It is no secret that, in general, i.e. outside of dedicated science reporting venues and the occasional medical report on the evening news, the scientific community does a craptastic job of communicating with the general public. While I think we at Nobel Intent do it admirably, we are but an infinitesimal sliver in the pie of science. A report that appeared in a recent edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences highlights a case study of effective science communication and deconstructs it to show what parts may be generally applicable to other areas of science.

"More effective communication is badly needed at almost every level of science," said Kirsten Grorud-Colvert, a research associate in the Department of Zoology at Oregon State University. "It doesn't have to be expensive, but we have to get out of the ivory tower, away from our scientific jargon and work more closely with our various audiences."

The PNAS reports looks at how the ocean science community made the case for the creation of marine sanctuaries and highlights a handful of key approaches that were kept in mind during the process. The basic principles behind these approaches should be effective for any form of scientific communication.

Keys to communication

Know your audience. A key point, and the first one highlighted by the authors. Different audiences require communicators to focus on different details and target different levels of understanding. Any successful communication effort will need to identify the various target groups and their level of background first, then tailor the message to them. Being able to communicate in a manner that is accessible to all of the target audience is key to ensuring that they get the main message.

Identify a few "main messages." Any scientific research effort can be presented extremely broadly, or conveyed with a focus on the details that may be important, but not central to the public understanding of the work. These main messages should be what my dissertation advisers called "parts of your elevator talk"—you should be able to describe your work and why it is important to a stranger during an elevator trip. You should identify the problem, tell the audience why it matters to them, and describe what actions are needed and what benefits would be derived from such actions.

One size/strategy/vector does not fit all. The PNAS report highlights the need for different delivery mechanisms targeted to various groups, or even to ensure that a single group gets the information they need. The authors suggest the use of printed materials, websites, and small group discussions as ways of helping to get your message across.

Learn from your experience. The final point was that science communicators should make an effort to track how successfully they are conveying what they are trying to get across. Clearly, success may not be easily defined, but the paper's authors look upon it either as accomplishing a singular goal (if that was the purpose) or simply increasing the level of knowledge and understanding of a topic among the target audience.

It should also be noted that these four points do not exist in a vacuum. They are synergistic (if you’ll excuse the execuspeak in an NI article), and all of them have to come together for successfully communicating complex scientific issues. Previous research into effective science communications has identified a few broad categories of responses to scientific communications campaigns: a positive, affective response from the audience, interest in getting involved in the process, changing or confirming of scientific opinions, or the simple—yet important—response of understanding the scientific process and content at hand. The authors of the PNAS paper suggest that, before the communication starts, you have to choose which response is your goal.

Your desired response will depend on who your target audience is, and will affect how you will deliver the message. If you are working with school-aged children, then the key responses you hope for are for them to have fun while learning about a scientific topic. This could potentially be handled through a hands-on interactive demonstration or lab, or through a simple Web portal or flash game that illustrates the ideas.

If your target audience is composed of policy makers in local government, however, then the response classes you want to elicit would include understanding the process, but would also include getting them involved and informing them of the relevant scientific consensus or findings. The method of going about this would be entirely different from the one you’d use for children, even if you wish to get the same idea across. More detailed (but jargon-lite) reports and perhaps pamphlets highlighting key talking points would be more appropriate vectors.

As with pretty much any real-world project, the adage "you can have it fast, cheap, or correct; pick two" exists here as well. Unless you are blessed with unlimited funding, your message must be limited in scope. While it is nice to want to target everyone from school-aged children to other researchers active in the field, this isn't always feasible. This is where skilled communicators must put the keys described above into practice and narrow down what is most important. Since one size does not fit all, it pays to identify who you need to target the most and tailor your message to them.

Case Study: Marine Reserves off the California Coast

The case study described in the paper involved the formation of marine reserves off the coast of California, which served as a proving ground of successful science communication. In this effort, there was a solid goal in mind throughout the process: the creation of a marine reserve in the Channel Islands and along the California coast. In order to convince people that this was the right thing to do, the scientists pushing for it had to communicate with an audience from a wide range of backgrounds with an equally wide range of ideas already in mind.

The audience consisted of, among others, resource users, local and national interest groups, communities, land and resource managers, political leaders, and the general public. Each of these groups was comprised of people with differing levels of knowledge about the oceans, and nearly as many preconceived opinions and desired outcomes as there were people. It was up to the scientists involved to present their findings in a completely impartial manner even as they dealt with an atmosphere that was already politicized.

To accomplish the task, marine ecologists who are conducting research in the preserve areas teamed up with science communication specialists to produce a booklet and film titled "The Science of Marine Reserves." In addition, a website "Protect Planet Ocean" was created to inform people about the diversity of the ocean's ecosystems and its importance. The site explained how the creation of marine reserves and marine protected areas are a benefit both to humanity and the ecosystems within. Since the start of the program, over 10,000 copies of the booklet have been sent to more than 57 countries, and the website has seen over 600,000 unique visitors from 220 countries since its launch in 2008.

Despite the public interest, actually setting aside the reserves remains a work in progress, in part because of all of the interested parties involved.