Understanding that "Gut Feeling"

         I think that there’s definitely something to be said for intuition.  When presented in a dry or unappealing way, science can be, as Colbert says, “all fact and no heart”.  It’s sometimes tough to connect with something when you feel it is not accessible or compelling, especially when making important decisions—whether about health, diet, mental state, or purchasing. When we have gaps in our knowledge about a concept related to science, it’s often easier to go with our “gut feeling” rather than spend time researching, evaluating, and interpreting information with which we’re not familiar. We often rely on the interpretations of doctors, mental health professionals, journalists, and yes, even celebrities when something is frightening or foreign to us.  Our propensity to allow others to interpret scientific findings can be helpful, but also presents the danger of receiving biased information. Bias, whether intentional (and, consequently well-intentioned or ill intentioned) or unintentional, is impossible to avoid.  When we process information, we bring out past experiences, beliefs, and relevant knowledge to our interpretation.  This is almost impossible to avoid in some degree. 

            That being said, I think there’s a difference between being sensitive to your audience and understanding bias versus reporting something that is “truthy”.  I think that science writers can report a story is a manner that is sensitive and has a combination of “heart and brain” without omitting or overly biasing the material.  Sometimes, it is the science writers’ job to interpret sensitive or confusing material and we must take it as our responsibility to present the material in the clearest and most accessible way, while still preserving most of the science behind a concept.  I think that it might be appropriate at times to insert a point of view into a piece, but there is a difference between a point of view and “truthiness”.  Substituting “truthiness” for truth in the media can prevent individuals, corporations, and policy makers from accessing the most meaningful and scientifically sound material, which can affect the decisions that entities of all levels (individual, corporate, industrial, etc) make.  Reporting the “truthy” story may lead to misinformation and misconception, so as science writers, we must walk a fine line between being sensitive to our readers’ needs and aware of bias and reporting material that is less than truthful.  It is important to ensure that we’re reporting science news with the most attention to integrity and a keen eye towards avoiding the pitfalls of “truthiness”.  

The Fight Against Misinformation, or, "How to Eat a Monstrous Whale"

            I think that the tendency of vaccine-autism advocates to believe Jenny McCarthy over scientific evidence speaks to a source-confirmation bias.  When individuals are having their beliefs reinforced (whether they are credible or built upon misinformation), they are more likely to ascribe to beliefs that may be scientifically unsound.  The idea that other people believe the same thing is powerful, and in the case of vaccine-autism advocates, there are hundreds of support groups, Facebook pages, lobbyists, politicians, and celebrities trumpeting the link between vaccines and autism.  This indicates to me that science writers have a formidable challenge: to change the minds of vaccine-advocates, who have influential groups (and a former Playmate) telling them that they are correct in their thinking.  The only way to approach this is with measured, meaningful steps, sort of like the way Melinda Mae prepared to eat the whale in the Shel Silverstein poem:

            As a science writer, the vaccine-autism advocates and others who may need to increase their scientific literacy for their own (and others’) health present us with a challenge.  With regard to something as important as vaccinating a child (and, increasingly, preserving the “herd immunity” for those who are unable to be vaccinated due to outside circumstances), science writers need to “up the game”.  I’m not saying that we need to be shoving our truth in the faces of the vaccine-autism advocates, much to the contrary.  I think that science writers need to seriously evaluate how we approach populations who cling to misinformation in spite of science.

           

            In the Lewandosky journal article, the authors talk a good bit about recommendations for decreasing the effects of misinformation.  Integral in dispelling misinformation and replacing these misconceptions with more scientifically sound ideas is the idea of discussion.  When it comes to creating lasting and meaningful change in the minds of the public, persuasion is not a monologue.  It is so important to discuss the reasons why an idea is based in misinformation, keeping in mind the importance of sensitivity.  An individual who believes in a scientifically unsound idea is still entitled to those beliefs, and attacking those beliefs may feel like an attack on the person himself.  It is essential to approach the individual in a respectful way that seeks to dissect the differences between fact and fiction in an accessible way (think of that “incomprehensible” Lancet retraction with the autism findings).  This is a “sit-down chat”, as my father says, not an instance where we lob information at the individual and assume that they will want to scrape our omnipotent knowledge off of the floor once we’re gone.   

            In order to create this respectful discourse, it is essential that we work to understand the source of the misinformation. We need to put ourselves in the shoes of the parents of a non-verbal autistic child, who are looking for answers as to what is causing their child’s behavior.  Having a non-neurotypical child is a challenge for many parents: it can cause relationship stress, exhaustion, financial woes, and, in some cases, can cause parents to sacrifice friends, careers, and dreams for the future.  These parents (and those who share their concerns) are victims of the human tendency to seek patterns and look for answers.  While science writers can illuminate that vaccines do not cause autism, we need to be careful in the way that we challenge the beliefs of others.  If we take away a cause and a belief system, we should be conscious of what kind of effects this might have on parents and advocates.

