Talking Science with Nonscientists: A Personal Communication

I remember it clearly. It was a warm Friday evening in August. I stood with a beer in my hand, making small talk at a graduate school party. It wasn't long before a new acquaintance, a student of ethnic music, asked, "What does an organic chemist do?" "Mmm ...," I muttered. I stared intently at my beer, swirled it a bit, and wished fervently for a napkin, a ballpoint pen, and a hard, clear surface to write on. But ... no. Complex drawings and scattershot arrows wouldn't interest her, and I'd have lost before I connected the first line. "It's a little like the Legos you played with when you were a kid--you find different ways to construct molecules," I eventually decided. There--I detected a spark of interest. You can talk science face to face with a lay audience and make it interesting. But it's a bit different from presenting your work at a scientific conference or a staff meeting. Ira Flatow When talking with the uninitiated, "You have to ask yourself: What is it that makes [your research] interesting?" says Gina Kolata, a science and medicine reporter for The New York Times. "What is driving you? Maybe you've set out to show that something everyone thought was true is actually nonsense. It's usually more than 'I'm in the lab and I just published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.' [That level of explanation is] not enough for scientists, and it's not enough for lay people, either," she says. "[People] really want to know more about scientists and what they're really like," says Ira Flatow, host of National Public Radio's Talk of the Nation: Science Friday. Kolata points to an article she recently wrote about egg donors. The field of reproductive science is teeming with activity--artificial wombs, genetic engineering, cloning, you name it. In conversation, it's easy enough to get mired in the fundamental molecular biology that operates behind the scene. But Kolata chose a different angle: "People who offered to be an egg donor were receiving $50,000. [The article asked the question], have you got a problem with that? Why would you set a price for an egg? Whose decision should it be and what are they looking for? These are stories you can talk about. There's a bigger issue, and it's a conversation." Everyone likes to talk about mysteries, too, says Flatow: "Scientists see themselves as detectives sifting through clues. If you can talk about science as a detective story, the public can understand" the motivation. Bill Nye If Flatow sees science as a mystery story, Bill Nye views it as an action thriller. A onetime Boeing engineer and stand-up comic who also produced Bill Nye the Science Guy for KCTS public television in Seattle, Nye stresses the importance of action when presenting science to a lay audience. "Germs, for example. In the early days [of Bill Nye the Science Guy] we wouldn't have done a germ show. That's a noun show. There has to be something going on. Take buoyancy--something's going to sink or float, something's going to happen." But how do you talk about something static, like a cave? "We got over that by writing learning objectives. The cave show is a classic example: You've got this special ecosystem. Where does the energy come from? It comes from the surface through bat guano, or through a stream on the surface," says Nye. Given that he is among the best known of science populists, if anyone can give a good on-the-spot explanation of a scientific subject, it should be Nye. During our telephone conversation, I decided to give him a test: "Okay, Bill, I'm your mother. Now, explain AIDS to me." "Here's a disease that attacks white blood cells, and white blood cells attack disease. As a consequence of that, you get sick from stuff that normally wouldn't make you sick," he replied. Not bad. Concise, to the point. Not surprisingly, while at cocktail parties and other gatherings, Nye is often asked to explain science. He always comes prepared. "I carry balloons in my briefcase--there's a lot you can do with balloons. I insist on physical models. It's the part you can't let slip," says Nye. Flatow's radio program precludes physical models, but he recommends the next best thing: analogies. "What happens inside of an atom smasher? Well, it's like taking billiard balls and knocking them together to see what flies out. Unlike print, radio [audiences] don't get a chance to look back. I try to get people to expound on a point, to amplify it and possibly return to it later." The same tactic can be useful in face-to-face conversations. Don't just repeat yourself, but bring the same topic into the conversation in a slightly different light. Be careful of complex logical arguments, advises Kolata. In conversation, "most people have trouble with a logical argument that goes beyond 'A implies B.' When you start saying A implies B, which implies C and D, I don't think most people will follow it. I don't mean that they're stupid, but it takes a bit more motivation" to follow such an argument in conversation. No matter what their scientific training, listeners are usually more on the ball than scientists give them credit for. "Use reasonable vocabulary words, but never ever talk down to anyone," says Nye. "If you treat them like they are not as smart as you are, they will not listen to what you have to say." You can't help but simplify the terms and concepts you use to get your point across, but "if you use analogies and don't sound patronizing, no one is even going to know that you're [toning it down for them]," says Kolata. Consider analogies. Carry a pocketful of balloons if you must, but remember also that your listener has seen a few too many wild-eyed, socially challenged researchers on television and in movies. Esoteric science can be tough to describe, but preconceived notions about your fundamental psychological makeup can present even greater difficulties. Have you ever seen that look in someone's eyes? You know, the "Oh, you're a molecular biologist" look, which is followed by a vague stare, as if your conversation partner is trying to picture you in a white coat, taped black-rimmed glasses, and frizzed, white hair. Surely I'm not the only one to have spent time explaining to people that Hollywood has it wrong, that scientists aren't so different from everyone else. When they're not screwing up physics in the latest science fiction blockbuster, screenwriters seem to be busily portraying scientists in villainous or goofy, stereotypic roles. But take heart, says author, screenwriter, and M.D. Michael Crichton, who is perhaps best known for the book and movie Jurassic Park. Scientists aren't the only professionals who get the stick-man treatment in films. Accountants, police officers, and politicians rarely make a good impression on the big screen. Speaking at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting in Anaheim, Calif., this past January, Crichton defended Hollywood's portrayal of science. "Popular fiction about science must necessarily be sensationalistic, inaccurate, and negative," he said. "Accuracy ... is never the most important value. Jack Horner, the paleontologist who served as [Jurassic Park's] film adviser, was dissatisfied with the portrayal of a dinosaur dig, where people are exposing bones. I said, 'Would your sequence take the same amount of time?' He said it would take a little longer. Maybe another minute. 'Well,' I said, 'there's your answer.' Because a minute is a very long time in a movie." Dr. Jekyll, Dr. Frankenstein, and the ubiquitous white-haired Einstein knockoffs may continue to dominate the big-screen portrayal of science, but Crichton insisted we should not be alarmed by it. In fact, a negative portrayal isn't all bad: "We live in a culture of relentless, round-the-clock boosterism for science and technology. With each new discovery and invention, the virtues are always oversold, the drawbacks understated. But everyone knows science and technology are inevitably a mixed blessing. How then will the fears, the concerns, the downside of technology be expressed?" In movies. A real public understanding of science will only come from scientists willing to communicate face to face with the public. "Working scientists with major reputations and major accomplishments [need] to appear regularly in the media, and thus act as human examples, demonstrating by their presence what a scientist is, how a scientist thinks and acts, and explaining what science is about," Crichton says. In the meantime, the rest of us can go on explaining what we do at social gatherings and the dinner table. Sooner or later, the message will likely get across. James Kling (nasw.org/users/jkling) is a science and technology writer in Bellingham, Wash.

Talking Science with Nonscientists: A Personal Communication

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of