Narrative / Message control is a huge problem for Psychology. Most research scientists and professors stay out of the public eye for a variety of reasons, but when mistaken interpretations and pseudoscientific stances go viral on social real harm can come from it! What you bring up is so important! We -the professoriate in many disciplines- need to grapple with this. Appreciate your reflections here.
I was thinking about this area of research, and the way pseudoscience has taken over on TikTok, etc. It’s good that kids are more aware of mental health issues, but I worry about all the diagnosing I see going on.
Yes, just so! All the social media visibility is causing us to change how we teach, and more folks need to get out into the media world too. But it’s a hard transition to make, figuring g out how to remain true to the science but also appeal to social media appetites.
I feel very similarly to you about this specific topic (plant intelligence), without knowing all that much about outside of my general plant biology knowledge as a plant ecologist. I’m also highly interested in scicomms around plants, especially blended with lyrical writing styles (something I try to do) and always have my radar out for conversations like this (last time I was in a bookstore I snapped pictures of at least 5 new plant popsci book covers, including this one). I haven’t read your review yet, but would you recommend The Light Eaters to scicomms-oriented plant scientists despite the moments of potential cringe?
Sure! If you lean towards the lyrical, then the florid (sorry!) writing style may suit you better than it did me. And if you can look past the relatively few scientific and historical inaccuracies, go for it! You might also enjoy Beronda Montgomery's review in Nature, linked above, for another perspective.
Ok I’ve read your review now, such a fascinating question about how far to go with metaphor and how useful anthropomorphism is in trying to thing freshly or accessibly about plants. I will keep thinking about this! Have you read Entangled Life by Merlin Sheldrake?
I checked it out of the library but didn’t get far. I did read the bit where he reminds us that fungi are NOT passive conduits for trees to talk to each other—they are living beings with their own agendas. I loved that!
I thought it was a nice example of popular scicomm book by a specialist (granted a young one, but I know his PhD advisor and Sheldrake is definitely a prodigy) who can write well—but at the same time it was hard for me to judge whether it would be too dense for a non scientist.
Effective science communication is one of the most needed tools in any sort of public information/PR campaign to increase the meaningful understanding of and appreciation of issues that affect consequential outcomes like climate change. Yet little science communication is very effective, even if it's well-written.
"Effective" is the key however. If one goal is to craft a compelling story out of an abstract, esoteric or just plain boring topic then one had better be a good storyteller. In other words, to be an effective science communicator, one must be a scientist and a good storyteller.
This is difficult for many scientists because the process implies some ulterior motive, like getting buy-in, and crafting a "message"... it feels inauthentic, disingenuous, like the facts serving the story instead of the story serving the facts.
But that's exactly what's required. If scientists value the continued public support of basic research in the form of taxpayer money from the NIH, NSF, NASA, etc, then scientists need to cozy up to more "taxpayers" and speak to their concerns with accessible language and arguments. Make it clear why they should care about the science you're trying to communicate to them and give them some characters and a good story to keep them reading or listening.
Harmful forces today are effectively casting doubt on broad swaths of science and insitutuional knowledge and systems. The scientific enterprise serves us all, but it may be up to concerned scientists themselves to engage a large portion of the public's interest and help preserve current and future public funding by speaking and writing eloquently and personally, with the urgency the hour demands and while soberly acknowledging the consequences (political and policy) of losing the faith and trust of the public.
I agree with you in part, but disagree that it's entirely up to scientists to fix the problem. We can talk all we want, but if no one is listening, it's hopeless.
"How can scientists help the public understand and interpret our work, but with mutual respect and a recognition that in the end we can not—and should not—control the stories that are told? Maybe for me this is the next “unfinished business”."
This sounds like a book to me, Liz!
You remind me of a conversation I had with a friend recently -- a physical therapist -- about how the financial models for health care really erode the public trust. Every time I go to the dentist, I'm aware that I'm being upsold on something that may or may not be essential. Do I really need the flouride treatment? Same with taking my cats to the vet. If they never leave the house, do they really need every vaccine under the sun?
When we were preparing for my ex's first birth, we took a Bradley class so we could maximize our chances of a natural birth in the hospital. There were some conspiratorial aspects to that course, but a lot of it still makes sense in hindsight -- the birth plan to try to prevent induction (which is sometimes more about the doctor's convenience than medical necessity), birthing positions, etc.
I felt conflicted about some of that because my dissertation is squarely about how scientific physicians won back the public trust after being perceived as grave robbers in the nineteenth century. But sometimes the corporatization of hospitals gets in the way of good medicine. It's hard to know always when doing your own research is a form of self-defense and when it's dangerous.
