When I came across a research article entitled ‘Consumer preferences regarding food-related risk-benefit messages’ it grabbed my attention. Naively, I thought it would provide some useful insights into how best we can communicate risk to consumers, but after finishing the abstract I have to say I wasn’t any better informed.
I know I’m not a practicing scientist, but I do have a (very old) chemistry degree and have been called moderately intelligent: but frankly at a quick glance the abstract explaining this research is completely impenetrable. Surely the least we can do when we’re talking about communicating with consumers is to make those communications clear! I don’t want to point the blame at this piece of work in particular; it’s just one example of a huge number of research reports written in ‘research speak’.
If we’re going to build both interest in science, and trust in scientists, from the general public, it’s about time more effort was made to communicating in an accessible way. This doesn’t mean dumbing down: merely using words that mean something to the average reader. We know that this is not always easy – accuracy is important in science – but groups like the Science Media Centre and Sense about Science are already making headway on this tricky subject.
Perhaps there is more we can all do with just a little effort. As a starting point, can anyone let me know if there were any useful conclusions from this study, or perhaps provide a translation?
And for those who like clever explanations of difficult science, try searching for the brilliant explanation of the Higgs Field – personified in the image of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher entering a cocktail party of loyal Conservatives.