Conference SummaryTonight Show host Jay Leno is walking around the streets of Los Angeles asking random adults questions about science. “How long does it take the Earth to go around the sun?” he asks. “Twenty-four hours,” two people in succession reply. “What causes the tides?” he asks. “Boats?” his next victim replies. “Fish?” Leno’s informal survey was highlighted by Paula Apsell, executive producer of the public television program Nova, in a keynote talk to the 280 participants of the conference, Communicating the Future: Best Practices for Communication of Science and Technology to the Public. Held March 6-8, 2002, at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in Gaithersburg, Md., with major funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, the conference provided a forum for science communicators, educators, and researchers to share both their successes and their frustrations in communicating the results of research advances to lay audiences. The at times startling ignorance of average U.S. adults of basic scientific facts has been well documented by annual surveys conducted by the U.S. National Science Foundation.1 For example, 50 percent of U.S. adults surveyed don’t know that it takes a year for the Earth to orbit the sun. Similarly, 50 percent of respondents believe that early humans lived at the same time as the dinosaurs and that atoms are smaller than electrons. Jon Miller, director of NSF’s science literacy surveys for many years and director of the Center for Biomedical Communications at Northwestern University Medical School, concludes that fewer than one in five Americans meet a minimal standard of civic scientific literacy. 2 Many in the scientific community believe that a lack of knowledge about science and technology is a major obstacle preventing increases in government funding of research. Another commonly held view is that science literacy is a major factor in discouraging students from choosing science or technology careers. Still others point out that widespread science illiteracy makes a large segment of the public vulnerable to the claims of charlatans who promise “miracle” results in losing weight or for improving life’s decision-making through the wonders of astrology. However, connections between science literacy and the well-being of the nation’s research enterprise or society in general that may seem like common sense are, in fact, more complex than the simple statements above imply. A wide range of scientific institutions—from corporations to hospitals to government agencies—have initiated science communications programs for the public because they believe that increased knowledge of the organization’s role in advancing research will improve the institution’s reputation, making it easier to gain public support for other organizational goals. Finally, many public science and technology communications programs—particularly those conducted by government laboratories or universities—are grounded in the principle of the “public’s right to know.” Since a large percentage of scientific and technical research is funded with tax dollars, the institutions and the researchers using those funds have an obligation to explain to the public in understandable language how that money has been used. Regardless of why research institutions and other organizations carry out science and technology com-munications programs for the public, the Best Practices conference steering committee of science communicators, journalists, and researchers approached its task of identifying model communications programs from the following perspective: Given that many research institutions and other science-oriented organizations such as museums do conduct public communications programs, what does the communications research literature tell us about the most effective ways to carry out these programs, and how can we apply this knowledge to help select model programs or “best practices” that can be adopted by a wide range of institutions? Historical Context In 1998, the Space Sciences Laboratory at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., chartered a 16-member working group to identify the most compelling questions still to be answered by the academic science and technology communications research community.3 The group also was asked to compile examples of best practices in science and technology communications programs as implemented by research institutions across the United States or abroad. The laboratory planned to use the committee’s findings to determine high-priority communication research areas for future funding and to apply best practice lessons learned from other organizations to improve its own and NASA’s communications programs. The Research Roadmap for Communicating Science and Technology in the 21st Century Working Group included science communicators, communications researchers, journalists, and scientists. Dubbed the R2 group, the panel met eight times over the next three years. Locations for these meetings included La Jolla, Calif.; Woods Hole, Mass.; Washington, D.C.; Chicago, Ill.; Santa Cruz, Calif.; Durham, N.C.; Huntsville, Ala.; and Jacksonville, Fla. Each meeting was hosted by a different research organization.4 Science communicators, journalists, and researchers from government laboratories, universities, newspapers, foundations, non-profit organizations, public relations firms, and museums were invited to make presentations to the committee about their programs, science coverage, and communications research efforts. The meetings were open to attendance by journalists and the public. In addition, the R2 committee solicited comments from members of groups such as the National Association of Science Writers, the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education, and the International Association of Science Writers. The R2 group also used part of its NASA Marshall funding to sponsor five original research projects. These projects included comprehensive reviews of the science and health communication research literature;5 a study of U.S. public attitudes toward biotechnology and implications for improving science communications,6 a review of communications programs conducted by federal research