NAHSL: News

Rebecca Drouhard: A Multidisciplinary Look at Science Communication, Misinformation, and Literacy

A Multidisciplinary Look at Science Communication, Misinformation, and Literacy 

Reflections on the NAHSL Annual Meeting by NAHSL Annual Meeting Scholarship Winner Rebecca Drouhard

I attended the NAHSL Annual Meeting in Portland, ME from November 6-8, 2022.  I had a nice time at the conference and enjoyed the opportunity to socialize and network in person. I found the presentations in the breakout session on science communication, misinformation, and literacy in the context of COVID-19 to be particularly interesting. 

The first presentation was titled “Has COVID-19 Changed the Landscape of Science Literacy?” It was presented by Lauri Fennell, MSLS and Jeni Stolow, PhD, MPH. Dr. Stolow called into the session.  One idea for increasing trust in science was showing that science has changed positively over time. This could help normalize the idea that science changes for the benefit of society.

The second presentation was called “Developing a Novel Interprofessional Tool for Addressing Health Misinformation”. This project was the recipient of an AAMC Health Professions Education Curricular Innovations Grant, and was presented by Jennifer Hayman, MD, the project PI.  Dr. Hayman and their multidisciplinary team developed an open access curriculum that provides strategies to mitigate misinformation. One communication strategy suggested was to endorse patient’s agency in health care decision making, instead of approaching the patient without room for compromise.  

The third presentation, given by Lucy Liaw, PhD from MaineHealth Institute for Research, was about training for postdocs, specifically the amount of time that is invested in science communication training. Although communication skills are one of the core competencies stated by the National Postdoctoral Association, biomedical research training focuses little time on it. Dr. Liaw discussed the differences between communicating with scientists and communicating with the public.  For example, when scientists use the term aerosol, members of the public may think of a spray can. A better choice of wording could be tiny atmospheric particle. Additionally, the approach that researchers have when writing a scientific paper, such as staring with background information and ending with the results or conclusion, is different than what the public is looking for. The communication style that the public is often looking for is has the key points presented at the start.

I was impressed with the information presented in the breakout session, especially learning about science communication, misinformation, and literacy from multidisciplinary sources. 

Rebecca Drouhard, MLIS