A Scientist Communication Trainer

In my first post I talked about the increasing importance to scientists of communicating their work more effectively to non-scientists. Then a few weeks ago, I saw that U of A and Biosphere 2, as part of ‘Earth Week,’ were sponsoring a lecture and movie screening by a man named Randy Olson. Olson is a Harvard-educated marine biologist-turned filmmaker and now author. His new book, Don’t Be Such a Scientist, attempts to teach scientists -- and perhaps all rational, well-educated people – how to get their points across without turning people off. His new movie, which screened at the Loft on March 31, is called Sizzle: A Global Warming Comedy. Book and movie are theory and practice in Olson’s curriculum.

I fought a sell-out crowd at the Loft to see the movie. And yes, I went, in part, because of my internship with Biosphere 2, but I probably wouldn’t have gone if not for the title -- A Global Warming Comedy – and from a source considered acceptable to appear at Earth Week. This was intriguing. Olson would say this is the art of “arousal.” In his book he offers a lot of binary formulas; “arousal” and “fulfillment” is one of them. These are the keys, he says, to effective communication. Arousal and fulfillment are why stories are so much more powerful than, say, dissertations. No matter how important the discovery, you must arouse, or motivate, people to read about it. Advertising is as important as the message itself, says Olson, and scientists don’t like to admit this. In Don't Be Such a Scientist, Olson tells several cautionary tales to support this hypothesis, including the story of penicillin. Most people know that British scientist Alexander Fleming is credited with having discovered penicillin. And indeed, Fleming published his findings on the anti-bacterial properties of a certain blue-green mold in 1929. But that's all he did. He apparently published his findings in an obscure academic journal and made no effort to promote the importance of his findings or even to connect with other researchers who may have been able to help develop penicillin. It wasn't until the early 1940's when more purposeful scientists discovered Fleming's work that penicillin was developed as the first anti-biotic. Olson asks, how many lives might have been saved if Fleming had believed in advertising?

Olson also cites Malcolm Gladwell from Blink for the importance of quick first impressions and relates a lot of what he learned about story-telling from the USC film school. But most of what he says boils down to the notiont that scientists need to worry more about style and less about substance if they want people to listen.

What was particularly interesting to me about Olson’s movie Sizzle and his comments afterward were that he is clearly interested in bridging some of the divides in the country, the separate circles I spoke about last time. In Sizzle as well as his previous movie, a film about the evolution-intelligent design debate called Flock of Dodos, he pits scientists vs. anti-scientists. In fact, one of my criticisms of Sizzle was that he gave the contrarians too much representation, giving their views a disproportionate time on screen compared to the actual percentage of legitimate scientists who are global warming skeptics. But he does something neither Al Gore nor Fox News would do – he allows each side to speak, and even though it’s pretty clear he believes in the mainstream science view of global warming, he doesn’t obviously stack the deck against the contrarians or play Michael Moore gotcha tricks.

I got a chance to talk to Olson one-on-one after the screening. When I mentioned my concern about too much face time for the contrarians he said he was aware of it but he felt that people watching the film would see that the mainstream scientists were more consistent and credible -- and not because of content so much as nonverbal cues. The contrarians were weird and their mannerisms didn't project confidence. On the other hand, Olson said that people who considered themselves undecided or neutral on the evolution/intelligent design debate before watching Flock of Dodos, tended to side with the intelligent designers after watching the movie – because they were simply more likable. The scientists came across as strident and condescending. The scientists got worked up and frustrated, and this pissed people off. So Olson thinks that the key for scientists is to work on being more likeable, better storytellers, and more respectful of people on the other side.

I am not sure society is ready yet for scientists to be the glib story-tellers that Olson envisions. One of his central points – another binary reduction – is that there are two kinds of error in communications: accuracy errors and “interest” errors. Scientists invariably prefer to make ‘interest’ errors over ‘accuracy’ errors, whereas good story-tellers almost always sacrifice accuracy for interest. It comes with the territory, the nature of how scientists are trained, but Olson says scientists must alter their strict bias toward interest errors or they will not have anyone hear what they are saying.

I’m not so sure this will work the way Olson suggests, however. As I mentioned last time, the Biosphere 2 experiment was perceived as a failure, in part because they had a bias toward story-telling over accuracy. People – the media, mainstream public – held the scientists to a different standard. Yes, Olson is right, we’d like all our scientists to be as likeable as Carl Sagan, but would Carl Sagan have made it if he didn’t have the scientists aura of superior accuracy? I’m not so sure it’s going to be easy for scientists to become entertainers and successful talk show debaters by simply becoming better story-tellers. Would it hurt to learn some of the tenets in Don’t Be Such a Scientist? Probably not. Those professors’ students would appreciate it if nothing else. But it’s a tough box that scientists find themselves in right now – and I’m not sure they can just gussy themselves up for the Blink world of style over substance and solve the problem.

Nonetheless, I think there is something important and valuable in Olson's approach. In his movies it feels at times like he is just a fight promoter who wants to make sure that the main contenders actually get in the ring together. In his book, he’s in the scientists’ corner as a trainer. But in person, he was respectful and good-humored with everyone, including a vocal minority of global warming skeptics. He didn't seem to get frustrated with them, even though he conceded later he thought their lines of attack were ill-reasoned and based on inaccurate information. This equanimity in the face of attacks and disagreement with his scienctific values certainly seemed to be Olson practicing what he preaches, but I gathered there was more to it than intentional restraint or adherence to style. As Olson explained, he grew up in Kansas in a conservative Republican family. He is able to remember that the people who disagree with some of his fundamental principles as a scientist are still people he cares about. And to me, this was his most impressive statement.

One hindrance to communicating science that is illustrated in Sizzle but not directly addressed in Olson's book is that people in the US increasingly see facts as relative. It used to be that people seemed to have some basic societal agreement on facts; they trusted mainstream science and journalism, but they disagreed on politics. Now politics determines facts. So how does one deal with this problem that every statement is treated as opinion and everyone has one? He agreed it was a tough question, and he didn’t have a ready answer. But perhaps there are no answers, only approaches, and the one he demonstrated may well be a good one to emulate.

Other stuff ...
Errata: I mentioned in my first post that Mitch and Fenton had just joined the choir last year. I understand now that Mitch has been with the University choir for several years. I apologize for this 'accuracy error.'

Announcement: Mitch’s wife, Barney, gave birth to a healthy baby girl on March 22nd -- congratulations and welcome Evelyn Raie!