Communicating science means being political – and we need to be political
By Shashika Bandara
“How political will the article be?” “Will there be political backlash?”
These are questions that I have often faced from fellow academics and scientists when requested to write about global health challenges affecting my home country Sri Lanka, regionally, or at times globally – especially during this pandemic. While it can be discouraging to hear this response, it is also a reasonable response given the delicate balance that academics, scientists, health professionals have had to maintain within the systems they work. These systems can be their academic institutions, country-level bureaucratic systems, partner organizations, or donors.
Yet, if the pandemic has taught us anything, it is that the world needs scientists and academics to speak out more. We need to communicate better and create an inclusive space for global voices – now, more than ever. Therefore, I would like to highlight my top three reasons why you should communicate your science to the public beyond academic journals and outline the role that McGill Global Health Perspectives intends to play in science communication this year.
Three reasons why you should communicate your science:
1. To counter anti-science rhetoric
The most obvious reason, highlighted by the times we are living in, is the growth of organized anti-science communication. These efforts can be politically motivated or not politically motivated, and they can even be from sources within academia. However, the impact of such anti-science rhetoric is widespread and has damaged our communities. Therefore, through your writing, if you can shed light on the inaccuracies and guide communities towards a better understanding of complex concepts that help us make sense of the challenges we face, it will be an immense public service.
2. To break the gatekeeping mechanisms
Communicating beyond academic journals in publicly available forums also helps to break gatekeeping structures. Academic journals are often behind paywalls, are not accessible to researchers in low- and middle-income country institutes or have inaccessible language. Therefore, by communicating to the public through accessible and credible publications, we are also making an effort towards building equity. It can also help minimize negative biases against non-peer-reviewed publications and help build trust towards credible public-facing platforms and increase engagement beyond academic circles.
3. To inspire the current and future generations
Future generations will cultivate an interest in science by reading clear analyses of the scientific process. Students will be inspired to attempt scientific research if they can read compelling science explainers, and policymakers might be more willing to pursue evidence-based policy if they are able to fully grasp the role science plays in social wellbeing. When professors, researchers, practitioners, and scientists communicate more with the public, people (including peers) will be motivated to become better communicators. As we face interconnected global threats of climate change and global health security, it will be crucial to inspire and encourage current and future generations to communicate effectively. So, the time you spend writing an article for the general public about your research may set off a chain reaction with a lasting positive impact.
While the above reasons can be compelling to many of us, I recognize that there are structural barriers that limit our capacity to write beyond academic journals. Writing to non-academic publications rarely helps academics when compared to publishing in peer-reviewed journals. I believe that academic institutions need to lead the way in encouraging academics and students to write to the public and make better use of existing platforms to educate the public. One way to encourage institutions to recognize the importance of communication beyond journals is to build a culture where communicating to the public is the norm and not the exception. Such institutional encouragement will be vital for increasing the quality and the value of public-facing articles in global health. Additionally, some of us who live in or are citizens of restrictive environments also face personal challenges when communicating especially due to prevailing political climates. At times the political machinery breathing down your neck can be too much to bear. I hope that when faced with such adversity, we can find our voices through building coalitions and speaking to trusted communicators and outlets, even as anonymous sources.
Thus, with the goal of expanding our efforts to communicate, this year McGill Global Health Perspectives welcomes your contributions and we strive more to provide a platform for diverse and underserved voices. We invite researchers across the globe, including those outside of high-income country settings, to write to us. We also invite marginalized and minority communities such as indigenous, sexual and gender minorities, ethnic and racial minorities to write to us. For our part, we will try to showcase how truly ‘global’ global health can be by featuring researchers and practitioners from across the world via interviews and articles on the site.
So, we invite you to be political. Be political by communicating your science and by sharing your thoughts on how we can build a safer, more equitable world via global health research and practice.
About the Author
Shashika Bandara is the Editor-in-Chief of McGill Global Health Perspectives. He is a doctoral student focusing on global health policy at McGill University. He holds a master’s in global health from Duke University and is formerly a policy associate at the Center for Policy Impact in Global Health at the Duke Global Health Institute.