Science and Media Communications: turning data into enlightenment, Part 3 of 3

"Data for data itself is not very powerful. When data turns into information, it's very powerful. But if it only has a limited audience then it has a limited effect. And so, you have to get that information to the people that make decisions." - Ed Cassano, CEO, InMER.org

To implement a media communications plan to support any scientific research project, it must be considered a vital component of the project, not an afterthought. It needs to be included in the early planning stages - hypothesis, methodology, logistics, analysis, and media communications. Depending on the nature of the project and the type of communication plan chosen, documentation and distribution of information could be ongoing throughout, as opposed to a "now that we're done, let's talk about it" approach. This could entail press releases, blog postings, or several other communication channels that can provide expedition updates.

Does this tack pose the hazard of discussing results prematurely, letting the cat out of the bag as it were? Not necessarily. A lot depends on how the communiques are fashioned and how true to scientific objectivity the project is trying to maintain. In any event, whether communication is distributed during the project or not, it must at least be involved from the get go to insure that all appropriate documentation takes place for future use.

Establishing a New Paradigm
Realistically, some media communication strategies would be less robust than others based on the specifics of the project. A study of, say, oceanic temperature variations throughout the Arctic over an extended historical period may relate to broader themes and issues than a project devoted to the migration patterns of one particular species of insect along the Arctic border. The former could more easily connect with an audience on the larger issue of global warming than perhaps the latter.

For research that has a more narrow or specific focus, cooperative consolidation with other researchers can help in bringing together similar or related data that can then be communicated under a unified topic or issue. However, this requires a new paradigm shift in thinking for many researchers and their supporting academic institutions. A protective, insular attitude often exists regarding research sites and data to insure maximum credit and attention is paid to those who have worked so hard to either conduct or fund a particular research project.

Given the types of limited communication strategies that have existed in the past (typically, a published paper followed by a press release and perhaps a lecture or two), these kind of self-centered attitudes are understandable but not productive when one considers the broader, global effects that the data can have in addressing critically important ecological issues. With cooperative consolidation, combined with a more proactive media communication plan, a greater good is served at a time when it is most needed and equal credit can be bestowed on all of the participants, from which all will benefit.

When I have spoken with scientists and researchers about this new paradigm, their enthusiasm becomes palpable. You can see the spark that originally ignited their love for exploration and scientific study suddenly burn bright again. But it can be fleeting. "Sounds great but that's not how the system works." "It's what we should be doing but our university just won't go for it." The challenge is in finding and supporting those who will be the drivers, the leaders, of this new way of thinking.

Bucking the System
Change will need to come from the top down. Whether demanding more effective, proactive media communication and outreach strategies or reshaping the system through cooperative consolidation, those who will change the system will be the ones at the top of the pyramid - in many cases, that means the funding sources.

As a media communications consultant and filmmaker, I am more than prepared and willing to assist any organization in reaching broader audiences. However, truth be told, my position is near the bottom of that pyramid. My interests are both global and self-serving and I am a support member to the project team, albeit one with unique expertise. The scientists or researchers are farther up the pyramid, with much greater influence, but they have others to answer to who may be less willing to change established protocol.

Change will come from those who greenlight these projects, whether it's private foundations, universities, investors, or government agencies. The National Science Foundation (NSF), one of the leading sources of scientific research funding in the United States, now requires an outreach component in all grant proposals submitted for consideration. Coming from a major government-supported funder of research projects, this is a significant step.

Some of the major NGOs (non-governmental organizations) - like Conservation International, Oceana, WildAid, and others - are making great strides in combining scientific research projects with their own fund-raising operations and international outreach efforts. Seaweb directs their specific resources towards issuing newsletters that include collections of abstracts from published scientific studies - although not "translated" for the general populace, imagine receiving 25 to 35 abstracts on, say, climate change or commercial fisheries each and every month. Would these issues be less questioned if the information was proactively disseminated?

