This presentation will provide a different view of Science Communication. It tries to be thought-provoking. Hence, we do not follow established lines of Science Communication introductions.

The title is adopted from a book by Randy Olson.

There might be a clash of cultures within some of the examples, since the communication environment and the demands might be slightly different from the German setting – nevertheless, communication is based on the same principles all over the world.

1

2

Science – unfortunately – is driven by negativity. The scientific process is that of formulating a hypothesis based on data and observations, that will become open to critique by being published to the scientific community. Said Science Community then tries to find falsification. You never ever end up with a thesis, that is true - it is always only true as long as it is not falsified. This process is based on critical thinking, which is kind of the opposite of what a non-scientific audience seeks in communication.

Picture: Doc Brown from the motion picture “Back to the Future”; retrieved from: http://mentalfloss.com/article/69321/missing-links-doc-brown-back

3

Communication is the act of conveying intended meanings from one entity or group to another through the use of mutually understood signs and semiotic rules.

Communication is not limited to vocal or written information – everything we do is communication.

Communication fulfills multiple social functions and services.

Nevertheless, Science itself has not yet fully understood, how important communication is for all of us. But times are changing …

4

This might be the single most important recommendation one has to introduce to administration boards of research institutions and universities.

If you gather scientific knowledge but are unable to convey it to others in a correct and compelling form, you might as well not have bothered to gather the information at all. (Olson2009:9)

The first encountered the mechanisms of inheritance, the second talked about sex and violence and the survival of the fittest! Who got more attention? Mere decades after Mendels publication, merging both theories created a robust theory of Evolution. If Mendel had been a better communicator, this theory would have been formulated decades earlier, leading to faster progress in the field of evolutionary biology.

Fleming discovered penicillin in 1929 and published his findings in a small scientific publication. About 2 0years later, Ernst Chain rediscovered Flemings work, we wondered if Fleming was still alive at all. Communicating the finding of penicillin would have led to an earlier development of applications of penicillin, that would have saved maybe thousands of lives.

5

Picture: Ann Glover, The Times/NPA; retrieved from: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environment/article4267243.ece

5

This is, how sicentists thought about communication until about the end of the 1950th.

Instant Messaging: The delusion of literal-minded people that communicating to the mass audience is as simple as blurting out what you have to say! Information does not automatically lead to understanding.

The biggest mistake by Mendel and Felmming:There is no “the facts speak for themselves!” – not in communication.

Picture: Aristotelian Sender Receiver Model; retrieved from: http://www.marketingcommunicationsblog.com/communication-model/

6

Communication is getting more and more complex – at the end, we introduce noise as a placeholder for everything, that is too complex to be introduced into the model itself.

The single most important part of new, modern communication models is the Feedback-loop which allows for a dialogue between communication partners.

Mass Media – and especially online media – creates a googolplex of interactions where, following Watzlawick or Luhmann, communication takes places.

For example: statistics show, that round about 15% of resuscitations succeed in western Emergency rooms. Nevertheless, due to TV series like Emergency room or Movies, the public understanding is, that more than 2/3 are successful.

All Pictures: Communication models, retrieved from: http://bizcommunicationcoach.com/types-models-of-communication-in-business/

7

If we do have a model for communication, the next step is to look out for parameters of successful communication. The named bulletpoints are summaries for these parameters and their complex interaction.

Never ever dumb down your science. The audience will become aware, that you think, they are too stupid to understand complex issues. This is contra-productive and leads to greater distance between you and the audience. You have to create an atmosphere, where the audience finds itself on an equal level as you are.

Al Gore created an atmosphere of equally by giving very personal accounts on the state of his son’s health for example. His presentation was not 100% accurate, but he also was not boring. Therfore, his “movie” reached 50 Million $ at the boxoffices, while other climate change documentaries like “Too hot not to handle” flopped.

In contrast, try conciseness. Try to be as accurate as possible by using the fewest possible words.

Picture: Advertising of “An inconvenient truth” by Al Gore; retrieved from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth

8

After talking about communication models and their success-parameters, let’s take a look at the environment in which science communication takes place an how this environment has changed over the last decades.