organizations,7 and a study of how public information officers broker information exchange between scientists and journalists.8 The R2 group’s major findings and recommendations were published in a special issue of the research journal Science Communication, in a paper authored by R2 chairman, Rick Borchelt.9 The same issue of the journal included several papers describing research projects funded by the panel. (See bulleted list of findings.) With the research agenda portion of its mission complete, the R2 panel had planned to host a major peer-reviewed conference to feature model science and technology communications programs. Funding constraints at NASA Marshall, however, forced postponement of these plans until alternative funding for the conference could be secured. A ‘Best Practices’ Conference In April 2001, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science and the National Institute of Standards and Technology formally agreed to co-sponsor the conference originally envisioned by the R2 panel, with major funding being provided by DOE and primary staff support and conference facilities by NIST. A steering committee for the conference was selected that included many members from the previous R2 panel, as well as new members selected to ensure that the committee could competently review proposals from a wide variety of institutions and to ensure that results from the conference would be effectively disseminated to DOE national laboratories. The steering committee, co-chaired by Joann Rodgers of the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions and Earle Holland of Ohio State University, met in Chicago in May 2001 to establish criteria for selecting communications programs as best practices, to determine what types of institutions would be eligible to submit entries, and to agree on a strategy for maximizing the number of entries. From the outset of its deliberations, the Best Practices Steering Committee decided to limit entries to communications programs sponsored by or conducted by research-oriented and public-education institutions. While numerous awards exist to honor science journalists from media organizations who communicate well with the public, there are fewer opportunities for science communicators based at research and other science and technology institutions to receive such recognition. The committee included communications programs aimed at children but decided to limit entries to programs that take place primarily outside of classroom instruction. Poster session entries to the conference were solicited via ads in science-writing, higher-education, and public-relations trade publications (e.g., PR Week, Chronicle of Higher Education); direct mail, e-mail and phone solicitation of public-affairs specialists in research institutions and science and technology museums; and announcements to listservs. Entries were welcomed from research-sponsoring institutions such as universities, government agencies, corporations, or non-profit organizations; from public education institutions such as museums or non-profit Web-based enterprises; or from third parties such as public relations agencies engaged by these entities in their communications efforts. To help encourage entries from universities, non-profits, and other organizations with limited travel funds, up to 50 selected presenters were eligible for a $750 manuscript fee to help offset travel costs, as well as free conference registration. Entries were solicited in the following categories:
Entries were solicited through an on-line form posted on the conference Web site. The form requested a 500-word narrative description of the communications program, as well as information on the intended audience, budget, staffing, and any research conducted before or after the program to improve its design or evaluate its effectiveness. The committee also accepted supplementary materials, such as brochures, videotapes, photographs, and summary reports by regular mail. The steering committee received more than 150 entries. In July 2001, the committee met at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Boulder, Colo., to formally rate and rank each of the entries. Forty-eight “best practice” communications programs were selected based on the following criteria:
The presenter for each selected communications program was asked to prepare a poster to be displayed at the conference, to write an abstract for the conference proceedings, and to provide documents and images from the poster to be archived on the conference Web site. [www.nist.gov/bestpractices.] The conference was originally scheduled for September 26-28, 2001. But after the terrorist attacks of September 11 shut down Reagan National Airport and disrupted travel plans for government employees, the committee decided it was in the best interest of the conference to postpone the meeting for six months. When the conference convened on March 6-8, 2002, the meeting was subscribed fully, with almost 300 participants attending. They represented institutions from all across the United States and several foreign countries, including Canada, the United Kingdom, Brazil, Australia, Belgium, Trinidad, and Japan. Participants included science communication specialists from universities, national laboratories, research institutions, and hospitals; journalism professors; communication researchers; science museum curators; scientists; educators; and government officials. The 48 featured posters were displayed for the duration of the meeting. Morning and afternoon plenary sessions on March 7 and 8 consisted of keynote addresses, topical lectures, and panel discussions on topics ranging from evaluation of science communication programs to targeting hard-to-reach audiences. An opening reception, conference dinner, continental breakfasts, and lunches provided opportunities for informal networking among participants (see Conference Program). Research-Driven Communications While institutions routinely review past research in a given technical field before funding additional projects in the same area, few organizations systematically use the results of research already collected in the field of science communication to design their programs. In many