We could very well be on the cusp of a major change in expectations from funding agencies. With media communication strategies designed to reach greater audiences, supporters of scientific research will benefit from increased return on investment (ROI), to borrow a term from the business world.

And why shouldn't they? In today's world of limited economic resources, funders are willing to invest more in projects that will further educate target audiences, generate more quantitative and qualitative results (like shifts in public opinion or changes in government or international policy), and bring greater recognition to the supporting organization itself. They expect more than a published paper that ultimately collects dust on a shelf. With ecological and environmental issues pressing down on us, the stakes are too high to demand anything less.

Scientific Research - Time to Reach Out
Having been scuba diving for over 25 years, I have seen the decline in marine habitats, both locally and worldwide. Working in television commercial production and corporate marketing communications for several decades, I came to appreciate the power of the message in reaching a variety of audiences.

Now, as I focus on conservation issues at this stage of my life, deep down in my own personal, ideal world, I visualize a future where messages on coral reef protection share digital signage space with sales at Bloomingdale's at the local shopping mall; where protection of our natural resources is as much a part of our day-to-day psyche as is pondering what we shall have for dinner. A fanciful dream perhaps, but there is no time like the present for science to begin moving in that direction. And media communications can help do that.

Media communications can:

• Reach those who can/should demonstrate change through personal awareness
• Bring forth issues to policy- and decision-makers for direct action
• Provide exposure which can open doors to other research opportunities
• Generate a better qualitative return to facilitate future funding

Throughout history, science has often lead the way in innovation and advancement, but today the world is faced with serious issues that require comprehension and consensus among peoples, their leaders, and their economic interests. Science can provide many of the answers to these pressing issues. However, to do that requires information - ready available, understandable information.

About the author: As media producer, filmmaker, and marcomm consultant, Richard Theiss has provided high definition images for broadcast networks and non-profits in addition to developing and implementing marketing strategies for multi-billion dollar corporations. From sweeping Arctic vistas to pensive human interaction to the power of the great white shark, Richard Theiss/RTSea adheres to the principle of "Making the Message Matter."

Science and Media Communications: turning data into enlightment - Part 2 of 3

Developing a Strategy
There are many pieces to a media communications strategy and no two plans are alike. Though there can be a methodical process to building it, the end result should be unique to each project. A good starting point is to explore three fundamental and interdependent questions: what you want to say, how you want to say it, and to whom?

The first question we'll explore in more detail shortly. "How you want to say it" opens the door to a vast array of communication vehicles at your disposal. Besides the traditional academic paper, there are solicited or self-written articles for non-academic publications, summary brochures or booklets, press releases, media opportunity announcements, educational curriculum materials, books, direct mail, email, informational websites, blogs, and many, many more. And that's just in the print medium.

Then there are the visual arts: photographs, slide/"powerpoint" presentations, lectures/speaking engagements, videos/films - either for broadcast, online, or DVD/download distribution, PSAs (public service announcements), webcasts and podcasts, retail digital and outdoor signage and, again, many more. Combined with other high-tech distribution methodologies and outlets, there is a seemingly endless number of avenues to pursue.

But you can't have it all. Some of the determining factors in narrowing down the field to the most appropriate communication channels can be resources (the almighty dollar), time, and even the participants themselves. Is the project best served by having the project members before the camera, before live audiences? Can they be another Carl Sagan? Or should there be qualified stand-ins or representatives; or should the data simply speak for itself?

Tied in very closely with all of this is the question of to whom you want to say it. Basically, who it is you are trying to reach. In the business world, this is referred to as identifying your markets. A company considers the best way to reach its different market segments - and a scientific research group developing an outreach program would be doing the exact same thing. Do you wish to reach politicians and other policy- or decision-makers? Adults? Men or women? School kids? Younger children? National or international audiences, particularly ones with different or even opposing cultural perspectives? Even if your decision was to reach all of the above, careful consideration must be given as to how best to speak to each group.

