Communicating Clearly about Science and Medicine

Making Data Presentations as Simple as Possible ... But No Simpler

John Clare

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351950329
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business Communication
• Index: Business

Scientific communication is challenging. The subject matter is complex and often requires a certain level of knowledge to understand it correctly; describing hazard ratios, interpreting Kaplan Meier curves and explaining confounding factors is different from talking about a new car or clothing range. Processes, for example in clinical trials, are laborious and tedious and knowing how much of the detail to include and exclude requires judgement. Conclusions are rarely clear cut making communicating statistical risk and probability tough, especially to non-statisticians and non-scientists such as journalists. Communicating Clearly about Science and Medicine looks at these and many more challenges, then introduces powerful techniques for overcoming them. It will help you develop and deliver impactful presentations on medical and scientific data and tell a clear, compelling story based on your research findings. It will show you how to develop clear messages and themes, while adhering to the advice attributed to Einstein: 'Make things as simple as possible...but no simpler.' John Clare illustrates how to communicate clearly the risks and benefits contained in a complex data set, and balance the hope and the hype. He explains how to avoid the 'miracle cure' or 'killer drug' headlines which are so common and teaches you how to combine the accuracy of peer-to-peer reviewed science with the narrative skills of journalism.

1
Science Communication in the Twenty-First Century

Science Communication in the Twenty-First Century

The importance of the audience – suspicion about science – why talking to non-scientists is important – the overlapping rings of science communication – the convergence of communication channels – examples of great science communication.

Appreciate the Audience

If I had a magic wand and was able to wave it over every person in the world preparing a presentation, I would make them all do this: Think about the audience. Put yourself in their shoes and stand where they are standing. Only then can you see your situation from their point of view. From there you can develop a presentation or an informal talk that takes into account their level of knowledge, interest and expectations.

Let’s do this now, and think of the audience in terms of the big picture. When we talk about science communication, we refer to a situation where an expert (you) communicates to non-experts (your audience). Their level of ‘non-expertness’ will vary hugely. Examples from opposite ends of the spectrum might be a presentation to fellow physicians and researchers at a medical congress, where you and they both understand the background, and where what you are telling them is the result of your latest specialist research, versus a television interview about your research on a show aimed at the general public.

In both instances, and every situation in between, our aim is clear spoken communication. The challenges, however, are very different. They start with the audience. Scientific colleagues start with a good level of understanding about your subject, and are ready to pick on the smallest details of inconsistency, error or lack of rigour. On the other hand, the public start with a suspicion about science, a fear of its power and often a feeling that it is too difficult to understand.

Ben Goldacre, author of Bad Science, his best-selling book based on his weekly column in The Guardian newspaper, has a theory about why the public is suspicious of science. He says that until the 1960s, if you learned about science at school, you could broadly understand how things worked ... engines, powered flight, TV sets, space rockets and other inventions which were regarded as ‘cutting edge’ at the time. Since then, however, science has become so complicated that only real specialists can understand it. If you stopped someone in the street, would they be able to explain how a mobile phone works? Or a computer? Or satellite navigation? ‘Something to do with microwaves, and radiation . and satellites,’ is as close as most people get. Can you explain how the human genome was cracked? How Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors work? As a scientist you may know the answers, but the public doesn’t. What we don’t understand makes us fearful. On top of that there have been so many ‘scares about science’ in recent years including fears over the safety of genetically modified (GM) crops, mobile phones linked to brain cancer, leukemia clusters around power lines and many other issues. If you have the public as your audience, you need to take this into account when you start to plan your presentation. Hence my advice: put yourself in their shoes. We will explore this in detail later in the book.

Given the difficulties, you may ask why we should communicate about science at all to non-scientists. Why shouldn’t we confine our discussion to scientific journals, and only present to specialist colleagues? For centuries, that’s exactly what happened, in most cases. Scientific research was conducted in a metaphorical black box. Scientists beavered away in secret, and when they had invented something which they believed was worthwhile, or maybe just clever, they handed it over to a grateful public. The public, when it thought about science at all, assumed it was conducted by bald men in white coats (‘eggheads’) who would run down a corridor shouting ‘Eureka!’ when they discovered something. They accepted the fruits of the research unquestioningly, and the scientists went back to their work.

Eventually the recipients started to ask questions: Is this the kind of development we want? Who decided what the scientists should invent? Is the new technology safe, and for how long? What if it falls into the wrong hands? Is it a good financial investment? Over time, these questions became criticisms, some justified, some not. The scientists began to discover the truth of C. Northcote Parkinson’s quote about the consequences of failing to communicate: ‘The void created by the failure to communicate is soon filled with poison, drivel and misrepresentation.’

The next step was that the public – and governments – demanded a stake in the planning of research, and a say in deciding what was ethically acceptable and financially justifiable. ‘We’re paying for this research out of public funds, so we want to know what’s going on.’ Nowadays, not communicating with non-scientists is not an option. Doctors and scientists are regularly called upon to explain and justify their work. Scientific topics such as climate change, energy use, cloning, stem cell research, the perceived risk of dangerous emissions from electricity pylons and mobile phones, risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVTs) on long haul flights and cancer risks from almost anything as well as the risks and benefits of vaccines and medications are high on the list of people’s concerns. The way to allay those concerns is by communicating clearly about science.

