Source: Ida T. Why the systems should know each other
Briefly analysed
When scientists publicly discuss pre-print studies, media might misclassify their critique. This happened 2020 with the study on SARS-CoV-2 viral load in children during its peer-reviewed status. The example shows what happens when media and science do not understand each other’s methods. For change to succeed, representatives of the systems should engage in dialogue. In addition, training and consulting experts are necessary for both sides.
Understanding Media and science need to know each other’s methods. Why and what approaches might help is what the article is about.
“Das ist eine große Verunsicherung und ein Schaden, der damit verursacht wird. […] Ich kann mir das nicht erklären, warum es dazu gekommen ist und was der Grund dafür ist”, (“This is a great uncertainty and damage that is caused by it. […] I can’t explain why it has come to this and what the reason is.”) said virologist Christian Drosten in an article1 published 2020 in the german newspaper Focus. The issue was the coverage of the pre-print study by him and his colleagues on the viral load of Sars-Cov-2 in children. Media puffed up the criticism from the scientific community. They understated that this is part of the scientific process. A few also misrepresented the information. For example, some journalists made statements in imperative instead of the used subjunctive. This created a false image. Christian Drosten’s failure to understand the reasons for this kind of reporting is due to a fundamental problem: Science and the media do not know the methods of the other system. According to Niklas Luhmann, both are self-contained. In order to function, they do not need each other.
Knowing the other system
It is necessary that the systems know the basic methods of the other – also for citizens and consequently for democracy. So that the population can correctly classify scientific findings. The Corona pandemic showed how important science suddenly became for people. They, and therefore the media, were constantly demanding new information about the infection. But science cannot deliver new results immediately. It takes time and is a process. But the journalists did not pay much attention to this.
Two definitions of criticism
On the contrary, journalists like Bild editor Filipp Piatov asked questions to science that were counterproductive and without meaningful content. In the case of the viral load study he asked Christian Drosten, “Since when are you aware that there is serious criticism of your study?” Criticism is part of the process and serves to get a bit closer to the truth. If he had been aware of this, he probably would not have asked this question.
If Christian Drosten and his team had known that journalism in general does not know the methods of science, they would probably have released the pre-print under exclusion of the public. The fact that the scientists were under pressure to quickly publish findings about the new disease was possibly playing into the decision. With public peer review they could increase the chance that more experts could review the findings and thus complete the peer review more quickly. But as long as the media do not know the methods of science, it makes sense to consider the consequences of public peer review beforehand.
Consequences of ignorance
The fact that those involved in the systems do not know each other’s methods has consequences. People do not get sufficient information and may end up not trusting the science. This can have fatal consequences in a pandemic. In the long run, this could be detrimental to democracy because something is made into an event or issue that does not actually exist. This is resource- and time-consuming and means that systems can no longer do justice to their actual task. For example, Christian Drosten invested a lot of time via Twitter or through the podcast2 Corona Virus Update to address criticism from the media.
Suggestions for mutual understanding
In order that representatives do not consume unnecessary resources and inform citizens adequately: How can the systems understand each other? The best way is through a dialog between scientists and journalists. Understanding alone does not help. Direct exchange is the best way for the parties involved to overcome misunderstandings. Media training for scientists and scientific methods training for journalists are also helpful. For long-term change, however, both systems need experts at their side.
Support from experts
Of course, the representatives should be fundamentally aware of the other system. For example, scientists should not assume that journalists are translators of their research. Besides their research, they cannot deal with communication sufficiently. Their main task is to do research. Therefore, they depend on communication professionals. These experts could come from organizations, schools or agencies. Agencies have the advantage that they work closely with scientists in their daily work. Therefore they do most likely know to what extent they need advice and support.
In the same way, expertise from science does not hurt journalism. The media likes to report on results, but rarely on the process. This is because their recipients want clear statements. Science cannot offer this certainty. This goes against the way their system works. Because of this reason it is absolutely necessary to communicate the process.
Recommendation of the Leopoldina
In addition, the Leopoldina3– National Academy of Sciences recommends ethical principles and quality criteria for communication to science. This can be best developed in a co-creative process with stakeholders from different fields. This includes not only organizations, but also science communication agencies, communication professionals or schools – as well as researchers with SciComm experience. Different perspectives result in better criteria later on. In contrast to the Leopoldina who proposes that relevant organizations should develop the criteria. Media executives should also advance their quality criteria for scientific reporting. There should also be an independent science press council. Socially, it would also be helpful to invest more in teaching the science process and media education in schools and teacher training. After all, citizens also know far too little about how media and science work.
If the different systems know each other better, the representatives will know how to behave when interacting with the other system. So that there are no more statements like this one: “I can’t explain why this happened and what the reason is.” (Christian Drosten)
Ressources
1 Drosten zeigt sich bei Kinderstudie kritisch, dann knöpft er sich die Medien vor – FOCUS Online
2 (46) Coronavirus-Update: Viruslast-Studie durch Update bestätigt | NDR.de – Nachrichten – NDR Info