Data Translation: What did he just say?
"In polar bear plasma samples no binding of [125I]-T4 to TTR was observed after incubation and PAGE separation. Incubation of the plasma samples with [14C]-4-OH-CB107, a compound with a higher binding affinity to TTR than the endogenous ligand T4 resulted in competitive binding as proven by the appearance of a radio labeled TTR peak in the gel. Plasma incubation with T4 up to 1 mM, a concentration that is not physiologically relevant anymore did not result in any visible competition." - excerpt from a study abstract.

What you want to say usually requires translation. The language of science can be precise and detailed. It can also be obscure and arcane to a non-scientific audience. A media communication strategy succeeds only when it is able to relay a message, a story, to a particular group of people on a level that can be easily understood and appreciated.

However, this does not mean that one must appeal to a lowest common denominator, to "dumb it down" as it were. An effective translation is, in a sense, not a vertical exercise but a horizontal one. You are sidestepping from one language to another. I never underestimate the capacity of any audience to grasp complex subjects. The difference is in the steps one takes to lead the audience to the conclusion you want them to comprehend.

There are exercises that I take a client through to distill the data down to an easily understood message. While which exercise I choose may depend on the nature of the project or the people I am working with, all have a common trait: they are simple but repetitive, running the data through a linguistic filter over and over again until you are left with just the valuable nuggets of information.

Often, the desired message is one that is relevant to the audience, impacting their lives and provoking some sort of response or action. In advertising, this is the "call to action" - what gets someone off of the couch to order the chrome-plated swizzle stick and deep fryer combo shown on TV. But it must never be deceptive or misleading (as can be the case in some advertising). This is critically important. The data depended on scientific accuracy and precision; a successful message depends on credibility and integrity.

It is important that any scientist or group of scientists, who wish to enlist the aid of a media communications specialist, have a good working relationship and a clear understanding with their media counterpart. Veteran nature film producer Chris Palmer described it in his book, Shooting in the Wild, when discussing ethical film making, "It's important to choose partners carefully. Before they begin, the parties need to agree on both the goals of the project and the most ethical way to accomplish them. If a film tells a scientist's story well, it's easier for that researcher to find funding for further study and to cultivate a scientifically literate public."

Three Message Goals
Often when the data has environmental or ecological significance, a good message can be derived by focusing on three sequential goals: issues, implications, and solutions.

The media communications expert works with the scientific team in translating the data and its results into clearly defined issues. What is at stake here? What does this mean to the audience we are addressing? One might think that it would be fairly obvious and easy to glean from the research, and most of the time it is. However, there are situations where the data is so observational, it takes time to define the conclusions that will resonate with a non-scientific audience.

Issues lead to implications. This is where the message, in essence, becomes personal. One of the best ways to get the attention of any group is to show how an issue will effect them personally. For the most part, mankind is a pretty self-centered species. And conservation or environmental issues can seem remote or obscure until the implications to our day-to-day lives can be shown. Research can often identify a cause and effect - that's the issue. But in that complex puzzle we call nature, one effect often cascades into another and another; and from there implications can be ascertained. Part of the success of Vice President Al Gore's slide show presentations and subsequent documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, was his ability to take the data and present it as issues and then implications, many of which jarred the viewer into realizing the seriousness of global warming.

Providing solutions is where the call to action comes into full force. Without solutions, the message then is driving the audience right into a brick wall: What are we to do? What should our political or business leaders be doing? How can I help? The solutions can be specific, directed towards individual or governmental action, or they may simply infer a direction for others to pursue. In any case, providing solutions is as equally important as presenting the problem.

In the opening passage to this article (Part 1), the importance of a message's issues, implications, and solutions was expressed, ". . . unsure of ourselves without a clear understanding of what is happening and what is at stake. But science can illuminate the future of this planet."

What is happening: issues. What is at stake: implications. Science can illuminate: solutions. Three fundamental components to an effective media communications strategy.

