WEBVTT
00:00:01.280 --> 00:00:13.679
Every time I speak with Susanna Elliott, I end up feeling calmer, even about scary evidence-based problems facing us all, because she always seems so effortlessly composed when we have these chats.
00:00:14.000 --> 00:00:24.160
I have no doubt this is central to her success as the CEO of the Australian Science Media Centre, a centre which she co-founded in Adelaide in 2005 and has been running ever since.
00:00:24.800 --> 00:00:27.600
The OZSMC is an invaluable organization.
00:00:28.000 --> 00:00:37.359
It connects journalists with scientific experts to help as broad a range of people as possible access the information and insights they can use to make the decisions in their lives.
00:00:38.320 --> 00:00:41.119
Susanna had a traditional start to a scientific career.
00:00:41.280 --> 00:00:46.240
She did a PhD on slime mold at Macquarie University and at Stanford.
00:00:48.079 --> 00:00:54.960
But in the 1990s, she wandered away from the bench to the University of Technology in Sydney to run their Center for Science Communication.
00:00:55.280 --> 00:01:00.880
Then in 2000, she became director of comms for the International Geosphere Biosphere Program.
00:01:01.280 --> 00:01:08.159
This is a global research organization focused on environmental change and based in Stockholm, a long way from Adelaide.
00:01:08.640 --> 00:01:18.879
Aside from her PhD, Susanna also has a grad dip in journalism from the University of Technology in Sydney and an honorary doctorate in science communication from the University of Adelaide.
00:01:19.040 --> 00:01:25.120
And in 2023, she was elected a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering.
00:01:25.280 --> 00:01:27.439
This is an extremely well-deserved honor.
00:01:28.719 --> 00:01:34.560
It was a delight to hear Susanna talk about how the Oz SMC doesn't shy away from controversial issues.
00:01:35.439 --> 00:01:46.959
She spoke about how they will particularly jump in when there's a crisis, because that's when misinformation tends to bloom to make sure that expert voices are heard as early and as clearly as possible.
00:01:48.000 --> 00:01:51.519
No evidence-based subject is off the table for the Oz SMC.
00:01:51.760 --> 00:01:54.319
And as she puts it, nothing is too dangerous.
00:01:55.200 --> 00:01:56.159
I love that take.
00:01:57.040 --> 00:02:03.439
This Frankenfearless attitude relies the more nuanced underlying perspective on what success looks like for the centre.
00:02:04.159 --> 00:02:14.080
That sometimes the best service you can do for science and society is not disseminate certain work, or at the least, tone down the hyperbole and put things in context.
00:02:14.479 --> 00:02:19.759
After all, most media releases are not breaking news, or better yet, world-class discoveries.
00:02:20.639 --> 00:02:26.560
We spent some time unpacking the state of misinformation and disinformation and how this problem is bigger than all of us.
00:02:26.800 --> 00:02:32.159
That no one sector, no one group, no one organization is going to solve it alone.
00:02:33.039 --> 00:02:45.360
I must confess, though, I was left a little nervous when she told me that after running a high-level symposium on misinformation and disinformation earlier this year, her impression was the situation was actually worse than she realized.
00:02:46.080 --> 00:02:46.960
A bit scary.
00:02:47.199 --> 00:02:53.759
But that's not to say she felt no hope, just that she became aware the job is perhaps bigger than we realise.
00:02:54.400 --> 00:02:58.319
Susanna's world, however, is not one of doom and gloom, not by any stretch.
00:02:58.479 --> 00:03:03.280
If you need proof, check out her After Hours Passion project, Zoodle TV.
00:03:03.680 --> 00:03:07.759
It brings together scientists, comedians, and viral animal videos.
00:03:08.000 --> 00:03:13.759
Possibly the perfect cocktail for those days when the world seems like it's all just a little bit too much.
00:03:14.080 --> 00:03:20.800
I'm Rod Lambert, a veteran science communicator with nearly 30 years of teaching, learning, and doing SICOM under my belt.
00:03:20.960 --> 00:03:24.560
My chat with Susanna coming up next on Science with Benefits.
00:03:24.719 --> 00:03:27.599
STEM sector insights from the people who know.
00:03:29.520 --> 00:03:32.240
Susanna Elliott, thank you so much for talking to me.
00:03:32.400 --> 00:03:40.719
I uh haven't had a good long chat with you for a while, and I'm very keen to pick your brains about what you've been doing recently as well as what you do more broadly anyway.
00:03:40.800 --> 00:03:42.639
Um, but first up, how are you?
00:03:43.039 --> 00:03:43.840
I'm great.
00:03:44.000 --> 00:03:44.319
Yeah.
00:03:44.560 --> 00:03:46.479
I mean exhausted completely.
00:03:46.560 --> 00:03:47.680
But who isn't?
00:03:48.080 --> 00:03:49.360
Everybody's exhausted, aren't they?
00:03:49.680 --> 00:03:50.800
So why are you so exhausted?
00:03:50.879 --> 00:03:52.159
Is it just business as usual?
00:03:52.479 --> 00:04:00.080
Uh no, it's just we've been incredibly busy, you know, just doing so much with this symposium, which I'm sure we're gonna we're gonna talk about.
00:04:00.400 --> 00:04:01.360
Oh, we're gonna get into that, yeah.
00:04:01.680 --> 00:04:03.360
A whole bunch of other things as well.
00:04:03.599 --> 00:04:03.759
Yeah.
00:04:04.240 --> 00:04:09.120
So well let's put it in context then because um So you're the chief executive officer, right?
00:04:09.439 --> 00:04:10.080
We are a CEO.
00:04:10.400 --> 00:04:10.719
That's right.
00:04:10.879 --> 00:04:10.960
Yeah.
00:04:11.199 --> 00:04:12.800
Of this Australian Science Media Centre.
00:04:12.879 --> 00:04:16.240
And I mean obviously I've already told people that, but this is interesting.
00:04:16.560 --> 00:04:20.720
This is a very unusual organization that you've been running for how long now?
00:04:21.360 --> 00:04:23.439
It'll be twenty-one years in September.
00:04:23.920 --> 00:04:24.160
No.
00:04:24.480 --> 00:04:24.959
Really?
00:04:25.360 --> 00:04:25.600
Yeah.
00:04:26.079 --> 00:04:28.480
I feel like it was yesterday we heard about this new idea.
00:04:28.959 --> 00:04:31.519
I never thought I'd be in in one job for that long.
00:04:32.240 --> 00:04:35.600
So twenty-one years running the Australian Science Media Centre.
00:04:35.759 --> 00:04:37.120
What roughly is it?
00:04:38.160 --> 00:04:45.120
Well, um it's an organization that works basically between the scientific community and the news media.
00:04:45.680 --> 00:04:55.199
Um, you know, with the idea that if you can kind of help that relationship, then you can improve the quality of science reporting.
00:04:55.519 --> 00:04:58.079
So I guess that's the main that's the sort of gist of it.
00:04:58.240 --> 00:05:00.560
But of course there's a lot, you know, to it.
00:05:00.800 --> 00:05:08.480
Um but but that's you know, in a in a nutshell, it's about evidence, it's about getting more evidence to the public and helping the media do it.
00:05:09.199 --> 00:05:12.240
So that that's how it began, but you do more, right?
00:05:12.480 --> 00:05:17.120
I mean you I've seen it like you train scientists and journalists.
00:05:17.360 --> 00:05:17.920
Right, don't you?
00:05:18.240 --> 00:05:19.120
And journalists, that's right.
00:05:19.439 --> 00:05:19.600
Yeah.
00:05:20.399 --> 00:05:22.560
But you know, I mean it's all part of that relationship, right?