cases, managers of public communications programs come from related fields such as journalism, political science, education, or a specific scientific or technical discipline and are not aware that this research literature exists. In other cases, the daily stress of continually producing the products of science communications programs such as newsletters, Web pages, magazines, exhibits, or broadcast programs fully consumes science communicators to the detriment of long-term planning for or evaluation of those programs. Some federal agencies that provide grants for science communication programs, such as the National Science Foundation (NSF), require that formal evaluations of funded programs be conducted. However, the results of these evaluations are not made publicly available by NSF. (NSF does encourage grantees to publish their findings themselves and recently supported creation of a new Web site to facilitate this.) 10 A major goal of both the Research Roadmap panel and the Best Practices Steering Committee has been to improve dissemination of science and technology communications research results to science communications practitioners, as well as to better inform communications researchers about specific areas of science and technology communications practice that can benefit most from academic research. For example, a 10-year, comprehensive effort sponsored by the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) Research Foundation to determine the defining characteristics of excellent public relations programs produced a wealth of conclusions, many of which are relevant to improving science communications programs.11 However, few practicing science communicators at the Best Practices Conference were aware of the study. Excellence in Public Relations James Grunig, professor of communications at the University of Maryland and the director of the IABC Excellence project, described for the conference attendees the methodology for the study, which involved conducting surveys and interviews with public relations managers, practitioners, and CEOs for more than 300 organizations. The most important function of public relations, Grunig noted, is building relationships with, not just communicating to, strategic publics. The most effective communications strategies involve two-way communication. An organization’s effectiveness (and its reputation) depends on its ability to reconcile its goals with the expectations of its strategic publics—those groups outside the organization that affect its operations. The Excellence project concluded that the best public relations programs had the following qualities in common:
Traditional metrics of communication have measured one-way communication:
In implementing public relations programs as a two-way process, the role of public relations is not just to affect the public, but also to bring in information from the public to inform the decisions that management makes. Two-way communication involves:
Methods for measuring the success of a communications strategy involve conducting surveys and interviews, as well as observation (such as watching visitors interact with exhibits) and focus groups. Counting the number of media clippings is a poor measure of the success of a communications program, except possibly for monitoring the performance of media relations staff. General surveys of attitudes, image, and reputation are also poor metrics of communications programs because they are affected by many other things such as day-to-day decision making by an organization’s management that are beyond an organization’s public relations programs. The Excellence project found that the use of advertising equivalencies (describing the value of news stories generated by public relations efforts in terms of the dollar value of paid ads of the same size) was so inherently misleading a practice that public relations professionals should consider use of such comparisons as unethical. A further discussion of successful management strategies for public relations can be found in a paper authored by Grunig and Larissa Grunig for the Department of Energy’s Brookhaven National Laboratory.12 The Science-Attentive Public In today’s complex world it is no longer possible for any citizen to follow and stay informed about the full range of public policy issues. One way of characterizing how people approach science and technology information has been suggested by Miller. He identifies three strata of the public that differ in their interest in and understanding of science and technology. Using the National Science Foundation’s Science and Engineering Indicators studies as a base, Miller has estimated that approximately 15 percent of American adults have—over the last decade—had a high level of interest in science and technology issues and have felt that they were reasonably well informed about those issues. Miller refers to these citizens as being attentive to science and technology.13 Based on a combination of self-reported level of interest and level of understanding, Miller classifies public science audiences into three groups:
In the 2001 NSF survey, about 10 percent of respondents met the criteria for being science attentive, a drop of 4 percent since 1997. Forty-eight percent of respondents were classified as science interested, while 42 percent were classified as residual. Even if only about 10 percent of the U.S. population is science attentive this still represents an audience of 20 million people. Adults who are attentive to science are more likely to watch science television shows, visit science Web sites and science museums, and buy science books. Communication with this audience can have the effect of spreading the message more broadly since science attentives tend to be more politically active than average, have higher than average levels of education and income, are comparatively well informed about science and technology issues, and have a high level of cross-talk with other audiences.14 Science Communication and Trust Two recent studies focused on the issue of science communication and trust. Both found that trust tends to reside in social institutions and processes. Using data from a survey of 1,000 U.S. respondents in 2000, Priest