Thread by @alex_freeman

We’ve got a comment in Nature today on why science needs good ‘evidence communication’ and not the typical rules of rhetoric, designed to persuade rather than inform: nature.com/articles/d4158…

@d_spiegel @Sander_vdLinden @MarteauTM

Alongside the comment piece, which ironically sets out to persuade you to consider not be persuasive, are our more detailed thoughts on how to do this: media.nature.com/original/magaz…

Consider your own motivations and ethics – you may feel passionately about your work, but how far is it ok to seek to persuade? Compare a doctor talking to a patient, an expert witness presenting evidence in court, a researcher talking in the media…

There’s a spectrum from purely informing to downright persuasion – your choice of where to be on that spectrum each time you communicate should be conscious.

We give examples of things to consider to be truly informative: giving a balanced treatment to the evidence (not falsely balanced), being open about uncertainties and unapologetic about what you don’t know, being careful of the formats you present evidence in.

Our audiences judge our motivations when looking at who, and what information, to trust. Our concern is that trust in science could be undermined in the long term if we do not set out to be trustworthy in our communications.

So far during the pandemic, in the UK, our data shows that trust in science and scientists is holding up …
The same is not true of trust in the government and politicians….

[wintoncentre.maths.cam.ac.uk/coronavirus/wh…]

But scientists should not be complacent. We should all consider why and how we are communicating every time we do it, and consider whether we are being trustworthy.

[Thanks to everyone at the Winton Centre for all their work behind this]

@SciComGuy
@sarahdryhurst
@mesotronium
@CRSchneider3
@acethecurious
@ilangoodman
@mc_climent
@lfinikarides
@grumplet
@_gfarmer
@AMvanderBles
and others whose handles I don't have!