1865: Reuters is able to publish an article of the assassination of Lincoln in Europe –mere 12 days after the event actually took place. This is the time of a vastly growing transoceanic cable network.

The Titanic sunk 1912 – the news about the disaster reached out into the world on the same day, but facts were provided three days later, when the Carpathia reached New York with survivors.

In the pre-internet age, scientific lectures where highly popular. Today, only limited public presentations are attended by larger audiences. But take the IQ-Novel-price as an example, where literally thousands come to Harvard to listen to improbable research (65.000 viewers 2015, and more than 25.000 viewers of the 2016 September 22nd ceremony) and watch “real” Nobel Laureates sweeping the paper planes from the stage.

9

Later, the communication of risks and hazards became popular with the mass media, talking about potential threads and dangers.

After WWII, the positive aspects of science and technology became the driving forces for science communication. The prospect of a better live, of new technological developments (especially in the entertainment industry) as well as medical innovations became center of attention.

In 2005 more information was published within this single year (most via the internet) than in the entire history of writing since its inception in Mesopotamia (Source: Bloem, van Doorn, Duivestein. Me the Media).

For further reading, see Kohring, Wissenschaftsjournalismus, 2005

9

Today, ideas and concepts such as “System Earth” represent the modern holistic approach to science. The old heterogeneity and diversity of Science is challenged by complex phenomena and growing awareness for interactions between system compartments.

10

The nature of Science communication has changed, too. From being education-oriented, science communication today has to answer the demands of a diverse audience. Hence, science communication today is not alone focused on education and information.

11

You became person of the Year by Time Magazine in 2006. In 2005 YouTube launched and only 21 month later was bought by Google for 1.65 Billion $

We currently experience the third media revolution: after print (Gutenberg in 1450) and electronics (first radio network in 1909, first TV broadcasts about 1928) now it is the internet and consumer generated content.Thank you, Youtube: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/11/thank-you-youtube/305285/

12

Communication specialists and public relations consultants will tell you, that science communication has to adopted the media logic. But be aware, that science communication is focused on slightly different goals than product or organizational communication. Science communication is – still - something different than marketing.

13

Both societal systems show: Human, Truth, Data and Debate/conflict as parallel characteristics. For Science, the hypothesis and theory is important, for the media, the story is most important.

Texts about science and media taken from Merriam-Webster, Wikipedia, and other encyclopedias.Wordcloud generator by Jason Davies: https://www.jasondavies.com/wordcloud/

14

Head: “Think before you act”-stereotype of scienceHeart: “believe in what you do”Guts: “having a gut feeling about something, belly laughs “Just do it”Going further down, you end up with the sex organs – irrational, chaotic, no logic, universal driving force

15

The audience gets bigger, the lower you get within this model. (Sex sells!)

Science communication should at least reach out to the “guts”!

16

Framing: How content is integrated into a broader story.

Priming: To control of how content is interpreted by presenting a theme within media.

Storytelling: The “And – But – Therefore”-Rule or the “Logline Maker”

Agenda Building: The influence of external Actors towards the media agenda(Stakeholders define, what the media will communicate).

Agenda Setting: The influence of mass media towards the public agenda (Media dictates, what the public is talking about).

Which concept you should include into your communication depends on the goals you envision for science communication. 3M for example is a very good concept for face to face communication.

17

19

The logline is adopted from Hollywood screenwriters.

This is not a law – but you might find it helpful to start with the logline. If you get used to create stories within science communication, you will find it more an more easy to change “your” logline, to add other compartments and elements to your storyline or even to create a totally new strategy for storytelling. The logline, nevertheless, will help you to get started.

20

Why does this not work for science? It does not work for scientists!

Scientists are trained to question everything – even a story. But for a story “Suspense the disbelief” is essential (Samuel Taylor Coleridge). It is essential, that the audience does not ask “Is this possible?”

21

Which one is more attractive, more compelling, more interesting?