analyzed the relationship between people’s willingness to encourage biotechnology research in a number of different agricultural and biomedical areas.15 She found nearly 30 percent of respondents projected that genetic engineering would not benefit society during the next 20 years—about the same percentage of persons (but mostly different respondents) who were similarly critical of nuclear energy. As education in science goes up (as measured by the number of college courses in science), respondents’ substantive understanding of biotechnology increased, using a simple true-false test. Priest found that a respondent’s confidence or trust in scientists, farmers, and government regulators (all representing the relevant institutional leaders for biotechnology) was the strongest predictor of people’s willingness to encourage biotechnology research. A separate analysis of the 1998 U.S. national survey by Miller and Kimmel found that the strongest predictor of encouragement for agricultural and medical biotechnology (measured separately) was a belief in the promise of science and technology to improve the quality of life.16 This generalized faith in science and technology is similar to the confidence in scientific institutions found by Priest. The second strongest predictor of encouragement for both agricultural and medical biotechnology was attentiveness to biotechnology, followed by the level of biomedical literacy. Taken together, these two studies suggest that favorable attitudes toward the encouragement of new science and technology are built on long-standing trust or confidence in major social institutions such as science, universities, government, and business. Short-term media exposures were not good predictors of a positive attitude toward either agricultural or medical biotechnology. The take-home message of these findings is that science communicators should not attempt to package and sell trust like soap, but rather continue to provide the factual information and education the public needs to understand complex topics like biotechnology. The development of trust takes time and cumulative effort. In its review of the science communications research literature and its discussions with practitioners, journalists, and researchers over the course of a three-year study, the Research Roadmap panel found additional support for many of the conclusions reached by the research efforts highlighted above.18 The R2 panel concluded that:
Twenty-first Century Communications The changing nature of communication media may be the biggest single challenge—and opportunity—facing communicators. Just as the advent of television added images to sound and brought about a revolution in the way organizations communicated with their constituencies, the Internet’s direct interface with consumers has brought about a profound change in the nature of communication itself.19 The ability of organizations to publish materials directly to a world wide audience through the Web has reduced dramatically their previous dependence on intermediaries such as television or newspaper reporters to carry messages to important publics. A corollary to this change is the much larger number of media choices now available to consumers. Network television news no longer dominates public discourse and a spot on the evening news no longer should be viewed as a major benchmark of communications success.20 The events of September 11 illustrated how dramatically journalism has changed. People tuned in to watch events unfolding before their eyes and they have kept watching. Since September 11, the audience for news has increased, in general, but more people are getting that news from the Internet, where it is available 24 hours a day and where Webcasts can be replayed whenever it is convenient to do so. The splintering of video programming among broadcast, cable, satellite, and the Internet has opened up more choices for the consumers and more news markets for science communicators. Among these increased programming choices are channels like Discovery Health, National Geographic Channel, and the History Channel, as well as such highly targeted cable and satellite channels like the Research Channel and the University Channel. While more science and technology programming should be good for science communications, the portion of that material that is in fact pseudoscience is a cause for concern. The trend in television newscasting is toward shorter and shorter segments, with more medical and weather coverage. More time is spent on weather than any other story in a local newscast, which makes weathercasters a potentially prime conduit for passing on environmental and other weather-related science news to consumers. At the same time, niche programs like public television’s Nova are holding their own by emphasizing challenging content and storytelling for topics like genomics, cosmology, and string theory, which increasingly are visualized with high-end computer graphics. Hallmarks of Good Science Communication programs In reviewing and selecting topics to be presented as posters at the conference, the Best Practices Steering committee was struck by a number of repeating themes, elements, or techniques that many of the best programs had in common. Programs that used the following elements tended to be more engaging, more relevant, more substantive, and often more creative—all characteristics that boosted success as measured by such factors as size of audiences, number of Web hits, longevity of support, and other factors. Not coincidentally, many of these same themes emerged in the keynote talks and topical lectures presented during the conference program. These programs were judged “best practices” by the conference panel, and all either presented posters or gave talks at the conference. Some examples of programs that illustrate the common themes include: Illustrates both the process and product of science The Internet has made it possible for an audience to directly view science as it happens, both the daily frustrations and the exciting discoveries. The Exploratorium in San Francisco mixes live Internet broadcasts and streaming media with interactive presentations in the museum’s theater. The programs showcase the