Part 3: Implementation and a new science paradigm

Science and Media Communications: turning data into enlightenment - Part 1 of 3

Mankind stands at the edge of a dark night. Faced with enormous environmental and ecological challenges, we hesitate to take a first step, unsure of ourselves without a clear understanding of what is happening and what is at stake. But science can illuminate the future of this planet.

We ask a lot of science. It has done everything from having given us better-tasting ice cream to the hydrogen bomb. It has answered fundamental questions about the existence of the universe and shown us how to hold up our pants with Velcro. And now we seek solutions to environmental problems - mostly of our own making - that threaten the survival of thousands of species, including us.

In a world where communication can be near instantaneous and pervasive, we look for guidance to make the right decisions that can insure a future for this planet. We are looking for subject matter experts who can speak to us - simply and effectively - and science has been doing its best.

But it is just the tip of the iceberg. Science is not doing enough.

In the years that I have spent as a nature filmmaker and media producer, I have come to find that there is an enormous amount of data being generated from countless research projects, expeditions, and studies that is not reaching the people. It's not reaching the policy- and decision-makers. It is not having the impact on the future of this planet as it should.

To a large extant, this is understandable. Scientists, researchers, and academics spend years developing the skills to study, hypothesize, and analyze. They are trained to make science but not necessarily to sell it. To effectively communicate in today's world requires scientists and researchers to consider an additional discipline to their work, one that understandably may not be a part of their background or comfort level: Media Communications.

Media Communications
The techniques of communicating effectively to a general or targeted audience by utilizing today's available technologies that best transmit a message, generate a response, and invoke action.

This is an exciting time for media communications. The ability to reach people through a variety of communication mediums or formats is literally exploding. But to do it successfully requires strategic planning. One must examine what it is being communicated and then match the appropriate audience with the right communication vehicles to maximize the power of the message. Media communications itself is part science, part art form. And it requires an experienced hand to formulate, execute, and manage an ongoing, dynamic plan.

To demand this expertise of the scientist or researcher is not fair. After all, there are people who devote entire careers to media communications. After having spent over a dozen years in television commercial production, I migrated into corporation communications and marketing. I had seen the power of the visual image in delivering a message and then spent a decade dealing with the full range of message delivery through print, word-of-mouth, visual and audio broadcast and, of course, the ubiquitous Internet.

With the issues facing the world today, the old formula of writing a paper for publication in a scientific or academic journal, followed by a press release from the supporting university or research organization, is becoming wholly inadequate. In fact, as important as it is to the scientists involved or however much it adds to the prestige of the supporting organization, it actually is doing a disservice - it is shortchanging the potential of that research to really make a difference. And that's what is at stake here: making a difference in the future of planet Earth.

Being Proactive
To say the Internet has become quite a game-changer for message delivery is indeed a gross understatement. From websites to videos to blogs, there is a mind-boggling amount of information awaiting the curious user at the end of a few keyboard clicks. And many academic and research organizations have done what they can to take advantage of this medium with informational websites and videos that document their research or illustrate the results. This is a good step forward, but its one weakness is that it is not necessarily a proactive step.

To consciously and deliberately bring information to a specific audience, one must be proactive and the Internet does not lend itself to a proactive approach. Fundamentally, it depends on the user to be seeking the information. The user either searches for the information via search engines like Google, Bing, Ask or others, or the information is compiled for them by complex search algorithms (like suggested YouTube videos or products on eBay).

Word of mouth plays a significant role in information delivery on the Internet. The "viral" effect that can bestow a YouTube video with millions of hits within a short period of time is definitely a plus. However, it is more in the hands of others and less of your own making.

Now, none of this is meant to imply that one should disregard the Internet. To the contrary, it is an absolutely vital component of a comprehensive media communications strategy. Its effectiveness can be enhanced by carefully selected keywords or a more traditional promotional approach through the use of banner ads - all designed to nudge the user in your direction.