Picture: Preparedness Kit; retrieved from: http://andrewwphumphrey.soup.io/

22

The original blog post on the CDC Public Health Matters Blog May 16th, 2011 by Ali S. Khan: https://blogs.cdc.gov/publichealthmatters/2011/05/preparedness-101-zombie-apocalypse/

23

Quote reaches back to Kurt Tucholsky (1925), but is also ascribed to Stalin (1947)

24

On November 7th 1991 Magic announced, that the HI-Virus was found within his immune system. The HI-Virus was found only 1981, about 125.000 Americans died in this 10 year frame. After 1991 the world became aware of HIV and numerous campaigns to raise the awareness for HIV were initiated.

Picutre: Michael Magic Johnson; retrieved from: http://www.easyreadsystem.com/news/famous-dyslexics-olympic-athlete-magic-johnson/

25

This kids will tell the story of Earth quite differently. This is the result of their individual educational, cultural history. Remember, that your audience is a compilation of individuals as well!

Amazonas Indio boy: http://www.nationalgeographic.com.es/mundo-ng/grandes-reportajes/el-valor-de-los-kapayo_7912

Tuareg boy: https://www.1843magazine.com/style/the-line-of-beauty/the-turban

Aborigines boy: http://ozoutback.com.au/Australia/abchptte/slides/1987040806.html

Inuit boy: http://kingofwallpapers.com/eskimo-pictures-for-kids/img-014.php?pic=/eskimo-pictures-for-kids/eskimo-pictures-for-kids-014.jpg

26

Other than in scientific publication voices, you are allowed to express yourself. Scientific publications only allows for non-personal, third-person language (The study will show… instead of I will show, that…).

27

28

29

Policy: a strategy, how someone acts (education policy = Bildungspolitik)

Politics: the overall concept (Politik allgemein)

Science tends to focus on policy rather than politics. Take the CCS-Law in Germany as an example, were the scientific community aimed towards a federal law to allow CCS-technology, but totally failed to address the actual decision makers, the individual politicians.Another example is the issue of over-fishing, were scientists focus on new laws rather than communicating the issue to fishermen.

30

Politicians usually have only limited time resources. Therefore, you have to be quick with communicating your idea. This is true for the use of all media – film, print, talk, whatever!

31

An Example – actually, it is a 40 second example, but you can go into detail everywhere you like.

32

33

34

These are the core elements of drama.Following Freytag’s concept called Freytag’s pyramid, this is:

Exposition (Plate boundaries), rising action (Earthquakes occur), climax (not in Istanbul), action falling (research is conducted), resolution (raising awareness and educate)

35

Nevertheless, you have to be well-prepared, to have the facts and information ready. But you are not he driver of the media-car – you are the landscape in which the journey takes place.But: this might depend o the medium you are dealing with! The improvisation approach is good for fast, modern media, where people react on what they see rather on what terminology you use.

36

Communication workshops tend to focus on the two objective elements! – which is good, but still lacks the “heart and guts”!

37

A good example is the debate about Intelligent Design, were evolutionary scientists constantly lost to their ID-counterparts, because the scientists laid out facts and information, accusing ID as “ not science at all”. ID-representatives won, because they told about the need to teach “critical thinking”, “freedom of expression” and to allow students to make their own mind and to question established theories.(This is related to the idea of Head versus Heart, were Evolution is Head and ID is Heart.)

38

It becomes the same, when there is the need to talk for example about scientific misconduct – than, the science department suddenly is forced into risk communication! – but this is a marketing perspective.

39

L‘Aquilla 2009 showed different, but nevertheless a great communication opportunity:

In 2012 six scientists and one ex-government official were convicted of multiple manslaughter for downplaying the likelihood of a major earthquake six days before it actually took place. This triggered not only a debate about earthquake prediction and early warning, but also about science integrity and the demand and restrictions for scientists to communicate their findings.

Picture: Epicenter of the 2009 L’Aquilla EQ; retrieved from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_L%27Aquila_earthquake

40

Take the debate about Intelligent design as an example, where evolutionary scientists used the critique from ID-supporters to talk about genetic research, stem cells and even about possible impacts of globalization and climate change to biodiversity.

