Season 4, Episode 1: TB or not TB
This season’s first episode contains a scene in which a scientist is trying to explain the science of pain to a small group of people in rural Illinois in a town hall-like setting. Sadly, he does a terrible job of it; his technical lecture and diagrams about ion channels, dorsal root ganglia and neural inputs to the somatosensory cortex do little to convey understanding and inspire confidence in the audience.
Thankfully, NorBAC scientists, Mayko and Rachel, swoop in and save the day by explaining the science in a way that the assembled folks could understand.
 Image provided courtesy of Shaftesbury Films. |
 |
Rachel (front) and Mayko (at the blackboard) explain the science behind how and why we feel pain. |
Frowns and frustrations were quickly replaced by interest, discussion and rapid decision-making once pain was simply explained as a primitive survival mechanism in which electrical impulses (‘pain zaps’) to the spinal cord cause the body to take action (move away from the source of pain) before the brain is even involved.
Are there some lessons to learn from this scene?
The first scientist’s use of overly technical language with this group formed a barrier to discussion and led to tremendous frustration among the people who were being asked to let some scientific tests be done in their community – but how could they give their permission if they didn’t know what they were giving it for?
However, once Rachel and Mayko explained the complex concepts using everyday language and metaphors, the people’s understanding of, and interest in, the science was strong and quick. Rachel’s and Mayko’s ability to communicate science effectively resulted in an immediate improvement in the public’s level of science literacy (understanding of concepts and processes) and, subsequently, their active participation in a serious issue.
Why are science communication and science literacy important?
Not that we should expect a visit from NorBAC anytime soon but just think about the number of times each day when you come into contact with scientific information and are required to make decisions based on the information:
- Food labels
- Medication labels and visits with your doctor
- Technical information for new products - programming cell phones, VCRs
- Newspapers and magazines with headline stories that suggest breakthrough 'cures' have been found
- Websites that claim to provide information from authentic, scientific studies
How do you know what to believe? What kind of information causes you to alter your behaviour? What information do you ignore? Why do you ignore it? For which issues would you require more investigation or scientific debate before you would even make a decision? Would you have a basic understanding of how the data or information was generated? Would you be able to determine if the data was gathered in valid way?
How should scientific information be communicated in order to help you make truly informed decisions?
Whose responsibility?
In our democratic society, the responsibility for communicating and understanding science lies squarely with both the scientific community and the public.
Given that a significant amount of research is funded by public tax dollars, it is the responsibility of scientific community to communicate its work in a way that can be understood by the average citizen. On the other side, it is the responsibility of each and every one of us to have an adequate understanding of basic scientific principles and language to navigate in today’s science and technology-driven world.
Without a basic level of scientific literacy, how will we deal with pressing issues such as climate change, health and disease, energy and the environment?
Unfortunately, there remains a significant gap between science literacy and science communication efforts. Polls about the public’s level of scientific literacy show a surprising lack of basic scientific knowledge, including, for example, the length of time it takes the Earth to travel around the Sun! Similar polls also indicate that most people don’t understand the basics of how scientific studies are designed, including the role of controls.
Without some level of very basic science skills and knowledge amongst the public to build on, scientists must be very skilled communicators indeed to inspire interest and engage public input. Yet, few scientists are trained to be effective communicators and the scientific community does little to reward those who are skilled in that domain.
How do we bridge the gap between science literacy and communication to engage interest, understanding and action?
How do people develop a basic level of science literacy? School science provides the only opportunity for most people to have formal science training. The communicators here are teachers; but, though many convey true passion and interest in science, elementary and middle school teachers often do not have much science training themselves. Not surprisingly, many studies have shown that this lack of training results in a lack of confidence among teachers in their own ability to teach science.
So, it appears that, at a time when science plays an increasingly important role in our world, the primary science communicators before our youngest citizens may not have adequate training. Professional development activities can help teachers improve their own scientific literacy – but they must take it upon themselves to pursue those opportunities.
What about their students? Here in Canada, young students’ interest in science is not as strong as you might expect. Why might that be? Well, for one thing, an international study called the Relevance of Science Education (ROSE) suggests that there is a negative correlation between youth interest in science and how ‘rich’ their country is.
In developing countries – like India, China, Mexico – youth tend to see science as critical to building the economy and so they aspire to become scientists more commonly than youth in countries like Canada. In developed countries, youth tend to see science as important for ‘society’ but not necessarily for themselves. This lack of personal ownership means that they might be techno-savvy and demand the use of technology such as cell phones and iPods but they are less interested in understanding how the technology works or taking part in its development.
When a lack of student motivation is coupled with teachers who may not be trained appropriately to communicate science how will science literacy improve? To deal with these challenges, many initiatives have sprung up around the world to connect scientists with youth and teachers.
And so…
All forms of communication require two parties – the communicator and the receiver. And it is the responsibility of both parties to play an active role. The critical importance of science and technology in our world demands that every citizen – scientists and members of the public alike – take up their part.
What surprises me the most is that we face this issue at all. Why does it seem that people need external motivation to learn about science? After all, the world is a fascinating place and science is intrinsically interesting. Just stare up at the sky at night and watch the stars; watch a jet lift off the runway; try cooking a cake without baking soda or baking powder; sit with your mother after she’s dealt successfully with breast cancer.
Then tell me that science isn’t important or interesting.
-- Bonnie Schmidt, PhD
About the Author
Dr. Bonnie Schmidt is the founder and President of Let’s Talk Science, an agency she began in 1991 while doing her doctoral degree in Physiology. She also serves as the President of the Science & Technology Awareness Network (STAN) and is a member of the Ontario Genomics Institute Board of Directors.
Want to read and learn more?
http://www.letstalkscience.ca
Let’s Talk Science is a national charitable organization committed to building children and youth interest and engagement in science, engineering and technology. We inspire discovery and support exploration by offering a range of outreach programs, resources and services for children, youth and adults.
http://www.scienceandtechnologynetwork.ca
The Science and Technology Awareness Network (STAN) includes over 260 agencies that are working to improve science literacy in Canada.
http://www.ils.uio.no/english/rose/
ROSE (Relevance of Science Education) is an international comparative research project meant to shed light on factors of importance to the learning of science and technology as perceived by the learners.
