Stand up for Science: Practical Approaches to Discussing Science that Matters

Information about Stanley Watson

What is your name, title, and role at the University of Michigan?

Stanley Watson, Theophile Raphael Professor of Neurosciences in Psychiatry, Co-Director of the Molecular and Behavioral Neuroscience Institute

Stanley Watson on Audience

Who do you interact with when working in the science media space? What makes this audience different from other groups that you might interact with?

Usually local reporters, sometimes press conferences with reporters. Some of these guys are really sophisticated, but I would say that most reporters are laymen, and they bring some of their own perspective to it.

What suggestions do you have for making interactions with science media producers and/or consumers as effective as possible?

If, as a scientist, you're trying to work with a reporter, then I think you need to have free discourse to check understanding – by saying things like, "Do you understand what I'm saying?" or "I don't know what that word means." It's an important thing to have a rapport between the two people. You're trying to work together.

It's like when you go see your doctor. You really should have the dyadic conversation. "Yes I did this,” or “No, I didn't do that and I don't understand what you're talking about.” The nature of the communication is critical. You want to be sure that the information is accurate. From a reporter's point of view, it's how do you use authority in a useful way.

I also suggest getting to know the ground rules with journalists – understanding what’s on and off the record. “Off the record” doesn't mean it's secret or it doesn't mean it's bad or it doesn't mean I shouldn't say it - it means that I want a chance to explain to a reporter, to explain a little bit of the context or where this information comes from. “On the record” is the information that you're trying to send out – the stuff that will be quoted.

What you want to do is to explain to someone why they care about science. The biggest part of that whole process is understanding the nature of the recipient of the information. Why are they in the room? Why do they want to know this? Or is it really important to know this?

In a sense you're translating the science for easy use by somebody that understands it. If the goal is to have people appreciate the science or use the science or understand the value of the interpretations scientists might make  - like climatologists, looking at global warming and the thinness of the ice -  you have to be willing to remove it from all the technical jargon. Almost all the technical terminology stuff is really designed to compress communications between scientists.

If you're talking about a young person who wants to get into science communication or reporting, then I would strongly recommend a good fundamental scientific background. You don't have to be a scientist, but you have to have enough perspective on science. Good undergraduate courses are often pretty good at that. Then an inkling of the human condition, human pathology, human biology.

What is the biggest challenge you face when trying to work with science media producers and/or consumers? What is the biggest reward?

One of the challenges is that you're presenting yourself in a mechanism that you don't know. You're not trained. Most scientists only used to talking to people who speak science, and it’s stressful to present yourself in a different situation.

I think the rewards are intrinsic – some people thing that working with journalists makes their careers more powerful, and to some degree I suppose it might. But I don’t think that’s the reason we talk with journalists. I think we should talk with journalists to try to be clear about some perspective, some hard or flawed piece of information. 

And the reward, to some degree, is really sort of an obligation – you’re working with taxpayer’s money, so you ought to be able to tell them what you did with it in some rational way. I think a critical part of a competent government to defend the nation by understanding both the threats and the good things you can do. Science provides these things.

What are you trying to accomplish when you write to or speak with science media producers and/or consumers? 

My goal in interacting with somebody like a reporter is to help them understand what I’m doing, and hopefully understand what they're trying to do. From my point of view, the most important thing was to not let any one person's biases, including mine, dictate what was presented to the public. It’s tricky. 

For example, I once wrote a report for the Clinton White House. We gave the report to the funder that happened to be a part of the federal government. Then we had a big press release the next day after explaining, and there were a very large number of people in the room - about four or five hundred reporters. There were about 15 live video feeds and several hundred audio feeds to the world. And some reporters really had their own slant they wanted to put forth, but I tried to stop the slanted reporting. I wasn't trying to be difficult but I wanted people to say, "Here's what we think, not that but that." Clear communication about the idea at hand is really the point.

Stanley Watson on Messaging

When you’re planning to interact with science media producers and/or consumers, how do you decide what you want to focus on?

If a scientist wanted a single idea to “stick” in the mind of a science media producer and/or consumer, what advice would you give them as to how best to shape/pitch that idea? (e.g., Does it need to be personally related to them or someone they know? Does it need to reference/build on specific kinds of knowledge? Does it need to have clear “headline” value? etc.)? 

If you're at a university or a company, use the public relations offices. You go to them and they help craft the message, since they know that art better than you do as a scientist, try to craft it in such a way that the message is clear to the general reporter. You're trying to make sure it's not distorted and you're trying to make sure that the good stuff is out there in some positive way. What you're not trying to do is have a splash in the New York Times.

The medium – a newspaper, a live talk – is also an important part of how the message gets absorbed. In a live talk or a press conference or an interview, if you're stiff and distant, you just lost your audience. Human interaction is critical – if you talk to people, and you make contact and you try to sense if they are tense or if there's something else going on. You relax and you smile. You pick on yourself – it’s OK! Other things – like effective visuals – help too.