by Jennie Kermode

It’s been called the central conflict of our times. Science and skepticism on one side, rationality, the products of the Enlightenment. On the other, religious fundamentalism, the rejection of scientific ideas, and the pernicious notion that every opinion is equally valid. Science most likely has truth on its side, but the other side has a lot of money and, crucially, good marketing.

Marketing is something with which most scientists don’t like to dirty their hands. There’s a strong feeling that the truth can speak for itself, and that any conscious effort to present it more effectively is essentially dishonest. This is a noble ideal but it’s hopelessly out of touch with the real world. It’s the key reason why science is in danger of losing the battle for hearts and minds.

What does good marketing mean? It starts with understanding what people want. What the general public want, and what the media want.

Most scientists have no training in psychology. In fact, it’s not uncommon for people to pursue scientific careers so that they won’t have to deal with the public. But giving the public what they want isn’t really all that difficult – politicians do it all the time. And it doesn’t have to mean changing the direction of your research. It’s about presenting that research in the right light.

The biggest mistake scientists make when appearing in public is in allowing themselves to be portrayed as taking good things away. Secularists are seen as taking away the comfort and support structures of religion, rather than as revealing the true wonders of the world as it is. Global warming experts are seen as putting up prices and taxes instead of working to save us from disaster. We are the people trying to take away the right to be treated with the medicine of choice, the people who say you shouldn’t eat and drink what you want. Didn’t we used to be the people who cured diseases and put men on the Moon? What happened?

This shift in perspective wasn’t an accident – it was very carefully engineered. Take the recent scandals over climate change – yes, there may have been some dodgy goings-on at the University of East Anglia, but anyone who’s actually read the leaked emails will know that they confirm the observation of a general trend supporting global warming theories, not refuting them. Likewise predictions about the melting of glaciers have been taken completely out of context. We can expect more of this sort of thing. Climate change deniers know perfectly well that the public aren’t interested in going to the source, especially when they really want to believe that everything will be alright. But whilst we can’t stop this kind of propaganda, we can change the way we respond to it.

When the public are looking for a bad guy, an outraged scientist with defensive body language is the perfect choice, especially if he (or she) uses language they don’t fully understand. Appealing to traditional authority be referencing credentials or peer reviews just feeds conspiracy theories and makes the scientist seem as if he’s looking down on other people. Anti-science propagandists know how to exploit this.

To tackle this problem, scientists need to wise up. If you’re invited to make a public appearance and you think you might be out of your depth, just don’t go. It’s better not to appear than to turn up and look bad (not all publicity is good publicity). If you do go, don’t let yourself be intimidated. Think about what you’re likely to be asked and prepare some good answers beforehand; keep your responses short and don’t be afraid to use humour. Never let your opponent bully you into responding hastily. When you look relaxed, taking your time can actually work in your favour. Remember to engage with your audience – be friendly and approachable, not aloof. Put things in terms the average person can understand. It’s important to convey the fact that science begins with reasoning everyone can do – it’s not about asking people to invest in an authoritarian belief system.

Successful public engagement can go a long way, but we need to do more than this. At present, most of what we see of scientists in the media is reactive. We’re letting other people set the agenda and as a consequence we’re repeatedly getting caught off guard. We need to take the battle to the enemy. We need to regain the initiative, to present ourselves as the innovative and dynamic choice, and to do this we need to engage effectively with the media.

Scientific engagement with the media is generally poor. There are only a handful of scientist celebrities, not all of whom are what you might call popular. The charity Sense About Science works hard to counter negative and inaccurate media representations of science, but has an office staff of just five. And whilst big universities sometimes have press officers, the average scientist has little access to this sort of support. Too often, scientists are left to do it themselves with little experience.

You might think that explaining your work to the media can’t be that hard. You’re smart, after all, or you wouldn’t be doing research in the first place. But writing a good press release requires a very specific set of skills. As an editor, I’ve seen far too many science press releases that read like academic proposals. Trust me – at most publications, these will go straight in the bin.

To approach the media successfully, you need to have a strong pitch. This means thinking not just about what your research is, but about why it matters. Does it relate to something already on the news agenda? Is it exciting to people who don’t work in your field? How might it benefit society? You don’t have to present your work on protein structures as the cure for cancer, but it’s worth emphasising that you’re working with fighting disease in mind.

When journalists look at a press release, they’re interested in simple, bite-sized facts. Most of them won’t have the time to do much extra research. If you don’t put your findings in context for them, they’ll do it themselves. Sadly, most newspapers no longer have dedicated science writers with relevant degrees. When the 10:23 campaign ran their recent press campaign I heard more than one journalist refer to the constant they were referencing as ‘avocado’s number’. You need to keep things simple, present them in general terms, and supply easy-to-digest background information. It may be counter-intuitive, but you need to ditch the qualifiers – which would be read as meaning you don’t really believe what you’re saying – and make plain, assertive statements.

This doesn’t mean that journalists are stupid, nor that the public is. If anything, the decline in science education over the past few decades has left people hungry for information. People don’t just want the comfort and security and easy life that anti-scientific propaganda purports to offer them – they still want mental stimulation. What science in particular has to offer them is empowerment. The internet has created an environment in which the possession of new ideas and information is more important to social status than it has ever been before. The false advantage offered by conspiracy theories and pseudo-science carries some weight, but it’s nothing compared to the power offered by real critical thinking skills.

To win people back from the anti-science movement, we need to appeal to this desire. We need to show people the positive things we can do for them. This is no longer a world in which people are content to defer to authority; we need to make them a part of our movement just as those who fight against reason are seeking to make them part of theirs. We need to celebrate critical thinking and take the lead in talking about scientific developments, not wait until others attack them.

To achieve this, we need to acknowledge the power behind the packaging. Even knowing that your medicine made you feel better, would you want to take it if it wasn’t sugar coated? Anti-science propagandists know how to hit the sweet spot. It’s time we played them at their own game.

Jennie Kermode is an author and journalist who is doing research in sociology at the University of Glasgow. She is also a senior editor at Eye For Film.

Related Posts:

• Interview With The Lay Scientist
• Edinburgh International Science Festival 2010