However, overall, it is more of a "pull" rather than "push" delivery system, and a complete media communications battle plan must have proactive initiatives that bring the information to those who need it most. Someone who is interested in, say, ocean acidification can find a lot of information on the web, but how do we reach the person who, at this moment, is completely oblivious to the issue? How do we get this information in front of a politician or governmental regulatory body? Do we wait for them to ask or do we find ways to bring to their attention?

Part 2: Steps to building a media comm strategy

Climategate Ends: independent review clears researchers but science has lessons to learn

As the world faces more and more critical environmental issues and turns to science for possible answers, the need for the scientific community to re-evaluate its ability to develop meaningful communication with the general public becomes imperative. Now, along with such disciplines as hypothetical testing, methodology, and results analysis, must be added media communications and public relations. No greater example of this need could be better demonstrated than by what has come to be called "Climategate."

Just before the recent March Copenhagen Climate Conference, a series of emails from the highly respected Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia were somehow hacked and posted online. While all basically taken out of context, the emails seemed to imply that the researchers were denying access to or hiding data that did not support their research conclusions. Having hit the online community - a community made up of legitimate news outlets, bloviating blogs, and a soapbox for any person with an opinion no matter how extreme - it exploded into a public relations disaster for climate change advocacy. Charges of worldwide scientific conspiracies, corrupt scientists, and bogus global warming theories flooded cyberspace and, according to some, impacted the effectiveness of the Copenhagen conference. And collectively, it all came to be known as Climategate.

Now, an independent review of CRU's work, published last week, has officially cleared the research group and the participating scientists of any wrongdoing. In the end, there were no nefarious schemes, no attempts to corrupt or circumvent the peer review process, and no forcing of the data to meet preconceived notions regarding global warming.

But, in general, the media reacted to this new development with a big yawn.

If you are someone familiar with public relations and crisis communications, you know that this does not come as a big surprise. It doesn't make for a splashy headline; it's not sexy; and it means that all prior media exposure was potentially inaccurate - and that's a confession that's not going to necessarily make the 6 o'clock news.

The lessons to be learned from Climategate are the need for science to have complete transparency and, by doing so, to better understand how the language can be understood or misunderstood by the media and the general public. These are lessons that we are demanding our politicians and corporate leaders get attuned to, and so the scientific community will need to do the same.

When the research emails first exploded on the news, I recalled reading about one item of terminology that caused quite a stir. In preparing a graph presentation, a CRU researcher referred to using a "trick" in representing the data. It was not meant to be a deception but a reference to a valid technique for preparing data in a graph, one of many "tricks" that can be used to effectively illustrate information. The connotation of it being something devious was ascribed by the media and, in particular, the critics of climate change - and so a full-fledged PR boondoggle was born.

That particular use of terminology struck me because of my background in the film business. In describing stunts or clever events taking place in a film or television program or commercial, the term "gag" is often used by industry people - "We're going to shoot the car explosion gag next." "The commercial ends with the gag of the dog talking." The gag may not necessarily be funny - it could be sad, poignant, or even dangerous - but it's still referred to as the "gag." But it's that kind of insider lingo that can also be misconstrued or distorted, as was the case in Climategate.

The reviewers of the CRU research, while exonerating the participants of any wrongdoing, did level some general criticisms about the level of secrecy that exists with regards to the safeguarding of data. The comment was less directed to the CRU as it was to the scientific community as a whole.

As reported by Damian Carrington in the Guardian Observer, "'Like it or not, this [demand for openness] indicates a transformation in the way science has to be conducted in this century.' That, say many, will be the lasting legacy of the independent review published last week into the controversial emails between climate scientists that were stolen from the University of East Anglia and posted online."

Scientists will need to look inward into their own culture, rethinking the processes that researchers use to collect and sometimes shield data from the prying eyes of other researchers - a protective attitude that can backfire and become suspect by the media. And with such globally important environmental challenges as climate change, ocean acidification, and chemical pollution gaining more attention and momentum with each passing day, scientists must be more cognizant than ever that what they say and how they say it - basic media communications 101 - must be skills they need to master, rather than leaving it to others to misinterpret.