00:05:22.800 --> 00:05:29.519
I mean the thing is that, you know, as you know, Rod, scientists sometimes need a bit of help when it comes to engaging with the media.
00:05:30.879 --> 00:05:31.360
So, you know.
00:05:31.839 --> 00:05:33.759
Especially if they're working in contentious areas.
00:05:33.920 --> 00:05:38.319
And I suppose, you know, in a way, that's kind of the forte of science media centres.
00:05:38.560 --> 00:05:40.160
And we're we're just one of nine.
00:05:40.399 --> 00:05:42.399
So there's quite a few of us around the world now.
00:05:42.720 --> 00:05:42.959
Yeah.
00:05:43.360 --> 00:05:43.680
Wow.
00:05:43.920 --> 00:05:44.160
Yeah.
00:05:44.399 --> 00:05:52.959
So it started out with the UK SMC and then we opened in two thousand and five, and then since then there's been another seven in Asia and Europe.
00:05:53.040 --> 00:05:53.120
Yeah.
00:05:53.680 --> 00:05:55.439
What's the most um unexpected location?
00:05:55.839 --> 00:05:56.720
Maybe Taiwan.
00:05:57.199 --> 00:05:57.600
Taiwan.
00:05:58.560 --> 00:05:58.639
Yeah.
00:05:59.040 --> 00:06:00.480
Well hopefully they can keep that going.
00:06:00.879 --> 00:06:01.920
Yes, I hope so too.
00:06:02.319 --> 00:06:04.800
Given that possible events.
00:06:04.959 --> 00:06:05.120
Yeah.
00:06:06.000 --> 00:06:07.120
So you do more, right?
00:06:07.199 --> 00:06:10.560
We we're going to talk about the symposium that you've just finished running a couple of weeks back.
00:06:10.800 --> 00:06:15.360
But you you bring the journalists, the scientists, and others together.
00:06:15.519 --> 00:06:19.920
Do you do you work much with policymakers and things, or is it pretty much journalist scientist, journalist scientist?
00:06:20.480 --> 00:06:35.040
Look, we've been working more with policymakers more recently just because um we've started working a lot in that in the whole area of science misinformation, which you know, policymakers are really interested and scared.
00:06:35.199 --> 00:06:36.079
And who wouldn't be?
00:06:36.240 --> 00:06:38.000
Everybody's scared of this topic.
00:06:38.160 --> 00:06:41.519
Uh because it has huge implications for democracy generally.
00:06:41.680 --> 00:06:54.399
So I think you know, we've always worked in that space in a way, you know, in the sense that we will go into the most contentious areas that you can imagine, whether it was fracking or vaping or whatever.
00:06:54.560 --> 00:06:58.399
You know, nothing is too dangerous for a Science Media Centre.
00:06:59.279 --> 00:07:10.079
And and so, you know, we've always been kind of playing in this space of where is the most misinformation, where is the most public confusion, let's dive into that area and try and get some really good solid evidence out.
00:07:10.319 --> 00:07:10.480
Yeah.
00:07:10.639 --> 00:07:11.519
Um we've always done.
00:07:11.920 --> 00:07:13.759
You deliberately go for that stuff.
00:07:14.160 --> 00:07:14.639
That's right.
00:07:14.800 --> 00:07:24.720
Um and so we'll particularly jump in when there's like a crisis situation, whether that's a flood or a bushfire, uh, because that's when misinformation tends to bloom.
00:07:25.040 --> 00:07:31.759
Um so we'll try and jump in and make sure that that experts have their voice heard very early, as early as possible.
00:07:32.000 --> 00:07:39.439
But that can be quite controversial too, at those kinds of times, because it's the time when scientists don't know very much, when nobody knows very much.
00:07:39.600 --> 00:07:41.600
You think of COVID, you know.
00:07:41.839 --> 00:07:48.079
Um but when there's a vacuum, there's lots of people who don't care whether they're right or wrong and they're happy to jump in.
00:07:48.319 --> 00:07:48.480
Yeah.
00:07:48.720 --> 00:07:55.439
So but getting scientists to jump in early can be a challenge because they will say, well, hang on, I'm not sure.
00:07:55.519 --> 00:07:57.120
You know, I don't know enough yet.
00:07:57.519 --> 00:08:02.480
And we just go back to them and say, well, you know a hell of a lot more than than most of us, right?
00:08:02.639 --> 00:08:02.800
Yeah.
00:08:03.040 --> 00:08:09.680
And so I'd rather hear from you in a crisis than uh just anybody who's happy happens to have a mouthpiece.
00:08:09.759 --> 00:08:13.279
Trevor Burrus, Jr.: Well, I'd rather an expert gave me bullshit than an idiot gave me bullshit.
00:08:13.360 --> 00:08:13.920
Is that what you're saying?
00:08:14.079 --> 00:08:15.199
I mean, I I don't think you are.
00:08:15.839 --> 00:08:20.720
Well, you know, yeah, but I don't think and it's it's rare that scientists give you bullshit in a crisis.
00:08:20.879 --> 00:08:20.959
Yeah.
00:08:21.120 --> 00:08:23.199
It's just because they're usually very cautious.
00:08:24.720 --> 00:08:25.439
Does that work though?
00:08:25.600 --> 00:08:36.879
I mean having played in risk and crisis communication, particularly theoretically myself, I'm always intrigued by what I perceive as a r a reluctance to say I don't know.
00:08:37.120 --> 00:08:40.799
I'm uncertain fr from the the technical expert side of town.
00:08:41.039 --> 00:08:42.720
Um but is that just my own biases?
00:08:42.879 --> 00:08:47.759
Am I looking for that, or do you find that too you're kinda hinting at it, but Yeah, yeah, no, absolutely.
00:08:47.919 --> 00:08:52.159
And we have to actually kind of drag them out, kicking and screaming a bit.
00:08:53.600 --> 00:08:55.440
Because exactly for that reason.
00:08:56.799 --> 00:09:06.559
But, you know, the problem is that whether they have certainty or not, uh people are going to enter into the fray at that time.
00:09:07.279 --> 00:09:16.639
Um and it's when all kinds of really silly stuff can enter into, you know, media reporting or not, you know, and social media, let's face it.
00:09:16.720 --> 00:09:19.919
I mean, social media is is where a lot of this stuff really blooms.
00:09:20.240 --> 00:09:22.320
So yeah, I mean they're they're reluctant, right?
00:09:22.720 --> 00:09:34.000
And and they say that, you know, they don't know enough and it's too uncertain, and you know, but but again, uh you you just have to kind of make it clear to them that if it's not them, then who is it?
00:09:35.120 --> 00:09:38.639
So again though, is that is that comfortable for people?
00:09:38.799 --> 00:09:49.759
Because to to get up there and say, I don't know, or I'm gonna give you my best information so far, and then let's say, I mean, in COVID for example, but a week later you have to say, I actually that's not the case.
00:09:49.919 --> 00:10:02.559
Like I I'm thinking particularly not COVID-related, the little bit of the flutter that happened when recently the it was announced that the top most horrible climate scenario maybe we don't have to worry about anymore.
00:10:02.639 --> 00:10:04.480
I think it was the IPCC that said it.
00:10:04.799 --> 00:10:09.759
There were some headlines saying, look, the the the the most extreme case we may have averted for the moment.
00:10:10.080 --> 00:10:12.399
Um from reputable sources.
00:10:12.639 --> 00:10:20.559
And then immediately you see the pinging and sniping from the the right wing, the the conspiracies, etc., going, well, if you're wrong about that, what else are you wrong about?
00:10:20.639 --> 00:10:23.840
Have you been like you know, all that all that garbage and pylon?
00:10:24.159 --> 00:10:27.039
Um that's a difficult situation.
