Uncertainty is not confined to science; it is a fact of every day life as well. We wonder about what the weather will be like tomorrow, or what the next elections will bring. But these uncertainties rarely seem to bother us, while we have become accustomed to these types of uncertainties.
Scientific uncertainty is another matter, especially in areas of science that are controversial such as climate change. Scientists have developed a scientific vocabulary to detail the uncertainties that are enclosed in their research outcomes. Because of this scientific jargon and the long communication trajectory; from the scientist through the media to the public, misconceptions about these uncertainties can arise.
This study aimed to investigate where on the path of communication to the general public, of scientific research results of climate change studies, these misconceptions can arise and what could be improved on the part of the scientists and the journalists involved. The end result was a two-hour classroom lecture for future science communicators.
This study was performed on the basis of two cases.
The first case; the Hockey Stick Affair, a scientific and media debate around the hockey stick graph, which shows the temperature in the northern hemisphere has not been as high in a thousand years as it is today. This graph made by Mann, Bradley and Hughes in 1998, became an icon for IPCC reports and was attacked by critics such as McIntyre and McKitrick. In the scientific controversy and in the media debate nuances surrounding the hockey stick graph seem to have faded over time, but in the last year both scientists and journalists have brought back some of these nuances. The main reason misconceptions arose in this particular case was because of the fact that journalists did not paint a total picture; they did not hear both parties involved in the debate. This caused the public to think the whole Kyoto Treaty was based solely on research studies of Mann and his colleagues. And when doubt was cast on the verity of this graph, the public was made to believe that ratifying the Kyoto Treaty was a big mistake.
The second case is called Snow on Greenland, this case was chosen because of the effort to reduce uncertainties surrounding its field. Scientists from the Centre for Isotope Research (CIO) of the University of Groningen have set out to Greenland and made a layer of special labelled snow. Over the next few years they will monitor this layer of snow in order to measure the mixing process.
Snow contains water and water contains a mixture of different water molecules (isotopes) regular water and heavy water. During colder periods precipitation contains more heavy water than during summer time. Because of these properties, the composition of snow contains information on the climate. Eventually snow turns into ice, but during this process of compressing the molecules mix.
Scientists have been looking at ice core data for years. When making their calculations they have been compensation for this mixing process.
The CIO team is attempting to find out how accurate these compensations have been so far.
The communication trajectory of this particular study did not impose any difficulties. All basic principles of the research where communicated correctly in the newspapers and magazines, as were the uncertainties involved. This because of good communication on the part of the scientist concerned with giving the interviews and the journalists involved. Both requested a check back before the articles were printed.
During this research study the difference in two types of journalists became visible. The way in which specialised scientific journalist communicate differs from the way regular reporters write their articles. This will probably have to do with the time available to spend on each item and the journalist’s background.
This research has come up with suggestions on how to improve the communication trajectory of climate change research results.
Some of these improvements could be made by the scientists, especially when their research has societal relevance; in that case they have a responsibility towards the media. They could ask for a check back before the story gets printed, they could use metaphors, use less jargon and provide easier access, start a web log for instance.
Both scientist and journalist could find out during the interview whether they are speaking the same language and the basic principles are understood correctly. It is the job of the scientific journalist to communicate the nuances surrounding scientific research results in a correct way towards the public. Therefore they could also ask for a check back themselves. Journalists should look beyond their own nose, while not everything is as straightforward as it seems, especially not when it is printed in a non-peer reviewed journal.
Last but not least, the public’s perception of the reliability of the article is improved when reading a newspaper article that contains more context, therefore journalist should provide more of it.
