Oh ye of little faith... in science

Well this isn't good:

In a new HuffPost/YouGov poll, only 36 percent of Americans reported having "a lot" of trust that information they get from scientists is accurate and reliable. Fifty-one percent said they trust that information only a little, and another 6 percent said they don't trust it at all. Science journalists fared even worse in the poll. Only 12 percent of respondents said they had a lot of trust in journalists to get the facts right in their stories about scientific studies. Fifty-seven percent said they have a little bit of trust, while 26 percent said they don't trust journalists at all to accurately report on scientific studies.

I shared a link to the story on Twitter and headed off for a while - and got a far more active response than I anticipated, led primarily by Katie Mack.

78% think science skewed by politics. MT @dwescott1: Poll: Americans Have Little Faith In Scientists, Sci Journalists http://t.co/UZlybwjPPU
— Katie Mack (@AstroKatie) December 22, 2013

This led to a larger discussion, first about the context of the word "faith" and setting off a science vs. religion debate that was only tangentially relevant to the article, then a few points about the scientific method, and so on.

These are all really smart people having this discussion and I mean them no disrespect.  But I think they're all missing the point.

There are two driving issues in the current reputation crisis facing "big science" and scientists generally.  First, people are generally supportive of the idea of "science" but don't see its direct relevance in their everyday lives.  Second, people who have a financial interest in obfuscating certain scientific facts are attacking the purveyors of those facts, using tactics borne from politics, marketing, PR, and strategic communications - and scientists don't know how to counter.

"Big Science" is breaking the first rule of communications.  They don't know the audience.

Sure, they know the people who think this stuff is super cool.  But they don't know the people who have no "faith" in them.

Look at the stories on "the biggest science discoveries of 2013" from places like Wired, io9, or National Geographic. All have the nice SEO-driven headlined "listicle" format that gets the attention of the general public. This may be the one science article they read this year - all the important science stuff they missed over the past 12 months in one handy-dandy place!

Read through all of them and you'll see words like "neutrinos" and "exoplanets" or weird acronyms like "CRISPR" or terms like "interstellar space." But you'll see virtually nothing that has any bearing whatsoever on the daily life of a typical reader or even an "opinion elite" - that is, unless they have a PhD in science.

I don't know how strong the methodology is for this Huffington Post / YouGov poll - after all, I'm not a scientist - but I do think it serves as a good starting point and wakeup call for anyone who wants to improve the image of science and scientists.

There isn't a silver bullet to improve science's "favorables," but there are a few requirements.

It starts with knowing the audience.

I think we'll take more steps to know the audience in 2014.

blah blah blah

So much for "it's not a lecture."

Last Wednesday I was privileged to speak at the Institute for Public Relations Leadership Forum in New York.  It's the second time I've had the chance to speak there.  As I mentioned before, speaking at IPR is more than a bit intimidating because the "students" are all very accomplished and exceptionally smart people, and the other speakers resemble the roster of a PR Hall of Fame induction ceremony.   At these events you're speaking with a relatively small group (about 20, I think) and it has the feel of a classroom by design. IPR promotes the substantive research behind what we do. I appreciate that because I spend so much time talking with "real" scientists who think my job is more "art," to put it generously.

I was asked to discuss emerging trends in Digital PR, so I think everyone was prepared to hear yet another talk about "Big Data," the buzziest buzzword in PR today.  Frankly, I think "big data" in the absence of strong analytical tools is really just a big mess.  As an industry we're getting better, as smart people like Katie Paine know, but I still think we have a long, long way to go.

To me, the most important "trend" continues to be homophily and the continued isolation of online communities. As more people use curation tools to screen out everything but the information that most closely fits their interests and worldview, we speak only with like-minded people.  These smaller groups collectively move toward more extreme viewpoints.  We begin to find an "otherness" in people.

This is much larger than a PR problem.  It's the reason for our disjointed politics and our most strident and misguided activism.  At IPR I called it the greatest single threat to the fate of humanity.  I discussed the segregated conversations that took place immediately after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.  And I presented a small case study that shows what happens when someone outside a community happens upon messaging not intended for that person - Dr. Hope Jahren's audacious hijacking of #ManicureMonday.