00:10:27.120 --> 00:10:29.519
Because I mean I looked at that and went, science works.
00:10:29.759 --> 00:10:31.600
They said, you know what, we've revised it.
00:10:31.759 --> 00:10:32.240
Isn't that great?
00:10:32.320 --> 00:10:34.480
We've got new data, we've got new ideas, we revised it.
00:10:34.720 --> 00:10:35.279
Yeah.
00:10:35.600 --> 00:10:39.120
Oh look, no, I I I mean I I understand what you mean.
00:10:40.080 --> 00:10:48.320
Um I guess my feeling is that it's more of an issue when you make statements and you say, it is so, right?
00:10:48.559 --> 00:10:51.840
And and you know, going back to COVID, that was one of the things that happened.
00:10:52.159 --> 00:10:57.360
You know, it was like, um, don't bother with masks, they're not gonna help because it's not airborne.
00:10:57.759 --> 00:11:03.360
And then a few weeks later, oh hang on a minute, actually it is airborne, so you better all wear masks.
00:11:04.000 --> 00:11:09.279
Whereas, you know, I think it's really important to explain to the public, not just make a statement.
00:11:09.440 --> 00:11:09.600
Yeah.
00:11:09.759 --> 00:11:22.559
Um, not to say, you know, we're certain this is what the science tells us right now, it's a fact, and just say, look, this is a changing situation, it's a crisis, evolving situation, this is our best understanding at the moment, but that could change.
00:11:22.879 --> 00:11:25.840
And I think you need to take the public with you on that.
00:11:26.080 --> 00:11:40.720
Um that's where the problems arise is when you make when people make statements, and then other people then come back and point the finger and say, Well, you made a statement and now you're changing, you know, what you're saying, so you you will you lied to us.
00:11:41.200 --> 00:11:44.720
You sounded so sure then, and now you're telling me this time for sure for me.
00:11:45.120 --> 00:11:47.600
So it's that understanding of the process of science, isn't it?
00:11:47.840 --> 00:11:49.840
Which is not easy to get across in a soundbite.
00:11:50.000 --> 00:11:51.360
Aaron Ross Powell It's not interesting.
00:11:51.679 --> 00:12:01.200
I mean the results are, but spending hours upon hours pupetting tiny little test tubes full of stuff, h banks of them over and over again for four hours.
00:12:01.519 --> 00:12:04.000
Explaining that to people is not interesting.
00:12:05.039 --> 00:12:11.600
No, but I think that you you don't necessarily need to un uh that you don't necessarily necessarily need to explain how you got there.
00:12:11.840 --> 00:12:14.639
But I think you do need to explain the uncertainty.
00:12:15.440 --> 00:12:20.879
You know, so you you don't you don't necessarily say, you know, you need to say this is what I did and then I did this and then I did that.
00:12:21.120 --> 00:12:26.960
It it's more around saying, you know, um science is a constantly changing feast.
00:12:27.519 --> 00:12:37.919
Um and you know, it it can change as we get more evidence in and as things get better, um, or as we get more information, as we do more research.
00:12:38.159 --> 00:12:40.399
So what I'm telling you now is a snapshot.
00:12:40.480 --> 00:12:42.559
That's what uh what we understand at the moment.
00:12:42.879 --> 00:12:43.120
Yeah.
00:12:43.600 --> 00:12:52.799
Um so I think it's really just making it clear that it can change, that it's not a a fact that's necessarily going to stay solid forever.
00:12:53.120 --> 00:12:56.159
It'll only stay solid until the next bit of information comes along.
00:12:56.240 --> 00:13:01.519
Aaron Ross Powell So on that, do you subscribe to the theory that I I hear it's almost become apocryphal.
00:13:01.759 --> 00:13:09.120
The public, you know, writ large, however you consider it, the non-expert people out there, non-scientific expert, oh, they can't handle uncertainty.
00:13:09.279 --> 00:13:19.360
We can't go out there until we know you know, this this this this mythical mass of people who, if you tell them something's not a hundred percent clear and true, they'll somehow melt down and freak out.
00:13:19.519 --> 00:13:21.360
Um what's your perspective on that?
00:13:21.519 --> 00:13:22.960
Because I d I just don't buy it.
00:13:23.360 --> 00:13:23.519
No.
00:13:23.679 --> 00:13:25.120
No, I I don't buy it either.
00:13:25.360 --> 00:13:29.600
I just think people handle uncertainty all the time.
00:13:30.000 --> 00:13:31.759
They're constantly dealing with uncertainty, right?
00:13:31.919 --> 00:13:35.039
Whether it's the share market or or, you know, whatever it is.
00:13:35.759 --> 00:13:47.279
Um and and the problem has been that they have have developed an i uh this impression or science has developed a reputation for being about solid facts that don't change.
00:13:47.519 --> 00:14:08.799
Um and that's why people kind of think, well, hang on a minute, what but that's because we haven't really explained it properly, that we haven't actually said, well, look, you know, I mean I'm not saying that science is like the share market, but you know, you you might some people might say that it is, but you know, but but there is that thing that you know you can handle um uncertainty.
00:14:09.200 --> 00:14:17.279
You know, even when it comes to things like your health, you know, if you if you develop an illness, you know that there's a fair bit of uncertainty about the outcome.
00:14:17.679 --> 00:14:27.120
You know, if you if you get cancer or something, then you know that there are chances that it might go well and there are chances that it might go badly.
00:14:27.519 --> 00:14:30.000
So it's not that people can't handle uncertainty.
00:14:30.240 --> 00:14:35.120
It's just that you need to explain it to them what what sort of uncertainty we're talking about here.
00:14:35.360 --> 00:14:37.360
Why is there a bit of uncertainty here?
00:14:37.440 --> 00:14:49.279
Aaron Ross Powell So is your impression then that is and please correct me if I'm wrong, but is it your impression then that it's technical folk don't think other folk can handle uncertainty rather than that being the reality?
00:14:49.440 --> 00:14:50.879
Do you see a lot of that?
00:14:51.600 --> 00:14:52.720
Yeah, look, I think so.
00:14:52.879 --> 00:14:59.120
I mean you know, I think it's quite hard for scientists in a way because they often want to provide the nuance, right?
00:14:59.279 --> 00:15:17.600
They often want to say, you know, um we think it might be this and it could be that, but we're not a hundred percent sure and we need to do more research and all of those things that they tend to say, which is in a way kind of trying to explain to the public that this is not a fact that will, you know, that that it can't be tested, it can't be proven wrong.
00:15:18.159 --> 00:15:27.679
Um but then they're put that's a lot of people push back on them, saying, You can't do that, you can't give nuance, you can't you know, tell the public that you're there's some uncertainty here.
00:15:27.759 --> 00:15:32.240
And so there's a lot of this comes in terms of the massaging of the message, I guess.
00:15:32.480 --> 00:15:33.039
Yeah.
00:15:33.519 --> 00:15:36.720
Um and that's where I think we need to be careful.
00:15:37.039 --> 00:15:44.480
I mean nobody wants to hear a radio interview, for example, where you know there's nuance at every every turn.
00:15:45.200 --> 00:15:48.799
The caveat is and it could be, but on the other hand, yeah.
00:15:48.879 --> 00:15:55.759
This week on Yeah, but um we're gonna talk about nothing who cares because it's just gonna be dreadful and boring and leave us with that.
00:15:56.080 --> 00:15:57.039
Yeah, yeah, that's right.
00:15:57.120 --> 00:16:06.879
And so when it comes out in a press release, you know, all of the cans and might might be's turn into wills and and and must must be.
00:16:07.120 --> 00:16:08.879
Um terminal.
00:16:09.200 --> 00:16:11.440
So this must be core business for you handling that.