Unlike the detail and precision of scientific instruments, the microscope of the media and public perception can be wildly inaccurate.

Read the independent review of the climate change email controversy.
Read the Guardian Observer article.
More reaction to Climategate distortions from change.org

Australian Marine Reserves: government review approves the science that supports their parks

One of the bright spots in ocean conservation has been the worldwide adoption of marine reserve areas. From Hawaii to Australia to the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean, marine reserves or parks that prohibit or strictly limit recreational and commercial activities are being recognized as a positive step in preserving delicate marine ecosystems and allowing biodiversity to flourish. A lot more reserves are needed but what we have is a start.

But what defines a marine reserve? What is the method or methods by which the boundaries are determined? Well, this is where scientific research - past and ongoing studies - plays a crucial role. It requires research that examines a whole range of factors - biodiversity, population studies of specific species, water quality and movement patterns, topographical seabed mapping, and more. No one study can do it all, so research accumulates and from this wealth of knowledge, recommendations are made to determine the location and size of the protected area.

But not everyone agrees on the science. Lobbying forces that represent recreational or commercial fishing, and other business interests such as mining and mineral exploration, often question the validity and accuracy of the science. And so the battle rages for the attention and vote of the politicians and decision makers in charge.

Recently, Australia's Department of Environment, Climate Change, and Water commissioned an independent review of the scientific research used to determine its marine reserves, and the results heavily favored the available scientific research. Newly designated areas in New South Wales (NSW) had been heavily criticized, but it would appear by the review that the research that, both, had been done and was planned for the future was sufficient to support the marine reserves.

''The independent review panel found evidence of much ongoing or completed research and monitoring that has taken advantage of established marine parks within NSW,'' the authors of the review wrote, as reported by the Sydney Morning Herald.

''These are resulting in presentations at conferences and scientific papers published in the international literature, and the reputation of the work being done is, on the whole, excellent.''

The Sydney Morning Herald also quoted Dr. Klaus Koop, the department's conservation and science director, who felt that marine parks not being supported by science was an idea that has been debunked. However, he did make one interesting observation.

''One of the things that we haven't done well enough, perhaps, is communicating exactly what we've done and … what we've found,'' Dr Koop said.

I am a proponent of good media communications for scientific research and that often means a lot more than just published articles in academic journals. Researchers need the assistance of those with media expertise, like myself, in communicating their work to a broader audience - one that includes policy makers, commercial interests, and the general public. The more the information is disseminated in easy-to-understand results and implications, the more challenging it becomes for opposing forces to dismiss or question its legitimacy.

Read the Sydney Morning Herald article.

Scientific Research: turning data into a compelling message

The latest issue of TIME magazine has an interesting article on plastics and the chemicals they can leach back into our food and the environment. It's an interesting read but what caught my eye was it's closing statement as it is applicable to nature and ocean conservation in general:

"' Science isn't just about data,' says the NIEHS's [National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences] [Linda] Birnbaum. 'It's about the interpretation of data.' That interpretation, ultimately, won't be up to scientists. It will be up to us. The lesson of Earth Day [when air pollution was a heightened and more visible issue], 40 years on, is that smart policy - fired by popular will - can make a difference that we can see."

In my documentary, Island of the Great White Shark, this sentiment was echoed by Ed Cassano, Deputy Director of the Center for the Future of the Oceans and founder of the marine research/education group InMER.org, "Data for data itself is not very important. When data turns into information, it's very powerful. But if it only has a limited audience then it has a limited effect. And so, you have to get that information to the people that make decisions."

In the years that I have spent as a filmmaker, working with researchers, and promoting conservation issues, I have seen how this is true. There is important research data that appears in scientific journals or other publications but, because of its complex nature and scientific jargon, does not go much further in reaching and motivating the public. Arcane, esoteric language is ignored, or worse, is misinterpreted.

