Episode 1: Science Communication
Welcome
Hosted by Olivia Moir, this episode dives into science communication with guest Dr. Kim Botting. We discuss the progression of this field across time and the importance of continual developments and contributions being made. We unpack the barriers faced by scientists attempting to contribute to this field, as well as flaws of this field from the perspective of the public.
About the Guest
In addition to her research here at UCL, she is contributes to the field of science communcation through her work with a Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) group, which is made up of families who have experienced a pregnancy with FGR. Their involvement ensures that our treatment aligns with the needs of patients. She is also currently completing a Postgraduate Diploma in Science Communication at the University of Cambridge, Institute of Continuing Education.
Listen
Watch
TRANSCRIPT
Summary of key words:
Speakers:
Olivia Moir 0:07
Hello, everyone! Welcome to It All Starts Here. This is a brand new podcast series here at the Institute for Women's Health at UCL here in London. I'm your host, Olivia Moir and this podcast series is really going to focus on the communication and education around topics in reproductive science and women's health. And I have with me today a very special guest to try and kick off the series in a way that we can talk about where this podcast all started. And that is from this passion of mine that has been growing in the field of science communication. So I have with me here today, Dr. Kim Botting, who is a researcher at the Institute for Women's Health. She has been focusing on the, broadly, the long term effects of complicated pregnancies on maternal and fetal health, and has sort of stemmed into this field of science communication through postgraduate studies over at Cambridge in a degree programme of science communication.
Kim 1:10
Hi, thanks for having me Olivia.
Olivia Moir 1:11
So nice to have you here, Kim.
Kim 1:13
Yeah, so I guess this is a second hat for me now. So I am a scientist. My trainings been in the effects of like you said, complicated pregnancies throughout the life course. But I guess through having my own pregnancies, I became quite aware of maybe how, what I knew differed quite a lot from what other pregnant women that I was coming across knew and how based on that, it may have impacted the way in which we felt about our own pregnancies and the experiences that we had, for me, luckily, quite positive. So I guess I wanted to know how to better improve the situation for pregnant women generally. And through that, I looked into science communication. So I'm just finishing up my course now. So I've learned quite a lot, actually, it's been quite nice to get a second viewpoint that's come from a non science background, and sort of just to get a better understanding of how science fits in communities.
Olivia Moir 2:14
Absolutely. Yeah. And I think, you know, we've had various conversations already about this topic. And I think, you know, something that we're both very passionate about is just the awareness that, you know, should be brought to these topics, and how, you know, just because someone comes from a particular background, you know, in this case, science doesn't mean that we should have more information than you know, anyone else walking outside.
Kim 2:38
Absolutely. I think the first sort of mind-blowing moment for me, it was this idea that as scientists, we generally fall into the deficit model. And that's, that's the idea that people in society are walking around in need of facts, and we should, should give them all the facts that we can give them. But we all know ourselves that just as scientists, it doesn't mean we know everything about everything. If you ask me, How do you launch a rocket, I've got no idea how to launch a rocket. So you don't need to tell everyone everything that you know, as the scientists were the expert, and then it's up to the individual and their experiences and what influenced their lives, what in what information and what facts they choose to remember and incorporate into their lives. So it's not just about providing facts for people, as important as that is. But it's also understanding how people might use those facts to then change their behaviour.
Olivia Moir 3:34
Right. Yeah. And I think, you know, something that is important to consider is, is oftentimes, like, people describe a, you know, a major issue that they feel with understanding scientific topics that, you know, rather than it being sort of what you've described as this deficit model, they wish it was more of a conversation. And, you know, I think that that's also true of, you know, myself, even in my courses that I take, you know, I often wish that there was more of a dialogue that went on and, and I think that we know that conversations can really help in trying to understand a topic.