The guts came in, when Henderson proclaimed the Flying-Spaghetti-Monsterism or Pastafarianism. His article published on his website started a debate about evolution and scientific content within school curricula in the US and elsewhere.Site-kick: Henderson presented the argument that "global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of pirates since the 1800s“

The original letter at https://web.archive.org/web/20070407182624/http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/An article about this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1498162/In-the-beginning-there-was-the-Flying-Spaghetti-Monster.html and

Picture: The Flying Spaghetti Monster; retrieved from:

41

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster#cite_note-Telegraph-9Picture: The correlation of Climate Change with the Number of Pirates; retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20070407182624/http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

41

The organizational value of Social Media communication.

Sources: Branding, see Kanter and Fine (2010)Seltzer & Mitrook, 2007; Waters, Burnett, Lamm, & Lucas, 2009; retrieved from: Adoption of social media for public relations by nonprofit organizations; L. Curtis et al. / Public Relations Review 36 (2010) 90–92; Elsevier)

42

Target audiences and what they expect from a distinct social media channel – this is the starting point for a social media strategy for your institution or organization.

Table adopted from: Strategic Social Media for Science Marketing at Fraunhofer;Source: Oliver Mauroner; Social Media im Wissenschaftsmarketing - Strategien und Nutzungskonzepte für Twitter, Blogs und Social Networks; wissenschaftsmanagement5 • 2011

43

The individual value of Social Media communication.

44

Impact on a researcher’s credentials for example by tweeting and blogging about papers. This has led to spikes in the number of article downloads, even for older literature that had been available for years without much previous attention.

An example for the global collaboration potential of social media is: researchers, supported by the Smithsonian identified thousands of fish specimens in under a week via social media (Facebook) to get export permits for further research.http://nmnh.typepad.com/100years/2011/03/crowdsourcing-via-social-media-allows-rapid-remote-taxonomic-identification-.html

Graph Source: Shuai X, Pepe A, Bollen J (2012) How the scientific community reacts to newly submitted preprints: Article downloads, Twitter mentions, and citations. PLoS ONE 7: e47523. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0047523

Picture: Hypostomus taphorni; retrieved from: http://nmnh.typepad.com/100years/2011/03/crowdsourcing-via-social-media-allows-rapid-remote-taxonomic-identification-.html

45

Source: Bik HM, Goldstein MC (2013) An Introduction to Social Media for Scientists. PLoS Biol 11(4): e1001535.doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001535

Juggernaut: Moloch, Unaufhaltsam, nicht zu Vermeiden

46

Picture: Stephen Hawking at the Simpsons, retrieved from:http://klotza.blogspot.de/2016/01/the-simpson-hawking-donut-universe.html

47

Some simple guidelines!

48

If you want to introduce a science communication concept to your organization, be prepared that there will a critique on the lines of medialization. Actually, this is a good critique and you have to find your way to deal with medialization. It depends on you and your communication concept to allow for as much medialization as you want to happen. Nevertheless, without a communication concepts medialization will –sooner or later – take over.

49

A blank page – because there is no robust way to evaluate science communication in a way that will satisfy decision makers at universities and research institutions.

You can count klicks and viewers, you can ask for feedback from the audience – but at the end, you will not know, if your message came through. On a long perspective, you will see effects: growing numbers of students, increased interest in a topic, maybe a much more intense consultation of science by politicians – but you will not be able to trace this back to your science communication efforts.

Nevertheless: commentaries, annotations, citations, unforced communications will show, if you are successful – but these are not “countable” figures for decision makers.

50

At a public debate between climate scientists and climate sceptics, one scientists was asked, why he thinks that the sceptics mislead the audience. The Scientists answered, that this is done “on a scientific level, the audience might not totally grasp.” This is vilifying the audience. This is how scientists become unpopular. This is, how climate scientist reacted over much of the climate debate, especially on the internet.

If you do have the better arguments, use them, but use them calmly. You do not have to convince the sceptics, you have to convince the audience, that your ideas, concepts and facts are right.

Cartoon retrieved from: http://thehigherlearning.com/2014/05/25/from-the-editor-why-i-really-really-hate-everything-about-the-climate-change-debate/

51

Disclaimer:This presentation was held within a workshop at Potsdam University. All pictures are quoted – nevertheless, we do not have legal allowance to publish this presentation while using all the pictures.

Therefore, we ask you to use the presentation only for internal purposes.

52