00:16:11.919 --> 00:16:13.039
Yeah, yeah, it is.
00:16:13.200 --> 00:16:20.639
It is because we're we're constantly getting, you know, we we run a platform called SciMex, the Science Media Exchange, and that's where university is.
00:16:24.720 --> 00:16:25.279
Good.
00:16:25.679 --> 00:16:43.200
It's it's really a a place where journalists can pick up uh embargoed science and you know it means that institutions around the country can upload their releases and their um research, and we can put up extra expert reaction to controversial science and all sorts of things happen on SciMix.
00:16:43.519 --> 00:17:02.960
But one of the things is that we spend quite a lot of time working with organizations on the releases that they put up and on making sure that they feel or that they're they're able to give a clear message that is interesting and enticing without actually being misleading.
00:17:03.039 --> 00:17:06.240
Aaron Ross Powell And do you get much resistance or are people pretty amenable to you helping out?
00:17:07.279 --> 00:17:08.799
Yeah, we do a bit, you know.
00:17:08.960 --> 00:17:18.319
I mean, sometimes organizations have quite valid reasons for not wanting to say whether some research was done on animals, for example.
00:17:18.480 --> 00:17:19.519
That's probably a classic case.
00:17:20.000 --> 00:17:20.160
Yeah.
00:17:20.480 --> 00:17:31.039
You know, um and and you can understand it, but at the same time, it's really important for a journalist to know whether this research was done on roundworms or fruit flies or mice or humans.
00:17:31.519 --> 00:17:36.640
Because it makes a big difference to um whether you can extrapolate.
00:17:37.039 --> 00:17:42.000
And so sometimes the headline will make a piece of research sound like it was done in humans.
00:17:42.160 --> 00:17:50.400
You know, we've discovered the cure for hemorrhaging after birth or something, and yet you'll find that that was actually in mice.
00:17:50.559 --> 00:17:50.720
Yeah.
00:17:51.039 --> 00:17:55.440
So, you know, they actually they haven't cured it in humans, but they just don't tell you that.
00:17:55.759 --> 00:17:55.920
No.
00:17:56.160 --> 00:18:07.359
And so, you know, or they'll use they'll use terms that are, you know, c confusing, like preclinical model, which basically means basically means an animal, right?
00:18:07.839 --> 00:18:08.880
Preclinical model.
00:18:10.000 --> 00:18:12.000
But and you look, you can understand it.
00:18:12.079 --> 00:18:18.240
At the same time, they, you know, organizations don't want to be harassed and attacked for for doing research on mice.
00:18:18.559 --> 00:18:21.920
But at the same time, you know, I th we we're pretty strict on that.
00:18:22.079 --> 00:18:24.640
So we'll always ask people, what did you use?
00:18:24.799 --> 00:18:26.319
What what what are we talking about here?
00:18:26.480 --> 00:18:27.920
What kind of experiment was it?
00:18:28.000 --> 00:18:30.319
And what kind of um model did you use?
00:18:30.480 --> 00:18:31.680
What kind of animal?
00:18:31.839 --> 00:18:33.920
Uh also was it peer-reviewed?
00:18:34.079 --> 00:18:48.079
You know, that we do we really need some um basic information that journalists can trust and and always go back to to work out the um the reliability of the research and how far advanced it is and whether to report on it.
00:18:48.799 --> 00:18:56.400
So this kind of starts us tiptoeing along the edge of the whole misinformation, disinformation, malinformation, etc.
00:18:57.119 --> 00:19:01.599
So you guys down at the Oz SMC just recently ran a two-day symposium, was it?
00:19:01.920 --> 00:19:02.480
Yeah, that's right.
00:19:02.720 --> 00:19:07.599
Yeah, two-day s uh symposium just called science misinformation symposium.
00:19:08.319 --> 00:19:11.920
So you only had two days to get all the misinformation out of your system that you could.
00:19:12.000 --> 00:19:14.720
Aaron Ross Powell Well, it wasn't quite like that.
00:19:14.960 --> 00:19:22.000
Really, more what it was was we had um like nearly 180 people come together from lots of different sectors.
00:19:22.400 --> 00:19:25.200
So we had people we had a really interesting group of people.
00:19:25.359 --> 00:19:33.759
We had people from the tech industry, from research, from government, uh, from um the arts, from the media.
00:19:33.839 --> 00:19:38.319
So we had journalists and musicians and filmmakers and all sorts of interesting people.
00:19:38.480 --> 00:20:03.519
So uh I think you know that the key thing really was to get a really diverse group of people together to say, hey, um let's kind of stop pointing the finger at at each other and saying, well, it's the tech sector's fault or as you know the research's the fault or whatever and realize that this problem is bigger than all of us and that no one sector, no one group, no one organization is going to solve it.
00:20:03.759 --> 00:20:09.440
And we're gonna have to work together if we're gonna find ways to deal with this problem.
00:20:09.920 --> 00:20:12.400
Um, how to go?
00:20:12.799 --> 00:20:14.480
What actually no, that's not fair.
00:20:14.640 --> 00:20:15.359
That's not a fair question.
00:20:15.680 --> 00:20:18.240
What um what um What did you take away?
00:20:18.400 --> 00:20:27.119
Like I suppose I I want to ask you what was the what were you left with that was still the most sort of disheartening or scary, and what were the things that made you go, ah, this is good.
00:20:27.359 --> 00:20:28.319
We've gotten somewhere.
00:20:28.880 --> 00:20:29.200
Yeah.
00:20:29.359 --> 00:20:38.160
Uh on the scary side, I I think it was just the sheer size of the problem and the fact that it's coming from so many different areas.
00:20:38.319 --> 00:20:40.640
So we talked about meme factories.
00:20:40.880 --> 00:20:41.119
Ooh.
00:20:41.519 --> 00:20:47.920
And how meme factories are basically paid to put out propaganda and they just churn out huge amounts of it.
00:20:48.000 --> 00:20:53.440
And obviously AI supports that process and just makes it so difficult.
00:20:54.079 --> 00:21:00.240
Um there was also the problem of fake um deep fakes.
00:21:00.400 --> 00:21:05.279
Um, you know, it's really bad for the reputation of scientists generally to have these kind of deep fake videos.
00:21:05.359 --> 00:21:05.519
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
00:21:05.839 --> 00:21:09.839
This is really interesting to me because I had a couple of questions I wanted to ask you that were related to this.
00:21:09.920 --> 00:21:23.839
And one one is when I hear about misinformation, disinformation, etc., and because you know we move in the worlds we do, we hear about it what, every damn day plus you know, eight days a week, twenty-five hours a day, there's always some version of it snapping around.
00:21:24.160 --> 00:21:27.039
But I also wonder how how big is it really?
00:21:27.119 --> 00:21:32.880
Like how much of it is people on the inside freaking out and how much of it is not quite as bad as it looks?
00:21:33.440 --> 00:21:36.319
Um I think it it probably depends a bit on what you're talking about.
00:21:36.799 --> 00:21:43.680
What worries me is um that the fact that we don't really know.
00:21:43.920 --> 00:21:45.200
I mean, that's part of the problem, right?
00:21:45.359 --> 00:21:46.319
We don't actually know.
00:21:46.720 --> 00:21:52.880
And part of the reason that we don't know is that you and I can go along thinking, ah, you know, it's not a really big issue.
00:21:53.119 --> 00:21:57.920
But we're not getting the s the kind of not bullshit out there.
00:21:58.079 --> 00:21:58.880
Sorry to use that word.
00:21:59.200 --> 00:21:59.759
I think we'll cut
00:22:00.480 --> 00:22:01.200
You cope?
00:22:02.160 --> 00:22:03.759
Connor code cope with BS.
