This presentation provides a different view of science communication by not following established lines of introduction. It discusses how science communication has changed from being education-oriented to having to answer the demands of a diverse audience. Effective science communication requires understanding different communication models and parameters for success, such as not dumbing down information, being concise, and using storytelling techniques.

1. This presentation will provide a different view of Science Communication. It tries to
be thought-provoking. Hence, we do not follow established lines of Science
Communication introductions.
The title is adopted from a book by Randy Olson.
There might be a clash of cultures within some of the examples, since the
communication environment and the demands might be slightly different from the
German setting – nevertheless, communication is based on the same principles all
over the world.
1

2. 2

3. Science – unfortunately – is driven by negativity. The scientific process is that of
formulating a hypothesis based on data and observations, that will become open to
critique by being published to the scientific community. Said Science Community then
tries to find falsification. You never ever end up with a thesis, that is true - it is always
only true as long as it is not falsified. This process is based on critical thinking, which
is kind of the opposite of what a non-scientific audience seeks in communication.
Picture: Doc Brown from the motion picture “Back to the Future”; retrieved from:
http://mentalfloss.com/article/69321/missing-links-doc-brown-back
3

4. Communication is the act of conveying intended meanings from
one entity or group to another through the use of mutually
understood signs and semiotic rules.
Communication is not limited to vocal or written information – everything we do is
communication.
Communication fulfills multiple social functions and services.
Nevertheless, Science itself has not yet fully understood, how important
communication is for all of us. But times are changing …
4

5. This might be the single most important recommendation one has to introduce to
administration boards of research institutions and universities.
If you gather scientific knowledge but are unable to convey it to others in a correct
and compelling form, you might as well not have bothered to gather the information
at all. (Olson2009:9)
The first encountered the mechanisms of inheritance, the second talked about sex
and violence and the survival of the fittest! Who got more attention? Mere decades
after Mendels publication, merging both theories created a robust theory of
Evolution. If Mendel had been a better communicator, this theory would have been
formulated decades earlier, leading to faster progress in the field of evolutionary
biology.
Fleming discovered penicillin in 1929 and published his findings in a small scientific
publication. About 2 0years later, Ernst Chain rediscovered Flemings work, we
wondered if Fleming was still alive at all. Communicating the finding of penicillin
would have led to an earlier development of applications of penicillin, that would
have saved maybe thousands of lives.
5

6. Picture: Ann Glover, The Times/NPA; retrieved from:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environment/article4267243.ece
5

7. This is, how sicentists thought about communication until about the end of the
1950th.
Instant Messaging: The delusion of literal-minded people that communicating to the
mass audience is as simple as blurting out what you have to say! Information does
not automatically lead to understanding.
The biggest mistake by Mendel and Felmming:
There is no “the facts speak for themselves!” – not in communication.
Picture: Aristotelian Sender Receiver Model; retrieved from:
http://www.marketingcommunicationsblog.com/communication-model/
6

8. Communication is getting more and more complex – at the end, we introduce noise
as a placeholder for everything, that is too complex to be introduced into the model
itself.
The single most important part of new, modern communication models is the
Feedback-loop which allows for a dialogue between communication partners.
Mass Media – and especially online media – creates a googolplex of interactions
where, following Watzlawick or Luhmann, communication takes places.
For example: statistics show, that round about 15% of resuscitations succeed in
western Emergency rooms. Nevertheless, due to TV series like Emergency room or
Movies, the public understanding is, that more than 2/3 are successful.
All Pictures: Communication models, retrieved from:
http://bizcommunicationcoach.com/types-models-of-communication-in-business/
7

9. If we do have a model for communication, the next step is to look out for parameters
of successful communication. The named bulletpoints are summaries for these
parameters and their complex interaction.
Never ever dumb down your science. The audience will become aware, that you
think, they are too stupid to understand complex issues. This is contra-productive and
leads to greater distance between you and the audience. You have to create an
atmosphere, where the audience finds itself on an equal level as you are.
Al Gore created an atmosphere of equally by giving very personal accounts on the
state of his son’s health for example. His presentation was not 100% accurate, but he
also was not boring. Therfore, his “movie” reached 50 Million $ at the boxoffices,
while other climate change documentaries like “Too hot not to handle” flopped.
In contrast, try conciseness. Try to be as accurate as possible by using the fewest
possible words.
Picture: Advertising of “An inconvenient truth” by Al Gore; retrieved from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth
8

