Managing the hype: The researcher tries to improve science communication

Being a scientist has its challenges. Knowing how to communicate your scientific research in a socially responsible way can be even more difficult. Fortunately, a researcher at Michigan State University and colleagues at several other universities have identified some of the trade-offs and communication strategies that environmental health scientists can use to communicate more effectively.

“Words matter, and misinformation is everywhere,” said Kevin Elliott, a professor at MSU’s Lyman Briggs College and MSU’s College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. “As scientists, we need to be more sophisticated and intentional about the messages we communicate.”

Elliott and his team examined four ways to present information about the effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals, which can interfere with the human body’s natural hormones and affect sexual development, neurodevelopment and obesity. The different communication strategies tested were: 1) highlighting challenges to masculinity, 2) using the term “neurodiversity”, 3) discussing the developmental origins of health and disease and its relationship to obesity, and 4) classifying obesity as a disease.

The researchers looked at the pros and cons of each communication method and showed how, even if the information might be factually accurate, the messages could have unintended consequences. For example, classifying obesity as a disease could help more people who are obese qualify for weight loss treatments, but this designation could increase the stigma of obesity and create misconceptions about its health implications. Scientists could perhaps lessen this stigma by discussing how fetal exposure to environmental pollutants can contribute to obesity — but this message could, in turn, put undue pressure on mothers to prevent such of exposures.

“We found that there are trade-offs that environmental health scientists must make as they strive to communicate an accurate message,” Elliott said. “We want to provide usable and relevant information, but we also want to prevent information from being misinterpreted or misused.”

Some strategies that Elliott recommends are:

to be sensitive to the social context in which scientific information is interpreted;
avoiding messages altogether when they might cause more harm than good;
creating collaborations between scientists and communication scholars or ethicists;
developing relationships between scientists and community groups to create shared messages to better serve the public.

The study appeared in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.