Talking Science

This morning on Sounds Like Canada, Shelagh Rogers interviewed Dr. Sumaila about some comments made by fishers about harvesting hagfish off the East Coast, or something to that effect (I only caught the end of the fishers' comments). He notes that we're now harvesting the bottom-feeders (e.g. hagfish), literally, for food, and it will not only prevent the ecosystems that they're inhabiting from recovery in the future, but that our society has so little pride that we'd sink this low for food.

What was more interesting was Shelagh's question asking him about whether his use of everyday language to explain his concern meant that he was speaking as Dr. Sumaila the person or as the scientist. This of course implied that scientists, for all intents and purposes, always spoke in jargon. Dr. Sumaila plainly corrected her that he is speaking as both since he's merely using the right type of language for the right type of audience.

Of course, that's not always the case, as evidenced by the newly released "A scientist's guide to talking to the media". It's supposed to be a guide for scientists on how to interview and describe their work to popular media without having it misconstrued or misreported. Because as most people who reads newspapers or any reporting knows, everyone will hear or read about the incorrect fact, but rarely the correction. This puts scientists ill-at-ease when talking to the press because their reputation, and sometimes more, can be at risk over their work.

If it is as useful as it is described, then it will become an important text that all aspiring scientists should read. The Evolution/Intelligent Design debacle has shown the power of rhetoric and how that can sway public opinion over an issue. It is therefore incumbent upon the scientific community to argue in the popular media in an influential and convincing way that the research speaks for itself as truth, in all its messiness. Of course, that's the limitation. Scientific endeavour is a messy process and it can sometimes be difficult to describe. However, we shouldn't shy away from it.
It's also why I think Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth is an interesting and important movie. He took the complex issue of climate change, with all the scientific research behind it and distilled it into a presentation that people of all education could understand. He simplified the message, but not the science. We know this because for all the minor errors that scientists have admitted, they have also stated that the core of his message is accurate. Also, his use of the stunning before/after images of glaciers, etc. to dramatize his point is just powerful.

This is how science should be presented.


P.S. Definitely a good Christmas gift for Katie. And if it happens that I should borrow it, then so much the better. Also made me want to re-read "Politics and the English Language" too.

Update 10/31/06 10:03 AM: By 'this morning', I meant yesterday, as in 10/30/06. I started writing this at 11pm and didn't finish til 1 am. Sorry for the confusion. h/t to Matt for catching it.