be understood by non-scientists, the scientist must talk about fat and sugar when he really means lipid and polysaccharide. The replacements may help building a clearer speech for the crowds but are surely stressing for the scientist. Identity self-injury is the feeling. Self-esteem problems may follow.

Loss of respect and its consequences

Promoting science is not very well regarded in most countries (Gwyne, 1997). Those standing on the top of the ivory tower sometimes regard promoting science for general audiences as a minor activity. This problem mainly affects countries where science is not part of the cultural legacy. You might not only fail to receive credit for your effort; you may be left behind in assessment exercises.

Conclusion

Science cannot be dissociated from the human endeavor of progress, whether through technology or sustainable growth. Moreover, science can only be a product of free intellectual activity and it is intimately related to society needs. So, science is vital for democracy and is increasingly prosperous in increasingly democratic societies. Public awareness of science consolidates democracies and, in return, reinforces science. Even scientists with no concerns for democracy should care for public promotion of science: the funding that supports scientific R&D is mostly public, whether directly or not (Lepkowski, 1997). Taxpayers should see science as a good investment, with public beneficial rewards. However, the public image of science (pop science) should be built upon secure foundations. Chemistry, for instance, is suffering a severe drawback resulting from its bad public reputation. To save chemistry from being the pollution science, an effort has to be made by chemists to seek journalists and show the public that chemistry has the answers, not only the problems. Scientists that do not feel comfortable seeking and communicating with journalists should read some advice first and try later. Most of them would be surprised how easy the first contact is most times.

REFERENCES

1. Beard J (2003) Where will nuclear chemists come from? http://www.chemweb.com/alchem/articles/1043851835909.html        [ Links ]

2. Castanho M (2003) What do biological sciences students need to know about knowledge management? J. Biol. Educ. In press.        [ Links ]

3. Cohen H (2002) Science in the make-up chair. The Scientist 16: 20 (available at http://www.the-scientist.com).        [ Links ]

4. Costa AF, Ávila P, Mateus S (2002) Públicos da ciência em Portugal. Gradiva. Lisboa, Portugal. 193 pp.        [ Links ]

5. Edwards C (1999) Meet the press but on your own terms. http://news.bmn.com/hmsbeagle/46/labres/adapt.htm        [ Links ]

6. Finn R (1997a) Scientists and the news media. I-Why it’s good to talk. http://news.bmn.com/ hmsbeagle/08/people/pressbox. htm        [ Links ]

7. Finn R (1997b) Scientists and the news media. II-How to work with reporters. http://news.bmn. com/hmsbeagle/11/people/pressbox.htm        [ Links ]

8. Finn R (1997c) Scientists and the news media. III-How to work with institutional public relations people. http://news.bmn. com/hmsbeagle/13/people/pressbox.htm        [ Links ]

9. Gastel B (2002) Helping the reporters get it right The Scientist 16: 43 (available at http://www.the-scientist. com).        [ Links ]

10. Granado A, Malheiros JV (2001) Como falar com jornalistas sem ficar à beira de um ataque de nervos. Gradiva. Lisboa, Portugal. 165 pp.        [ Links ]

11. Gwyne P (1997) Can you promote science without loosing respect? http://news.bmn.com/hmsbeagle/16/people/pressbox.htm        [ Links ]

12. Lepkowski W (1997) Public science drives innovation Chem. Eng. News. Sept. 1^st: 24.        [ Links ]

13. Palevitz B (2002) Film Fest Fetes Science The Scientist 16: 18 (available at http://www.the-scientist.com).        [ Links ]

14. Rose S (1997) Einstein to Frankenstein: movie images of science The Biochemist 19: 5.        [ Links ]