Read on Twitter
DURING THE PANDEMIC, we scientists made a lot of science communication mistakes. One big problem is there are at least four possible ways for a scientist to have a conversation on Twitter. Let me explain ... 1/
1. Talking to other scientists as a scientist. This type of conversation is between colleagues. We are trying to have a productive discussion and be logical. We are looking for the right answer together. If things get heated, we can call upon community standards of behavior. 2/
2. Talking to other scientists as a member of the public. This involves topics like the impact of science on society or talking about the treatment of people inside science (women, people of color, students). This isn't about facts and there is no right answer. 3/
3. Talking to the public as a scientist. In this mode, I'm communicating science to the public as a form of public service. I'm claiming some authority as an expert but also feel a moral responsibility to be a good representative of science. I have to be careful with my words. 4/
4. Talking to the public as a member of the public. Here, I'm talking as myself. I'm bringing together my experiences as a human being which include being a scientist. I'm not claiming special authority as a scientist and I don't have any special responsibilities either. 5/
These conversations are happening all at once and it can change from sentence to sentence. Scientists are generally not good about specifying the role we're playing in public discussions. This can lead to terrible fights. 6/
We scientists also mess up when when we're talking to each other. We get confused about when we're talking about just science and when we're bringing other parts of ourselves to the conversation. 7/
When we talk about who to honor in science, how people with less power should be treated, or how to increase diversity, there is no factual answer to these questions. We shouldn't try to claim that one side cares about "the science" and the other doesn't. 8/
It's OK to acknowledge the human aspect of what we're doing as scientists but we need to be explicit about it. This also applies to conversations with the public about the pandemic because we scientists definitely have biases in how we think about social problems. 9/
We want to save everybody and that biases us away from individualism. We often judge certain activities as not worth it and so we don't provide people with plans to do things as safely as possible. 10/
We need to be more upfront about these ideological commitments. If we're not, we risk losing the public's trust and compromising their belief in the objectivity of science. 11/11
