This week at the Grossman Center, we have been talking about the ways in which we represent our center, our science, and our discoveries to the community. These discussions have led us to consider various scientific communication issues that can arise as research is transmitted to the public. As our center grows, we hope to communicate our work—through our website, social media, and in our annual reports—in a clear, accurate, and inspired way.
As scientists, we have an obligation to share our discoveries, as they contribute to the growing body of knowledge that advances medicine and improves humankind. At the same time, we strive to gain the recognition that ultimately fuels our ability to obtain funding and attract collaborators. Therefore, uniquely communicating our research, findings, and vision to the public is incredibly important
Our own work aside, we have all heard sensationalized science stories in the media—the research findings and medical advances that get blown out of proportion. It is true that amazing scientific discoveries are made with increasing frequency, and some of these discoveries rule out long-held scientific beliefs. But most discoveries are incremental pieces of a much larger puzzle. While some discoveries hold true through years of retesting and refining, many do not, and the public can become frustrated with scientific reports because they are often confusing and fickle. This is not good for the community, and it is not good for the scientific method.
Along these lines, Beth shared a presentation given by Joe Palca, a science journalist for NPR. He argued that science makes for good stories, but not necessarily good news. News is about today, stories are good anytime. Science simply does not “play well” with news cycle timelines. I would also contend that it does not always “play well” with funding or report cycles either. We must remain vigilant in our communication so as not to get swept up in the hype – and to remain true to the science and our own methods. Communication between scientists and the masses is challenging; the language barriers and level of expectation can vary greatly.
At the Scientist Meeting last Friday, Kathy Zahs presented about Nilotinib, a fairly new cancer drug that has been reported to also have astounding effects on people suffering from Parkinson’s disease. We have been discussing this drug as a possible candidate for our own clinical trial with Alzheimer’s patients. The question is a touchy one since most of the data that sparked the hype about Nilotinib is still not fully understood, and the sample sizes for these studies are quite small. However, as these studies have been widely reported in the media, some patients suffering from Parkinson’s have been asking their medical provider for the drug. Suffering patients and families are paying close attention, and they are grasping for hope. Kathy did a wonderful job discussing the research, findings, and questions surrounding Nilotinib, and we undoubtedly will have many more conversations before any decisions are made. The bottom line is that we cannot let hope and hype make those kinds of decisions for us. We, as scientists, have a significant role to play in managing community expectations, and ultimately gaining widespread trust in our work.
This week, we challenge you to find other examples of hope, hype, and sensational news stories about scientific and medical discoveries. What was the role of the scientists in those particular circumstances? Also, feel free to share any ideas about communicating our research to the public through our website, social media, or other outlets.