            Consequently, we must replace this misinformation with powerful, scientifically-valid information to which those who espouse a connection between vaccines and autism can connect.  The Lewandosky article discussed how important it is to replace the misinformation with fact that can fill the gaps in the narrative caused by the rejection of misinformation. In this case, science writers could introduce the increased awareness among clinicians, the expanded spectrum for autism and regressive developmental disorders, other environmental factors, and the possible genetic link discussed in the Wired article as explanations for where autism comes from and why diagnoses are on the rise.

           

            Finally, I believe that it is science’s job to foster a healthy skepticism in the population. Science writers can contribute to this by asking their readers to question the sources of their information (“who is writing?” “with whom are they associated?” “what kind of study was performed?” “what conclusions were reached?”).  Additionally, by writing compelling articles and making other sources of information on the topics accessible to our readers, we are increasing the amount that an individual can learn about the topic.  Additionally, we can be careful not to sensationalize or overextend findings before they have been found to be scientifically valid.  As one of the articles from the reading so eloquently put it, “you cannot un-ring a bell”.  Before sounding the alarm, science journalists need to consider the ripple effect of their announcements. 

          

          Someday, I hope that we can look back on the vaccine-autism connection the same way that we look at the geocentric hypothesis or the Four Humor theory of disease today.  Like these outdated ideas, a push of discovery to replace misinformation with new information is necessary, and science writers must be prepared to deliver this information in a sensitive and accessible way to the public.  

We'll get there, someday. 

The Great Science Giveaway

                First of all, I want to take some blog space to say how utterly cool Dr. Hirsch-Pasek is.  She seems like a pretty incomparable human, and Ursinus was so fortunate to have her come to talk to us.  I immensely enjoyed her talk, and wish that she would come and hang out more often!

                One of the most important things that I took from Dr. Hirsch-Pasek’s talk is that it is of utmost importance to make scientific findings (and the concrete benefits from those scientific findings) available to the general public. The best way that she did this (in my humble opinion) was to take her research findings about learning through play and turn those findings into the basis for the Ultimate Block Party event that is now traveling nationally and internationally.  This is one of the ways that science can work to “give” itself to the general population: by taking research findings and translating them into actual policy changes, opportunities to improve the general public’s lives, or a giant Block Party in Central Park.  One of the best ways to give science away is to give the general public direct access to the positive changes that science can create.  However, this is not enough.  People cannot just eat out of the hand of the benevolent scientist, unaware of the science and theory behind the policies, disease or behavioral interventions, or educational legislation.  An understanding of the science behind the everyday improvements is necessary—this is where the science writer comes in.  It is the science writer’s job to make the science behind the Ultimate Block party interesting and compelling, because (unfortunately!) Dr. Hirsch-Pasek cannot be everywhere at once. 

                Another way to “give away” science involves the idea of humility and a desire to help others for greater good.  I think that the notion of “giving science away” has a lot to do with setting aside ego and desire for recognition.  When an individual places the interests of others above his own, it creates a community and a more egalitarian relationship.  Think about every single research project that an Ursinus student does: when he or she ventures off of the map a little, toward that shadowy place of foreign research journals or “niche-y” subjects, toward the place where Myrin’s subscription does not extend, there is a wall of paid subscription access.  Why, if I am making a good-faith effort to expand my scientific (or humanities or social science or music) knowledge, is my access denied because of my lack of subscription to a journal?  These kinds of partitions between the knowledge and the knowledge-seeker are an enormous roadblock to seeking knowledge.  I think that the problem of the unavailability of meaningful science writing is compounded by the unavailability of general scholarly science materials.  Even if the general public wanted to access science materials, these kinds of elitist roadblocks would prevent them from doing so without a subscription. While I think that scientists need to “give away” their science, that is not enough.  They need to be the ones who are involved in bringing it to the people.  Scientists and scientific disciplines must work to change the public perception of science as an elitist and “scary”.  It is not enough to “open the doors” to science; scientists and science writers should make the general public want to step over the threshold and enter a world where they can challenge themselves and discover a different way of thinking.  As a science writer, I think it is supremely important to give science away—to make science exciting and engaging and to encourage people to pursue their scientific interests further.  But, if institutions, academic journals, and individual scientists are not going to do their part in “The Great Science Giveaway”, it will be a long road.

On a related note, one of my favorite ways that some top universities are giving science away (and other disciplines!) is through access to their course materials, called Open Courseware.  Check out MIT’s open courseware offerings here: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/find-by-topic/