ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology Centers
Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related institutions.
*****************************************************************************

This article cites a number of studies on how bad science (like the  
conviction that vaccines cause autism) is spreading, and what it  
takes for people to accept good science.  It is a really thorny  
issue, as anecdotes are more compelling that the uncertainty of  
statistics, and good storytelling inevitably trumps real research,  
which by its very nature is subject to contradiction.

At the original link, below, there are lots of clickable links  
leading to the original research.

Eric Siegel
Director and
Chief Content Officer
New York Hall of Science
www.nyscience.org
(718) 699-0005 x 317
esiegel at nyscience dot org


ORIGINAL LINK:  http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080224-getting- 
the-public-to-pay-attention-to-good-science.html

Getting the public to pay attention to good science

By John Timmer | Published: February 24, 2008 - 07:15PM CT

We're all familiar with news talk shows where two individuals, both  
with impressive credentials, argue for completely incompatible  
positions. Unfortunately, these sorts of arguments aren't limited to  
social or political issues, but have increasingly extended into the  
scientific and medical realms. Aside from providing an indication  
that you can find someone with an M.D. or Ph.D. that's willing to say  
nearly anything (see infomercials for further evidence), these  
disagreements are likely to leave the public confused over where to  
find credible scientific information.
Separating the scientific wheat from the chaff

The importance of quality information was driven home by a recent  
study that revealed a tendency for false or misleading information  
regarding breast cancer to appear on web sites devoted to alternative  
medicine. So, how is the public supposed to identify quality  
scientific information? The recent American Association for the  
Advancement of Science meeting included a session devoted to  
understanding how the public receives and evaluates scientific  
information.

Carl Bialik, The Wall Street Journal's numbers guy, discussed the  
problems the public has in terms of receiving decent numerical  
information. Bialik cited various examples of news stories that  
pushed numbers with phony precision, originated from invalid samples,  
or presented inappropriate statistical measures.

Bialik suggested that part of the problem is with readers and  
viewers, who like to have concrete numbers to hang on to but rarely  
care enough to explore how those numbers are generated. On the  
production side, a lot of the unexpected statistics get played as  
human interest stories, drawing someone other than a qualified  
science reporter. Pressed for time, the stories go out without a  
detailed examination. Bialik's solution involved researchers working  
with journalists to ensure that numbers are presented properly; the  
American Statistical Association also keeps a list of members willing  
to work with the press. For the public, the message seemed to be that  
a story shouldn't be trusted simply because it had numbers attached  
to it.

David Goldston, the former staff director for Congress' House  
Committee on Science, focused on the challenges of communicating  
scientific information to lawmakers. His message was that, contrary  
to popular opinion, most members of Congress like science and want to  
be informed. Scientists, however, have a lot to learn about reaching  
them on their terms.

The first issue is where to reach them. Scientists, like everyone  
else, get a buzz out of visits to the Hill, but Goldston argued that  
they should visit members of Congress in their home district if  
possible—they'll be competing with fewer people for attention there.  
Once the visit starts, scientists should expect to be treated with  
respect, but they need to remember to return that; most members of  
Congress and their staffs do have the ability to understand  
scientific issues if they're well explained.

As for the actual communications, Goldston emphasized that  
researchers need to delineate when they're talking about science, and  
when they're talking about policy. As he put it, policy is acting  
despite residual scientific uncertainties, and the most reasonable  
action can't be determined scientifically, so it needs to be made  
clear when someone drifts into personal opinion. The science has to  
be conveyed in clear terms that make sense to a nonscientific  
audience. "Only use metaphors when what they're substituting for is  
actually confusing," Goldston said, "and make sure they aren't more  
confusing than the issue."
What to do when expertise doesn't matter

With the press and politicians covered, Anne Schuchat of the Centers  
for Disease Control talked about a public issue that never used to be  
contentious: vaccination. She cited estimates suggesting that public  
vaccination efforts have saved the US $43 billion and prevented 1.8  
million cases that would have led to tens of thousands of deaths.  
Despite the lack of evidence for harm, however, vaccines are getting  
the blame for a variety of childhood ailments, and more parents are  
deliberately opting out of vaccination programs. In the US, about 0.3  
percent of parents are now opting out; Schuchat says that these  
families cluster, demonstrating how opting out is a largely social  
phenomenon.  Unfortunately, it also enhances the risk of disease  
outbreaks.

Schuchat mostly discussed how personal concerns fed in to vaccination  
decisions. "Fifty years ago, disease was very real to parents," she  
stated, noting that parents put forward 1.8 million schoolchildren to  
take part in testing of the polio vaccine simply because polio was a  
concrete risk, while the risks of the vaccine were abstract and minor  
in comparison. Now, with most vaccine-targeted diseases existing only  
in the memories of older family members, the risks of vaccination— 
discomfort, a rare adverse reaction, even unfounded rumors of an  
autism link—seem more concrete than the disease itself.

How do medical authorities overcome these perceived risks? Simply  
speaking from a position of authority isn't enough, Schuchat argued.  
She cited surveys indicating that, for credibility assessments in  
areas of "low concern" (she suggested Tsunami risk in foreign  
countries as one example), US citizens are happy to defer to  
expertise, rating it as accounting for 85 percent of their  
assessment. When the topic shifts to areas of personal concern like  
family medicine, the importance of expertise vanishes. Schuchat said  
that it drops to where it accounts for only 15 percent of the  
decision, equal to a sense of honesty and openness, and far below the  
value of empathy, which accounts for roughly half of the decision.  
The message was pretty clear; for the public, how decent medical  
information is conveyed counts for more than the quality of the  
information itself.

The clear message of the session was that a command of facts is never  
going to be good enough to convince most segments of the public,  
whether they're parents or Congress. How the information is conveyed  
can matter more than its content, and different forms of  
communication may be necessary for different audiences. As became  
clear in the ensuing discussion, most of the public act as consumers  
of information, with journalists acting as middlemen.  To connect  
with the public, scientists have to work with the press to ensure  
that two things happen. Reporters have to overcome their ingrained  
aversion to the uncertainties of science, and have to avoid  
presenting uncertainties as a matter of balance that's addressed via  
material from crackpots with credentials.

***********************************************************************
For information about the Association of Science-Technology Centers and the Informal Science Education Network please visit www.astc.org.

Check out the latest case studies and reviews on ExhibitFiles at www.exhibitfiles.org.

The ISEN-ASTC-L email list is powered by LISTSERVR software from L-Soft. To learn more, visit
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html.

To remove your e-mail address from the ISEN-ASTC-L list, send the
message  SIGNOFF ISEN-ASTC-L in the BODY of a message to
[log in to unmask]