00:22:05.039 --> 00:22:09.200
Um we're not getting that because the algorithms are not sending us that stuff.
00:22:09.839 --> 00:22:20.480
So talking about the health and wellness sector and just how massive that is and how vulnerable people are being, you know, g bombarded with this stuff.
00:22:20.559 --> 00:22:31.759
Because of course, once you click on on any bit of health misinformation, then algorithms will will sort of start giving you more and more and more of that content until you're kind of swamped by it.
00:22:31.920 --> 00:22:33.759
But you and I wouldn't know that because we don't see it.
00:22:33.839 --> 00:22:39.200
It's not like we can look at the nightly news and say, Oh gosh, isn't it bad what the you know the information that's getting out there?
00:22:39.680 --> 00:22:41.119
Because this is personalized.
00:22:41.359 --> 00:22:44.000
And so we don't know really how bad it is.
00:22:44.319 --> 00:22:51.200
But from what I can hear, I actually my feeling after that symposium is that it's actually worse than I realised.
00:22:51.599 --> 00:22:52.079
Oh no.
00:22:52.480 --> 00:22:53.599
I don't want to hear that.
00:22:54.960 --> 00:23:07.519
Well, you know, just because there I mean look, the the thing is too, one of the things I did want to say is that um the way that we started this symposium was to say not only should we not blame everybody, but we all have a role to play.
00:23:07.680 --> 00:23:12.079
And that we should be looking at this as a sort of paddock-to-plate type situation.
00:23:12.400 --> 00:23:15.680
So you've got to look at what's happening in the creation of science.
00:23:15.839 --> 00:23:20.960
So for example, you've got AI um helping the whole paper mill, right?
00:23:21.039 --> 00:23:28.319
Which means there's publishers receiving pa fake papers and a lot of them are getting through, unfortunately, just because of the sheer volume.
00:23:28.480 --> 00:23:31.839
You get a lot of fake papers that are polluting the scientific literature.
00:23:32.000 --> 00:23:34.559
And that's worrying because you know how what do you know?
00:23:35.119 --> 00:23:43.839
How can you trust th what what comes out in a peer-reviewed journal if especially when some of them turn around and start using AI to review them as well.
00:23:44.319 --> 00:23:45.119
Yes, that's right.
00:23:45.279 --> 00:23:51.680
And so we looked at that whole situation, which is messy and nobody, you know, it's a bit taboo in some ways.
00:23:51.759 --> 00:23:56.640
It's like it's all the problem of bad actors just sending disinformation, putting disinformation out there.
00:23:56.880 --> 00:23:57.119
Yeah.
00:23:57.279 --> 00:24:12.160
Um but it's you can get a lot of misleading information through, coming through from the creation of science through to the peer review process, preprints that get published or get um media coverage before they've actually been peer reviewed.
00:24:12.559 --> 00:24:18.960
Um then you've got the media releases which claim to be world firsts or claim that they've cured something when actually they haven't.
00:24:19.039 --> 00:24:23.519
Um that's before you even get to the dissemination of it to the public.
00:24:23.920 --> 00:24:28.720
So we're you know, and so there are points along that way where we all can play a role, right?
00:24:28.880 --> 00:24:37.759
So from the creation of science through to the press releases, through to the media, through to the platforms, we all can play a role.
00:24:38.000 --> 00:24:46.240
So so in a way that's the positive, is that if we did actually all come together, um, then we could actually come up with some ideas.
00:24:46.400 --> 00:25:01.599
You know, if you've got the tech sector and you've got the journalists, and you've got the scientists, and you've got arts people and government on regulation, you know, if you've all if you you can come together, then you might be able to come up with some new ideas for solving some of these problems.
00:25:02.000 --> 00:25:05.680
How how quick did people seem to feel to be able to do that?
00:25:06.480 --> 00:25:10.960
Well, we so we spent the morning kind of looking at all of the scary stuff.
00:25:12.559 --> 00:25:13.359
Yeah, gotta warm up.
00:25:14.240 --> 00:25:15.759
Yeah, and you've got to know what you're dealing with.
00:25:15.920 --> 00:25:17.519
You've got to know the extent of the problem.
00:25:17.680 --> 00:25:22.480
Um and in the afternoon we looked at some real solutions that are already happening.
00:25:22.559 --> 00:25:26.480
So things that people are doing, like you you probably have heard of Newshounds.
00:25:26.559 --> 00:25:27.680
I don't know if you've heard of Newshounds.
00:25:27.759 --> 00:25:28.480
Have you heard of Newshounds?
00:25:28.640 --> 00:25:29.279
I don't think I have, no.
00:25:29.359 --> 00:25:30.240
What about No, okay.
00:25:30.400 --> 00:25:37.119
So Newshounds is um it's it's something that was created by an organization called Squiz Kids.
00:25:37.440 --> 00:25:44.160
And Newshounds is basically a cartoon dog that helps primary school children sniff out misinformation.
00:25:44.559 --> 00:25:44.960
Interesting.
00:25:45.279 --> 00:25:48.880
And it's being used, you know, in a lot of different primary schools now.
00:25:49.279 --> 00:25:56.640
Um in fact the South Australian government just has paid for it to be accessible for all primary schools in in South Australia.
00:25:56.799 --> 00:25:58.880
So it's it's kind of yeah.
00:25:59.119 --> 00:26:01.119
So that was a really great, a positive thing.
00:26:01.279 --> 00:26:12.640
You know, and and they did some research as well that found that if they did that kind of sniffing out misinformation with primary school kids, then those kids would often go home and talk to their parents about it.
00:26:12.880 --> 00:26:20.240
And their parents might say, Well, I saw this thing on fake Facebook, and then the children will say, Ah yes, but you know, can you really trust that?
00:26:20.880 --> 00:26:23.119
My cartoon dog has another story about that.
00:26:24.000 --> 00:26:24.640
That's right, exactly.
00:26:25.519 --> 00:26:25.920
That's very cool.
00:26:26.079 --> 00:26:26.799
You know, so that was great.
00:26:26.880 --> 00:26:33.440
You know, then then so after all of that gloom, you feel inspired by some of these things that are actually happening and people are doing stuff.
00:26:33.759 --> 00:26:40.720
And so on the second day, we used all of that um energy to come up with new ideas.
00:26:40.880 --> 00:26:46.480
So we had th four different parallel groups and they all um sat down together.
00:26:46.559 --> 00:26:52.079
So we had about thirty people in each group and they put their heads together and they came up with some ideas.
00:26:52.480 --> 00:26:57.200
And then in the afternoon we had a shark tank with philanthropists.
00:26:57.920 --> 00:27:02.720
It was really actually for for such a gloomy and scary subject, it was actually a lot of fun.
00:27:02.960 --> 00:27:03.119
Okay.
00:27:03.440 --> 00:27:06.960
Because, you know, when it comes to something like a shark tank, people become very theatrical.
00:27:07.119 --> 00:27:07.279
Yeah.
00:27:07.519 --> 00:27:11.200
And so they put their ideas through the shark tank, and that helped refine them.
00:27:11.279 --> 00:27:16.480
And you know, and so we came up with about there's about eight you know, quite nice ideas come out of it.
00:27:16.559 --> 00:27:18.559
Some of them probably have more legs than others.
00:27:19.039 --> 00:27:20.799
Are these going to be or have they been shared?
00:27:20.880 --> 00:27:22.720
Are they are they for distribution at some point?
00:27:22.799 --> 00:27:22.960
Aaron Ross Powell, Jr.
00:27:23.039 --> 00:27:23.920
Um They will be.
00:27:24.079 --> 00:27:34.720
I'm uh working on a white paper now to come out of the symposium and get everybody's input because it was a closed event with Chattermouse rules just so that everybody could feel safe.
