Sharing Science

            After working in a stem cell and regenerative medicine lab for three summers, I have experienced first hand the difficulty explaining scientific research projects to “laypeople.” I frequently found myself “dumbing down” the explanation of my project after more detailed explanations had warranted nothing more than a blank stare. Many times if asked what I was doing in the lab I wouldn’t even attempt to explain my project, instead I’d provide the synopsis that my primary investigator researches liver regeneration in zebrafish. The response was typically something along the lines of “zebrafish, eh? Seems they’d be a lot different than humans,” a statement that highlights the fact that people are mainly interested in science that affects human life in some way. Science that fits this criterion generally won’t encounter difficulty convincing others that they should care too, especially when it comes to convincing the people who actually “matter” for the future of the project. It is because these people that “matter” will have some sort of science background, whether they be people working at the NIH or future collaborators, they will be able to understand and appreciate the complex scientific jargon found in journals and grant proposals.

            So what about us “laypeople?” How do we hear about and understand new scientific discoveries? For the main part, a person with a limited scientific background will obtain information on new findings from the media. While some news outlets do a good job at checking the facts and sources of their information, others focus more on putting out the most sensational story possible. One prime example is the 2002 BBC News report that an unnamed German scientist had determined that blonde hair would become extinct within 200 years, a story that was late proven to be a hoax. As someone asked in class, should the media be held more accountable for putting out accurate stories about science? I’d argue that the answer is most certainly “Yes.” Inaccurate stories infuse the public with faulty understandings of scientific principles and cause controversy when their opinions do “matter” such as when choosing whether or not to vaccinate their child or when pressuring their congressmen to oppose certain scientific projects like those involving embryonic stem cells.

            How can scientists better learn to communicate their own work in a manner in which people lacking a scientific background can understand? Do you think increased interaction between scientists and nonscientists would strengthen or weaken scientific research?