I commend participants in Alan Alda’s recent competition to explain what a flame is
to an 11 year-old (with the small caveat that it should apply to adults just as much
as children!). At the World Science Festival held in New York City last weekend
they announced the winner of the competition out of over 800 submissions from
around the world. The winning video, created by graduate student Ben Ames of the
University of Innsbruck in Austria, does an excellent job explaining complicated
theories from chemistry and physics to a lay audience. Mr. Ames clearly worked
very, very hard on this video, but I hope you’ll agree, that this level of effort is worth
it.
As a member of the Yale Student Science Diplomats, I strongly believe that scientists
have an obligation to broadly disseminate their work, and explain it carefully and
clearly to others. There’s a common phrase we use for this: “Communicating
Science to Non-Scientists.” But I’ve always felt a bit uncomfortable with this
phrase. It unintentionally implies some sort of fundamental difference between the
intellectual capabilities of scientists and non-scientists.
The reason a lay person might not understand a scientific article is usually the
same reason a scientist might not understand a their cell-phone contract –- they
don’t “speak the language” or know the relevant laws. While jargon is helpful
when experts in a field communicate amongst themselves, scientists often overuse
complicated terms, especially with lay audiences. We also usually forget to provide
enough background information before getting to the main point. Without the right
context, even things that are explained precisely and slowly are incomprehensible. It
is not a matter of intelligence, but explanation.
Making scientific concepts more accessible helps with two additional roadblocks
to communicating science to people: boredom and apathy. If you don’t get lost in
jargon, you have a better chance of recognizing why something is interesting and
important (and science is usually both!). If you think something is cool and relevant
to me, you’ll be more likely to absorb--and even use--the information you’re given.
So, scientists, teachers, parents, and journalists will be most effective if they speak
about science in an engaging and relatable way.
Some people might reasonably argue that you just can’t make everything clear
and exciting–-and that attempts to do so could distract from, or even distort, the truth. Proponents of this argument are the ones who draw a clear line between
the abilities of scientists on non-scientists. The scientist who perpetuates this
myth might say, “Why should I put a lot of effort into explaining something when
it’s just too hard for them to understand?” Meanwhile, the average adult might
react, and further perpetuate the myth, by saying “I’m not a science person, so I
shouldn’t bother trying to understand this.” I concede that there are cases where
it is impractical to thoroughly explain a scientific result or theory, but I think we
need to embrace the hard job of balancing clarity, potency, and accuracy. In fact, it is possible to strike this balance even with something as complicated as fire.
Becky van den Honert
Psychology PhD Student
