In the face of pressing societal challenges, scientists play a pivotal role in public discussions surrounding complex issues like pandemics and artificial intelligence.
Historically, their voices reached the public primarily through journalists at established news outlets. However, the rise of social media has transformed how information circulates, with scientific discourse now competing against a myriad of online content, including that from influencers, advocacy groups, and conspiracy theorists.
The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the inadequacies of scientific institutions in effectively utilizing contemporary media to convey crucial information.
A new article highlights the difficulties in adapting to this landscape, emphasizing the barriers posed by social media platforms in accessing comprehensive scientific research data.
Isabelle Freiling, an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Utah and co-author of the article, remarked, “So many people are getting information in current online environments, including on social media. Not studying these platforms is not an option.”
The challenge lies in understanding how individuals interpret information within these digital spaces in order to enhance science communication strategies accordingly.
Presently, researchers can only gain limited access to social media data through application programming interfaces (APIs), which serve as intermediaries. These APIs allow for specific data retrieval requests, such as searching for posts containing the term ‘AI.’ However, this method often fails to provide a comprehensive view, as platforms manipulate and process this data in opaque ways.
Additionally, while partnerships between academia and industry can yield better datasets, they also introduce potential conflicts of interest.
Freiling points out, “We as a scientific community need to address the elephant in the room: Are we really finding true results here? Or are we finding what platforms want us to find?”
She stresses that social media companies hold significant power over the data they allow researchers to access, raising concerns that would be unacceptable in other research arenas, such as the pharmaceutical or tobacco industries.
To navigate these hurdles, the authors advocate for a fundamental rethinking of science communication and research practices, which will necessitate a strong commitment from the scientific community to implement change.
The authors assert, “The scholarly community lacks clear guidelines for evaluating the academic value of those social media collaboration studies that give access to otherwise inaccessible data, while at the same time sacrificing control over to the platforms. That needs to change.”
Their article, published on June 30 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, elaborates on the unique challenges science communication faces due to the current technological environment and issues related to data ownership and regulation.
Efficient communication does not occur in isolation.
In an era where people rapidly consume content, scientific information must capture attention quickly, all while navigating complex algorithms that dictate visibility.
Freiling elaborates, “The algorithms on social media prioritize content that gets people’s attention, and often times our scientific messages aren’t crafted to be very attention grabbing.”
She emphasizes that merely focusing on accurate scientific communication is insufficient to engage audiences effectively.
The article calls for establishing evidence-based guidelines for communicating science on social media, which should be a priority for the scientific community. This entails an empirical exploration of audiences, crafting compelling messages, mapping communication landscapes, and, crucially, assessing the effectiveness of these communication efforts.
The authors propose vital measures that must be adhered to moving forward:
Firstly, researchers need to secure access to proprietary data, working towards obtaining unfiltered data while respecting proprietary information.
Secondly, they advocate for reconceptualizing information ecologies, recognizing that research should not be confined to a single platform, as individuals share information across multiple channels.
Thirdly, there is a need to avoid relinquishing core research functions to social media platforms that may define parameters differently than researchers would.
Additionally, ethical considerations must be addressed, particularly concerning informed consent for study participation, ensuring solutions do not alter user behavior.
Finally, the urgency of making productive advancements cannot be overstated. Organizations like the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine can facilitate collaboration between academia, industry, and public stakeholders to find effective solutions.
Freiling makes a vital point: “We want to engage the public on science issues, like AI, that affect different parts of the public differently, but that only happens if they see or hear our message in the first place.”
To effectively reach diverse audiences, research on science communication must be grounded in relevant and reliable data in today’s complex information environment.
The article titled “Our changing information ecosystem for science and why it matters for effective science communication,” is part of a special issue in PNAS that explores the reimagining of science communication in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.
image source from：attheu
