Science, the public and the outdoor communicator

By Mary J. Nickum

It’s all about accuracy. Have you heard or read something and thought, “That can’t be right!”? We expect it in advertising and politics, but it is most disconcerting when it involves science.

Misunderstanding and misinformation often result when science is discussed by communicators who do not have scientific backgrounds and must depend on “informed sources.” Writers must identify sources that they not only trust but whose accuracy can be verified; doing so enables them to achieve a level of trust with their audiences. Communicators must develop the tools of skeptical inquiry that are used by scientists. How do they do this?

“Think locally,” advises David Periman of the San Francisco Chronicle. “Get to know your local biologist.” As in any beat, maintain a list of sources, organized by topic and easily searchable. Be careful when relying on specialties. Rely on scientists only when they are speaking within their areas of expertise; the good ones will tell you when they are expressing personal opinions or when your question is outside of their area.

Another, related issue is risk reporting. Over the past three decades, issue-oriented organizations and the media have bombarded the public with an endless array of risks: anthrax, West Nile virus, radon, asbestos and mad cow disease. In writing about scientific research, communicators must understand the study’s strength, the scientific credibility of those who conducted it and the degree of uncertainty. Real science should include numbers. Junk science is full of words such as “may,” “might” and “could.” Writers should look for both relative and absolute risk information. Relative risk can be misleading if you have no idea what the level of risk was in the first place. Comparing a new risk with more familiar risks can be helpful, such as the irony of the pregnant woman protesting air pollution from a West Virginia power plant while smoking a cigarette that put her and her unborn child at far greater risk.

Conventional wisdom may be an even greater problem when presenting science to the public. Even scientists can be guilty of accepting something as fact when it is not fact or is an interpretation of facts. This problem has become particularly troublesome with respect to environmental issues, which generally involve greater uncertainty than the so-called hard sciences. Finding reliable sources who will distinguish between policy or conventional wisdom and scientifically valid information may be difficult, but it is well worth the effort.

The credibility of the communicator, the media and, ultimately, scientific enterprise itself is at stake in our coverage of risks to health and the environment. Sometimes the best that communicators can offer is the simple truth that science currently has no answer and that we must learn to live with uncertainty. This fact in itself is not easy to communicate. We owe it to our audiences to provide balanced risk reporting that goes beyond the “fear factor” approach.

The public often sees outdoor communicators as authorities on fish, wildlife and environmental issues. We have a responsibility to be accurate, as well as interesting and entertaining. The writer who has a reputation for accuracy and readability will sell more articles and better serve the public.

Mary Nickum joined OWAA in 2000. She is a writer and editor for publications such as Northern Aquaculture and Hatchery International.

‘Science, the public and the outdoor communicator’ will convene at OWAA’s 2007 conference in Roanoke, Va., in June.