Researchers have a responsibility to communicate results of science accurately says BU professor
Investigators, Institutions, journals and industry likely contribute to misinformation
Peer-Reviewed Publication(Boston)—Many groups participate in the communication of science, including investigators and researchers, professional organizations, federal agencies, foundations, industry, editors and science writers. The challenge of how best to communicate science has been a focus of much attention especially since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Now a researcher from Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine stresses that researchers must report the results of their studies accurately and not spin or hype their results. “At a time when evidence is increasingly challenged by misinformation and disinformation on social media platforms, scientists need to responsibly report the results of their work,” says corresponding author Howard Bauchner, MD, professor of pediatrics.
According to Bauchner, most investigators want the results of their studies to be communicated accurately, but they too have their biases. He points to a study of more than 900 abstracts of grants funded by the National Institutes of Health from 1985 to 2020, which found the use of hype adjectives, such as “novel”, “innovative”, and “transformative”, increased by 1,378 percent over those 35 years.
While guidance exists for how members of the media should communicate science, few guides are available for researchers. Among Baucher’s recommendations, he suggests investigators choose their words carefully. “Statements and adjectives that reflect extremes should be avoided. Few studies are the first of their kind, transformative, critically important, or provide definitive evidence that a treatment cures a disease,” he says. Secondly, Bauchner urges investigators to ensure that the language in press releases accords with that in their paper and that the appropriate findings are emphasized.
When investigators present the results of their studies at meetings, or in other venues, Bauchner recommends they should use language similar to that used in the article if it has already been published or is in preparation. “Given the ubiquity of the lay press at large scientific meetings and the propensity for meeting organizers to issue press releases, the potential impact on the public must be recognized.”
While researchers cannot always influence how industry, journals or the media communicate the results of their studies, what they say to the media is their responsibility. “Since communication is fundamental to public health it is crucial that investigators avoid hype and spin, acknowledge limitations, and be circumspect, perhaps even understating the impact their study will have on individual clinical care or public health recommendations,” he adds.
This opinion appears online in the journal Lancet.
JOURNAL
The Lancet
METHOD OF RESEARCH
Commentary/editorial
SUBJECT OF RESEARCH
Not applicable
ARTICLE TITLE
The scientific communication ecosystem: the responsibility of investigators
ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE
13-Oct-2022
COI STATEMENT
HB was the 16th Editor in Chief of JAMA and the JAMA Network between 2011 and 2021. FPR is the Editor in Chief of JAMA Network Open and receives a stipend from the American Medical Association for this.
Researchers studying climate futures shouldn’t jump to extremes
CU Boulder scientists call for greater emphasis on middle-of-the-road climate scenarios
Peer-Reviewed PublicationWe’ve seen it splashed across news headlines: future sea-level rise that could consume the state of Florida, predicted global temperature spikes of 9 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100—threats of catastrophic climate scenarios leading to societal collapse. But now, a University of Colorado Boulder-led team is pushing for climate scientists to put the more likely and plausible middle-range scenarios to the research forefront, instead of solely the worst-case futures.
“We shouldn’t overstate or understate our climate future,” said Matt Burgess, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) fellow, assistant professor at CU Boulder and lead on a letter published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). “People need to think in terms of gradations, not absolutes. Yes, we need to be aware of the extremes, like climate solutions that get us to net zero before mid century, or on the flipside, global catastrophes. But it’s what’s in the middle that is more likely. And that deserves more research.”
The letter, coauthored by CU Boulder’s Roger Pielke Jr. and University of British Columbia’s Justin Ritchie, is a reply to a PNAS perspectives paper entitled, “Climate Endgame,” led by University of Cambridge's Luke Kemp, that argues catastrophic climate futures, including human extinction, should be a main emphasis in climate research.
The CU Boulder team argues overemphasizing worst-case climate scenarios, like RCP 8.5, turns attention away from the most likely future. “Right now, not as many climate models focus enough attention on middle scenarios,” said Burgess. “The SSP2-3.4 scenario, which might be one of most plausible emissions scenarios, wasn’t featured at all in the IPCC’s latest impacts and physical science reports. That should probably change.”
According to Burgess, we shouldn’t ignore the RCP 8.5 and SSP5-8.5 climate scenarios completely. “We want to know what might happen in extreme scenarios, and physical climate cycle feedbacks might make warming worse than emissions would suggest. But for the emissions in that scenario to happen, all the regions in the world in 2100 would need to have over $100k GDP per capita, with no climate policy the whole century, all-in on coal, despite facing unlivable heat in tropical regions with the warming that scenario produces. That’s just not realistic,” Burgess added.
And on the other side of the spectrum, we also are unlikely to hit the low-end climate warming scenarios that limit warming to 1.5 degree C by 2100. “That would be a daunting task to keep us that low—we are almost there now,” said Burgess.
Many experts agree that what's much more likely is something more in the range of 2 to 3 degrees C (3.6 to 5.4 degrees F) of warming by 2100, Burgess said. By studying these middle-ground scenarios, scientists can focus on understanding those climate impacts that may be harmful and locally severe, but probably not catastrophic to humanity as a whole: more severe heat waves, places like California continuing to get drier and less-than-ideal ski seasons here in Colorado.
Climate catastrophism may also be contributing to the youth mental health crisis, the letter states. Over 40 percent of young adults reported thoughts of climate change negatively affecting their daily lives and functioning or making them hesitant to have children.
“We don’t want to ignore the possibility of catastrophic societal collapse or human extinction, but it shouldn't be our main focus right now,” said Burgess.
JOURNAL
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
ARTICLE TITLE
Catastrophic climate risks should be neither understated nor overstated
No comments:
Post a Comment