00:27:35.359 --> 00:27:40.640
Um but you know, once everybody's happy with what I've written, then we'll make that available.
00:27:41.039 --> 00:27:41.200
Okay.
00:27:41.519 --> 00:27:42.079
Absolutely.
00:27:42.640 --> 00:27:43.680
Yeah, look, this is great.
00:27:43.759 --> 00:27:55.119
I think it's it it's kind of like these sorts of things to my my misinformation, disinformation, and the fear and concern around it more than anything, that needs a light of day shone upon it because it's it's so easy to get hysterical.
00:27:55.279 --> 00:27:55.759
One way or another.
00:27:56.079 --> 00:27:57.119
It's so easy to get hysterical.
00:27:57.279 --> 00:28:06.880
And I I'm I'm not saying it isn't bad, but I do remain sceptical about how bad it is until I see evidence to support it is that terrible or not that bad either.
00:28:06.960 --> 00:28:09.519
I d because I just think that's a safer position to take.
00:28:09.839 --> 00:28:10.799
Because everyone's freaking out.
00:28:10.880 --> 00:28:13.279
AI's killing everything and and no one's gonna have a job.
00:28:13.519 --> 00:28:17.920
Everyone's misinformed and disinforming and malinforming and on and on it goes.
00:28:18.000 --> 00:28:20.000
And I think okay, cool.
00:28:20.720 --> 00:28:22.960
But is it as bad as we think?
00:28:23.279 --> 00:28:24.480
Should we be as panicked?
00:28:24.640 --> 00:28:31.920
I'm not saying we don't do anything, but how do we keep the hysteria levels low so that we can actually do real stuff, see real things and then do real stuff about it?
00:28:32.240 --> 00:28:38.240
Um do you feel you've got a bit of a central role in this, you in the center in general?
00:28:39.039 --> 00:28:40.079
Look, I hope so.
00:28:40.240 --> 00:28:46.880
We earlier in the year we launched something called Friends of Evidence, which was really a call to action.
00:28:47.039 --> 00:28:51.279
Was basically, you know, um, okay guys, we've all got to work on this.
00:28:51.440 --> 00:28:55.039
Um philanthropists, you know, you've got to put your money where your mouth is.
00:28:55.200 --> 00:28:56.480
Let's really get together.
00:28:56.559 --> 00:28:59.839
And in fact, that symposium was the first project of Friends of Evidence.
00:29:00.160 --> 00:29:00.559
Oh, cool.
00:29:00.640 --> 00:29:00.720
Okay.
00:29:01.200 --> 00:29:10.160
Um and so our focus now really is on getting people together, trying to understand the the extent of the issue, and that's why we held the symposium.
00:29:10.319 --> 00:29:12.160
That's why we focused on that on the first day.
00:29:12.240 --> 00:29:13.599
You know, what where is it coming from?
00:29:13.759 --> 00:29:14.799
Who's driving it?
00:29:14.960 --> 00:29:17.759
You know, what are the the different facets of this problem?
00:29:17.920 --> 00:29:21.039
Because it is complex and it's not just one simple thing.
00:29:21.200 --> 00:29:22.400
Um, it's a lot of things.
00:29:22.480 --> 00:29:27.759
And also what's the interaction between health misinformation, for example, and political misinformation?
00:29:28.000 --> 00:29:28.160
Yeah.
00:29:28.400 --> 00:29:30.400
Health is m health misinformation is huge.
00:29:30.640 --> 00:29:31.039
Yeah.
00:29:31.359 --> 00:29:38.319
So that was one of the things actually we had a chart that just showed how prevalent health misinformation is in Australia.
00:29:38.559 --> 00:29:42.480
And it it outweighed political misinformation by about two to one.
00:29:43.200 --> 00:29:48.400
So these are websites that you wouldn't normally trust, but they still have a lot of traction.
00:29:48.880 --> 00:29:53.440
So there's about 150 of them and you know they they put out quite a lot of misinformation.
00:29:53.519 --> 00:29:57.839
And so just really looking at that data set, what kind of misinformation are they putting out.
00:29:58.079 --> 00:30:04.160
I would love somebody to do some research on this because why would health misinformation be such a big thing?
00:30:04.319 --> 00:30:08.559
Is it because um a lot of people Google symptoms?
00:30:08.720 --> 00:30:29.920
You know, they they they look for information, whether it's about vaccines or whatever it's about, and then they um they end up going down perhaps rabbit holes with information, and then they end up with um, you know, sort of uh in a in a kind of cesspit, if you like, of conspiracy theories and and other forms of misinformation.
00:30:30.079 --> 00:30:37.279
So in a way, you can almost see health misinformation as like a gateway drug or a kind of lure because it's not political.
00:30:37.440 --> 00:30:39.039
It's just I'm looking for information.
00:30:39.119 --> 00:30:42.319
I need you know, I've got symptoms, I want to know what's going on or whatever.
00:30:42.559 --> 00:30:43.039
You know, yeah.
00:30:43.359 --> 00:30:49.440
And so it's a kind of fairly um in neutral space to play in.
00:30:49.680 --> 00:30:55.359
But it's a good way of getting people down rabbit holes into rabbit warrants of of misinformation.
00:30:55.599 --> 00:30:57.759
Now, I'm I'm not saying that that's definitely happening.
00:30:57.839 --> 00:31:00.240
It might be an organic thing, it might be just happening by chance.
00:31:00.640 --> 00:31:00.960
Could be.
00:31:01.519 --> 00:31:02.160
Um Okay.
00:31:02.400 --> 00:31:03.279
There's a couple more things.
00:31:03.680 --> 00:31:04.880
Uh trust in science.
00:31:05.279 --> 00:31:09.680
Hearing about this whole restoring trust in science, we need to restore trust in science.
00:31:10.799 --> 00:31:12.799
I'm very interested to hear your opinion on that.
00:31:14.160 --> 00:31:28.720
Yeah, look, you know, I mean, it's one of the things that the Science Media Centre, I think, has had to deal with quite a lot over the years because there has been a bit of a tendency for people to see us as like a PR agency for science.
00:31:29.440 --> 00:31:31.200
So, you know, we've had organizations.
00:31:31.359 --> 00:31:32.480
What are you doing for maths?
00:31:32.640 --> 00:31:38.480
What are you doing for you know you know, why aren't you promoting this my field of science?
00:31:39.200 --> 00:31:48.559
It's like, well, actually, we're we're really here to inform the public, so we care much more about what's got going on for the public than we care about promoting science per se, right?
00:31:48.640 --> 00:31:49.759
It's not it's not about that.
00:31:50.000 --> 00:31:50.240
Yeah, yeah.
00:31:50.640 --> 00:32:09.039
Um, you know, so I think there has been a lot of that kind of confusion about you know communicating science and this whole idea that, you know, are you a cheerleader for science or are you an objective journalist who is, you know, looking at both sides, for example.
00:32:09.839 --> 00:32:13.680
So the way we see this is it's not about trust in science.
00:32:13.839 --> 00:32:20.880
And look, going back to what we were talking about before, if you've got pollution of the scientific literature, what you don't want is blind faith.
00:32:21.039 --> 00:32:22.880
You don't want blind trust in science, do you?
00:32:23.119 --> 00:32:26.240
When when some of it is AI generated and not to be trusted.
00:32:26.559 --> 00:32:31.599
So in fact, you have to be really uh you have to be skeptical about everything.
00:32:31.920 --> 00:32:35.119
And so, you know, I don't think it's about trust.
00:32:35.359 --> 00:32:42.640
However, it could be about confidence in research, for example, and confidence in the process of science.
00:32:43.039 --> 00:32:45.200
And con confidence in evidence.
00:32:45.440 --> 00:32:48.000
Um but you know, there are problems, right?
00:32:48.240 --> 00:32:49.680
And we need to be open about that.
00:32:49.759 --> 00:32:52.160
You know, I think we need to be quite upfront.
00:32:52.319 --> 00:32:54.079
But science is not a perfect process.
00:32:54.559 --> 00:32:55.359
But this is important too.
00:32:55.440 --> 00:33:01.599
So this is this risk aversion thing that I've always found interesting, and I see it in scientists, science-related bodies.
00:33:01.920 --> 00:33:05.200
This th there there seems to be an under underpinning of you know fear.
00:33:05.359 --> 00:33:06.319
What if we're found out?
00:33:06.400 --> 00:33:07.599
And there's nothing to be found out for you.
00:33:08.079 --> 00:33:11.680
We talked about this earlier on, you know, we we changed our minds, we got new evidence.
00:33:12.559 --> 00:33:23.920
It's interesting to me that that still seems to be so strong in in that that sort of DNA in in a a science and science supporting institution is fear of what if we get something wrong?
00:33:24.640 --> 00:33:26.079
What if someone gets mad with us?
00:33:26.240 --> 00:33:35.680
And I think maybe that's a good thing too, because if someone's mad with you, you get more attention than you would have otherwise, and you get it from sources or or s from places you probably wouldn't have had otherwise.
00:33:36.000 --> 00:33:40.079
But in theory, that also offers you opportunity for conversation and dialogue.
00:33:40.240 --> 00:33:40.880
In theory.
00:33:41.680 --> 00:33:43.200
But Yeah, totally.
00:33:43.359 --> 00:33:56.559
I I mean I I think it it can be a real problem when there's this perception that the public can't understand or that they need a very simple message.
00:33:57.039 --> 00:33:59.599
Um and I understand why people think that way.
00:33:59.759 --> 00:34:06.559
I understand that sometimes science is very complicated and you can't tell them all of the complexity, they just tune out.
00:34:06.960 --> 00:34:09.280
Or they you know, they they won't read it, right?
00:34:09.440 --> 00:34:11.199
So or listen or watch.
00:34:11.519 --> 00:34:14.559
So you have to be very creative in the way that you do it.
00:34:15.039 --> 00:34:24.159
Um but I think that going down that path of saying, well, we need to be singing from the same hymn sheet, for example, and that's one thing that we've never done.
00:34:24.400 --> 00:34:42.960
So we when we put out uh an expert reaction, which is all of the these scientists or experts from around the country who we can trust to give us expertise, that they really are working in that field, when they g give us that um those comments, we don't go you know to all the people that we think are going to say the same thing.
00:34:43.280 --> 00:34:44.400
I mean, that would be crazy, right?
00:34:45.199 --> 00:34:52.159
So we go to a wide range, and if they happen to have different per um points of view, as long as they have expertise in that area, well that's okay.
00:34:52.719 --> 00:34:56.559
And the journalist then can see, well, actually there's a variety of scientific opinion here.
00:34:56.639 --> 00:34:58.000
It's not all one message.
00:34:58.639 --> 00:35:00.880
And I think the problem can be okay.
00:35:01.039 --> 00:35:02.239
And that's okay.
00:35:02.400 --> 00:35:02.800
That's right.
00:35:02.960 --> 00:35:03.440
That's okay.
00:35:04.079 --> 00:35:06.719
One scientist says this, but then another scientist will say that.
00:35:06.800 --> 00:35:13.039
Or I mean a really classic one was a few years ago when um there was a lot of debate about nuclear, well, it comes and goes, right?
00:35:13.199 --> 00:35:14.079
It's up and down.
00:35:14.320 --> 00:35:27.360
Um and you know, if you only went to to nuclear physicists, you'd probably get a sort of similar message, really, which is you know, it's safer now than it's ever been, you know, we should go down that track, because that's their field, and you can understand.
00:35:27.440 --> 00:35:28.800
They and that's not wrong.
00:35:29.119 --> 00:35:36.639
But then if you talk to the energy strategists and the pol and energy people, they'll say, well, yeah, that's that's not wrong.
00:35:36.800 --> 00:35:39.119
But you know, on the other hand, does it make sense for Australia?
00:35:39.280 --> 00:35:40.880
It's going to take twenty years to develop.
00:35:41.280 --> 00:35:45.280
You know, we've got all this solar and wind, and why would we why do we need to do that?
00:35:45.360 --> 00:35:50.320
You know, and then you've got the the policy people who talk about the non-prolifer proliferation treaty.
00:35:50.800 --> 00:35:51.920
So there's l there's layers.
00:35:53.199 --> 00:35:54.639
There's more to science than just science.
00:35:55.119 --> 00:35:55.920
That's right, exactly.
00:35:56.159 --> 00:36:03.280
And so you need actually to build those layers and to provide that nuance for people to to understand that it's not a simple thing.
00:36:03.360 --> 00:36:20.480
And it can really, really backfire if you try to massage the message and make it one you know, one m clear message that people, you know, can understand, but at the same time will come back and bite you when when they say, well, hang on a minute, you said that month ago, and now you're saying this.
00:36:21.119 --> 00:36:22.079
Now they're all wrong again.
00:36:22.480 --> 00:36:30.480
So what do you just again I I'll I'm rounding up now, but I'm I'm interested, how do how do you tell or or feel you've done a good job?
00:36:30.639 --> 00:36:34.480
How do you know when something you in the centre does has worked?
00:36:35.840 --> 00:36:38.800
Uh look, it there's a sort of few different things.
00:36:38.960 --> 00:36:56.639
Um interestingly, and this is where we really are very different to a PR organization, in the sense that um sometimes it's when we have informed journalists about some some really controversial research that actually, you know, maybe it's it it shouldn't be covered.
00:36:56.960 --> 00:37:10.000
And so you know, and so um, you know, because for whatever reason, it might be because it was done on six mice, mice that were predetermined to get cancer, and so you really got to take that in, you know, all of uh caveats.
00:37:10.320 --> 00:37:18.239
Um and so you get these independent experts saying, well, it was done on six mice, so you know, we can't really, you know, make any judgment about this.
00:37:18.320 --> 00:37:22.159
And then a journalist will go, Oh well, actually that's not what the press release said.
00:37:22.320 --> 00:37:26.079
That doesn't sound like that's not really a story, so maybe I just won't cover it.
00:37:26.320 --> 00:37:35.039
And so sometimes our our uh indicator of success is less coverage of of an issue or of something, you know.
00:37:35.199 --> 00:37:38.400
Um and then other times it can be a lot of coverage.
00:37:38.639 --> 00:37:56.800
So when we're raising an issue, when we're putting the voice of scientists out during a crisis time, and you get lots of coverage, and you get lots you can see it, you can see the coverage happen, you can see all those experts being used, and you go, Great, now we've got some really good science voices out there at a time when p the public really needs to know, isn't that terrific?
00:37:57.199 --> 00:38:01.920
So, you know, we have different ways of measuring um what success looks like.
00:38:02.400 --> 00:38:06.880
And particularly in controversial areas, I think, where the s where the public can get quite confused.
00:38:07.360 --> 00:38:08.159
Oh, we all can, huh?
00:38:08.320 --> 00:38:09.840
I suppose we're all public, so I should remember that.
00:38:10.159 --> 00:38:10.559
Yeah, sure.
00:38:11.840 --> 00:38:12.559
We can get confused.
00:38:13.039 --> 00:38:13.599
Very easily.
00:38:13.760 --> 00:38:14.400
Probably too easily.
00:38:14.559 --> 00:38:15.840
Because we think too much about everything.
00:38:16.079 --> 00:38:21.199
Um So you've been in this door for twenty-one years and clearly it suits you well and you like it.