Scientists may not make the ultimate interpretation, but they can do a lot more to insure that the public and the policy makers come to conclusions that are accurate and actionable.

This is where people like myself, involved in media communications, can play an important role and need to be included in the research process. There are a multitude of media channels by which research groups and scientists can take their results and translate them into issues, implications, and possible solutions - something that the public can get a handle on. And it should be a component of the research process and not left, after the fact, to university public relations departments or headline-seeking networks on a quest for ratings. Therein lies the potential for distortion of the facts.

Scientific research can provide answers to many of our pressing environmental challenges which means it has a greater responsibility to better control and deliver the message itself. When I discuss this with scientists and researchers, they seem to agree (I get a lot of enthusiastic head nods). But it's a big step for them to include media communications in their proposals or projects - it's one more item that requires funding in a strained economic environment. However, the residual benefits of making the extra effort can pay off: more exposure for a group's work, providing additional recognition and leverage when seeking future funding.

As someone who has been involved in a variety of corporate and broadcast media activities, from strategic planning to multi-channel development and execution, every time I look through the lens, I'm thinking beyond just capturing a pretty image. How will it be used? How will it motivate? What is the big picture that could be accomplished here? These are the thoughts that go through the minds of people who realize the power and reach of effective media communications - for good or for bad. And because the truth can be distorted, it behooves scientists and researchers to be more proactive and work with those who have a mutual interest in getting the message right.

I am always looking for opportunities to work with scientific research groups in documenting their work and insuring that their results are effectively communicated to the masses. This is a direction that really excites me and speaks to my passion for conservation.

The general public, educators, and policy makers are turning to science for answers and we must be sure we are all speaking the same language.

Facts Aren't Always Enough: social research shows people persuaded by values over truth

Interesting article by Bryan nelson in Mother Nature Network on how research in social/cultural science can help anticipate people's reactions, positive or negative, to factual science. In other words, rather than presenting facts and expecting the obvious rationale of those facts (obvious to the person presenting the information, that is) to convince all, one must consider more deeply the cultural attitudes the listener brings to his/her thought process.

'"People tend to conform their factual beliefs to ones that are consistent with their cultural outlook, their world view,' [says] social scientist Don Braman told National Public Radio. Braman is a scholar at George Washington University and part of The Cultural Cognition Project, which has been conducting experiments about how individuals interpret facts differently."

The article says this cultural effect has played into how some people have accepted or rejected information amount climate change, that it is all filtered through their own perspective no matter how incontrovertible the facts are.

"For instance, people labeled in the 'individualistic' group [a study group that embraced technology, authority, and free enterprise] tended to favor nuclear power as a viable solution to the energy crisis. When they were given a report which offered nuclear power as a solution to the climate crisis, they were more likely to consider global warming a serious problem. On the other hand, since 'communitarians' [the study group that was suspicious of technology, authority, and free enterprise] distrusted nuclear power, they were less likely to see global warming as a concern when nuclear power was the only proposed solution. In other words, both groups evaluated the issue of global warming differently depending on previously held beliefs."

While the article's focus was on applying cultural science to the issue of climate change, it can easily be applied to other ecological issues. I, for one, advocate the potential for aquaculture because I have positive attitudes about technology (that it can help address the environmental challenges that aquaculture faces) and because I choose to eat as little wild-caught fish as possible (therefore I am more receptive to the idea of open-water fisheries being eliminated in favor of aquaculture). Someone more skeptical of technology or more dependent on fisheries might have a different reaction to facts regarding the potential of aquaculture.

In some respects, it's not that hard to figure out. As someone who has spent years in the marketing communications field, I know how important it is to know your audience and to be aware that perception, not necessarily facts, can be reality. This is something that many scientists, who follow a more black and white approach where facts are facts, often have difficulty with if they are faced with seeking buy-in by the general public or decision makers. This is one of the areas that I address when providing media communications consulting and related services to research groups and NGOs.

Read entire Mother Nature Network article.