The Problem With Science Communication (Veritasium)

[DennisN]

I just saw this recent video by Veritasium (a popular science channel), featuring e.g. Carlo Rovelli.
I'd say it's one of the best Veritasium has made, and one of the most important.
What can I say? I'm deeply impressed.

It's about the problems of hyping science news and how to counter it.
Examples that appear in the video include fictional wormholes, quantum computing, primordial gravitational waves, room temperature superconduction, faster-than-light neutrinos, fusion etc.

The Problem With Science Communication (Veritasium)

 

[gleem]

Perhaps articles must carry a certification of accuracy like an Impermater/Nihil Obstat from some official scientific organization as is used by the Catholic Church on books etc related to the Church's doctrine.

 

[f95toli]

I've watched the video and I agree that it is very good.
That said, I think it somewhat over-simplifies some complicated problems. It is -correctly- pointed out that we scientists do need to do some PR for our results. However, it then goes on to say that this is so that we can increase our chances of winning more funding in the future (or something to that effect).
I don't think this is -in general- correct. When we write normal proposals we will refer to previous publications in scientific journals and these proposals are generally also reviewed by other scientists. Hence, under normal circumstances it won't matter at all if one of your papers was noticed by mainstream media (I've never seen a reference to a news story in a proposal I've written or reviewed).
It might be different if you are trying to get funding from say a private foundation, but at least in physics that is not the norm.

Most of the time the pressure to "hype" your research is actually coming from the organisations that paid for the research in the first place; they want to be able to show the public (i.e., the taxpayers) that they are spending their money wisely and that the research they are supporting is important. The problem is of course that accurately describing the content (and importance) of a typical paper in a way that is understandable to a general audience is usually very, very difficult. It is very easy to get carried away.

The main reason why this is so complicated is of course that the funding agencies (and ultimately the taxpayers) do have a right to know what we are doing with their money. Hence, while most scientists don't like needing to "demonstrate impact" of their research, most of us still understand why it is part of the job.

At a higher level there is of course also issues around science policy and what field are being supported/funded (which certainly is influenced by hype), but even then discussions with funding agencies and politicians are typically not taking place in the media, but in various closed meetings, expert groups etc.

 

[gleem]

I don't think what appears in the press carries much weight in the grant departments of NSF, DOD, DOE, NIH, etc.

 

[Orodruin]

I don't think what appears in the press carries much weight in the grant departments of NSF, DOD, DOE, NIH, etc.

Perhaps not, but it does influence the public image of what science is and what is going on. This influences people. Ultimately this both feeds crackpots as well as lure people to science with a false pretence about what science is.

 

[phinds]

@DennisN, interesting article. Thanks for posting.

 

[BillTre]

I don't think what appears in the press carries much weight in the grant departments of NSF, DOD, DOE, NIH, etc.

Usually not, but sometimes yes.

I know a really smart guy from graduate school who did a post-doc projec that was rather successful, but was flagged by Proxmire for a golden fleece award.
This was an ironic award for political purposes to highlight government waste.
Problem was the subject of the study (finding mutants in the frequency that C. elegans worms pooped) sounds loopy, but the mutagenesis found many mutations affecting all kinds of rhythmic behavior in these simple animals.
This guy no longer had any prospects for getting grants and changed what he did.

Negative PR for someone naive about how it looks to the outside world.
In the small world of research biology, his stuff looked brilliant.

 

[nsaspook]

That brings back memories, Proxmire loved the lime-light.
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=3j41AAAAIBAJ&pg=7156,2843471