Kim 4:08
Absolutely, and that's why science communication is moving towards a lot has been learned. So back in the 1980s. In the UK, in particular, there were concerns from the government that people didn't have a particularly high view of science. So the committee was set upto look athow to improve science education, to then hopefully improve the society's view of sciences. And in that process, there was a lot of energy and effort put into communicating facts to people, they even did tests. They did sort of equivalent in the US as well. They did like science tests as a based on what people knew, like, does the Earth revolve around the sun or all questions like that? And then they did all this effort, all these producing of science facts for people and then decades, decades or so later, they tested again, and they hadn't really improved that the facts that people knew and that thatcomes back into what I said about the rockets, unless it has an impact on your life, you're you're really going to engage with factual information that's not relevant to you. And that is also because the way the facts are being communicated maybe wasn't the best way for for different groups. So there is a bit of a spectrum in science communication, and it's important to inform people, so you want to give them the facts. But it's also important to consult with people to find out what it is that they want to know, or how best they want the information provided to them. What if we look specifically at research? What things research questions that certain diseases that impact people's lives, like, what do they want from medical research? So there are groups like patient and public involvement groups where people were scientists, and we do here at the Institute, talk to patients that may have had a condition specific to lead to our research project? And we asked them? Is this research relevant as someone who's had this disease? What could we do better? And make sure it's a conversation between scientists and people who our research is actually going to affect. And then if you go one step further, you can also do proper CO production, where scientists and the community together can do research.
Olivia Moir 6:22
And I think that would be, you know, obviously, the ideal situation. One thing that I think, you know, I like to reflect on, and I think it's important, you know, such a great example is, you know, for example, with with COVID, and, you know, how the rollout of the vaccine in particular, but also just the different pieces of, you know, evidence and advices that we were receiving from the government and from scientists and researchers, you know, trying to really createa better understanding of what in that was helpful. And also, you know, where lessons that we can learn from that, you know,
Kim 7:03
Absolutely, as awful as COVID was, it was we learned a lot about how to convey effects to people to try and get them to behave in a particular way that you want them to behave. And it was quite obvious from the vaccine uptake, that telling the entire population effect doesn't mean the entire population is going to do the same thing based on that fact, you've provided them. Yeah. And what do you think it is that quite a lot of that was based on trust, actually. So it's how people trust the source that information is coming from. And not only in the UK, but in a lot of other countries. It was people of ethnic minorities for that country, who were the least likely to take up the COVID vaccine. And that's, that's quite poignant when it comes to trust, because they're more likely to feel less empowered in their situations feel like the government may not necessarily represent them. And there's also been other situations where maybe ethnic minority groups have been used in some unethical medical research has happened in the past. So it's unsurprising then that if a government tells you to take a vaccine that we've not done a lot of trials on, it's perceived as being rushed, that you may not want to take that vaccine and the risk might seem quite high to you.
Olivia Moir 8:19
And fair enough.
Kim 8:20
But it was then quite interesting to see how that was perceived. So people just assumed maybe that they're anti vaxxers. They don't want to take it and there was quite a negative stigmatism that came along to those who didn't want to be vaccinated. But there's quite a lot of information on the way that we conveyed facts that also should be learned from that and how it may be not that it's the people who have not taken the vaccine, that should have tried harder. But maybe we should think about the way that that health information was conveyed to people, just facts may not have been enough for them. And in that situation, a conversation was probably more appropriate. So maybe people wanted or could have used the opportunity to have a conversation about the vaccine to talk about their concerns. And then their concerns could be alleviated. And there was studies showing that people who were unsure about being vaccinated or didn't want to be vaccinated if they had access to better science communication methods, that they then chose to be vaccinated. So there's a lot on the fact but also the messenger of that fact and trust and also the emotion that's involved in the topic and for pregnancy for women's health. They're quite emotive topics. So it's, it's something that we really need to delve into as part of the institute.
Olivia Moir 9:44
Yeah. And consider, you know, as you said, the the kind of emotional side of it, and more a better understanding, you know, how the message will be received. I think, you know, obviously, I think one overarching theme that comes out of this is really, that there just needs to be more collaboration between the different disciplines, you know, the scientists have, you know, a great amount of information, but I think, you know, so to the media outlets, so do the community and a way to better kind of implement practice and policy that suits, you know, a wider range of the population, and also having a more effective way of, you know, practising these different, you know, concepts would just be to be able to have this platform or this area that we can, you know, take, take this conversation forwards in a way that better suits everyone.
Kim 10:40
Yeah, so a lot of science communication studies, as a field There's a lot of psychology involved, sociology. So, there is a lot of literature out there already. So yeah, it's engaging scientists, with those communities to make sure we can get the science facts out in ways that more conversational.
