Academics urge scientists to do more to engage the public on climate change
There’s something amiss with the public’s understanding of climate change – and it’s got a lot to do with scientists’ inability, ill-preparedness or unwillingness to take on the role of communicators. Those are the conclusions of a new report out today that may just ruffle a few feathers in the science community.
A call to arms
The new report from the UCL Policy Commission on the Communication of Climate Science examines the role of climate scientists in public engagement, society and policy making.
Entitled ‘Time for change? Climate science reconsidered’, the report makes several recommendations for how scientists can up their game on all these fronts.
Top priorities, according to the report, are increasing the transparency of the scientific process and matching up what scientists do to what society needs to better appreciate the scale and urgency of climate change.
The challenge
Climate science finds itself “mismatched to societal needs”, the report claims. The information society needs to get a handle on the climate challenge is not getting through, say the authors:
“There is widespread public acceptance of the reality of climate change, but not of the urgency and scale of the challenges that the science indicates it represents”.
One hindrance to effective communication, as the report’s authors see it, is the nature of climate science itself:
“Climate science is complex, and its results are unwelcome, inconvenient and contested. It cannot be easily rendered into simple truths.”
That may be hard to get around. But that the climate science community “is very broad and lacks a coherent unified voice” is also a factor, says the report. All of which makes communication a difficult prospect, and one that’s compounded by what the report calls “influential elites” and the media.
Image - Time For Change (note)
A new report from UCL Policy Commission on the Communication of Climate Science: ‘Time for change? Climate Science Reconsidered’
Reconnecting with the public
Public discourse on climate change needs revitalising – and there are two things scientists can do on this front, says the report.
The report invokes the idea of a “social contract”, which means as well as carrying out new research, scientists should see themselves as important conduits of that information outside scientific circles. It says:
“Specifically the objective is to equip the community as a whole with the skills to fulfill the roles of ‘pure scientist’, ‘science communicator’, ‘science arbiter’, ‘issue advocate’ and ‘honest broker of policy alternatives'”.
That’s not to say one person need play all these roles, but the climate science community as a whole needs to make sure it can tick all these boxes, the report urges.
The second step to better communication is matching what scientists do to what society needs, the report says. Scientists can add authority and make climate science relevant to people by “personalizing their story, drawing on emotions and expressing their opinions”.
All this requires that scientists be humble and are open to reflecting critically on what they do, the report adds:
“Active critical self-reflection and humility should become the evident and habitual cultural norm on the part of all participants in the climate discourse.”
Barriers to communicating
Though the new report has fairly strong words for scientists on how they should view their role in society, the authors are sympathetic to those who may be reluctant to put their head above the parapet.
Climate scientists’ training doesn’t stand them in good stead to do communication work, says Chris Rapley, professor of climate science at UCL and chair of the Policy Commission:
“My experiences â?¦ have convinced me that our training and development has left us insufficiently prepared to contribute as effectively as we should both to public policy, and to communicating our results and conclusions to society more generally.”
Scientists are especially ill-equipped to deal with controversy in the media, adds Rapley:
“Climate scientists are finding themselves ill-prepared to engage with the often emotionally, politically and ideologically charged public discourse on the evaluation and use of their science.”
But not engaging when their science hits the headlines is not only unhelpful in informing a policy response, but may also be damaging scientists’ credibility, the report suggests.
Professor Chris Rapley, Chair of the UCL Policy Commission on the Communication of Climate Science
More support for scientists
While the new report presents a self-reflective and at times fairly critical picture of climate scientists in society, it offers constructive recommendations for the community.
First, a strong support network is critical to encourage scientists to put themselves in front of an audience, a reporter or a camera, the report suggests. The authors recommend a new professional body to provide scientists with representation and leadership, as well as defining new practices for public engagement and setting standards.
Such a network, endorsed by funders and universities, would offer scientists a new outlook, training and the all-important support from peers. The report says:
“In expanding their skills and expertise to better match societal needs, climate scientists can benefit from a mutually supportive working relationship with social and behavioural scientists, and with experts in public engagement and communication.”
Climate science is nuanced and often difficult for non-experts to piece together. To help engage audiences, the authors recommend a “meta-narrative” to communicate complex ideas and put uncertainties in context with what’s known about climate science.
But as the report notes, good communication isn’t just about repeating facts. Recognising that people’s feelings, beliefs, inner conflicts and worldviews influence their responses to scientific information will make for more successful interaction, say the authors.
Participation in policy-making
As well as communicating their research, scientists should be expected to take an active role in policy formulation and the decision-making process, the report says.
But policy is about more than just science, involving decisions on energy, food and water supplies, quality of life, equity, affordability, security, sustainability and societal resilience, the report notes. So while engaging scientists on solutions to the climate problem is a vital step, it won’t be sufficient to revitalise policy on its own, says the report.
“Climate science can inform, but should not arbitrate, policy; rather climate scientists and policymakers need to work together, and with other experts and the public”.
This sounds like a long and sometimes tough task list for climate scientists, but one the report’s authors are confident is achievable and above all, necessary. It’ll be interesting to see how the report’s suggestions are received across the climate science community.