I believe in science. I trust science. I am in the tank for science.
But science has a problem.
It does not lie in the scientific method, repeated rounds of experimentation and testing, the process of peer review, the careful work of building a body of evidence sufficient to draw likely conclusions.
No, science has a PR problem, and it's got to address it before it's too late.
I understand that science is subject to change, that sound conclusions rely on the evidence and information available, and that those conclusions may reasonably change when additional evidence emerges. That's always true of the scientific method, and it's especially true in a global pandemic, a fast-moving situation unique in our lifetimes. Scientists are working diligently to study what's happening, and explain it to the rest of us.
That's where the problem starts.
'Skeptical people check out'
"The good news is, science is in the lead, so we have credible information," said Matt Friedman, founding partner of Farmington Hills, Michigan-based public relations firm Tanner Friedman. "The bad news is, science is in the lead, so we’re not always getting good communication."
Friedman said he's worked with professionals in dozens of careers to help them speak publicly about what they do. "Scientists are the most challenging," he added.
Partly, it's language; scientists speak a different one than the rest of us.
And partly, it's the fast-changing nature of what we know about the COVID-19 pandemic.
Our last president, and a good chunk of a political party that rhymes with Republican, have spent considerable time and energy undermining science. But even those of us firmly in the science camp can struggle to make sense of the often-conflicting messaging around COVID-19, particularly the more contagious delta variant, and the relative risks it poses to vaccinated or unvaccinated Americans.
"We all know that science evolves. However, the evolution of coronavirus has led to more skepticism and hesitancy," said Jamaine Dickens, principal at Detroit-based Compass Strategies. "It's one of those vicious cycles: 'Aha! They said this two months ago, they’re saying this today, I don’t trust them,' when the fact of the matter is, it’s the evolution of the variants and the knowledge of the coronavirus. Information becomes known, becomes shared, in some cases, contradicts the information we had before."
But when there’s a contradiction, Dickens said, "The skeptical people check out."
"There's an assumption, from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in particular, that the audience understands they’re talking about a fast-changing situation," Friedman said. "But when they declare something, we as regular people are not reminded that what we’re getting is a snapshot, based on a moment in time. In a fast-changing situation, it’s incumbent on the speaker to be very clear that they are providing a snapshot update."
Conflicting messages
Take masks.
Unnecessarily politicized, masks nonetheless became a part of life for many, maybe even most, Americans, until this spring, when the CDC told vaccinated Americans it was finally safe for them to unmask.
Three months later, the guidance was reversed; even vaccinated Americans are now encouraged to again don masks in public spaces.
"Even for those who are taking this the most seriously, who are vaccinated, who want to keep community safe, they’re not sure what to do," Friedman said.
Scientists should also take a cue from politicians, Friedman said, and use media interviews to drive their own agendas.
"If you think the media has an agenda, you have an agenda too, and that shouldn’t be just answering the questions, it should be driving opinions," he said. "If you think vaccines are the solution, and they really seem to be, talk about vaccination. That's what the focus should be on."
OK, science
For me, one particularly exasperating moment came from a recent New York Times article about the delta variant that declared the COVID-19 vaccines "were designed to prevent severe illness, not infection."
Ask anyone on the street, and I suspect they'll understand it differently. Who was the last vaccinated person you know to contract a breakthrough case of measles, or whooping cough? But poor messaging around the vaccines' purpose is part of what's driving some vaccine resistance. If you can still get it, many ask, what's the point?
"Part of what we have to do in professional communications is manage the expectations of our audiences," Friedman said. "Think of a flight delay. What frustrates people the most is that they just don’t know what is going on. But if you say, 'The mechanic is on the way, they’ll take a look, and we’ll have an update in an hour,' people can live with that."
There's a deeper problem, Dickens said, if the audience doesn't trust the speaker.
"Whenever you talk about injecting something into your bloodstream, that’s not something African American people will flock to, especially when it’s administered by the government," he said. "People in the African American community aren’t certain U.S. government has their best interests at heart."
Communication around the vaccine, Dickens said, has failed in this important way: "The people making the decisions on communication strategy aren’t talking to the people they are trying to reach and simply asking them why. 'Why aren’t you taking the shot? You’ve seen countless friends and family pass due to COVID, yet you’re not eager to protect yourself and your family from COVID. Why would you risk it all on a notion of a conspiracy?' And from there, develop messages that attack or address it head on."
It's OK not to know
But most important, scientists have to start explaining that part about change, about how anything we know right now is based on exactly that: what we know right now. It's counterintuitive, both Friedman and Dickens said, but scientists have to explain the limitations of science.
"If we could turn back hands of time, and make more of an effort to say, 'We don’t know what this is, but we will, and we will share everything with you as we get to the bottom of it, but remember that something we find to be true today may not be true tomorrow,' I think people would have less skepticism," Dickens says. "I'm not saying people might trust the vaccine and take it.
"But they might wear a mask."
———