Olivia Moir 11:03
Yeah, absolutely. And I think kind of taking this into, you know, we've looked a little bit at the sort of historical the historical point of view of science communication, and, you know, kind of stepping out of this deficit model and more into this sort of conversation style, way to better have science communication. But then, you know, taking it one step further today, looking specifically at barriers that really prevent, you know, the science communication, you know, we've talked about the mistrust in the government that comes from, you know, generations, which we have to acknowledge,
Kim 11:38
and so, you know, boundaries between scientists and society, they do come, they are important, and we sort of push from both directions from both scientists and society. So to be seen as an expert. And that's also what we're talking about providing expert facts, you know, how do we perceive information from the source? Is it an expert? Or is it someone on a podcast? Not obviously, but it's maybe someone who's a social influencer, who may not have a background in this information? So how do you make sure that the facts are actually accurate. And that's by having boundaries in place where to be an expert, you've gone to university, and you've gone to university and you've got a degree, you've got a qualification. And then society views that qualification as yes, you're an expert. So that's important to have these boundaries. But we need to make sure that those boundaries aren't preventing people from accessing information.
Olivia Moir 12:38
Totally.
Kim 12:39
So yeah, making sure we're publishing papers in journals that can be accessed by the public. Making sure that we you we communicate in a way that's accessible, the language that we use,we have had a lot of training as scientists on how to write the most information in the shortest amount of words possible. We're very good at being very succinct and very to the point. But if you talk to another scientist, that's not necessarily how they read information, it's not best how they learn. So we need to almost unpick everything we've been told, in order to then better communicate with the public and jargons quite a good one, we need to get rid of as much jargon as possible. So the language is understandable.
Olivia Moir 13:22
Yeah. And I think, you know, even as you know, I would say a little bit of a junior scientists that I am, like, I struggled with that. So I can't imagine, you know, not coming from a scientific background. Like, I know, the same is true of any field, but you know, I'll be sending in my courses, and even just the acronyms that are used for the same ranges of, for example, cardiac diseases, you know, I should know that, but yeah, it really even if you do know it, it can be hard. Yeah, to really pick them apart.
Kim 13:50
Yeah, acronyms is a really good example. Because if you are trying to write an abstract, only get a certain number of words, then acronyms are really good way to reduce the number of words that you're using. But we need to sort of undo that and making sure we're spelling things out. Unless, you know, it's something that's very commonly used, that everyone is absolutely going to understand.
Olivia Moir 14:11
For sure. Yeah. And I think, you know, sort of stemming out of that is I kind of see this trouble that exists a gap that exists between you know, the scientist, and you know, how practically they would implement better science communication. And, you know, I think I know a little bit about what the experience is of a scientist and the different pressures put on you to interact with the public, but also just for your own research, and I think, you know, maybe you could touch on a little bit about
Kim 14:44
Yeah, so we are, it's a good thing. funding bodies are asking us to show the impact of our research. And it used to be impact just used to be writing and publication, getting accepted in a journal that's perceived as having a higher impact. But that's not how it impacts necessarily being measured anymore. So funding bodies want to know, have you communicated your science outside of the scientific community, if you've been involved at all in policy conversations, and again, they're two different audiences. So we talked to the scientists, we're very good at talking to scientists and scientists, but then the language we use to talk to the public will then be different, again, to how we communicate with policymakers. So it's all about knowing your audience, and making sure you're communicating in a way that's appropriate for that audience. So just to remind me what your question was, again,
Olivia Moir 15:40
yeah, no, I think I bridging that gap, that gap that exists between, you know, the practical, the daily life scientists and the different challenges faced by you, in order to produce work, but also interact with your public audience, you know, how do you think it would be helpful in a way to kind of eliminate that gap that exists
Kim 16:03
It is quite a scary place, really, when you're a scientist, and everything's been quite controlled? Maybe within your institution, they are the filter for what information then comes out into the public space. So via your PR, within your institutions, if you wanted to speak to the media, if you do a press release, that's all sort of controlled within institution. And that's, that's excellent. But if as a scientist, you want to speak directly to the public, that's quite a different thing.So social media is a platform at which that can make it a lot easier.And I guess, by being an expert, and putting out facts about your research, that's building a case for making sure that there's truth in the information that's out there, having more experts saying that information against maybe some non experts in their opinions, does help provide more of a balance as to, to what is truth with fact. But how do you go about that?
