Sci Comm That's The Bomb
A hallmark of good science communication begins with not being a pretentious arsehole.
Science communication is important to broadening understanding of scientific research and how it applies in our lives, translating scientific findings in a way that is accessible to all levels of eduction, and building trust in the scientific method.
Unfortunately, because of more than a few bad actors, science communication has taken a hit to its reputation. And, despite having been outed for their poor behavior, many of these poseurs still hog social media and mainstream publications, assaulting unsuspecting audiences with their “expertise” in areas they have no business sticking their noses.
We talk a lot about the perverted sci comm methods of fake Skeptics and their industry friends here, but sometimes it’s necessary to approach it from another angle to see the full picture.
The following is a list of how it should be done.
Good science communication…
Stays in its lane - no epistemic trespassing
Shows humility - recognizing that knowledge is provisional and incomplete
Is open to engagement - teaching and learning from diverse perspectives
Shows self-awareness - recognition of biases
Willing to critically reflect on biases, assumptions and beliefs
Honest about limitations and potential for error
Kind and not judgmental - treats the audience as peers in learning
Seeks to unite people in a common goal, not to weaponize followers against “enemies”
Takes a precautionary approach to domains in which there is uncertainty and where an action can result in serious harm
Does not speak from an ivory tower - uses language that can be understood by all levels of education
Never smug, arrogant, insulting or combative
Sci Comm Sci Mom Kavin Senapathy *pouts*
Aims to reach the majority of people on middle ground, not change the minds of extremists, while still planting fertile seeds for the ones ready to question their beliefs
Defers to trusted experts in domains outside their expertise
Is not fame-seeking, or using the time-tested formula of “fame-trolling,” by critiquing a more successful individual to elevate themselves
Never punches down, especially on sick and suffering people
Punches up on behalf of harmed populations
Gives marginalized folks a platform to speak for themselves, doesn’t speak for them
Recognizes the value of indigenous science and observational evidence
Teaches the scientific method, not a curriculum of fixed, approved conclusions
Doesn’t collaborate with or cite front groups, steers clear of conflicts of interest, and is transparent
While nobody is perfect, these are reasonable behaviors that any science communicator should be striving for. Compare to your run-of-the-mill fake Skeptic and you’ll easily see the stark contrast.