Since last November’s U.S. presidential election, I’ve been
in hiding. My hiding has been mostly figurative, but sometimes literal, with me
hiding my head under the bed covers.
Like many, I was stunned by the results. And the assaults on science have
been fast and furious since the new administration took office. Contemplating
this election and what lies ahead has been daunting and depressing for many of
us, especially for those who work in, value, and respect science. I’ve felt immobilized, but it’s time for me
to leave that in the past. It’s time for me to think about how I can stand up
for science in the coming months.
Responses to the election on social media include calls for
scientists to engage with the administration and with the science-skeptical
public. Both scientists and science
advocates are calling for scientists to become more involved in public dialogue
and become part of our political landscape, even run for office. But what does
this mean for science communicators? I don’t feel I can answer that question
for all science communicators, but I’m trying to answer it for myself.
How can I become part of the long-term dialogue that we need
in order to restore public confidence in science? I’ve worked on museum
exhibits and other public communications for 20+ years and I’m accustomed to
explaining science in everyday language. But what I’m not accustomed to is
having discussions about science that aren’t centered on scientific evidence
and facts. However, that’s where most of our public dialogue is today, in a
facts-lite or fact-free zone. Too many
people don’t trust science and scientists, so scientific facts, even when presented with great clarity, won’t necessarily help a conversation progress.
The challenge for me, both as a science communicator and a
citizen, is presenting my positions convincingly without assuming that factual
content will persuade. I suspect that contemplating such conversations is a conundrum
for more than just me these days.
I’m getting some idea of how to have facts-lite
conversations from social media. I’m a big fan of Twitter, but most of my Twitter
community is fairly like-minded, interested in science, nature, and
conservation. On Twitter, I’m mostly preaching to fellow choir members.
However, the same isn’t true of Facebook. My Facebook
friends and family span a wider political spectrum and include people who
aren’t necessarily science advocates. On Facebook, I’ve tried entering into a
few conversations with people who think differently than I do.
I’ve learned to do this carefully and with restraint. Social
media is a place where people who may be kind in person show a different face,
sometimes turning into bullies. And there are some people who don’t seem
capable of a calm exchange—they want to rant. In those cases, I find it best to
stop responding pretty quickly (as much as I may want to defend my point).
But occasionally, I have an exchange on Facebook from which
I learn something. For instance, I posted
a newspaper article about the Trump administration blocking government
scientists from communicating with the public. I called it un-American (perhaps
too provocative a word choice). A woman I’ve
never met, a friend of a Facebook friend, asked “If the information has never
been made public, how can we be sure this is really un-American?”
My first reaction was irritation at what I considered a silly,
or perplexing at best, question. But fortunately, I didn’t respond right away.
I took some time to think about her question and gave her the benefit of the
doubt. Perhaps she wasn’t being contrary; maybe she truly didn’t understand
what I meant. So I attempted to calmly clarify
what I meant.
I introduced myself as a science communicator who works with
scientists regularly. I said that science works by being open and transparent,
and when scientists can’t share their findings publicly, it hurts scientific
progress and denies everyone access to important data.
I tried to speak from the heart and avoid any hint of
confrontation or irritation. It was not the greatest answer in the world; I learned that I should invest some time in crafting a few brief “elevator
pitch” answers on topics I care about—to be ready for next time.
More importantly, I was reminded how essential it is to
listen and think about what others are saying and not to react too quickly. While I
want to defend science, getting defensive isn’t a productive way to do so.
The woman to whom I responded didn’t leave another comment,
so I don’t know if my answer was useful to her.
But her question was useful to me. Trying to answer her, and thinking about the friendly conversations
all science supporters need to be having with others, was thought-provoking for me.
Restoring public trust in science and scientists will
be a long journey, a journey on which I’m only one of many travelers. And thus
far, I've only taken a couple of baby steps. But at least these steps are getting me
out of hiding.
Next up? Writing a couple
of clear, non-confrontational signs for the March for Science.
No comments:
Post a Comment