settings and extraordinary people making scientific discoveries, and invite audiences to share in the process of discovery. In the same vein, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution’s Dive and Discover expeditions take Internet viewers on a virtual sea voyage. This live-from-the-sea Web site involves viewers in the daily activities and discoveries of scientists, and is aimed primarily at middle-school students and their teachers. Taking a different tack, the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies at Virginia Tech sponsors forums on scientific and technological advances to examine, in a balanced manner, the ethical and social issues they create, as well as the often highly complex historical, philosophical, social, and legal components. Topics of the daylong Choices and Challenges forums have included genetically modified foods, the human genome project, diet and disease, water supply, and quality of life at the end of life. More than 500 people attend in person and the programs also are broadcast nationwide. Science magazine and the American Association for the Advancement of Science sponsor a Web site that explores scientific controversies. Science Controversies, On-Line Partnerships in Education (SCOPE) brings the scientific process and unresolved scientific questions into middle-school classrooms. The dynamic nature of the Web site allows students to see how researchers’ ideas, questions, and conclusions evolve over time. Involves scientists in a substantial way Adler
Planetarium includes professional astronomers on its exhibit-development
staff, which allows the museum to facilitate the rapid integration of
new discoveries into its exhibits and programs. Adler currently has eight
Ph.D. astronomers on its staff, six of whom have joint appointments with
the University of Chicago or Northwestern University. Instead of becoming
experts in undergraduate teaching, these astronomers focus on becoming
experts in public education for a range of audiences from children to
adolescents to adults. Adler’s astronomers contribute Considers political climate and/or involves decision makers The Kansas
Geological Survey conducts an annual three-day field conference, which
takes policy makers to locations where natural resources are produced
or used, to see first-hand the resources they make decisions about. Attendees
are legislators, agency staff, teachers, business leaders, and environmental
leaders. The field conferences usually focus on specific topics, such
as energy, or particular regions of the state. Knowing that the biggest potential obstacles to a groundwater reclamation project would be political, the Orange County (Calif.) Water District took its message directly to political and business leaders and active community members to forestall opposition to the project. The project will reclaim water from sewage to replenish diminishing groundwater resources, essential for the county’s economic future. The project is critical to the county’s future but the Water District acknowledged its high “yuck” factor. The public relations campaign began years ahead of the implementation of the project, beginning with explaining the project and its necessity to political leaders. With straightforward explanations and simple graphics, the process was compared with techniques used for making bottled water, which reassured people. The Water District also found, through focus groups, that people trusted what doctors and scientists said, so it is recruiting doctors and scientists as supporters and spokespersons for the project. Uses multimedia/illustrations/interactivity when appropriate to bring science to life The Weather Discovery Center at Mount Washington brings the science of weather to museum visitors. Mount Washington has what many people believe is the worst weather in the United States and has had a continuously staffed weather observatory on the summit since 1932. The museum, located in a more benign weather environment, the valley town of North Conway, N.H., has exhibits that include data on real-time developing weather; a telecommunications link to observatory staff on the mountain’s summit; a camera atop the summit; an interactive role-playing exhibit that invites visitors to become weather forecasters; and a showcase for current research projects. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute sponsors a Web site, Cool Science for Curious Kids, that contains science activities, including animation, sound, and quizzes. The activities, originally developed in print form at five children’s and science museums, encourage kids to explore science. The Cornell Theory Center has developed a “virtual world,” which combines online chat, gaming technology, and Web features to construct a 3-D virtual environment where users interact. The goal is to create a hands-on virtual science center in cyberspace that engages high school students and Cornell undergraduates, along with researchers and graduate students. Relates science to the everyday environment or culture scientifique. Bruce Lewenstein, associate professor of science communication at Cornell University, introduced this term, culture scientifique, to the conference attendees to describe how science books have emerged in the last 20 to 30 years as important carriers of culture and of broad public discourse. Beginning with Carl Sagan’s Cosmos and including books like Stephen Hawking’s Brief History of Time, and E.O. Wilson’s Sociobiology, these books generate wide discussion and help to create what we think of as American culture. They illustrate that rather than being separate from everyday life, science is deeply intertwined with it. Joseph Schwarcz, professor of chemistry and director of Chemistry and Society at McGill University in Montreal, hosts a weekly call-in radio program to take questions from listeners about science. He tries to help listeners combat pseudoscience by helping them come to conclusions based on observations and evidence, rather than rhetoric. He also helps them cope with everyday science quandaries. Questions he’s fielded in his 20 years on the air have included: what solvent to use to get magic marker off a $5,000 Barbie Doll’s face (answer: nothing; anything