Being a Science Communicator
I’m a science communicator and also worked as a scientist for part of my career. The ways that science gets communicated continue to amaze me. I got so fascinated science communication that I spent part of my graduate school career studying more effective ways to share the discoveries and processes of science with the public. It took me in some interesting directions. Today, I give talks, write books and documentary shows, and articles for online sources, and do podcasts and online videos for clients. Aside from the book and article writing, which are more traditional forms of media, the other ways I share science are methods I never dreamed would exist when I started writing.
How We Learn about the World Around Us
Media and science are ways that humans employ to learn about the universe. The way we see science is influenced by how media reports it. Some of my research focused on negative views of science in the media, and how media comes by those views (rightly or wrongly). In an ideal world, the two would work together. In reality, sometimes that happens. Sometimes it doesn’t.
Last week I was in Boston for a science media awards event called SMASH (Science Media Awards Summit in the Hub). I was a judge for the science media pieces submitted to this festival. The “job” was to watch a set of media pieces (in my case, about earth and space) and judge each one on technical and scientific merits. It’s the second time I’ve judged for this group and each time I learn something new about the craft of communicating science.
The Summit also included sessions focused on how we as scientists and science communicators can do (or have done) our jobs. It was good professional development experience for me. I had a chance to meet and talk with people whose work I have respected for a long time. While we discussed journalism and science communication and the requirements that each places on its practitioners, we didn’t focus a LOT on scientific accuracy in reporting. I wish we could have, but the sessions we DID experience were quite fulfilling on their own. Perhaps next time we can have a session.
Accuracy in Media
For me, getting a story as accurate as I can (within the constraints of time and budget) is important. In the videos I judged, most paid attention to accuracy. There were a few instances where the producers allowed dramatic needs to overpower accuracy. That’s a common failing from documentaries to blockbuster entertainment. People don’t expect precision accuracy in a sci-fi action-adventure flick (although the producers should know that the Kessel Run isnt’ done in 12 parsecs by now). However, we do have a certain level of expectation for accuracy in a documentary. One piece that I didn’t judge, but have seen before, had some egregious errors in it. I found myself wondering how those mistakes slipped through script and visuals review.
Accuracy is Crucial
Accuracy is important when you’re trying to convey some sense of a scientific discovery or a process to people who aren’t familiar with it. Of course, science discovery is a continual process. One finding may clarify or even change a previous one. Scientists know this, and media practitioners should also know it. When I write about Mars, for example, I know that what one mission may uncover will certainly be clarified and expanded by the next one. One big story on Mars is the search for water. Decades ago, we simply referred to Mars as a desert, with all the connotations that word has. Today, although we know Mars certainly doesn’t have the same volume of water as Earth does, we know that it has more than we used to assume it had. Our knowledge changed with the discoveries made by robotic missions. By the time people actually get to Mars to study it first-hand, the Mars water story will change a few more times. And that’s fine. That anticipation of new discoveries actually excites curiosity among scientists AND the public.
Media Focus
Which brings me to the recent Elon Musk Mars mission announcement. It is certainly being hyped in the media, and rightly so. He and his team are laying out an ambitious mission plan with some near-future goals. Whether all that Mr. Musk wants to do CAN be done in the timeline he suggests is something that only he and the engineers can determine. But, I like the fact that he’s saying something, putting a timeline out, and laying plans. It’s important to do that. He’s not the first, but he’s doing it at a time when the drumbeat for human missions to Mars is getting louder. These things go in cycles, so he’s right to catch onto the cycle as it rises to its peak.
In reporting on Musk’s announcement, the media would do well to look at how people planned Mars missions in the past. In the 1980s, I attended and participated in meetings called “Case for Mars”. Folks representing institutions from universities and NASA and the aerospace industry and the science media laid out plans to send humans to Mars. Many of those plans look a LOT like what Mr. Musk and others have come up more recently There are only so many ways to get people to Mars, all of them audacious and risky. We knew that a long time ago, and it’s still true today.
Media Direction
What I’d like to see the media do now is trace the timeline of Mars mission planning and notice what flowed from the meetings we had in the 80s and beyond. It’s not a new idea to go to Mars. What’s new NOW is that someone is staking his company’s future on it. In the past, countries and agencies did that. Mr. Musk is now moving the plans beyond the realm of speculation and hope. It’s a risky thing to do, audacious and bold. I hope the media will see that.
