Challenges and Practices in Communicating Science and Health

According to CONCISE (2020), two of the major challenges science communication encounters
are; first, lack of “rewards” for researchers participating in science communication activities;
second, improper science communication training to scientists to evaluate, consider, or
promote science communication as part of their activities.

1. Scientists’ engagement in science communication:

Barriers:
 Lack of recognition (formal and informal).
 Lack of time due to the excessive bureaucratic burden to get funds and projects and the
competitiveness of science itself.
 Lack of specialized training in science communication.
 Fear of discredit from peers or of being misunderstood by the public or by journalists.

2. Concerning professional engagement in science communication:

Barriers:
 Lack of resources (mainly economic)
 Lack of specialized knowledge. Scientific knowledge on the social relevance of science
or/and on how to develop and evaluate science communication activities efficiently.
 Lack of institutional support from research institutions, mass media organizations, and
governments.

______________________________________________________________________________

Some common challenges facing all health sectors are listed as:
 Lack of clear and long-term communication strategies within agencies and programmes;
 Poorly understood communication programme function (particularly when
communication for development is grouped with external relations);
 Fragmented technical support;
 Competitive funding that discourages collaborative efforts among agencies;
 The medical model being reasserted over social and political drivers; and
 Fragmentation of sectors resulting in confused and incoherent messaging to the populous
and journalists.

___________________________________________________________________________________
Core communication challenges
 Time constraints. In the survey, a lack of time was cited by half of the 28 scientists as a
deterrent to their public science communication activities.
 Insufficient training.  According to the survey, only 3 out of 28 (11%) scientists and 14
of the 27 (52%) science communicators had formal science communication training. Five
science communicators (19%) indicated that they were taking or had tertiary
qualifications in science communication.
 Language considerations. Considerations on the language used when communicating
science.
 Local science culture. Resistance of the local culture to science and its communication.

___________________________________________________________________________

Public outreach has become an issue of growing importance for science. Many scientists and
scientific institutions feel a need to inform the public about potentially dangerous misconceptions
or to counter a continuing barrage of misinformation from numerous quarters including
commercial lobbies and fundamentalists.

a) A lack of trust
- Institutions also carry some responsibility due to expending more effort bolstering their
own reputations, rather than meticulously reporting their research.

- According to Charles Seife, Professor of Journalism at New York University, “Some of

the reasons for the resistance come from the fact that history is littered with self-serving,
incorrect, and even dangerous pronouncements in the name of science”, he said. “It
would be a very stupid and bovine population that actually believed every official
statement declaring a “breakthrough” in science.

b) Peer pressure and perception

- More intractable issues relating to trust, emotion and misinformation that cannot just be
countered by messaging.
- Individuals face a strong psychic pressure to conform their perceptions of risk to those
that distinguish their group from competing ones
- Individual psychology can also affect judgment of risk and probability and in turn shape
how messages are received or interpreted.

c) Targeting audiences
- Communicators can and should at least attend to the half of the problem that they do have
control over: the engagement process itself.

d) Communicating uncertainty
- There are similar efforts elsewhere in Europe, and often come from established research
institutes or universities rather than dedicated science communication bodies, such as the
BSA.
 - Every piece of content, and every engagement point, should be the start of a journey.
- Every piece of content should somehow impart wonder”.

e) The role of journalists

- The problem of exaggerating scientific findings can only be addressed by scientists in
collaboration with more responsible media outlets.
- Journalists should serve the public rather than science.
f) Social media
- Social media channels have huge potential for amplifying knowledge, they can equally
spread misinformation; indeed, this is more likely to go viral than reliable information
from scientists.
- Being open about uncertainties and open questions could help earn public trust in science.
- There have now been various studies to identify effective online and social media
strategies for science communicators; the most important insight is that it is still the
message that matters rather than the medium.
______________________________________________________________________________

References

Llorente. (2020, June 28). Barriers and incentives to engage in science communication -
Concise. Concise. Retrieved November 3, 2022, from https://concise-h2020.eu/pl/barriers-
science-communication/

Hunter. (2016, October 7). The communications gap between scientists and public. EMBO
Reports. Retrieved November 3, 2022, from
https://www.embopress.org/doi/full/10.15252/embr.201643379?
fbclid=IwAR0AYgCQYmjT1MVgYA0KyiG2tlAFUTS4hmDKfHTAza0Ej9MIJNoOxXo34AI

Navarro, K., & McKinnon, M. (2020, February 3). Challenges of communicating science:
perspectives from the Philippines. JCOM - the Journal of Science Communication. Retrieved
November 3, 2022, from https://jcom.sissa.it/archive/19/01/JCOM_1901_2020_A03