10. After talking about communication models and their success-parameters, let’s take a
look at the environment in which science communication takes place an how this
environment has changed over the last decades.
1865: Reuters is able to publish an article of the assassination of Lincoln in Europe –
mere 12 days after the event actually took place. This is the time of a vastly growing
transoceanic cable network.
The Titanic sunk 1912 – the news about the disaster reached out into the world on
the same day, but facts were provided three days later, when the Carpathia reached
New York with survivors.
In the pre-internet age, scientific lectures where highly popular. Today, only limited
public presentations are attended by larger audiences. But take the IQ-Novel-price as
an example, where literally thousands come to Harvard to listen to improbable
research (65.000 viewers 2015, and more than 25.000 viewers of the 2016
September 22nd ceremony) and watch “real” Nobel Laureates sweeping the paper
planes from the stage.
9

11. Later, the communication of risks and hazards became popular with the mass media,
talking about potential threads and dangers.
After WWII, the positive aspects of science and technology became the driving forces
for science communication. The prospect of a better live, of new technological
developments (especially in the entertainment industry) as well as medical
innovations became center of attention.
In 2005 more information was published within this single year (most via the
internet) than in the entire history of writing since its inception in Mesopotamia
(Source: Bloem, van Doorn, Duivestein. Me the Media).
For further reading, see Kohring, Wissenschaftsjournalismus, 2005
9

12. Today, ideas and concepts such as “System Earth” represent the modern holistic
approach to science. The old heterogeneity and diversity of Science is challenged by
complex phenomena and growing awareness for interactions between system
compartments.
10

13. The nature of Science communication has changed, too. From being education-
oriented, science communication today has to answer the demands of a diverse
audience. Hence, science communication today is not alone focused on education
and information.
11

14. You became person of the Year by Time Magazine in 2006. In 2005 YouTube launched
and only 21 month later was bought by Google for 1.65 Billion $
We currently experience the third media revolution: after print (Gutenberg in 1450)
and electronics (first radio network in 1909, first TV broadcasts about 1928) now it is
the internet and consumer generated content.
Thank you, Youtube: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/11/thank-
you-youtube/305285/
12

15. Communication specialists and public relations consultants will tell you, that science
communication has to adopted the media logic. But be aware, that science
communication is focused on slightly different goals than product or organizational
communication. Science communication is – still - something different than
marketing.
13

16. Both societal systems show: Human, Truth, Data and Debate/conflict as parallel
characteristics. For Science, the hypothesis and theory is important, for the media,
the story is most important.
Texts about science and media taken from Merriam-Webster, Wikipedia, and other
encyclopedias.
Wordcloud generator by Jason Davies: https://www.jasondavies.com/wordcloud/
14

17. Head: “Think before you act”-stereotype of science
Heart: “believe in what you do”
Guts: “having a gut feeling about something, belly laughs “Just do it”
Going further down, you end up with the sex organs – irrational, chaotic, no logic,
universal driving force
15

18. The audience gets bigger, the lower you get within this model. (Sex sells!)
Science communication should at least reach out to the “guts”!
16

19. Framing: How content is integrated into a broader story.
Priming: To control of how content is interpreted by presenting a theme within
media.
Storytelling: The “And – But – Therefore”-Rule or the “Logline Maker”
Agenda Building: The influence of external Actors towards the media agenda
(Stakeholders define, what the media will communicate).
Agenda Setting: The influence of mass media towards the public agenda (Media
dictates, what the public is talking about).
Which concept you should include into your communication depends on the goals
you envision for science communication. 3M for example is a very good concept for
face to face communication.
17

20. 19

21. The logline is adopted from Hollywood screenwriters.
This is not a law – but you might find it helpful to start with the logline. If you get
used to create stories within science communication, you will find it more an more
easy to change “your” logline, to add other compartments and elements to your
storyline or even to create a totally new strategy for storytelling. The logline,
nevertheless, will help you to get started.
20

22. Why does this not work for science? It does not work for scientists!
Scientists are trained to question everything – even a story. But for a story “Suspense
the disbelief” is essential (Samuel Taylor Coleridge). It is essential, that the audience
does not ask “Is this possible?”
21

23. Which one is more attractive, more compelling, more interesting?
Picture: Preparedness Kit; retrieved from: http://andrewwphumphrey.soup.io/
22

24. The original blog post on the CDC Public Health Matters Blog May 16th, 2011 by Ali S.
Khan: https://blogs.cdc.gov/publichealthmatters/2011/05/preparedness-101-
zombie-apocalypse/
23

