The AAI Public Communications Committee (PCC) was formed in the Fall of 2021 as part of AAI’s initiative to increase public communications that raise awareness of immunology and establish AAI as a trusted source of credible information. The PCC currently guides AAI’s public communications campaign, Immunology Explained. Given the current climate of funding and staffing cuts related to science in the US and the spread of misinformation, now is a pivotal moment for scientists to broaden their individual public communication efforts. AAI sat down with PCC Chair, Dr. Ross Kedl, Professor of Immunology at University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, to discuss the importance of public science communications and how scientists can grow in this skillset.
What do you wish the public really understood or appreciated about immunology?
One thing about scientists I wish people knew is that we are no different than other people. We are just super curious, and we get to be curious as our job. About immunology, I would want people to know that immunology is part of every other facet of biology. Whatever system, condition, disease, treatment, or area of health you are discussing, there is an immune component. Immunology is literally in your blood, so that makes it a subject which the study of is critical for leading healthy lives.
How do you define science communications?
There are two levels of science communications. There’s one level where scientists are communicating with colleagues. Biomedical research is inherently dependent on talking about your data and information with other scientists. If nobody knows what you know or have discovered, then honestly its like it never happened knows it. Because of that, this type of communication is highly emphasized in our training, but quickly turns into a jargon filled nightmare for the public. There’s then the other level of science communications which is communicating with the public, meeting them where they are, listening, and breaking things down to their level of understanding.
How do you feel the COVID-19 pandemic changed public science communications?
As scientists we are used to communicating something to the public often after decades of research. It makes sense at that point to let the public know immunologists have spent the last 20 years researching “X” and can now answer these questions about “X”. However, I do think the pandemic fundamentally changed both how scientists are perceived and how the public expects science to be communicated. The public had a front row seat to the way science works as they saw the changing of recommendations as new information was discovered. For a public that doesn’t normally see the scientific process in action, they were suddenly watching things going back and forth, which I think contributed to a lot of the breakdown in trust we see today.
What is most important for scientists to consider as they communicate with the public and try to rebuild trust and relationships with the public?
I think a key part of what we have learned is that you cannot assume authority. Scientists cannot just say “I know things and I have training, so you should probably pay attention to what I’m saying.” I certainly have learned, largely the hard way, that the first thing you must do is listen to somebody. You need to pay attention to what they think and what they are feeling and experiencing, because they are not going to listen until they know they’ve been heard. We as scientists have this responsibility to communicate well with the public and that’s an increasingly difficult thing to do, but it starts with listening with empathy and thoughtfulness.
The other piece of advice I would offer is to remember the importance of curiosity. As scientists, when we watch misinformation spread, it can seem like people are gullible when they don’t believe what science is offering. The truth is, no one wants to be gullible, and everybody would defend themselves to the core to convince themselves and everybody else that they are seeing clearly. The opposite of gullibility isn’t intelligence though, it is curiosity. Very smart people can still be taken for a ride if they don’t stay curious. Curiosity is the best guard against gullibility, and we can encourage people to engage with that as we try and communicate our science.
What would you say to scientists that are nervous about increasing their public communications or engaging in some of these conversations?
Again, scientists have to start by being curious about the people we want to have conversations with. The reason we are in science is because we are insatiably curious. We just have to apply that curiosity outside of the lab to our work in public communications. We have to say, “I’m really interested in what you think about that,” no matter what their answer is. Then, when that person is convinced that they have been heard we can say, “are you curious about some ideas I have on that?” They may say no, but at least they have felt heard, which could encourage their curiosity in future conversations with you or others.
The best piece of advice I’ve been given is that you cannot oppose a position until you can state that position to the satisfaction of the person who holds it. That’s some very deep wisdom, and it applies directly to dealing with misinformation. First and foremost, we must convince them that we understand their position fully and satisfactorily, including the emotions involved. For me, curiosity is one of the only things that keeps me out of my fight or flight mode, when discussing topics that can be emotionally charged for us as scientists. If we can model curiosity first and don’t get anything else right, I think we’ll probably be okay.
How can scientists learn more or develop their skills in public science communications?
If you want to know what it sounds like to listen incredibly well, Astead Herndon at the New York Times is really amazing. When he talks about the people he interviews, he talks about them like he cares about them deeply. He is thoughtful and interacts with people like they matter, and it’s not just their ideas or right thinking that matters, the people matter. That can be hard for a scientist because when we communicate, we tend to be thought-focused and focused on correcting what we consider to be bad ideas. The way Astead approaches communication is not built into most of our personalities as scientists. Your average scientist can be a little abrasive, which is part of how we contend with ideas and interact with peers because challenging ideas is part of being a successful researcher; however, it’s not an asset as a public communicator. Follow the cues from people who are really skilled at listening and expressing empathy.
