UC wins $139,000 to help scientists communicate better

UC-led project wins $139,000 funding to help scientists communicate better

June 7, 2013

A University of Canterbury (UC) led project has been awarded $139,000 of Ako Aotearoa funding to help scientists communicate better.

Ako Aotearoa, the national centre for tertiary teaching excellence, says translating scientific results, conclusions and recommendations into language easily understood by the general public is a critical skill for scientists.

UC researcher Erik Brogt says science communication is a critical area of development for science education.

``We will seek to improve the communication skills of our scientists so they can rapidly respond in an uncertain environment, and communicate effectively with various groups.

``We can look at the L’Aquila situation in Italy where scientists said people should not worry about a series of small earthquakes but a large earthquake in 2009 resulted in 300 deaths. Scientists were later convicted of manslaughter.  

``The prosecution was able to ‘prove’ that 29 of the 300 people killed would have done something differently if a different message was given.

``One of the contributing factors in L’Aquila that resulted in the convictions of the scientists was they did not communicate the uncertainty associated with either a large earthquake occurring, or it not occurring.  Both scenarios were possible.  

``Instead, they gambled on the scenario of no large earthquake occurring which, ultimately, was the wrong one. While it was reassuring at the time, it was the wrong message.  

``Defendants contended that buildings were so vulnerable that strengthening them was the only reasonable action. The judge, however, said that this is too expensive to be realistic and so this puts a lot of focus on the messages to the public.

``Since this decision, the science community may be worried that if scientists give the wrong message they could attract personal liability, humiliating public scrutiny and reputational damage.

``There is fear that giving the wrong message or not being understood could hamper research, make scientists reluctant to advise and sit on committees, encourage scientists to avoid areas of unpredictable hazards and become over cautious.

``There is no 100 percent reliable indicator which tells us an earthquake is about to happen. Therefore, forecasting the likelihood of a future earthquake will have some uncertainty attached to it. Scientists can sometimes be reluctant to make a forecast, as the uncertainty may be very high and they fear that this may not be well understood.

``However, the reality is that the public does expect a forecast, based on the best possible information and an information vacuum spawns informal prediction.

``Scientists are usually not trained in public communication, but they are the most trusted group and people want to hear from them,’’ Dr Brogt says.

The project is in collaboration with other researchers and major natural hazard research and education organisations including GNS Science

ENDS

© Scoop Media