The Overlapping Rings

Science communication takes place in a number of ways. The three most important are:

1. publication in peer-reviewed journals
2. presentations
3. media interviews

Within these, we can identify sub-sections:

Figure 1.1

The overlapping rings of science communication

1. Publication in peer-reviewed journals
   1. – often involves editorial comment in the journal
   2. – includes online publication on journal website
2. Presentations
   1. – to colleagues
   2. – to public
3. Media interviews
   1. – to specialist media
   2. – to general media
   3. – one-to-one interviews or press conferences

This book is concerned with the last two, which demand skills in spoken communication. However, presenting this as a list gives an inaccurate impression, as it suggests three discrete activities taking place sequentially on a continuum. In reality, they overlap. In the process, the audience changes too, from specialists to the general public. Today, I think of most science communication as three overlapping rings:

Presenting all three rings as the same size suggests that they are all equally important. In my view, this is increasingly the case, although without the peer-reviewed publication ring there would be nothing happening in the other two. Once you have achieved the publication, however, the other two take on equal significance with it among different but equally important audiences.

The Rings in Practice

As an example, consider a large study presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). This is the largest medical meeting in Europe, and the largest cardiology meeting in the world. It is attended by approximately 25,000 physicians, 750 journalists and 5,000 others, including specialist nurses, scientific researchers, pharmaceutical executives, investors, equipment suppliers and exhibition staff. In 2009, it was held in Barcelona, Spain. On 29 August the results of a major study were presented. The PLATO trial was an investigation of a new anti-platelet agent aimed at preventing dangerous blood clots and reducing stroke, heart attacks and cardiovascular deaths in people with Acute Coronary Syndrome. It compared a new experimental drug, ticagrelor, with clopidogrel, a well-established medication.

The study was presented in the plenary session by Professor Lars Wallentin, Director of the Uppsala Clinical Research Centre, Sweden, and co-chair of the PLATO executive committee. It was standing room only in the packed plenary hall as more than a thousand physicians, researchers, pharmaceutical executives, investors and journalists crowded in to see the long-awaited results unveiled. Many attendees, including me, were forced to sit on the floor in the aisles. The presentation was broadcast live on the internet and immediately made available around the world. There were many more in the overspill hall and others watching on Congress TV around the conference centre.

The results were simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine. This allowed fellow specialists to delve into the details and comment on the study. Traditionally, when the scientific journals were print-only publications, comments took weeks or months to emerge. Now it happens online within minutes of the paper appearing on the journal’s website.

As is usually the case, Professor Wallentin was allowed only five minutes to present the findings. This in itself posed a major challenge with a study which included more than 18,500 patients treated for up to 12 months. Deciding what to include and omit was a crucial decision. As I said in the introduction to this book, he needed to combine ‘the accuracy of peer-reviewed science with the narrative skills of journalism’. He did an exemplary job. His presentation was followed by a five-minute commentary from ‘The Discussant’, another expert who gave his view of the study’s strengths, weaknesses and relevance.

Journalists following the presentation in the hall were also following the online comments from specialists, and noting the comments from The Discussant. They were writing their stories based on a combination of the sources. The first headlines appeared on major medical news sites before Professor Wallentin had finished speaking.

After the plenary presentation, the professor and colleagues were interviewed about the study on Congress TV. You can find the interviews on the ESC’s YouTube channel.

The next step was the press conference, attended by many of the 745 journalists accredited to the congress. They included news agency reporters, and correspondents from a wide range of publications from specialist to general, for example, Cardiology Today and Heart.org to The New York Times, El Pais or The South China Morning Post. The language at the press conference was less technical than that used in the plenary presentation. The key points needed to be clear, and relevance to the journalists’ audience had to be explained.

This prompted follow-up calls from journalists all over the world. It is impossible to check how many stories appeared as a result, but a Google search for ‘PLATO ticagrelor publication’ produces 44,000 results.

This is a perfect illustration of the three overlapping rings, and how new science is communicated to scientists and non-scientists early in the twenty-first century.

Great Communicators

I have hosted many of these press conferences, and have experienced some outstanding examples of clear communication. One came from Professor Salim Yusuf, an internationally renowned professor of cardiology from McMaster University in Ontario, Canada. He was expected to speak for 15 minutes on the progr...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Dedication
• List of Figures
• About the Author
• Preface
• List of Abbreviations
• 101 Introduction: About this Book
• 1 Science Communication in the Twenty-First Century
• 2 The Seven Challenges of Communicating Science
• 3 Preparing Your Talk
• 4 Illustrating Your Talk
• 5 The Performance: Delivering Your Talk
• 6 Medicine and Science in the Media
• 7 Media Interview Techniques
• 8 Every Interaction Counts
• Index