How to present research to the public.
Science Conference. From www.usf.edu
The general public is not science savvy and there is some truth to the notion that there is an anti-intellectual trend in our country. Too often, this is exploited for public relations purposes and for personal gain. Still, developments and advancements need to be brought to the attention and understanding of the average American.
The wine industry and wine blogging see announcements of health benefits of wine and other wine-related “studies” published and shot across the news wires almost daily.
I have been critical of how these publications are presented, interpreted, handled and served up for public consumption. My gripes have been that this is often done in a sensationalistic manner, with disregard for all sides and implications of an issue and with a sucking void where critical thinking should be.
That is why this piece caught may eye. “Dilbert” cartoon creator, Scott Adams, commissioned a survey of American economists to help him understand “which candidate has the best plans for the economy“. I won’t say if I agree with Adams’ political leanings, the findings of the survey or which candidate I favor. I don’t even know if the survey results are valid and true. Adams does take some liberties with injecting his personal beliefs into the piece. However, I wanted to bring up his article because I believe it models some good things to do in presenting the results of scientific investigation to the public.
A summary - whether it is on a general site like CNN.com or on a personal blog - must have some key elements to allow people to get a fair chance at arriving at their own opinions about a subject:
- An introduction should clearly present and explain the intent of the investigation as well as the biases of the investigators and commentator.
- A summary of the methods employed in the investigation is important. It exposes the entire investigation to critical analysis. What the investigators did and why may be very different dependent on the investigator.
- A summary of the results in whole is important. Not everyone reading will want to see a tabulation of the raw data. The devil is in the details and presenting a summary of the raw and calculated data gives support to your conclusions and gives your publication transparency and veracity.
- A discussion of the results needs to explore all sides and implication of the results. It should not only seek to validate the initial hypothesis (or commentator’s opinion) but it should attempt to explain all possible causes of results, admit limitations, address unexpected confounds and identify the unanswered questions. This is not only to establish credibility and transparency. It exposes your results and conclusions to criticism and scrutiny - not for purposes of academic hazing, but to allow other minds to explore your ideas. It submits your conclusions to broader analysis and testing.
The point of conducting research and publishing it is not to influence public thinking with rhetoric and manipulated results and clever use of statistics. It is to contribute to society’s understanding of an issue. You can’t frame the argument, or restrict facts from the discussion. That may be valid tactics for a courtroom but not for respected investigation.
In academia and research, results of research are analyzed, discussed and scrutinized. Holes are sought and identified and further routes or investigation discovered. Other investigators attempt to reproduce the results of what seems like good studies with intriguing or promising results. Only after results have been successfully reproduced by other investigators, do things become accepted as fact (or at least a strong hypothesis).
When we the general public, bloggers and wine writers are bombarded by PR press releases and sensational headlines, we should read carefully and think critically. We are the peer review process.
Email & Share