Hmmm, I will have to think about a book! I really do believe that "science communication" is much more complicated than just getting scientists to talk about what they are doing in jargon-free ways, so maybe there's something there. Conflicted motives is definitely part of it.
It's the great hypocrisy and entitled arrogance of our creed... that we alone are qualified to have opinions that we, like the devout members of any cult, lack the self-knowledge to question. Scientists cast shade on other scientists all of the time - through anti/pseudo-intellectual critique of others' science. What we call scientific rigor is too often merely the ego-centered stubborness innate to small children. But having a PhD, and being successful, like being of legally adult age, does not make one mature, or an adult, or right. Scientific culture suffers from a pervasive humility deficit. When we look around at the world and complain, few of us stop to consider how we have individually helped to build a society and a culture that reflects the smallest version of ourselves. Fewer of us still commit to the internal work necessary to thoughtfully revise the myriad daily acts through which we contribute to the Frankensteinian creature that is modern society. There are two books I recommend to any who might listen: 1) Why We Act: Turning Bystanders into Moral Rebels – by Catherine A. Sanderson and 2) Take the Lead: Motivate, Inspire, and Bring Out the Best in Yourself and Everyone Around You - by Betsy Myers. As they say in recovery circles: "Positive change is an inside job". These books are joyful medicine - compassionate advice that helps us live in alignment with our values, through the practice of frank self-reflection, right action flowing from moral courage, and the generosity of spirit necessary to allow others to exist, as we expect to be allowed to exist.
Thank you for this, Justine! I think you say here is related to the anger I was writing about. The fear of losing control over the way our research is used ended up twisted into arrogance.
When we look at MAGA and wonder where they came from, we should ask ourselves: did we ever attack a person with a good idea, because it wasn’t our idea?
Humankind has no superheroes because we murder them on the way up. It’s a form of discrimination academics will resist acknowledging up until the brink of our downfall. The probability of professional success actually decreases above an IQ ~130. Many hypotheses have been advanced for this. Envy isn’t one of them.
Every human being is willing to admit that others are limited by reduced capacity for understanding. How many human beings are willing to allow a person of greater understanding to exist? This is where MAGA comes from. It’s also where the shark tank of academia comes from. A friend I once helped to publish a paper asked me why I couldn’t recover from prejudice like another friend was recovering from a broken ankle.
Narrative / Message control is a huge problem for Psychology. Most research scientists and professors stay out of the public eye for a variety of reasons, but when mistaken interpretations and pseudoscientific stances go viral on social real harm can come from it! What you bring up is so important! We -the professoriate in many disciplines- need to grapple with this. Appreciate your reflections here.
I was thinking about this area of research, and the way pseudoscience has taken over on TikTok, etc. It’s good that kids are more aware of mental health issues, but I worry about all the diagnosing I see going on.
Yes, just so! All the social media visibility is causing us to change how we teach, and more folks need to get out into the media world too. But it’s a hard transition to make, figuring g out how to remain true to the science but also appeal to social media appetites.
I feel very similarly to you about this specific topic (plant intelligence), without knowing all that much about outside of my general plant biology knowledge as a plant ecologist. I’m also highly interested in scicomms around plants, especially blended with lyrical writing styles (something I try to do) and always have my radar out for conversations like this (last time I was in a bookstore I snapped pictures of at least 5 new plant popsci book covers, including this one). I haven’t read your review yet, but would you recommend The Light Eaters to scicomms-oriented plant scientists despite the moments of potential cringe?
Sure! If you lean towards the lyrical, then the florid (sorry!) writing style may suit you better than it did me. And if you can look past the relatively few scientific and historical inaccuracies, go for it! You might also enjoy Beronda Montgomery's review in Nature, linked above, for another perspective.
Thanks! The line between lyrical and florid can be thin but I suppose even that depends a lot on taste!
Ok I’ve read your review now, such a fascinating question about how far to go with metaphor and how useful anthropomorphism is in trying to thing freshly or accessibly about plants. I will keep thinking about this! Have you read Entangled Life by Merlin Sheldrake?
I checked it out of the library but didn’t get far. I did read the bit where he reminds us that fungi are NOT passive conduits for trees to talk to each other—they are living beings with their own agendas. I loved that!
I thought it was a nice example of popular scicomm book by a specialist (granted a young one, but I know his PhD advisor and Sheldrake is definitely a prodigy) who can write well—but at the same time it was hard for me to judge whether it would be too dense for a non scientist.
'll have to give it another try!
Effective science communication is one of the most needed tools in any sort of public information/PR campaign to increase the meaningful understanding of and appreciation of issues that affect consequential outcomes like climate change. Yet little science communication is very effective, even if it's well-written.
"Effective" is the key however. If one goal is to craft a compelling story out of an abstract, esoteric or just plain boring topic then one had better be a good storyteller. In other words, to be an effective science communicator, one must be a scientist and a good storyteller.
