What reading about The Pill made me think about SciComm

I recently finished reading "The Birth of the Pill" by Jonathan Eig (if you are interested in the review, you can see it here) a nonfiction about what it took for this, now, common contraceptive to be discovered and approved, at least in the U.S. It was an interesting read, both for me as a woman, a scientist and former user of the pill. But it got me thinking about the way Gregory Pincus, the main scientist of this endeavor, was portrayed, how he shared his research and how so many things haven't changed at all in science communication, even after 50 years.

Every time I read a science nonfiction it strikes me how more often than not, the scientist involved are portrayed as this cold, nonchalant men (let's face it, most of the time it's men) that looks to others with a hint of disdain. While I have to admit that a lot of current scientist still fit this profile, it was fun to read about Pincus eccentricities, albeit there are a lot of things in his behavior I do not approve, such us traveling or even paying his wife's shopping spree with the foundations money. But still, it was nice to see a scientist portrayed as having a social life, liking fast cars, etc.

The thing that struck me the most was probably how he approached sharing his data. In case you don't know this, he once worked in Harvard but after some controversy about his in vitro research, he was denied tenure and decided to go solo, founding the Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology. It was here that most of his pill-related work took place. But here is the thing, Pincus was very open to non academic media about his advancements, even when technically, he hadn't succeeded yet. He criticized a lot of his fellows researchers who (to his eyes) where obsessed with only publishing in specialized journals and only in the most scientific terms.

This last part hasn't changed that much in academic science. There's still a prejudice against those who vulgarize their research and Impact Factors are still considered as badges of honor by a lot of scientist. You would think that in more than 50 years since Pincus (and others) criticized this tendency of researchers to keep research for themselves, more people would be open to sharing their findings and to making them more accessible to a bigger public. Alas, it's not the case.

Once again, I do not fully agree with the Pincus methods Telling a conference that his research is almost done when months and even years of data was still needed is basically lying, and trying to inflate your number by presenting them as number of cycles instead of number of women in a study is plainly wrong. But I think we can all agree that once your data is sound and tested, there is nothing wrong with approaching the "general" medias and serving as a bridge between your research and the general public.

Because of the constant fear of being scooped, I understand why so many of us are hesitant to share our research and even the process of your research. Someone even recently asked me if I wasn't afraid of getting scooped because I posted a picture of my "Experiments To Do" list on Instagram. Well, first of all the image is blurred out, but even if someone decides to invert the filter and then tries to make sense of my writing, this person would still need to find the same thread of thought I've been exploring for 5 years now. So, no, I'm not particularly worried about being scooped via IG. I am worried though that this paranoia has been present since forever in academia, and rather than making our results more accessible to everyone we are digging deeper holes to hide everything until it's "publication perfect" and then we only share it with a very small circle.

To read about how this SciComm issue hasn't advance that much in half a century is daunting. I am exaggerating off course. It is true that we have more people dedicated to communicate science in a much more open manner. Blogging and social media in general have helped. But the whole stigma in the scientific community against SciComm persists. Just as The Pill helped revolutionize the way people considered sex, maybe we are far due to changing the way people look at scientist and science in general.

A girl walks into a conference

In the past 4 days I went to 2 very different conferences. The first one, I mentioned last week, was the congress of the Science Communicators of Québec (ACS). The second one was a Host-Pathogen Interaction Symposium that I've been attending for the past 6 years. Interestingly enough, I felt way more comfortable in the new one which, is a weird thing, considering how socially awkward I can be.

If someone asks me what was the main difference I noticed between the 2 conferences, I would have to say: attitude. They were both small conferences, but even though most of the people in the symposium knew each other, there is always this "frenemy" vibe I get in scientific conferences, whereas at the ACS everyone was so inviting and welcoming...or at least that's how they made me feel. I even talk to some well known characters in the field, and while I did feel a bit self-conscious (it is me after all) their tone was never patronizing and I not once felt like anyone was looking down on me, even if I was one of the new ones.

Another big thing I noticed was that during the talks and workshops, most of the questions in the ACS one felt constructive. It's not that the questions in other type of congress are destructive per se, but understandably most of the time, there are questions intended to discover the flaws in a present hypothesis. While this can make the research stronger, there is always a way to be critique of someone's work.

Finally but probably the most important one is the communication itself. The language used. While it is to be expected that a scientific conference has much more specific terms during a talk, the thing is not everyone attending is already an expert. People jump into acronyms or terms that might be very obvious to them and their lab, but there are so many of them (acronyms) that you can see how slowly a big chunk of the audience just disconnected. If you don't know what NTD means (Neglected Tropical Diseases in this context) chances are your brain will wonder off trying to figure out what it is, and by the time you ask/figure it out, the talk has advanced and you just missed the whole relevance or the punch line. You could argue that the people in the ACS managed to pass their message along way better, because they precisely work in communication. But if the whole point of going to a conference is sharing your information, scientists have no choice but to step up their communication game.

In all guys, I feel like I am making the right choice in this career path. You know when you find a group of friends and you sort of feel at home? Because everyone understands you in a very weird way? That's how I felt.

"Science" news

Last week, while reading the local paper I saw this article about Sarah Brightman postponing her trip to space. The article goes on to say that she refers to "family reasons", how much she was supposed to pay for the trip and who was the last person to take such trip. But, why am I bringing this article to your attention? Because the article was (and still is 5 days after) in the Science section, more specifically under the Astronomy and space news of the newspaper. This is not the first time that I see this type of news being presented as science, but it's the first time I talk about it here.

You see, I have no problem with this being considered news, for they are after all, pieces of new information. I even understand the intention of (maybe) trying to use such subjects to lure readers with into a more science oriented article or even an article that gives a bit more info (in this case) about the International Space Station (ISS). But often all it ends up being is yet another gossip like article, with nothing to do with the section it has been placed on.

The increase of this type of articles is not due to the lack of scientific news. On the same day alone, there was news about 3 astronauts that will have to stay at the ISS for at least a month more. This article (on the website of the same local paper) was shared 2 times; Brightman's article was shared 98 times.

So it would look like the reason why articles such as Brightman's keeps spreading, not only in the science section, but others too is that people seem to be more interested by a soprano canceling a trip than news of people already there, with actual information on ISS. But then the next question would be: why not use her article to give people more information?

We or rather the newspaper assumes then, that people don't care about said information and hence gives them less actual science news. And so people see even less science news and more about people's vacations. It is a vicious circle. The general public is offered less and less scientific input and whit less offer there is no higher demand, or at least not yet. The problem becomes not just that the public seems to not be interested on science news, but the fact that the newspaper answers by offering even less science news.

This is one of the reasons why news with "stars" giving their personal opinions as scientific advice has so much momentum. We are putting this type of news to the same level, and then it's no wonder that the general public will take scientific studies and voices from "The View" as having the same weight. Once again, this problem doesn't only apply to science, also to politics and economy. People taking advice about very important subjects (vaccination, mortgages, laws passing) from others that have as much or even less knowledge than they do, but that somehow have become revered for their screen time.

We cannot just blame the general public being misguided on the voices of "famous people". We have to also consider, how much real information is being shared with the public, and more importantly, how this information is being presented. We need more real science news in the science section but we should also work on making them as appealing as vedette's news have become. This shouldn't be that hard, when you think how amazing and mind blowing science can be. Let's put more science out there people!, let's make it more accessible! Let's work on not letting real science news being drown by yet more celebrity news about their latest diet or vacation misshapen.