Being a scientist comes with its own set of difficulties. Effectively conveying your scientific findings in a socially responsible way can be even more challenging. Fortunately, researchers have pinpointed some of the trade-offs and communication strategies that environmental health scientists can employ to improve their communication.
Being a scientist comes with many challenges. Effectively conveying your scientific findings in a socially responsible manner can be even tougher. Fortunately, a researcher from Michigan State University, along with colleagues from other universities, have recognized various trade-offs and communication strategies that environmental health scientists can adopt for better communication.
“Words are important and there’s a lot of misleading information around,” stated Kevin Elliott, a professor at MSU’s Lyman Briggs College and the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. “As scientists, we must communicate more thoughtfully and deliberately.”
Elliott and his team investigated four distinct ways to share information about the effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals, which interfere with the body’s natural hormones and can influence sexual development, neurodevelopment, and obesity. The communication strategies tested included: 1) focusing on challenges related to masculinity, 2) using the term “neurodivergence,” 3) exploring the developmental origins of health and illness and its link to obesity, and 4) defining obesity as a disease.
The researchers assessed the advantages and drawbacks of each communication method, demonstrating that even when the information presented is factual, the communication can lead to unintended side effects. For instance, labeling obesity as a disease might enable more individuals to qualify for weight-loss treatment but could also intensify the stigma associated with obesity and foster misunderstandings regarding its health implications. Scientists might mitigate this stigma by discussing how exposure to environmental pollutants during pregnancy might contribute to obesity; however, this could inadvertently place undue pressure on mothers to avoid such exposures.
“We discovered that environmental health scientists must navigate various trade-offs as they work to convey accurate information,” Elliott remarked. “Our goal is to provide valuable, pertinent information while also preventing it from being misinterpreted or misused.”
Some of Elliott’s recommended strategies are:
- Being aware of the social context in which scientific information is perceived;
- Refraining from using certain messages if they could cause more harm than benefit;
- Fostering collaborations between scientists and communication experts or ethicists;
- Building relationships between scientists and community organizations to create unified messaging that better serves the public.
The findings were published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.
