Getting to the Core of Communicating Science

Interest in the topic of food and health is stronger than ever. Everyone has an opinion because, well, everyone eats and has access to information more quickly than ever before.

With this access to information, we see dissonant social media discussions in the food and health space. The onslaught of news varies from the removal of ingredients in food products to adoption of nonclinically diagnosed diets as ways to “cure” ills.

But where does this dissension come from? If we look at the basic model of the communication process (sender, message, and receiver), we can conclude that it’s no longer this simple. So many factors affect each stage of communication, and with the expediency of mobile access and the black hole of content availability, it can be hard as an influencer to make a strong impact on one, two, or three of those components.

Even more, the knowledge gap theory suggests “it is not just that there is a gap in knowledge between groups but also that this gap in knowledge widens as more information enters a society” (Hwang and Southwell, 2011). Understanding this gap, along with the complexities of oversimplified communication, provides us with insight into where we as scientists need to go to better educate ourselves on educating consumers.

As a starting point, let’s look to the data on where consumers are receiving information. Recently released International Food Information Council (IFIC) consumer health survey data found that 44% of people surveyed go to news channels/websites for information about chemicals in food/pesticide residues/animal antibiotics, and 33% seek health websites. Government agencies and family and friends were around 30% each, followed by natural health websites at 26%, with less than 20% of respondents seeking out consumer advocacy groups, health-care professionals, bloggers, and food producer and manufacturer websites.

While the IFIC data did not show exact sites for the information sought, we do know that March 2015 com- Score data showed over 12 billion Google searches overall. And, unfortunately, search engine optimization has a large role in determining what type of sites are offered up to consumers, who are left to wade through credible versus noncredible sources.

Speaking of credibility, the IFIC survey showed that personal health-care professionals are the most trusted for information on types of food to eat (70%) and food safety (65%). Not surprisingly, friends and family came in second, followed by U.S. government agencies, food experts on television, and health, food, and nutrition bloggers. Rounding out the list—as the least trusted resources—were farmers and food companies.

The IFIC survey results are encouraging, and when paired with the fact that the popular press is beginning to question the validity of cherry-picked or quack science, there’s hope for legitimate science communicators to seize these windows of opportunity. Dr. Oz may seem like he is guiding the masses, however, we’re beginning to see his credibility come under scrutiny not only by the media but also by his medical peers.

Food activist bloggers, too, while emotionally divisive, are finding themselves in the spotlight with respect to their understanding of science, their credibility, and their motives. An article in The Atlantic and a recent blog on Gawker are just two provocative reads that are hopefully the beginnings of an intellectual zeitgeist around balanced science reporting.

Looking back on the communication process and IFIC data on where consumers are receiving their information and pairing that with the changing tone of the media, it seems like a ripe opportunity for science communicators to propel the momentum. Yvette d’Entremont, also known as SciBabe, boldly offers her science-based points of view on her blog. And Alan Levinovitz is taking on the topic of food beliefs as religion in his latest book, The Gluten Lie.

Understanding our roles in the science community is paramount to influencing public perception and education. Reframing scientists’ role as educators at the core along with using online channels as platforms to be heard can be effective if done often and collectively. Participating in LinkedIn groups or keeping up with Twitter conversations are two easy starts. Keeping up with Altmetric—scientific article impact scores and online conversations— and sharing studies that support the science conversations to ensure that research is truly represented are other pathways to amplify the science voice. Science can only live on if we’re communicating it, and as IFT members we can influence the communication process at any point—whether you’re the sender, receiver, or message creator.

Jeannie Houchins, RD, a member of IFT, is vice president, public relations and social influence, Mullen Lowe, New York, N.Y., ([email protected]).