Communicating environmental sciences: Public discourse and policy development

Science communication is a rapidly evolving field that attracts increasing attention from all types of research and educational institutions. Scientists are now required to disseminate scientific discoveries and knowledge, navigating their way through a process they are largely unfamiliar with. Although the motivation for science communication varies from blowing one's own horn to educating the community in order to influence policy, the value of public engagement is predicted to increase exponentially. Most scientists prepare for their added role in communication by focusing on acquiring skills such as adopting a nontechnical writing and public speaking style, understanding the most current information technologies, and becoming involved in online social networks. Often, their outreach strategy emphasizes a standard lecturer outlook while attempting to make scientific discoveries accessible or appealing to nonexperts. This is, however, a limited view of science communication, one that is based on the knowledge deficit model, flows in only one direction, and keeps scientists in the so-called ivory tower, a metaphor reflecting the elitism associated with science, and especially academic science. The knowledge deficit model, in particular, has been discredited (NASEM 2017), but many scientists still use it as the basis of their communication approach. The model posits that a lack of information or understanding of science fully explains why people in some instances do not accept scientific claims, or do not engage in behaviors or support policies that are consistent with scientific evidence. However, science shows that it is a complex combination of values and beliefs, knowledge and skills, goals and needs that determines whether or not someone will support scientific evidence and act in accordance to it. In other words, providing more scientific facts about a given issue is not sufficient to convince a skeptical audience to accept a different view. It is time to rebrand the role of science communication, and to view it not as a feeder of information but as an integral component of our society, playing a major role in the formation of values and beliefs that influence politics and policy across different cultural landscapes. In this context, environmental scientists face complex challenges because they contend more often than others with highly controversial global issues, as for example, climate change, toxicity of pesticides, or pollution caused by the chemical, oil, and gas industry, and with complex concepts, as for example, uncertainty, which nonexperts find difficult to grasp. Discussion of these topics is known to result in political polarization that thwarts the development of comprehensive policies. In addition, environmental scientists, by virtue of their expertise, are expected—often unbeknownst to themselves—to navigate the varied cultural dimensions of the Anthropocene, the current geological epoch defined by the influence of humans on Earth's ecosystems. Studying our relationship with nature involves, at this time of rapid global change, the integration of new systems of beliefs, values, and ethics that may likely lead, in the near future, to a profound cultural and social shift (Hoffman and Jennings 2015). Environmental scientists, while navigating these dimensions, will be invaluable players in the acceptance of collective responsibility and in the design of improved global cooperation strategies needed to address climate change, its immediate consequences, and other pressing issues that may alter life on this planet as we currently know it. How can environmental scientists prepare themselves to fulfill their role as expert and effective two-way communicators (speakers and listeners at the same time), integrated in our communities, and involved in leading public discourse that minimizes polarization and results in policy changes? The answer lies in the science of science communication. As are all scientific fields, the science of science communication is a work in progress, but there is much, even now, that we can learn from it. First of all, we should take into account that the communication of science should be held to the same evidence-based standards as the science being communicated (Fischhoff and Scheufele 2013). Second, scientists should be trained in communication using methods grounded in social science research (Simis et al. 2016). Third, we should recognize that effective science communication is based on a holistic approach (NASEM 2017). This approach acknowledges a complex system that includes not only the scientific discoveries being presented but also the individuals who serve as communicators, their diverse audiences, the communication channels used, and the political and social environments in which communicators and audience operate. Moreover, we should consider a potential partnership between the science of science communication and the art of storytelling (Martinez-Conde and Macknik 2017). Storytelling does not usually enjoy a good reputation among scientists. However, when moving from the context of data collection and interpretation to that of science communication to nonexpert audiences, the introduction of storytelling can be viewed from a different perspective. Storytelling prompts emotions by engrossing our imagination and, therefore, results in audience engagement, whereas facts alone are usually not sufficient to engage, especially not at an emotional level. Emotional engagement leads to public support of otherwise controversial policies, as for example, those related to curbing climate change. Indeed, we live in a “post-truth” world, defined as a world in which scientific evidence does not influence public opinion, rather personal beliefs and emotions do. The post-truth world is based on blatant lies that become routine across society; people hear what they want to hear because they choose to rely on biased information from sources with which they share biases (Higgins 2016). Perhaps engaging emotions, but in a framework of truth, is a potential way to communicate in order to obtain public support for evidence-based policy changes. In the current political landscape, science communication related to environmental issues is inherently linked to policy making, and emotional engagement of different communities—paired with knowledge sharing—could result in practical actions, for example, increased participation in the federal public comment process through submission of individual comments, as compared to the much less effective form letters. Rather than simply conveying information, it is the responsibility of all scientists to inspire intellectual curiosity, encourage critical thinking, and foster belief in scientific evidence; effective science communication may help to achieve these goals. Roberta Attanasio Senior Editor, Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA