Bringing Science to Bars: A Strategy for Effective Science Communication

Introduction

It is increasingly well accepted that it is part of a scientist’s duty to communicate science to the general public (Brownell, Price, & Steinman, 2013; Greenwood & Riordan, 2001), yet most practicing scientists lack both formalized training in science communication and opportunities to share their work with lay audiences. This has led to an increased mistrust in scientists and to a climate in which rejection of science is common. One of the most evident areas of this is in climate science: While 97% of climate researchers agree that climate change is happening and that it is human induced, only 47% of Americans believe that global warming is caused by human activity. Furthermore, 40% of the public believe that there is huge disagreement among scientists on whether it is occurring (Somerville & Hassol, 2011). Further examples of mistrust in science include the topics of genetically modified food (Dixon, 1999) and vaccinations (Dubé et al., 2013). While each of these matters are incredibly nuanced, and by no means reflect a single problem, with influences from financial gains, political powers, and special interest groups, an underlying current of mistrust in scientists seems to permeate through them. Given the huge impact this has on the world, it is pertinent for scientists to understand the underlying issues and to design the means to overcome these problems. In this article, we argue that effective science communication needs to humanize scientists by placing them in the locales and events of the general public.

Typically, the scientific community’s response to rejection of science is either to ignore it or to present evidence-based studies in attempts to educate the public; however, these responses have been largely unsuccessful. Ignoring the issue has led to a pervasive environment of mistrust and has further dissuaded laypeople from interacting with science. On the other hand, simply trying to educate the public has also been ineffective, in part due to the uncertain nature of science (Leshner, 2003) but also due to lack of training and opportunities (Baron, 2016; Brownell et al., 2013). For example, lexical polysemy may hinder effective communication between scientists and the general public; certain words such as “theory,” “significant,” and “correlation” are used in daily speech but have more nuanced meanings in a scientific context (Coxhead, 2008; Da Sylva, 2009). Presenting scientific studies as is to the general public often causes such a presentation to appear inaccessible. Overall, this has created a “cold lab coat” syndrome where scientists are partly dehumanized (or infrahumanized). A solution to this was written in an editorial by Alan Leshner (2003), the chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science at that time:

The centrality of science to modern life bestows an obligation on the scientific community to develop different and closer links with the general population . . . We need to move beyond what too often has been seen as a paternalistic stance. We need to engage the public in a more open and honest bidirectional dialogue about science and technology and their products, including not only their benefits but also their limits, perils, and pitfalls.

Most scientists would not disagree with this, yet there is a distinct gap between desire and action. This is hugely due to a self-perceived lack of competence, and negative experience with institutional norms that do not provide adequate support (Baron, 2016; Singh et al., 2014). The questions we then need to ask are these: (1) How do scientists develop closer links to the public and engage in effective dialogue? (2) How do we support scientists and help them overcome their self-perceived lack of competence.

Science in Bars

Given the increasingly recognized importance of communicating science to the general public, organizations that focus on science communication have been emerging. One of the more interesting subsets of these are groups that organize events in an atypical location for science talks—bars or pubs. Three of the more prominent examples are (1) Pint of Science, an annual international festival that is held simultaneously in Europe, North America, South America, Africa, Australia, and recently Asia (Robinson et al., 2017); (2) Science and Cocktails, an event that started in Copenhagen that intertwines music/art performance, signature dried ice cocktails, and science lectures; and (3) Nerd Nite, a monthly event held in many cities all over the world, in which multiple speakers give short talks in a bar. Events like these are starting to bridge the gap between the public and scientists; and understanding how and why these events are gaining popularity can help in developing more effective strategies for science communication. As the organizing team of Nerd Nite Hong Kong, we will highlight how Nerd Nite has been bridging the gap between the sciences and the lay public and, in the process, attempt to distil the reason for its success.

Nerd Nite

Nerd Nite is a periodic lecture event held at a bar that aims at a casual, relaxed atmosphere. Each night typically consists of three talks, each shorter than 20 minutes with a question and answer period at the end. Nerd Nite started with a doctorate student in Boston who would constantly talk about his research and stories from it at his local pub. From there a pub trivia night in Brooklyn got converted to Nerd Nite, and since then Nerd Nite has spread to more than 100 cities worldwide. Nerd Nite talks are not restricted to science only but cover topics ranging from philosophy to history; however, for this article, we will focus only on the sciences. Speakers are also not restricted to just talking—there have been juggling, rap, songs, any medium that the speaker thinks best convey the message and entertains the crowd. The central philosophy of Nerd Nite is the emphasis on having fun while learning. As written on their website, “Learning is more fun when you’re drinking with friends and colleagues,” and therefore Nerd Nite aims to present “fun-yet-informative presentations across all disciplines” (Nerd Nite, 2015), with the unofficial tagline used by many Nerd Nites around the world being “the Discovery Channel with beer.” While Nerd Nite is an international organization, a lot of freedom is given to local organizers to allow for localization of the event. Local organizers are, however, connected digitally with organizers around the world to allow for exchange of ideas and to problem-solve as a global unit. Organizers are not necessarily academics; however, a great majority tend to be academics and/or science communicators.

Nerd Nite addresses both the questions posed in the previous section. First, while Nerd Nites might differ from city to city, one consistent thread that runs throughout Nerd Nites all over the world is that it is always held in a bar/pub. This is a key step in developing closer links to the public—in holding it in a bar/pub. Nerd Nite takes science out of laboratories, institutions, and lecture halls and brings it to a context where the public is comfortable. Having scientists talk in a bar, while having a drink, also humanizes both scientists and the science they do. The interaction between the public and scientists allowed through events like Nerd Nite encourages a more bidirectional dialogue and also eliminates the often-paternalistic perception of science.

Second, Nerd Nite tends to have three speakers in each session, creating a large need for a pool of speakers. This allows for more speakers to get involved, many of whom are early career researchers. Nerd Nite hence provides opportunities for not only prominent researchers but also early-career academics to talk about their research in lay terms. Speakers are allotted 15 to 20 minutes for their presentation and are explicitly instructed not to use jargon or technical terms. This forces speakers to think of ways to present their complex research in a digestible format, allowing them to learn how to present their research to a lay audience. Speakers are usually given a briefing document containing tips (to avoid data, jargon, and technical terms), information about Nerd Nite, and examples of good presentations. The organizers also typically offer support in helping scientists frame their ideas, and advice on ways to approach their presentations. It should, however, be noted that the majority of the organizers are not trained science communicators, which perhaps highlights a key limitation. Organizers are, however, provided with templates on which they can build their briefing packages, and being connected to a global network of Nerd Nite organizers provides further support to local organizers if necessary. Overall, this provides a good support system for presenters to learn how to present their work to lay audiences. This, combined with a willing and typically friendly and enthusiastic audience, creates an environment in which scientists are set up to have a positive experience. This then would give scientists increased confidence in communicating with the public.

While Nerd Nite is not the only event that brings science to bars, its unique solution to the problem makes it stand out. First, there is a strong emphasis on the entertainment aspect, as compared to many events that tend to primarily emphasize knowledge exchange aspects. This prioritizes engagement over imparting knowledge, encouraging the audience to pursue further scientific inquiry of the topic rather than just absorbing information. Second, having breaks in-between each speaker encourages direct interaction between audience and speakers after their talks. This helps in creating thoughtful public discussions and works toward having more conversations based on scientific knowledge. Last, the three speakers usually come from different disciplines, each drawing audiences that are interested in their topic. This allows for cross-disciplinary knowledge exchange and communication to “new” audiences. Overall, this works toward fostering “critical science literacy” in which a culture of engagement with science and ability to evaluate scientific claims is present in the community (Priest, 2013).

Hong Kong

In a bustling city like Hong Kong, where more than 50% of employment is in import/export and in the finance industry (Labour Department Hong Kong SAR, 2016), the sciences tend to not garner much focus. Yet once a month, in Hong Kong’s most popular nightlife district, a bar is packed full of people, ready to listen to academics talk about their research. Since its start in early 2017, Nerd Nite Hong Kong has experienced a surge in popularity in the city, getting the attention of its residents and the press (Reinfrank, 2017). The success of Nerd Nite Hong Kong in a heavily financial industry–based city like Hong Kong presents a good case study to learn how scientists can bridge the gap between academia and the lay public.

The demographic of attendees in Nerd Nite Hong Kong has been surprising, with a huge nonacademic crowd in attendance. People from the finance industry compose a large proportion of attendees, in part due to the locality of Nerd Nite Hong Kong—a bar right in the heart of the business and finance district. This suggests the importance of locality in science communication, and perhaps a better strategy for science communication is to bring science to the target audience instead of expecting the target audience to go to places of science.

From the other perspective, academics in Hong Kong do not often get opportunities to share their research with the public. This has led to a situation where scientists are unprepared to talk to lay people about their work, which has in turn led them to believe that their work does not interest the general public. Reinfrank (2017) quotes Professor Danny Chan, an assistant dean in the Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine at the University of Hong Kong:

“For many of us doing research, we tend to be very focused on what we do in the lab and communicating our findings to only the scientific community. [Nerd Nite Hong Kong] forces academics to really think about how to present their data in an engaging way for the general public.”

Academics who speak at Nerd Nite Hong Kong are usually surprised by the positive response they get from the audience, to the extent that a speaker commented that he actually got better questions in the event than in his undergraduate class.

Overall the success of such a model in Hong Kong highlights the need for effective science communication strategies and hints at the possibilities of higher global engagement with sciences, and in turn higher global scientific literacy, if more cities were to have programs such as Nerd Nite.

Bringing Science to the People

Nerd Nite’s success can be attributed, at least in part, to its choice of location. Instead of expecting people to seek out events in which researchers can share their work, Nerd Nite correctly identified that people were already in bars, and that bringing researchers to them might be an easier way. This concept, while simple, is an incredibly powerful way of thinking about science communication. In order to counter the rising mistrust in science and scientists, the “cold lab coat” stereotype of scientists, and the lack of effective communications in science, perhaps we need reconsider the way we look at outreach programs. Focus should be given to where the target audiences already are, and science can be brought there instead of expecting people to come to science venues. This will hopefully allow people to regard science in a different, ideally more positive light, which hopefully would in turn lead to an increased interest in science and to more dialogue between scientists and the lay public.

Beyond the Bar

Given this information, how then do we move forward in developing new strategies for science communication? Given the importance of locality and environment, science communication programs can be developed around where the target community already is. Instead of having science outreach programs in science museums or universities, perhaps it would be more effective to bring them to local establishments where people commonly visit. Combining this strategy with increased training for scientists would then lead to increased opportunities and positive experiences, which can in turn lead to a stronger bond between scientists and communities. This could then be a key step in removing the mistrust in scientists, and a means to start a healthier dialogue between scientists and the general public.