Despite it all, I'm hopeful and I think that PR people - yes, PR people - can help us out of this spiral.  We are the people that move across communities and have a knack at finding who the influential people are in those communities.  We can not only identify the "bridge figures" that Ethan Zuckerman so brilliantly discusses - we can be those bridge figures.  It doesn't just have to be connecting a Malagasi musician with an audience in Manhattan.  For example, we can introduce the dairy farmer to the science educator and let them discover what they have in common.  If we build the right relationships, we can help build bridges of understanding to help re-humanize those people we see ranting on social networks.

The next day I presented and sat on a panel at the PR News 2013 Media Relations Conference.  That's a different kind of intimidating.  That's "you're speaking in the Ballroom of the National Press Club in front of a couple hundred people" intimidating. That's "these people paid a lot of money to be here so don't waste their time" intimidating.  On the panel was Kathy Grannis of the National Retail Federation and David Ringer of the Audubon Society.  They clearly knew their stuff.  Earlier speakers represented big brands or organizations who constantly dealt with newsworthy issues.

Before I spoke, I took a look at the registration list and noticed that many of them weren't in organizations you're likely to see on the front pages of national (or even regional) newspapers.  They have to do much more than push out a press release to expect any semblance of coverage from "mainstream" journalists.  While I had my "tips and tricks" of practical advice teed up, and was ready to talk about using Twitter as a personal positioning and curating tool, I really wanted to demonstrate there were options beyond traditional outlets.   USA Today probably won't cover the latest marketing initiative from a small brand, but an influential blogger who really likes your brand just might - and she might reach a more appropriate audience.

Luckily, I had the perfect example in the room. I noticed Kim Orlando was there, sharing her thoughts about the conference on Twitter while also facilitating an online conversation about tech and travel. Kim is the founder of Traveling Mom, a popular website that provides the kind of information parents need but may not always find in the pages of old-school travel mags and guidebooks.

I've been following Kim on Twitter for some time now - after all, it's my job. I know she's a well-respected and authentic voice in the mom-o-sphere with reach and influence. I know she's passionate about what she does online.  She's very smart - she "gets" working with organizations and brands, and understands the value of her work.  She's no-nonsense yet very social.  And she's always looking for new ideas with new people that have something relevant to discuss with her community.

So a couple of minutes into my talk I called out Kim and described her as "the most important person in the room." It's an unconventional thing to say, and I think she was surprised at the attention.  Yet for many in the room - comms directors for small museums, trade associations, and small to mid-sized companies - she represented the best chance they had to build relationships and trust for their brands.

If that's the only thing people got out of my talk in DC, I think I did my job.

Teaching flood preparedness to Noah

I'm heading out for a couple of speaking engagements next week. Speaking with your peers is fun because it forces you to organize your thoughts strategically and make sure you really know your stuff. As a speaker, I'm positioned as the "expert" - but invariably, I learn more through preparation, comments, questions and follow-up than I teach in the finite time I'm forcing everyone to stare at a PowerPoint. Of course, it's also intimidating.

Senator Kennedy used to tell this great joke when he would speak on a topic in front of experts on that topic.  He would talk about a man who survived the infamous Johnstown Flood of 1889.  More than 2200 people died as a result of that flood - the worst loss of civilian life in a single event at the time. But this man was prepared and had supplies at the ready. After the flood he dedicated his life to teaching people about what to do in the event of a flood, and saved many lives as a result.  After living to a ripe old age, he died and met Saint Peter at the gates of Heaven.  Peter informed the man that since he led such a virtuous life, he would be admitted AND granted a wish.  The man said he'd like to do one last speech on flood preparedness, this time to all the souls in Heaven.

Saint Peter scratched his head, and said, "well, that's fine, but you should know that Noah will be in the audience."

With that in mind I'll be presenting "Effective New Trends In Digital Communications" to the Institute for Public Relations PR Leadership Forum on Wednesday.  The event is cosponsored by the Arthur W. Page Society and the Council of Public Relations Firms. I plan to cover three things: digital PR, the greatest threat to humanity, and nail care.

I turn right around and sit on a panel at the PR News Media Relations Next Practices Conference on Thursday. I'm presenting with Kathy Grannis of the National Retail Federation and David Ringer of the National Audubon Society. Steve Goldstein of PR News is moderating. That presentation is going to be more tactical, so of course I plan to talk about Twitter, coffee, makeup, Gloria Steinem, and nail care again.

You know, the typical stuff.