that will erase the marker will also dissolve Barbie’s face) and why carrots burst into flames in a microwave (answer: the microwave sets up mini-electric currents in the carrots, which ignite volatile oils; this also happens to microwaved pickles). The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is using the lab’s shuttle buses—which run through downtown Berkeley and circle the University of California, Berkeley campus—as rolling billboards to showcase the lab’s activities. The lab developed colorful posters for the sides of the buses, each featuring a Berkeley Lab scientist with a leading question related to the scientist’s work, for example, “Did you ever wonder about the invisible marvels of the nanoworld?” The posters list the lab’s Web site, which links to personal profiles of the featured researchers. Britain’s Graphic Science is creating science posters for both the insides and outsides of buses, developing science-based pub quizzes (popular in the U.K.), and installing science questions at supermarket checkout counters (www.uwe.ac.uk/fas/graphicscience/). For a five-day science fair in Cheltenham in May 2002, Graphic Science director Frank Burnet (science director of the festival) played up the idea that science is part of everyday life. The theme of the festival was “pleasure,” and there were events about the science of music, cooking, chocolate, and sex. London’s Central YMCA commissioned, developed, and produced five plays exploring issues arising from advances in biotechnology, including genetic selection, xenotransplantation, the biological basis of mental illness, genetically modified foods, and cloning and stem-cell therapy. Written in consultation with scientists, doctors, and patients, each play is followed by a live debate involving the audience and cast. The Y Touring company performs the plays in schools, theaters, prisons, science centers, and arts festivals, primarily targeting youth. To introduce food
journalists and writers to the American
Chemical Society’s resources on food chemistry, the society sponsored
two workshops on the chemistry of food. The seminars, the “Elements
of Chocolate” and the “Formulas for Flavor,” were designed
to offer food writers a new perspective on the topics they cover. The
response to the workshops was enthusiastic and coverage about or resulting
from the seminars was extensive. Avoids parochialism Based at the University of Wisconsin, The Why Files is a non-profit Web site that provides entertaining and informative science content. However, unlike the great majority of university or other organizational Web sites, it typically does not describe the research of its sponsoring organization. Instead it takes the non-parochial approach that good content from any source will be covered and the university will benefit by being seen as performing a useful service to the community. The Why Files subjects are often “the science behind the news,” clearly written and with a sense of humor. Topics have included, at the time of Princess Diana’s death, the science of grief; when an ominous asteroid was sighted, how much readers should worry about stray rocks from space; and during the California energy crisis, methane hydrates and nuclear energy. Views the topic from the audience’s point of view, not the institution’s Environment Canada developed a successful strategy for communicating science with Canadian aboriginal communities. To the Inu people of northern Quebec and Labrador, “ashkui,” the first areas of frozen ice to open up in the spring in northern Canada, are both supermarket and pharmacy. Environmental scientists studying the ashkui listened to, acknowledged, and incorporated traditional wisdom about the environment in their research. When the researchers met with local elders, they met not in a boardroom-type setting, but in a camp setting where native people had traditionally met to discuss hunting, fishing, and related resource issues. And to communicate the results of the project they printed posters not on paper, but rather on linen, the Inu’s traditional “print” medium for passing on wisdom. Uses face-to-face methods Brookhaven National Laboratory turned a crisis into an opportunity, and used face-to-face, two-way communication to improve public trust after confidence in the lab had eroded in the wake of a series of costly environmental crises. The laboratory used a change in managing contractors to initiate a suite of new, formal and informal community relations activities, including creating a Community Advisory Board, establishing a community ambassadors program, and designating community liaisons. The new programs now inform the organization’s scientific culture and help ensure a commitment to excellence in communications and community involvement. Communications and government affairs offices also were brought together under one manager, with direct reporting to the director of the lab. The U.S. Geological Survey’s Western Region Center, in Menlo Park, Calif., holds a public open house every three years. At the last event, in May 2000, 14,000 people attended over three days. Open to the general public, the event attracts children and families, college students, teachers, neighbors, and scientists from nearby universities. The open house is a way to share information about local earthquakes, landslides, water quality issues, and other issues affecting people living in the Bay Area, and has helped rally local support for the institution. Reaches out beyond the science-attentive public Southern New Mexico’s border region contains a diverse and medically underserved population. A coalition of libraries led by the New Mexico State University library banded together to provide health-related information in electronic and other formats to targeted populations. ¡BIEN!