Welcome to Eureka Street

back to site

MEDIA

The ills and thrills of talking about science

  • 06 April 2016

 

When Alan Alda was 11, he threw a simple inquiry to his teacher. What's a flame? The response he received was less than satisfying.

'All I heard from the teacher was "it's oxidation". That didn't explain anything to me. I didn't know what oxidation was.'

It's a neat illustration of a modern problem. The mere declaration of scientific facts doesn't work.

Alda, veteran screen actor and star of M*A*S*H and The West Wing, visited Australia recently for the opening of the Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science at the Australian National University. Alda's approach is distinctive: he helps scientists take improvisational acting classes to prepare them for audience interactions.

'I was desperate to try to find some way I could be helpful in getting scientists to communicate their science with more vividness, and more clarity,' he told ABC News. 'Most of all, clarity. Not to dumb down the science but to do be clear about it, so the rest of us feel that they're talking our language.'

This mission statement removes simplification — it redirects efforts towards transmitting the thrill of investigating the natural world, and spurring engagement and excitement in the process of scientific inquiry. It's important not to undervalue this shift. Merely presenting over-simplified factoids is no longer sufficient in a world filled with phenomena like climate denial and the anti-vaccination lobby.

For science to be communicated effectively, it needs to spark passion and excitement.

No category illustrates this more clearly than climate science. Recently, there has been a significant increase in the public acceptance of facts underpinning climate science — yet another poll, conducted at the same time, suggests action on the issue is quite far down the list of priorities for the public.

  "We consume the outputs of scientific inquiry like we consume everything else: through a filter of emotion, bias and personal connection."

 

Though encouraging greater public acceptance of the science underpinning climate change has been considered a priority for the past five years, it hasn't translated into the Australian public perceiving excess greenhouse gas emissions as a salient, high-priority risk.

The threat of human-induced climate change, discovered and delineated by scientists, will not inspire strong public support for action, without the enhancement of science communication and the empowerment of scientists to form deeper, more meaningful connections with audiences.

Happily, there are instances of new formats of science communication looking to inspire these deeper connections.

As part of the World Science Festival in early

Join the conversation. Sign up for our free weekly newsletter  Subscribe