Olivia Moir 17:14
Yeah, and I think, you know, like, again, that's something that we sort of, touched on a little bit in previous conversations was really just, you know, I am definitely an active social media user. And I think part of where my passion for science communication stems out of, is just I see the utility of these different resources. And you know, particularly like right now Instagram, Tik Tok, these different pages, where people are able tocreate content, and, you know, really just take off. And I think, obviously, these, these different platforms are really useful as sources of entertainment. But I can't help but see the use of these platforms in a more, you know, educational way, but it doesn't have to be kind of, like, we're here today to tell you in this kind of, you know, instructional way that, you know, again, has that barrier that we talked about, where the scientist is speaking down, it can be in a way that is more engaging, and, you know, using more simple terms, or more engaging words, and also, you know, the the use of potentially having someone as the middleman, the Messenger of different pieces of information, you know, which I think is a good area to explore, because something that, you know, I've definitely noticed is, there will be these different influencers, like I said, that I that I follow and engage with, and I think I really love and support their platforms. But, you know, sometimes, maybe speaking a little bit out of turn, and I'm like, I don't know, where you're coming up with that information, or certain people providing certain pieces of advice. And, you know, obviously, there can be truth to certain things. But I think, you know, caution needs to exist around, you know, having such an influence, but, you know, maybe not having an educational backing
Kim 19:13
again, it's, it's how to, we get to the audience that we want to speak to. So as scientists, even with social media platforms, what you're probably doing is just talking to a lot of other scientists. So the general public might not be following you on Twitter, you might have a lot of people you've met at conferences, you've got other scientists, which is great for improving collaborations universally. But we might not be the most exciting people for the general public to follow. So there there is a place for people who have more relatability to the general public that might be seen as a messenger for factual information that might actually reach more people, and they use that in document freestyles, for instance. So a really good one that came up recently was about the menopause. Davina McCall in the UK. She's a recognised TV personality, and she gave a documentary about the menopause and has written a book, it's got awards, she has been able to access a lot of people. And if you follow the structure of that documentary, yes, there was facts in it. And they had scientists to say, the factual information to make sure that there was some credibility in the information that was coming across. But quite a lot of the documentary was actually personal experiences. And that's where people will engage more with the information, if it is relatable, if they can use those facts and apply it to their own situation. And it has a lot more impact. So yes, it's great putting facts in forming people, we can have social media or scientists and say, this is x, y, and Zed. But But there may be a situation actually where we need to engage with other people to help get our message across to more tomorrow or society.
Olivia Moir 21:05
Yeah. And I think that's where, you know, again, this theme of collaboration comes in, because I just I think there's a great opportunity for the scientists to communicate with people, you know, not not to say that there aren't great scientist communicators like they exist. Absolutely. But, you know, the opportunity that exists between having sort of a scientist in conversation with some sort of media personality, yeah, maybe as a way to, you know, have these facts being kind of strained out to the public audience in a more engaging way.
Kim 21:45
And I think whatever way you choose to do science communication, you need to also make sure you can measure it. So we've funding bodies are asking you to provide evidence that you've communicated science to the general public, just saying I did a thing isn't really a great measure of the impact of that thing. So if you're going to do any sort of science communication, you need to, I think, put some effort into as well as setting up a way that you can measure it, maybe some surveys, for instance of your audience, find out who watched it, how many people what was the demographic of those people, you could ask them questions, like, do you think you learned something? If the information you're trying to tell them is to change behaviour, you can ask them? Do you think you may change your behaviour? Anything longer term than that does require money? Like if you're going to do follow up studies and find out do people actually change their behaviour? What impact did that have long term that does actually require some money. So there may be a case for applying for funding that's not just from science bodies to do science, but maybe you want to look at applying for some money to do some science, communication activities. And pots of money do exist, various Learned Societies and the university UCL does UCL and other universities will have grants that you can apply for in order to do some science communication activities.
Olivia Moir 23:13
Yeah, yeah, no, and I think, you know, it's a great it's, it's obviously it's important to be able to, to measure these different things. And you know, it can be really hard, I think, as a scientist to be able to kind of like organise all the different tasks that you have to get done and, you know, be able to, to identify the different areas that you are trying to contribute to. But I think it's also a really rewarding thing to be able to interact with people and feel kind of heard and understood.
Kim 23:45
Absolutely. And I think as scientists, we we often don't get that we can feel a bit like we're finding all the answers, but maybe we're not having much impact. Whereas maybe someone who works in a medical field who actually can see patients, and they can use that information, the facts in order to influence people's lives, you'd get an instant reward from that you do feel like you're having a making a difference.
Olivia Moir 24:07
Yeah.
Kim 24:08
So that comes from being in direct conversation with the community. So by communicating your science, you know, yourself, you may get get some positive, wearable reward you yes to actually your science is making a difference. Yeah, people want this information. People need this information to improve their lives. Yeah. But yeah, we also need to make sure we don't then fall into the deficit model again, where, where we think that everyone needs to know everyone needs to know our facts.
