As the chaos unfolding at the federal level continues to threaten the future of science and public health in the U.S., I am inclined to think of the erosion of public trust in these institutions as a natural disaster. Natural because I think humans are discerning, perhaps suspicious, of information that is becoming harder to verify, and a disaster because so many people end up suffering.
As someone who just completed a PhD in human pathophysiology and translational medicine, I believe we fail the public when we train wonderful physicians and scientists without also providing them with the skills to become competent plain language communicators.
So many scientists I know explain scientific progress at academic conferences or have published in well-known but paywalled and jargon-filled journals. These tasks being completed, a scientist often feels their obligation to disseminate science is fulfilled, when in reality no accessible explanation of their work to the public or policymakers or anyone besides their niche community of other researchers exists. This is a problem.
While basic science work may not have a direct immediate impact on the public, translational work certainly does and the extra effort to explain it is worthwhile. Even if one does basic science work, there is still the opportunity to explain broader scientific concepts and improve public trust and transparency. Yet I’ve been actively told by other scientists that plain language communication is a waste of time. This is a problem.
Physicians, pressed for time and operating in a system that prioritizes productivity over quality patient care, often fail to provide adequate plain language explanations, which can lead to poorer health outcomes for patients with low health literacy. To offer a personal anecdote, I remember receiving a panicked phone call from my mother when my father was admitted to the hospital. It wasn’t until I arrived a day after he had been admitted that my parents became aware (because I told them) that he had had a heart attack. Everyone on my father’s care team had talked about his troponin levels and his myocardial infarction. All of this was medical speak for ‘heart attack,’ but until I arrived this information wasn’t translated to a diagnosis my parents understood. This is a problem.
So what are the solutions to the rampant problem of distrust and miscommunication in the sciences? My own journey has mostly taken the form of podcasting.
In 2023, I was invited by two of my favorite professors to join the team responsible for the Infectious Science Podcast, and I just celebrated my one-year anniversary of working to provide plain language science and medical information over the mic. On average, each of our episodes (which I write, co-host and help fact check) are listened to in about twenty countries.
Podcasting on a team consisting of research scientists, physicians, veterinarians and medical students about topics ranging from the links between infectious diseases and folklore to the complexity of unraveling the causes of Alzheimer’s has led me to connect with a diverse audience. Our episodes have opened a door to cross-disciplinary conversations in plain language that the public may otherwise not be able to access.
This is a win. For science, for medicine, and for all of us on the podcast team who enjoy coming together for a conversation. In a world brimming with mistrust and misinformation, podcasting has felt like an opportunity to have conversations around science containing multiple viewpoints and nuanced information we think people need to hear.
It’s still a challenge to use less jargon and explain complex topics concisely, but the best part of podcasting has been honing these skills, practicing and learning on each recording how to be a better plain language communicator.
If this sounds worthwhile to you, your journey to rebuild from our current natural disaster should include adding your voice to the conversation. Medicine and science should serve the people. To accomplish that aim, we must speak up on behalf of those currently suffering the most from this natural disaster. It’s terrifying to not know what information to trust, and everyone suffers for it.
If we open up our lives even a little bit and show the human side of science and medicine while sharing what we know, we can begin to rebuild what our natural disaster has destroyed. It takes time, it takes effort, but whether it’s an op-ed or podcasting, I think the important task is to find your communication project and practice, practice, practice.
As subject-matter experts, the onus falls on us to do better. While I think it can be frustrating to wade through conversations strewn with misinformation and polarity, podcasting has offered an opportunity for nuance and the feeling that I’m adding to a productive dialogue, not just speaking louder and louder in a conversation where no one is listening.
Just think of what the world would be like if the majority of scientists and physicians made an effort to dedicate even a sliver of time to reach out to the public and use plain language. That would be a win. Rebuilding from the current climate of fallout begins as soon as we start. And in the future perhaps further natural disasters can be averted because we spoke up.
Commentaires