Skip to main content

Science with Impact - Anne Helen Toomey ****

It may be a cliché that many scientists are bad communicators - but that doesn't make it untrue. All too often, scientists either don't want to communicate outside their own circle, or are very bad at it - but the reality is, both from a funding viewpoint and to make sure science has a positive impact (a keyword in Anne Helen Toomey's assessment of how scientists should look at their communication) we need scientists to be better at engagement.

The opening of the book leans quite heavily on Star Trek, which might divide audiences a bit - one danger in communication is thinking that everyone else shares your enthusiasms, though as it happens, it works for me. (Incidentally, I don't know how a self-designated Trekker, apparently a 'more distinguished term' than Trekkie, could refer to the 'USS Starship Enterprise', a bit like referring to Dr Doctor Toomey.)

There's an element here that's similar to books like How to Talk to a Science Denier, looking at why some don't follow scientific consensus (Toomey has an excellent example in a US island that's disappearing due to climate change impacts, but the residents won't accept this). But there's more to Toomey's book. Science denier challenging books (and many scientists) use an approach that approximates to 'My view is right, can't you see that, stupid?' But Toomey suggests we can learn lessons from the eradication of polio from India in a very short timescale by listening rather than lecturing. And that we need to concentrate more on social influence than on straight information like the leaflets beloved of health services, or catchy slogans. The two keys, she suggests are direct contact with people with appropriate scientific views and redundancy in provision (with, of course, an appropriate ability and attitude in communicating to others with different starting points).

There's plenty more, for example, on the importance of researchers sharing information with those who are involved in their area of study (for example environmentalists giving useful information to farmers). It's not unreasonable for the non-scientists to ask 'what do I get out of this?' especially when the science is funded by the public. Toomey also looks at peer reviews, ways to communicate and the importance of moving from the idea that science proves things to a better understanding of uncertainty.

There's relatively little here on better writing, which is perhaps the biggest omission. Toomey rightly emphasises that better writing is not enough - but the fact remains that not only are most scientists' attempts to communicate with the public poor, the majority of scientific papers are badly written as writing per se. I may be be biased, but I think scientists could make more use of science writers to communicate with the wider public. Overall, though, an important and thoughtful contribution to the debate on both how get the message of science across and how to ensure it results in appropriate action. (Just a shame the price of the book isn't mass market.)

Paperback:   
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee or taking out a membership:
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Introducing Artificial Intelligence – Henry Brighton & Howard Selina ****

It is almost impossible to rate these relentlessly hip books – they are pure marmite*. The huge  Introducing  … series (a vast range of books covering everything from Quantum Theory to Islam), previously known as …  for Beginners , puts across the message in a style that owes as much to Terry Gilliam and pop art as it does to popular science. Pretty well every page features large graphics with speech bubbles that are supposed to emphasise the point. Funnily,  Introducing Artificial Intelligence  is both a good and bad example of the series. Let’s get the bad bits out of the way first. The illustrators of these books are very variable, and I didn’t particularly like the pictures here. They did add something – the illustrations in these books always have a lot of information content, rather than being window dressing – but they seemed more detached from the text and rather lacking in the oomph the best versions have. The other real problem is that...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more