Page 24 - 1052-5173-27-11

2016–2017 GSA-USGS Congressional Geoscience Fellow Final Report
Science
Communication
and the Era of
“Fake News”
Kirstin L. Neff
One of the things that has most surprised me about working on
Capitol Hill has been the indispensable relationship between
Congress and the press. It has been said that the press is the fourth
branch of American government, and my time in a senator’s office
has shown me the deep truth of that statement. You could have the
most brilliant legislative idea, or the strongest conviction about a
policy, but none of it matters unless you can communicate it to the
public in such a way that they will hear, understand, and care
about your message.
Throughout my fellowship year, I’ve often had the opportunity
to work with our office’s communications staff to make sure that
news of our legislative work reaches our constituents. I’ve contrib-
uted to and fact-checked press releases, statements, op-eds, and
speeches, with a goal of not only getting the science and technical
information right, but expressing it in a way that engages journal-
ists and their audience, our constituents. I’ve been reminded that
the basic tenets of journalism are not only who, what, when, and
where, but also why it’s relevant to the lives of readers and view-
ers. I’ve learned from my communications colleagues how to
frame an issue and avoid the kind of technical vocabulary that
makes a reader turn the page or a viewer change the channel.
As scientists, we know it takes trial and error to find out what
works to clearly communicate our work to a lay audience. Perhaps
you’ve been interviewed by the local paper or a blog about your
research, only to see the final article and grimace at an inaccuracy
that arose from miscommunication. Perhaps you’ve appeared on a
radio program or podcast and struggled to avoid using technical
jargon. The events of the past year have led many scientists to turn
their attention toward political debate, yet the first thing we often
realize is how ill-equipped we are to engage with the public on
scientific topics.
Just as scientists experience how easily their work can be mis-
understood or misconstrued, so do politicians, whose statements
and actions are held under a high-powered microscope, facilitat-
ing misinterpretation. Political communication involves not only
explaining the why, often using stories from constituents to dem-
onstrate the reasoning behind votes or co-sponsored legislation,
but also about the how: Congressional procedure can be difficult
to understand and counterintuitive, even for those who practice it
daily. It is this difficulty that gave rise to former presidential can- understanding that the U.S. government is authorized to repro-
didate John Kerry’s infamous 2004 quote, “I actually did vote for
[supplemental military spending in Iraq and Afghanistan], before
I voted against it.” Kerry was alluding to a procedural vote before
final passage of the bill, which was altered with amendments dur-
ing floor debate. He failed to explain that to an audience that (jus-
tifiably) knows and cares little about Senate procedure. He strug-
gled, like many scientists, to avoid jargon and meet his audience
where they stood.
24 GSA Today | November 2017
Thankfully, there are a growing number of avenues for scien-
tists to practice and develop their public communication skills.
The proliferation of podcasts offers an increasing number of
opportunities for scientists to discuss their work before a lay audi-
ence. Across the world, science pub nights are increasing in popu-
larity and offering scientists an informal venue in which to present
short, often humorous talks highlighting the joy and wonder of
their scientific endeavors. I was fortunate to have the chance to
present at D.C.’s Nerd Nite event, hosted by professional science
communicators who are eager to share their tips and tricks for
making your science entertaining and meaningful. Blogging
about your work is another quick entrée into communicating with
lay audiences.
But at the same time that the scientific community is recogniz-
ing the need to engage with the press and tailor their work to lay
audiences, the press itself is undergoing heightened external pres-
sures and institutional changes. Traditional print media are strug-
gling to find a functional business model in the digital age,
resulting in a consolidation of print sources and fewer resources
for in-depth reporting. Cable news outlets increasingly rely on
commentators and less on investigative journalism. And newer
online sources are bringing a greater diversity of perspectives
and stories into our newsfeeds, expanding the conversation but
sometimes serving as an echo chamber, reinforcing existing
beliefs. In this era of change and uncertainty, leaders who would
see the power of the press diminished have promoted the idea of
“fake news,” threatening the credibility of our indispensable
fourth branch of government.
Scientists currently have a wealth of opportunities to engage
the public with their work, from highlighting the value of federal
research and development funding to explaining the real-world
applicability of their work. Just as politicians must justify their
actions and decisions to their constituents, so must scientists now
justify the value and relevance of their work. The necessity of
applying scientific knowledge to policymaking has never been
more clear as we face increasing natural hazards and big decisions
about the energy, transportation, and technology sectors. The les-
sons I’ve learned in communication on Capitol Hill are relevant
also to scientists: Use commonly understood vocabulary (even if
you think it oversimplifies!), meet your audience where they
already are (in the pub or on your local news), and lead with why
your work matters to their lives. For scientists who want to
engage, there is a wealth of opportunity to spread the word about
the value of science to society.
This manuscript is submitted for publication by Kirstin Neff,
2016–2017 GSA-USGS Congressional Science Fellow, with the
duce and distribute reprints for governmental use. The one-year
fellowship is supported by GSA and the U.S. Geological Survey,
Department of the Interior, under Assistance Award no.
G16AP00179. The views and conclusions contained in this docu-
ment are those of the author and should not be interpreted as
necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or
implied, of the U.S. government. Neff works in the office of
Senator Martin Heinrich (D-NM) and can be contacted by e-mail
at Kirstin_Neff@heinrich.senate.gov.