—Border Health Information and Education Network—also wanted to provide information on current health-related research to professionals, educators, and librarians; develop an information network; and provide literacy training to health professionals and consumers. The project provides increased access to quality health information in English and Spanish, in multiple formats. The National Eye Institute, part of the National Institutes of Health, created a traveling kiosk, designed to be displayed in shopping malls, to provide information about low vision—visual impairment not correctable by eyeglasses, medicine, or surgery. NEI determined that shopping malls, America’s new town halls, provide an ideal venue for communicating health information to a wide audience. Sponsored by the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, Becoming Enthusiastic About Math and Science (BEAMS) brings at-risk middle-school children and their teachers to the lab annually for a two-, three-, or five-day immersion in the research environment. BEAMS hopes to redress the early loss in K-8 education of minorities and females from the math, science, and technology career pipeline; strengthen the motivation and academic preparation of students; and provide teachers with activities based upon research at the lab. The High School Biomedical Research Program for Disadvantaged Youth, a full-time, eight-week summer program at the University of Maryland at Baltimore, pairs disadvantaged high school students with scientist mentors for research projects. The project topics include heart disease, cancer, molecular biology, brain disorders, pharmacology, etc. Students not only work in the laboratory but also meet for weekly group activities, such as science seminars, debates, career seminars, and oral presentations. Since 1988, 95 percent of the students (who come from 79 Baltimore-area schools) have gone on to college, with 88 percent majoring in the sciences. Provides information to the commercial media in easily usable form The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research provides TV weathercasters with background information on global climate change, visualizations of weather and climate concepts, and stock footage of major weather events. The ClimateStock Program is designed to encourage coverage of climate change on prime-time TV, since TV weathercasters are often the most visible representatives of science in U.S. households. B-roll is provided free via satellite uplink, and suggested scripts and shot lists are available on the ClimateStock Web site. EurekAlert!, sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, is a Web site where member organizations (universities, medical centers, associations, and other research organizations) can post science news releases. Its embargoed news releases, press packets for scientific journals, searchable database of experts, and archived news releases provide one-stop shopping for journalists looking for story ideas, background information, or expert sources. The Mayo Clinic provides video news releases on health-related topics to local television stations. Medical Edge is a weekly, 90-second news insert made available at no cost on a market-exclusive basis. The segments air regularly on 121 TV affiliates in the United States and Canada, along with stations in Turkey, the Middle East, and Croatia. The program is designed to provide reliable information for the public on medicine and health, increase awareness of Mayo Clinic locations and expertise, and drive traffic to Mayo’s Web site. Stations can air the segments as-is, use clips of B-roll for their own stories, or have their own reporters or anchors voice the accompanying script. The segments use Ph.D. scientists and M.D.’s as spokespersons. Research and Evaluation Good communications programs are evaluated both before and after a program is designed and implemented, and they are revised or fine-tuned in response to audience feedback. Goals are clearly articulated and the research is designed to measure whether the stated objectives are being met. This formative and evaluative research is one of the most crucial, and most often overlooked aspect of communications. Commercial communicators study their audiences extensively, and now that more non-profit institutions are communicating directly to audiences, rather than through intermediaries such as journalists, public affairs specialists need to study their intended audiences as well. Methods include conducting focus groups; surveying audience members; counting the number of people who show up to an event; compiling Web statistics; monitoring usage; giving quizzes; holding public hearings; or collecting anecdotal information in a systematic way. Some of the pitfalls include not clearly stating the goals to be measured; measuring something other than success in achieving the stated goals; not researching the right audience; not targeting a campaign specific-ally enough; or relying too heavily on sporadic anecdotes as evidence of success or failure. In general, the quality of research and evaluation reported by applicants was smaller in scope and lower in quality that the R2 conference organizers had expected to find. There were some very good evaluation efforts but they were exceptions rather than the rule. It is clear that additional effort needs to be focused on both formative and summative evaluation. Conclusions and Recommendations Science and technology communication with the public by research, education, and other institutions is undergoing a renaissance of ideas and techniques. Gone are the days when a science communicator could issue a simple printed press release, deliver it to the major networks and newspapers, wait to see if the topic would be covered, and feel confident that she had done her best for her institution. Today’s science and technology communicators need a much broader array of skills. They need to understand both the technologies and the aesthetics of multimedia, interactivity, and the Web. They need to view their job as a facilitator for good relations between their institutions and the various segments of the public important to their institutions. They need to be actively engaged in the day-to-day decision-making of their institutions as a voice for institutional social responsibility. They need be familiar with the robust body of research under way in the field of communications, and they need to keep abreast of new developments lest they find themselves delivering messages to a “general public” years after others have realized that it is a figment of a previous generation’s imagination. Equally critical for the success of science and technology communications is research, before, during, and after a communications program is developed. Conducting communications efforts without research and evaluation is a bit like sending out a fleet of buses without ever bothering to check if they made it to their destinations. One thing that is not likely to change now or in the future is the central role of clear, engaging, relevant content. As long as there are important public policy decisions being discussed, discoveries being made, and technologies being created, institutions will continue to need effective translators who can drill through the often opaque world of technical achievement to view and describe the fascinating scenes inside. References:[1] National Science Board. 