we live in a world in which people seem
to be screaming at each other climate
change is real climate change is not
real vaccines work they're safe they're
not safe what's interesting about all
the screaming is that everybody seems to
really believe that science is on their
side that the other side of the argument
has somehow been duped so where does
that leave us how do those of us that
are involved in science communication
make a difference how do we add value
stick with me I've got a framework that
you might find useful
let's think about the voices in any of
these conversations as existing on a
matrix it represents their relative
level of education training experience
expertise let's call that qualifications
in an area against their relative level
of objectivity on that subject and we
can imagine four quadrants and we're
going to go through each of these
quadrants and I'm going to focus on the
one on the top left now the top left
quadrant this is the quadrant in which I
find myself on most subjects and believe
it or not acknowledging that fact
represents a really powerful
Communications opportunity and I'm going
to get to that in just a minute now who
sits in these quadrants let's start at
the bottom on the left here we've got
the ideologues these are people who take
a position on a subject because of some
pre-existing ideology it could be their
religion it could be their political
affiliation look we're all very tribal
and we're all predisposed to adopting
beliefs that are held by a group of
people from whom we'd like acceptance so
no judgment here on some issue or
another we all probably fall into this
quadrant two things about quadrant
firstly you're not going to change
people's minds
so don't get emotionally involved with
some debate that you can't win people in
this quadrant never know that they're in
this quadrant and when we are in this
quadrant we're subject to a few things
firstly motivated reasoning we start
with an idea and then we look for a
narrative that supports it and part of
that includes something called
confirmation bias we pay much much more
attention to information that supports
the belief or idea that we want and less
to information that doesn't we all do
this from time to time we also see
what's called the Dunning Kruger effect
and basically this means that the less
competent a person is in an area the
more likely they are to overestimate
their own competency in that area
politicians do this all the time now
let's look at the next quadrant here
we've got a category of people or groups
or or institutions who despite having a
high level of expertise are still
nevertheless not objective so a good
example of this is industry or industry
funded research or ideologically funded
research where Financial or ideological
incentives come into play
you might find that only those studies
that support a particular position get
submitted from publication or that the
science itself is subject to something
we're called P hacking now P hacking is
a process whereby researchers
deliberately or sometimes even
unconsciously make a small number of
decisions but in sequence along the
research process path that biases the
results in a particular direction
now research coming from industry for
example can be considered more reliable
if the study hypothesis and the methods
are pre-registered publicly ahead of
time and the company is committed to
publishing the results no matter what
the outcome is so let's talk about the
top right hand quadrant here we've got
people or institutions or voices right
that have got high levels of expertise
and knowledge and experience they also
are objective and that's extremely
important here and I'm going to talk to
you about that right now a good example
of this is publicly funded research at a
university scientists aren't
incentivized or motivated to have
results that go one way or the next of
course there are exceptions we have to
be aware but for the most part these are
people or institutions or studies that
are fully engaged with what we call the
scientific method and at the end of what
can only be described as a painstaking
process and I'm going to describe that
to you in just a second scientists come
to what we call consensus no
notwithstanding when they're scientific
consensus there are occasional
detractors right that's not a bad thing
it's a good thing it's fine it's healthy
let's talk about this process the
starting point is you know order to get
your research funded you need to have
done the educational heavy lifting right
so you've spent years studying day and
night making sure that you understand
the nuances of the subject with
excruciating detail then before you get
your funding you have to draft a
research proposal this is scrutinized by
your colleagues and then by a funding
agency Board of experts now the way in
which scientific conclusions are drawn
for the most part and notwithstanding
that there are different scientific
methods is the starting point is to
assume that you're wrong right so they
start with What's called the null
hypothesis and then demonstrate that the
data doesn't support the null hypothesis
and that the alternative can in fact be
accepted within certain statistical
parameters now then to publish these
findings you have to go through a
process of peer review and again these
are experts they've got high levels of
objectivity they have to declare any
interests up front if they're going to
participate as a referee and only once
the papers pass through all of this does
the paper get published and even then
we're not jumping up and down about this
evidence we want to find that these
results are replicable in other words
that other scientists following the same
methods draw the same conclusions and
when enough Studies have been performed
we can undertake what's called
meta-analysis and this is the process
whereby all of the studies can be pooled
all of the results can be pulled and
combined to provide one overall study
result the point here is that the
hurdles that these scientists need to
overcome or the Hoops that they need to
jump through the skepticism and scrutiny
from their peers the rigorous standards
that have to be met and the level of
transparency that has to be upheld in
order to even get published in the first
place is quite remarkable and we still
roll our eyes if a person points to just
one study as justification for their
position we want to see meta-analysis we
want to see consensus and when we see it
it's super exciting next we've got
people with low level of qualifications
and by low level of qualifications I
don't mean you know nothing I mean
you're not an expert you don't have a
PhD on this this isn't your day job
right but you've nevertheless got higher
levels of objectivity so you wanted to
know the truth and on most subjects this
is where I find myself I'm a public
health doctor so I'm not an expert on
climate change on the issue of climate
change I land up in the top left-hand
quadrant not just climate change but
just about everything that isn't part of
my day job and by the way when it comes
to science communication this is the
group of people that you want to talk to
the bottom two quadrants you're wasting
your time the top right quadrant well
you don't need to but it's within this
quadrant that you're going to find
people that are genuinely looking for
the truth and they might find access to
information and answers and signs
genuinely useful this is where the
opportunity is especially amongst
educated people who want to be Advocates
of Science and consider themselves to be
Skeptics now the science communication
opportunity is this if you self-identify
as being in this quadrant I don't know
it all I'm not an expert right you can
come alongside somebody and with the
perspective of let's agree that neither
of us is an expert and let's agree that
we both want to get information from
highly qualified in objective voices so
in this context science communication
isn't about trying to win an argument
with somebody who really isn't going to
be convinced one way or the next no
matter what it's about shining a light
on our colleagues who are the true
experts in that particular field it's
about lifting up a process that is
reliable and honest and highlighting the
fact that we trust that process and that
we believe that even though we know it's
not perfect and mistakes get made and
scientists are valuable that the
scientific method is a beautiful thing
and we can have an extremely high degree
of confidence and Trust in the results
that come from it now you heard me
talking about meta-analysis that's
really the gold standard it's the best
we've got and the way you do it is you
do a systematic literature review you
extract the data from all the studies
you pull them and you have this combined
results there is a platform called
nested knowledge that really facilitates
this entire process from end to end
nested knowledge sponsor my channel
surface knowledge I love them that's a
fantastic product and I'd like to
encourage you click on the link in the
description below there's video and
check them out now the next video that I
want you to watch is a video about
climate change and health given that
you've watched this video I think you'll
have an interest in that video too okay
have a great day don't do drugs always
do your best speak to you soon take care
bye