Olivia Moir 24:39
Yeah.
Kim 24:40
So there are community groups potentially, there might be community groups that exist that built around your particular disease or there might be women's groups for instance. So we might be worth approaching those those community organisations and asking them if you know they would value. You you're talking with them and set it up as more of a conversation platform in order to find out what it is that they want to know.
Olivia Moir 25:08
Yeah, absolutely. And I think, you know, as you were mentioning that to the patient outreach group that you are a part of, you know, I think that that is something that is, is really cool in a way to interact with people from varying backgrounds to really hear
Kim 25:23
Absolutely. So patient and public involvement is, it's really important in medical, medical related situations. You also have to be a bit conscious, though, about making sure you're not exploiting your group, right? So if you're going to a patient and public involvement group, and you're asking them for feedback, you know, you need to value the contribution they're making. So we always make payments, if they want payment for their time, you also have to make an activity like that quite accessible. If these people are working, then, you know, are you doing during working hours? Is it childcare issues, they've people have busy lives with other things other than your science that they find interesting. So it's making sure your activities even when PPI is accessible to as many people as possible.
Olivia Moir 26:14
Yeah, absolutely. And I think, you know, just just from conversations that I've had, you know, with my friends, particularly, you know, relating back to reproductive science and women's health, it's, it's, I think that a huge challenge is, you know, taking it back to this area of social media and, and the different areas that scientists can contribute to communication with the public. It's, it's not that people don't want to know, it's not that people aren't, you know, already trying to understand, it's just that there is mixed messaging, you know, that exists. And there is, again, the lack of trust, or, you know, an over trust in certain people. Yeah, and I think that, you know, going forwards, this field of science communication really needs to focus on, you know, an area or a specific platform where we can get ideas across overarching concepts across and creating this sort of safe space where people feel that they can interact with a scientist, about making sure if people want the information, they can find the information. And if people have questions about that information, they've got someone they can go to, to ask to clarify.
Kim 27:32
Yeah, a way of fitting that information in to their lives, especially if it's something you want people to do in terms of changing behaviour. And we all know that doctors don't have much time these days, they're very overworked. And where it used to be maybe that the in terms of medical things the platform people would have would be to talk to their medical practitioner practitioners. Maybe that's not available as much as it used to be anymore. So people may have less space to clarify various bits of information coming at them. And I guess, I guess, you know, if you bombard enough people with enough actual science facts that maybe you will win over the non, the non factual information that's being disseminated. But that, yeah, scientists can be quite tiring. So it's not so much about making sure that you're doing the most sightseeing and vacation possible is just making sure that what you do communicate is done in the best way possible for your audience.
Olivia Moir 28:33
Right.
Kim 28:33
And I guess if we're talking in the sense from the institution, we're not talking about just all women, either. Sometimes a lot of these situations actually have an impact on men's lives as well, we need to consider the families of people. So it's, it's making sure the message is then received by multiple types of people. And so we need to change the way we communicate to the different groups that were then approaching. And that goes for different ethnic minorities as well, we need to make sure that we're not only communicating in a way that's very accessible for people of higher socio economic situations, we need to make sure that it's not just communicated from a university or an institution that historically may be a barrier for people to come and approach to some people may have left school and thought I'm never going back to a research institution, any sort of science, any sort of library, I want nothing to do with it. So a lot of it is well as making sure you're going to where people are not just asking people to come to you because there are as well barriers there in terms of the places where the communication happens that we need to consider.
Olivia Moir 29:51
Yeah, and I think, at the end of the day, you know, in the same way that we're talking about how a scientist wants to be heard. It's really important also, the community wants to be heard equally, you know, and as they should be. And I think, you know, kind of today what my takeaways are, is just that going forwards to have, you know, a better area of science communication, it really starts with having a space where people feel that rather than this sort of top down deficit model of science, communication, it's more of a conversation.
Kim 30:29
Absolutely
Olivia Moir 30:30
And I think we have talked about the different resources that are available, but there is still more that we can do and more that the different areas such as media, science, government has the space to create platforms unique for the ability to have this kind of back and forth
Kim 31:00
And UCL is a great place for that. There is a lot on the science but also on the policy, and psychology and sociology. So it's making sure that we are talking to each other because we all want the same things, which is to improve peoples lives.
Olivia 31:15
Absolutely. Well what a great place to end, it was so nice having you Kim.