25. Quote reaches back to Kurt Tucholsky (1925), but is also ascribed to Stalin (1947)
24

26. On November 7th 1991 Magic announced, that the HI-Virus was found within his
immune system. The HI-Virus was found only 1981, about 125.000 Americans died in
this 10 year frame. After 1991 the world became aware of HIV and numerous
campaigns to raise the awareness for HIV were initiated.
Picutre: Michael Magic Johnson; retrieved from:
http://www.easyreadsystem.com/news/famous-dyslexics-olympic-athlete-magic-
johnson/
25

27. This kids will tell the story of Earth quite differently. This is the result of their
individual educational, cultural history. Remember, that your audience is a
compilation of individuals as well!
Amazonas Indio boy: http://www.nationalgeographic.com.es/mundo-ng/grandes-
reportajes/el-valor-de-los-kapayo_7912
Tuareg boy: https://www.1843magazine.com/style/the-line-of-beauty/the-turban
Aborigines boy:
http://ozoutback.com.au/Australia/abchptte/slides/1987040806.html
Inuit boy: http://kingofwallpapers.com/eskimo-pictures-for-kids/img-
014.php?pic=/eskimo-pictures-for-kids/eskimo-pictures-for-kids-014.jpg
26

28. Other than in scientific publication voices, you are allowed to express yourself.
Scientific publications only allows for non-personal, third-person language (The study
will show… instead of I will show, that…).
27

29. 28

30. 29

31. Policy: a strategy, how someone acts (education policy = Bildungspolitik)
Politics: the overall concept (Politik allgemein)
Science tends to focus on policy rather than politics. Take the CCS-Law in Germany as
an example, were the scientific community aimed towards a federal law to allow CCS-
technology, but totally failed to address the actual decision makers, the individual
politicians.
Another example is the issue of over-fishing, were scientists focus on new laws rather
than communicating the issue to fishermen.
30

32. Politicians usually have only limited time resources. Therefore, you have to be quick
with communicating your idea. This is true for the use of all media – film, print, talk,
whatever!
31

33. An Example – actually, it is a 40 second example, but you can go into detail
everywhere you like.
32

34. 33

35. 34

36. These are the core elements of drama.
Following Freytag’s concept called Freytag’s pyramid, this is:
Exposition (Plate boundaries), rising action (Earthquakes occur), climax (not in
Istanbul), action falling (research is conducted), resolution (raising awareness and
educate)
35

37. Nevertheless, you have to be well-prepared, to have the facts and information ready.
But you are not he driver of the media-car – you are the landscape in which the
journey takes place.
But: this might depend o the medium you are dealing with! The improvisation
approach is good for fast, modern media, where people react on what they see rather
on what terminology you use.
36

38. Communication workshops tend to focus on the two objective elements! – which is
good, but still lacks the “heart and guts”!
37

39. A good example is the debate about Intelligent Design, were evolutionary scientists
constantly lost to their ID-counterparts, because the scientists laid out facts and
information, accusing ID as “ not science at all”. ID-representatives won, because they
told about the need to teach “critical thinking”, “freedom of expression” and to allow
students to make their own mind and to question established theories.
(This is related to the idea of Head versus Heart, were Evolution is Head and ID is
Heart.)
38

40. It becomes the same, when there is the need to talk for example about scientific
misconduct – than, the science department suddenly is forced into risk
communication! – but this is a marketing perspective.
39

41. L‘Aquilla 2009 showed different, but nevertheless a great communication
opportunity:
In 2012 six scientists and one ex-government official were convicted of multiple
manslaughter for downplaying the likelihood of a major earthquake six days before it
actually took place. This triggered not only a debate about earthquake prediction and
early warning, but also about science integrity and the demand and restrictions for
scientists to communicate their findings.
Picture: Epicenter of the 2009 L’Aquilla EQ; retrieved from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_L%27Aquila_earthquake
40

42. Take the debate about Intelligent design as an example, where evolutionary scientists
used the critique from ID-supporters to talk about genetic research, stem cells and
even about possible impacts of globalization and climate change to biodiversity.
The guts came in, when Henderson proclaimed the Flying-Spaghetti-Monsterism or
Pastafarianism. His article published on his website started a debate about evolution
and scientific content within school curricula in the US and elsewhere.
Site-kick: Henderson presented the argument that "global warming, earthquakes,
hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of
pirates since the 1800s“
The original letter at
https://web.archive.org/web/20070407182624/http://www.venganza.org/about/ope
n-letter/
An article about this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1498162/In-the-
beginning-there-was-the-Flying-Spaghetti-Monster.html and
Picture: The Flying Spaghetti Monster; retrieved from:
41

43. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster#cite_note-Telegraph-9
Picture: The correlation of Climate Change with the Number of Pirates; retrieved from
https://web.archive.org/web/20070407182624/http://www.venganza.org/about/ope
n-letter/
41

44. The organizational value of Social Media communication.
Sources:
Branding, see Kanter and Fine (2010)
Seltzer & Mitrook, 2007; Waters, Burnett, Lamm, & Lucas, 2009; retrieved from:
Adoption of social media for public relations by nonprofit organizations; L. Curtis et
al. / Public Relations Review 36 (2010) 90–92; Elsevier)
42

45. Target audiences and what they expect from a distinct social media channel – this is
the starting point for a social media strategy for your institution or organization.
Table adopted from: Strategic Social Media for Science Marketing at Fraunhofer;
Source: Oliver Mauroner; Social Media im Wissenschaftsmarketing - Strategien und
Nutzungskonzepte für Twitter, Blogs und Social Networks; wissenschaftsmanagement
5 • 2011
43

46. The individual value of Social Media communication.
44

47. Impact on a researcher’s credentials for example by tweeting and blogging about
papers. This has led to spikes in the number of article downloads, even for older
literature that had been available for years without much previous attention.
An example for the global collaboration potential of social media is: researchers,
supported by the Smithsonian identified thousands of fish specimens in under a week
via social media (Facebook) to get export permits for further research.
http://nmnh.typepad.com/100years/2011/03/crowdsourcing-via-social-media-
allows-rapid-remote-taxonomic-identification-.html
Graph Source: Shuai X, Pepe A, Bollen J (2012) How the scientific community reacts
to newly submitted preprints: Article downloads, Twitter mentions, and citations.
PLoS ONE 7: e47523. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0047523
Picture: Hypostomus taphorni; retrieved from:
http://nmnh.typepad.com/100years/2011/03/crowdsourcing-via-social-media-
allows-rapid-remote-taxonomic-identification-.html
45

48. Source: Bik HM, Goldstein MC (2013) An Introduction to Social Media for Scientists.
PLoS Biol 11(4): e1001535.
doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001535
Juggernaut: Moloch, Unaufhaltsam, nicht zu Vermeiden
46

49. Picture: Stephen Hawking at the Simpsons, retrieved
from:http://klotza.blogspot.de/2016/01/the-simpson-hawking-donut-universe.html
47

50. Some simple guidelines!
48

51. If you want to introduce a science communication concept to your organization, be
prepared that there will a critique on the lines of medialization. Actually, this is a
good critique and you have to find your way to deal with medialization. It depends on
you and your communication concept to allow for as much medialization as you want
to happen. Nevertheless, without a communication concepts medialization will –
sooner or later – take over.
49

52. A blank page – because there is no robust way to evaluate science communication in
a way that will satisfy decision makers at universities and research institutions.
You can count klicks and viewers, you can ask for feedback from the audience – but at
the end, you will not know, if your message came through. On a long perspective, you
will see effects: growing numbers of students, increased interest in a topic, maybe a
much more intense consultation of science by politicians – but you will not be able to
trace this back to your science communication efforts.
Nevertheless: commentaries, annotations, citations, unforced communications will
show, if you are successful – but these are not “countable” figures for decision
makers.
50

53. At a public debate between climate scientists and climate sceptics, one scientists was
asked, why he thinks that the sceptics mislead the audience. The Scientists answered,
that this is done “on a scientific level, the audience might not totally grasp.” This is
vilifying the audience. This is how scientists become unpopular. This is, how climate
scientist reacted over much of the climate debate, especially on the internet.
If you do have the better arguments, use them, but use them calmly. You do not have
to convince the sceptics, you have to convince the audience, that your ideas,
concepts and facts are right.
Cartoon retrieved from: http://thehigherlearning.com/2014/05/25/from-the-editor-
why-i-really-really-hate-everything-about-the-climate-change-debate/
51

54. Disclaimer:
This presentation was held within a workshop at Potsdam University.
All pictures are quoted – nevertheless, we do not have legal allowance to publish this
presentation while using all the pictures.
Therefore, we ask you to use the presentation only for internal purposes.
52