Communicating with non-scientific audiences

Contact

For more information on media workshops: scisoc@embo.org

The media look for good stories and most of the greatest scientific discoveries are sensational stories, often involving strong emotions and intrigue. A good story is something new to the audience: it can’t be shrugged of with the “so what” response, it surprises or provokes reaction. Most importantly, it is interesting and intelligible to the non-specialist. Hence it is more than the mere information, interpretation and conclusion that characterise normal scientific communication process. It must transcend the usual style of scientific communication between peers.

Often stories are of direct relevance to the audience (especially if they have a medical significance), and it can help to emphasise this human aspect. They can further be made attractive by interesting digressions (for example, historical references, the circumstances of a discovery, linkages with other disciplines or common experiences). The personal factor is important to communicate: scientists are people, after all, and others are interested in the emotions experienced by a scientist when making a discovery.

Abridged version of the Royal Society's guidelines for scientists working with the media

(The complete version can be found at
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk)

Perspective. Think carefully about who the journalist represents (e.g. broadsheet or tabloid newspaper) and how this might affect the way your work is reported.

Deadlines. Respect the very real deadlines to which journalists must adhere and respond promptly to any enquiries. Ask for preparation time if needed, but keep this to a minimum.

Competition. Articles that are eventually featured are chosen by the editor from the many written that day. Supply interesting details to the journalist to give your story the edge that catches the editor's attention.

Content. Explain your work in simple, everyday language and think imaginatively about the implications and applications of your research.

Approach. Give a lucid and succinct overview of your work to the journalist, even if they have a science background, to help them save time researching information.

Responsibility. Do not exaggerate the significance of your work, and do not be pressurised into giving a yes/no answer if this is not appropriate.

Attribution. Avoid hiding facts by using the phrase 'No comment'. Be careful when talking 'off the record', since it can be obvious who supplied unattributed information.

Authenticity. Let the journalist know if your work has been subject to peer review.

Credibility. Be clear about your direct area of expertise and whether your comments lie outside it. Suggest names of other scientists who work in a relevant field.

Quotes. If you would like to check your quotes, agree this beforehand and make sure you are easy to contact. Since headlines are written and stories often cut by the sub-editor, it is usually not possible to check the final article.

Interviews. Find out the angle of the interview and the type of questions to be asked, whether it is taped or live and whether it is a panel discussion or whether only a short soundbite is required.

Collaboration. Agree with collaborators what can be said to the media. Give appropriate credit, but it is not necessary to mention all involved.

Contacts. If a journalist approaches you, take their full contact details, as you might contact them later with another story.

Corrections. If a mistake has been made, contact the journalist or the responsible editor, or write a brief, entertaining letter to be published. Contact the relevant 'watchdog' if necessary.