This guest blog is provided by Kristine Klos, PhD, of the Minnesota Department of Health
I attended the lunchtime informational session, “Risk Communications and Management in the Era of Social Media and the Internet: Serving Society’s Needs with Accurate Information.” This was an eye-opening session that related the ways in which we, as scientists, are not getting our messages across to the public. Traditionally, we have viewed ourselves as “experts” in our scientific fields, with our many degrees to back us up. In a world of data overload and rapid communication, we are falling behind. There is a new group of “experts” in town, and it is not us! These new experts are defined by social media. They are our friends, twitter and Facebook users, bloggers, and celebrities.
Suzanne Fitzpatrick of the US Food and Drug Administration kicked off the session. She reminded us that the world is currently swamped with information. Before the birth of the Internet, all proposed government regulations were published in the Federal Register. This was the way in which the US FDA communicated to the public and obtained their opinions. Now in the age of rapid information, this source is inadequate, by itself, to reach the public. Mass media currently has a powerful influence on people’s perceptions of risk. Because of this, the US FDA now blogs, posts on Facebook, tweets, and has Flickr, YouTube, and even a Pinterest account. These sites are where the majority of stakeholders get their information from, and we need to adapt to these forms of communication, or get left behind. Since there is a huge magnitude of non-science based information swirling around social media that informs opinions and perceptions on risk, Suzanne identified some lessons that the US FDA has learned: 1) Engage stakeholders early in the process. Trust needs to be built and maintained. 2) Try to understand how the different segments of the population get their messages and determine the best way to relay information to them, and 3) Understand how each population subset forms their attitudes and opinions.
Steve Hermansky, of ConAgra Foods, built on these comments by quoting Stephen Hawking, “The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.” Usually risk is calculated by the equation: Hazard + Exposure = Risk. Steve argued that there is a new equation: Hazard + Exposure x Perception = Risk. Much of this perception is created by the new experts in town. One only needs to look at Jenny McCarthy, as an example. Although she has no scientific background, she was able to sway masses of people into believing that vaccines caused autism. She is an effective communicator, and that is the key. Steve frankly told us that as a group, we are not good at communicating the concept of risk, which is characterized by uncertainty, to people who do not understand it. It is up to us as scientists to learn how to communicate better, or we will lose credibility and science will lose relevance. How can we do better? Steve gave us several paths toward improvement: 1) Be Ambassadors of Science! Don’t be negative towards any science. Do not put down other’s work as “pseudoscience.” 2) Acknowledge the differences in opinion that we have. Be transparent. 3) Engage, engage, engage, with the public! If you do not know how, learn to tweet. Sign up for that Flickr account. Talk about science. 4) Be human. Be able to talk with people, and relate to them.
Rick Canady, of Neutral Science, followed by relating the notion that we can measure and predict a population’s behavior of risk perception. We can use risk assessment attributes to assess the information flow. There is the exposure pathway (the messages received by a population), the susceptible population (where the risk is greatest – find out what their perceptions of the risk are), and the potency of the message. The potency can be predicted by identifying the expert who relays the message (e.g., a celebrity). He reminded us that we often have the good intention of relaying to a population the risk that is facing them, but we also have to be responsible for the effect. This responsibility is sometimes lacking.
The last speaker was Urvashi Rangan from Consumer Reports. Aside from using studies and comments from consumers to rank products that we all buy, Consumer Reports also publishes studies on risk. A report on pesticides is their most recent analysis. She walked us through their process for communicating risk to consumers to protect public health. The first point is to give a science-based and transparent message. This includes explaining the shades of gray. Risk assessment is not black and white or absolute and the consumer needs to know that. Her next point is to provide enough information so that consumers have a context for the problem and are empowered to make better decisions for themselves. The third point is to provide a consistent message, and the fourth is to inform but not alarm. She reiterated the importance of providing alternative solutions for the consumer.
The discussion that followed was intense and ran over the allotted time. Issues that surfaced included the lack of objectivity that can pervade science and alter the message on risk, scientific papers that are published with strong sound bites, but weak data, and papers that are published with over-simplistic headlines that mass media grabs on to. Also mentioned was the fact that any group can find a scientific article to back up their position. Another issue that surfaced dealt with the consequences of inflating the message of risk and the detrimental effect that has on a population. Other comments dealt with the risk message becoming lost in translation as it is communicated to non-English speaking populations and the public outrage that occurs when a population perceives that they are taking the risk, while other groups reap the benefit.
It is up to us to be Ambassadors of Science. We have a responsibility to communicate to the public without bias and with an understanding of the various perceptions and opinions that inform the public’s response toward risk. As a group, we can do better. I will do this myself; I will speak about science to my family and friends...and once and for all, I will learn to tweet!
This blog discusses highlights from the SOT Annual Meeting and ToxExpo Informational Session “Risk Communications and Management in the Era of Social Media and the Internet: Serving Society’s Needs with Accurate Information.”