2002. Science and Engineering Indicators, 2002. Washington: Government Printing Office. [www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind02/c7/c7s1.htm] [2] Miller, J.D. 2000. The Development of Civic Scientific Literacy in the United States, in Kumar, D.D. and Chubin, D. (Eds.), Science, Technology, and Society: A Sourcebook on Research and Practice. New York: Plenum Press. Pp. 21-47. [3] Rick Borchelt (chair), U.S. Department of Energy (at the time of the committee’s operation, current affiliation, The Whitehead Institute); Debbie Triese (study director), Department of Advertising, University of Florida; Deborah Blum, School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Lynne Friedmann, Friedmann Communications; Martin Glicksman, Department of Materials Sciences and Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; John M. Horack (ex officio), Space Sciences Laboratory, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA; Robert Logan, School of Journalism, University of Missouri; Paul Lowenberg, Lowenberg Communications; Charles McGruder III, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Western Kentucky University; Jon D. Miller, Northwestern University Medical School; Gail Porter, National Institute of Standards and Technology; Carol L. Rogers, College of Journalism, University of Maryland; Barbara Valentino, Evolving Communications; Michael Weingold, Department of Advertising, University of Florida; Gregory Wilson (ex officio) SSL, MSFC, NASA; and Kris Wilson, Department of Journalism, University of Texas. The co-chairs of the Best Practices conference steering committee, Joann Rodgers of the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions and Earle Holland of the Ohio State University, served as consultants to the R2 panel. [4] Salk Institute for Biological Studies; Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, American Association for the Advancement of Science; Northwestern University Medical School; University of California, Santa Cruz; Duke University; Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA; and the University of Florida. [5] Weingold, M.F. 2001. Communicating science: A review of the literature. Science Communication 23:164-194. Antecol, M., 2001. Health Communication Through the Prism of Anti-Smoking Mass Mediated Campaigns (unpublished) [6] Priest, S.H. 2001. Misplaced faith: Communication variables as predictors of encouragement for biotechnology development. Science Communication 23(part2):97-110. [7] Lewenstein, B. 2000. An American historical perspective on public communication of science. Paper presented at the Conference on Science Communication, Education, and the History of Science, London, 12-13 July. [8] Rowan, K. E. 2002. Whose side are you on? A case where university communicators disagree about sharing risk news. Manuscript submitted to Science Communication. [9] Borchelt, R.E. 2001. Communicating the future. Science Communication 23: 194-211. [10] Personal comment, Barry Van Deman, NSF. The Web site address is www.informalscience.org. [11] Grunig, J.E., and Dozier, D.M. 1992. Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [12] Grunig, James E. and Larissa A. Grunig, March 2001. Guidelines for Formation and Evaluative Research in Public Affairs: A Report for the Department of Energy Office of Science. (unpublished) [13] Miller, J.D. and Pardo, R. 1999. Civic Scientific Literacy and Attitude to Science and Technology: A Comparative Analysis of the European Union, the United States, Japan, and Canada. In M. Dierkes and C. von Grote (Eds.), Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science, and Technology. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers. Pp. 81-129. [14] Miller, J.D. & Kimmel, L. 2001. Biomedical Communications. New York: Academic Press. [15] Priest, S.H. 2001. Misplaced faith: Communication variables as predictors of encouragement for biotechnology development. Science Communication 23(part 2):97-110. [16] Miller, J.D. & Kimmel, L. 2001. Biomedical Communications. New York: Academic Press. [17] See Susanna Hornig Priest’s transcript on page X of this report. [18] Borchelt, R.E. 2001. Communicating the Future. Science Communication, 23: 194-211. [19] Atkin, D.J., Jeffres, L.W., Neuendrof, K.A. 1998. Understanding Internet adoption as telecommunications behavior. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 42:4:475-490. Browne, D.R. 1999. Electronic Media and Industrialized Nations: A comparative study. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. Harris Interactive. 2002. Internet Penetration at 66% of Adults (137 Million) Nationwide. The Harris Poll #18. Available at http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=295. Accessed May 30, 2002. Miller, J.D. 2001. Who is using the Web for science and health information? Science Communication 22(3):256-273. UCLA Center for Communication Policy. 2001. The UCLA Internet Report 2001: Surveying the Digital Future. Los Angeles: UCLA. Available through www.ccp.ucla.edu. [20] Bryant, J. and Bryant, J.A. (Eds.). 2001. Television and the American Family. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gilliam, F.D. Jr. and Iyenger, S. 2000. Prime Suspects: The influence of local television news on the viewing public. American Journal of Political Science 44:3:560-573. Robinson, J.P. and Levy, M.R. 1996. News use and the informed public: a 1990's update. Journal of Communication 46:2:129-135.
Created:
12/10/02
|