This is difficult for many scientists because the process implies some ulterior motive, like getting buy-in, and crafting a "message"... it feels inauthentic, disingenuous, like the facts serving the story instead of the story serving the facts.
But that's exactly what's required. If scientists value the continued public support of basic research in the form of taxpayer money from the NIH, NSF, NASA, etc, then scientists need to cozy up to more "taxpayers" and speak to their concerns with accessible language and arguments. Make it clear why they should care about the science you're trying to communicate to them and give them some characters and a good story to keep them reading or listening.
Harmful forces today are effectively casting doubt on broad swaths of science and insitutuional knowledge and systems. The scientific enterprise serves us all, but it may be up to concerned scientists themselves to engage a large portion of the public's interest and help preserve current and future public funding by speaking and writing eloquently and personally, with the urgency the hour demands and while soberly acknowledging the consequences (political and policy) of losing the faith and trust of the public.
I agree with you in part, but disagree that it's entirely up to scientists to fix the problem. We can talk all we want, but if no one is listening, it's hopeless.
"How can scientists help the public understand and interpret our work, but with mutual respect and a recognition that in the end we can not—and should not—control the stories that are told? Maybe for me this is the next “unfinished business”."
This sounds like a book to me, Liz!
You remind me of a conversation I had with a friend recently -- a physical therapist -- about how the financial models for health care really erode the public trust. Every time I go to the dentist, I'm aware that I'm being upsold on something that may or may not be essential. Do I really need the flouride treatment? Same with taking my cats to the vet. If they never leave the house, do they really need every vaccine under the sun?
When we were preparing for my ex's first birth, we took a Bradley class so we could maximize our chances of a natural birth in the hospital. There were some conspiratorial aspects to that course, but a lot of it still makes sense in hindsight -- the birth plan to try to prevent induction (which is sometimes more about the doctor's convenience than medical necessity), birthing positions, etc.
I felt conflicted about some of that because my dissertation is squarely about how scientific physicians won back the public trust after being perceived as grave robbers in the nineteenth century. But sometimes the corporatization of hospitals gets in the way of good medicine. It's hard to know always when doing your own research is a form of self-defense and when it's dangerous.
Hmmm, I will have to think about a book! I really do believe that "science communication" is much more complicated than just getting scientists to talk about what they are doing in jargon-free ways, so maybe there's something there. Conflicted motives is definitely part of it.
“ Science advances one funeral at a time. — Max Planck” 😂
It's the great hypocrisy and entitled arrogance of our creed... that we alone are qualified to have opinions that we, like the devout members of any cult, lack the self-knowledge to question. Scientists cast shade on other scientists all of the time - through anti/pseudo-intellectual critique of others' science. What we call scientific rigor is too often merely the ego-centered stubborness innate to small children. But having a PhD, and being successful, like being of legally adult age, does not make one mature, or an adult, or right. Scientific culture suffers from a pervasive humility deficit. When we look around at the world and complain, few of us stop to consider how we have individually helped to build a society and a culture that reflects the smallest version of ourselves. Fewer of us still commit to the internal work necessary to thoughtfully revise the myriad daily acts through which we contribute to the Frankensteinian creature that is modern society. There are two books I recommend to any who might listen: 1) Why We Act: Turning Bystanders into Moral Rebels – by Catherine A. Sanderson and 2) Take the Lead: Motivate, Inspire, and Bring Out the Best in Yourself and Everyone Around You - by Betsy Myers. As they say in recovery circles: "Positive change is an inside job". These books are joyful medicine - compassionate advice that helps us live in alignment with our values, through the practice of frank self-reflection, right action flowing from moral courage, and the generosity of spirit necessary to allow others to exist, as we expect to be allowed to exist.
Thank you for this, Justine! I think you say here is related to the anger I was writing about. The fear of losing control over the way our research is used ended up twisted into arrogance.
When we look at MAGA and wonder where they came from, we should ask ourselves: did we ever attack a person with a good idea, because it wasn’t our idea?
Humankind has no superheroes because we murder them on the way up. It’s a form of discrimination academics will resist acknowledging up until the brink of our downfall. The probability of professional success actually decreases above an IQ ~130. Many hypotheses have been advanced for this. Envy isn’t one of them.
Every human being is willing to admit that others are limited by reduced capacity for understanding. How many human beings are willing to allow a person of greater understanding to exist? This is where MAGA comes from. It’s also where the shark tank of academia comes from. A friend I once helped to publish a paper asked me why I couldn’t recover from prejudice like another friend was recovering from a broken ankle.
You are empathetic and kind. I’d be grateful to speak with you. I’m jamelo@buffalo.edu until the end of the year.