The Onion features a very on-target parody of how networks choose scientists and health experts to appear on television. Instead of an astute, balanced, and informed -- but dry -- professor, the network chooses a glib former football player who has written a book about "America's Coming Nuclear-Power Holocaust."
This too-close-to-home parody leaves us pondering some facts:
First, television is intrinsically a form of entertainment, not the best platform for education.
Second, presentations that include scares and fears generally provide more entertainment than those that offer assurances and dismiss popular beliefs about prevailing hazards (despite a tiny handful of marvelous exceptions, such as Mythbusters, John Stossel, and Penn and Teller's series).
Third, many if not most university scientists -- who may indeed be experts in their fields, whether it is nuclear power, food safety, or bioterrorism -- are not trained to speak in the type of "soundbites" the TV producers crave. They are educators, not entertainers -- and, by current TV standards, they are indeed boring.
Given that television is such a powerful medium for transmitting information --and misinformation -- the above three facts pose major challenges to those of us who are attempting to separate real health scares from the myriad bogus ones that make headlines each day. Can we succeed in changing the views of producers -- getting TV networks to put on erudite individuals, despite the fact that they cause viewers' eyes to glaze over? No way. Ratings are the name of the game, and boring guests threaten ratings.
Instead, scientists who are committed to communicating sound scientific concepts have to "get with the game" and spruce up their presentations to become entertaining as well as informative. Some guidelines would-be scientific communicators might consider:
a) Boil your message down to two or three short sentences.
b) Do not be afraid to use the four-letter word "safe" (as in "our food supply is safe"). While that term may not be acceptable in a university seminar discussion (nothing is risk-free), it is acceptable in communicating relative risk to the public.
c) Use humor where appropriate.
d) Explicitly address the prevailing misconceptions -- and authoritatively dismiss them ("I am aware that consumers believe that pesticides pose a health risk, but there is no evidence that the regulated, approved use of pesticides has ever caused disease or death").
e) Be animated in your presentation, and look as if you are delighted to have the opportunity to be there.
f) Smile.
Until the real, well-credentialed, respected experts master the art of being presentable, the best advice for the public who see glamorous loudmouths on the small screen is: stay skeptical.
Elizabeth Whelan, Sc.D., MPH, is president of the American Council on Science and Health and appears often as a commentator on TV news and radio -- but really does know what she's talking about.
