It is STILL vital that scientists engage with the media

Scientists need to be part of the conversation even, or especially, when journalists deal with contentious issues.

---

This semester, I’m occasionally running some evergreen posts highlighting past work/ideas/tools that more recent readers may not have seen when I first published them. Today’s post is about a media interview I did and why I think this kind of interaction is still a vital aspect of being a scientist.

Screenshot of a Wyoming Public Radio news post.

Responding to media queries has long been a fraught aspect of being a scientist in the U.S., and the stakes have been sky-high more recently. Even so, I have and continue to encourage students, colleagues, and friends to respond to journalist inquiries. There are a lot of fantastic resources [1] about how to have a mutually productive interview, and I’ve led multiple workshops [2] to help scientists feel more confident talking to the media. Part of my motivation here is that I once made my living as a science journalist, and I know how important it was (a) to get scientists to talk to me and (b) convey the message of their science in a way that was meaningful to readers without skewing the science. Moreover, decades of research [3] indicate residents of the U.S. (still) want scientists involved with journalism, policy decisions, and myriad other aspects of sharing science.

Since I’ve joined the academy, though, I’m occasionally on the other side of the table, as the interviewee.

Earlier this year [4], for example, I was interviewed by Wyoming Public Radio. The reporter contacted me because I study how to effectively share science. He wanted to share insights, with WPR listeners, on how to evaluate the credibility and significance of science-related claims. The interview focuses on a specific policy brief, but the overarching message I shared applies to any science-related claim someone might encounter.

Specifically, my suggestion to the reporter and his listeners was: “How much do I want to believe this? If what you really want to do is believe it because it supports what you understand about the world or your values or your politics, then those are actually the things that you should probably be the most skeptical about.”

I also provided some context regarding why we use peer review, what peer review is supposed to facilitate, how incremental science is, and how awareness of these aspects of science can help someone evaluate the credibility of a claim. [5]

One aspect of the interview that I especially enjoyed was, towards the end, when the reporter asked me what I would say to someone who was just, flat-out, skeptical of or distrusting of science. The timing of the question was remarkable, because I was, at that moment, sitting on a relative’s porch in my childhood hometown, where I was raised amongst mannny science/authority skeptics. I had no role models of people in science as a child, and it took most of my adult life to understand and appreciate both the value and the innate uncertainty of scientific methods.

I told the reporter: ““If somebody feels skeptical about science, they're part of the process, really.”

It’s this questioning aspect of science that feels most honest to me, especially after growing up around a lot of black-and-white thinking (even though that dogmatic framing actually made things seem more gray/confusing to me as a kid). I also find the incremental and self-critical aspects of science most compelling as a person who loves to think and learn and read while also asking a hundred questions about why, how come, and how do we know?!?!? Science is a worldview, certainly. It’s not an omniscient body of knowledge, and a lot of harm has been done in the name of science. At the same time, I remain appreciative of and committed to leveraging the resources and methods of science, as appropriate and respectful, to help us answer essential, fascinating questions about humans, more-than-human beings, and the planet.

How about you?

What’s an aspect of sharing science with/through the media that you find valuable? Challenging? And why? Do you feel supported to navigate these nuances?

---

P.S. You still have time to get 30% off of Teaching and Mentoring Writers in the Sciences! Just use the code UCPNEW. This is a labor of love I co-wrote with Stephen Heard to help folks in the sciences connect with the 50+ years’ of research on how to effectively teach writing. It comes out from University of Chicago Press on November 18th!

---

[1] I always suggest starting with The Open Notebook. Although it is a resource for science journalists, it provides a lot of great ideas about interview prep that are equally relevant for scientists. (And, seeing the journalist’s perspective often helps scientists feel more at ease.) AAAS also provides a useful media tips PDF.

[2] Contact me directly if you’d like to discuss having a workshop like this at your institution.

[3] See, for example, the Pew Research Center’s extensive oeuvre on the subject, including Rosentiel 2009, Funk et al. 2015, Funk et al. 2019, Kennedy and Tyson 2023. (And yes, I do recognize the irony that these are not peer reviewed.)

[4] You can listen to (or read) the full interview on WPR’s website, along with more discussion of the policy brief of interest and my thoughts on the incremental and essential skepticism in science.

[5] For example, the specific policy brief the reporter was looking at was not peer reviewed, did not report its methods, and had been funded by a partisan think tank. While none of those attributes, on their own, are reasons to fully discredit a claim, they are individually and collectively reasons to not wholesale believe a claim.