00:38:21.440 --> 00:38:22.719
What if someone else wanted to do it?
00:38:22.800 --> 00:38:24.239
Like how how would they be you?
00:38:24.639 --> 00:38:25.920
What would you say they should do?
00:38:26.239 --> 00:38:29.840
Seven PhDs, become a journalist, don't ever do it.
00:38:31.280 --> 00:38:33.039
No, no, no, none of that.
00:38:33.280 --> 00:38:34.320
None of the above.
00:38:36.159 --> 00:38:47.519
Uh look, I I I think it really has mostly to do with just having that ability to put aside your own subjective views on things.
00:38:47.760 --> 00:38:53.519
I mean, a lot of the time, you know, I might really hate the idea of nuclear, but that's not what it's about here.
00:38:53.679 --> 00:38:59.119
I have to put aside any of my own personal views in order to be able to run a science media center.
00:38:59.199 --> 00:39:02.639
And the minute you've got an agenda, then it's not going to work.
00:39:03.199 --> 00:39:06.719
Um but you know, journalists are are great at this kind of work.
00:39:06.800 --> 00:39:10.400
Um you don't have to be a scientist with a PhD, that's for sure.
00:39:10.960 --> 00:39:12.320
Um I think you just have to get it.
00:39:12.480 --> 00:39:14.880
You just have to understand what it is that you're doing.
00:39:14.960 --> 00:39:22.480
It's not about cheerleading the science, but it's not about um just sending out media and getting media at all costs either.
00:39:23.039 --> 00:39:27.519
So you know there's th there's it's it's just it's about understanding.
00:39:28.000 --> 00:39:28.239
Okay.
00:39:28.880 --> 00:39:30.559
So final question.
00:39:31.360 --> 00:39:37.360
There is never a moment I experienced this myself in my many incarnations to do with science and science communication.
00:39:37.599 --> 00:39:42.079
There's always something sciencey going on in the news, in a feed, in a conversation.
00:39:42.400 --> 00:39:44.000
Um Are you ever off the clock?
00:39:44.079 --> 00:39:46.239
And if so, how do you turn your brain off?
00:39:46.400 --> 00:39:47.519
Do you watch crappy TV?
00:39:47.679 --> 00:39:49.199
Do you read weird books?
00:39:49.440 --> 00:39:51.119
I don't know, do you collect turtles?
00:39:51.280 --> 00:39:55.199
I mean, what what do you do when you're not doing this job, or are you just always doing this job?
00:39:55.920 --> 00:40:00.480
Um No, that I do I do have other things that I'm interested in.
00:40:00.800 --> 00:40:04.079
Um, mind you, I do have that news radar on all the time.
00:40:04.239 --> 00:40:06.960
I think everybody in the Science Media Center does, because you just can't help it.
00:40:07.039 --> 00:40:11.920
Like Saturday we're all working on on bird flu, you know, for obvious reasons.
00:40:12.400 --> 00:40:12.559
Yeah.
00:40:12.880 --> 00:40:18.880
So sometimes we will actually be working at night or on weekends, you know, depending on the breaking news story of the day.
00:40:19.199 --> 00:40:24.159
Um but um I have a a passion project that I work on called Zodal.
00:40:24.559 --> 00:40:25.199
Zoodle.
00:40:25.440 --> 00:40:26.079
Zoodle.
00:40:26.320 --> 00:40:26.880
Yeah.
00:40:27.199 --> 00:40:29.519
And it's just a few friends really.
00:40:29.679 --> 00:40:31.760
And we we in fact we had one last night.
00:40:32.000 --> 00:40:43.199
It's a show, and we get scientists together with um with comedians to look at viral animal videos and uh in front of a live audience.
00:40:43.360 --> 00:40:49.039
And so basically the scientist um that well the comedian has to guess what's going on in these viral animal videos.
00:40:49.280 --> 00:40:49.440
Right.
00:40:49.760 --> 00:40:53.039
And the scientist then comes in and says, What's actually going on?
00:40:53.280 --> 00:40:58.239
And so last night we had one called uh Welcome Squid Underlords, and it was all about septopods.
00:40:58.320 --> 00:41:00.400
It was all about octopus and squid and stuff.
00:41:01.039 --> 00:41:02.800
So anyway, that's what I do in my spare time.
00:41:02.880 --> 00:41:03.039
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
00:41:03.119 --> 00:41:04.000
And how can people find this?
00:41:04.159 --> 00:41:05.679
Do they just type in zoodle and they'll find it?
00:41:07.760 --> 00:41:09.840
Not to be confused with zoo zucchini noodles.
00:41:10.400 --> 00:41:11.519
I I definitely won't.
00:41:11.599 --> 00:41:12.559
And I think you'd know the difference.
00:41:16.559 --> 00:41:17.440
Yeah, zoodle TV.
00:41:19.679 --> 00:41:21.039
On Instagram and Facebook.
00:41:22.079 --> 00:41:22.880
I'll have to have a look.
00:41:23.119 --> 00:41:27.519
Um look, I've I've got a million more questions, but you know, we'll do it in episodes nine and seventeen.
00:41:28.000 --> 00:41:30.400
But it's um look, it's always good to talk with you.
00:41:30.480 --> 00:41:31.760
We always have these good conversations.
00:41:31.840 --> 00:41:36.400
It's just nice to get some down on the record so future generations can benefit too.
00:41:37.119 --> 00:41:37.519
Great.
00:41:37.679 --> 00:41:37.920
Excellent.
00:41:38.719 --> 00:41:39.519
Thanks, Suzanne.
00:41:39.679 --> 00:41:40.400
I really appreciate it.
00:41:40.880 --> 00:41:41.840
Thanks a lot, Rod.
00:41:42.079 --> 00:41:43.280
Nice talking to you.
00:41:43.840 --> 00:41:46.639
Speed Science with Benefits, and I'm Rod Lambert.
00:41:46.800 --> 00:41:50.480
If you enjoyed the show, please like, rate, share.
00:41:50.639 --> 00:41:52.239
You all know the drill by now.
00:41:52.480 --> 00:41:56.159
Also, if there's someone you think I should talk to, it might even be you.
00:41:56.559 --> 00:41:59.920
Drop me a line either via LinkedIn or on email.
00:42:00.239 --> 00:42:06.159
Rod.lambert lambertburnet at anu.edu.au.
00:42:06.800 --> 00:42:08.079
Talk to you too.
00:00:01.280 --> 00:00:13.679
Every time I speak with Susanna Elliott, I end up feeling calmer, even about scary evidence-based problems facing us all, because she always seems so effortlessly composed when we have these chats.
00:00:14.000 --> 00:00:24.160
I have no doubt this is central to her success as the CEO of the Australian Science Media Centre, a centre which she co-founded in Adelaide in 2005 and has been running ever since.
00:00:24.800 --> 00:00:27.600
The OZSMC is an invaluable organization.
00:00:28.000 --> 00:00:37.359
It connects journalists with scientific experts to help as broad a range of people as possible access the information and insights they can use to make the decisions in their lives.
00:00:38.320 --> 00:00:41.119
Susanna had a traditional start to a scientific career.
00:00:41.280 --> 00:00:46.240
She did a PhD on slime mold at Macquarie University and at Stanford.
00:00:48.079 --> 00:00:54.960
But in the 1990s, she wandered away from the bench to the University of Technology in Sydney to run their Center for Science Communication.
00:00:55.280 --> 00:01:00.880
Then in 2000, she became director of comms for the International Geosphere Biosphere Program.
00:01:01.280 --> 00:01:08.159
This is a global research organization focused on environmental change and based in Stockholm, a long way from Adelaide.
00:01:08.640 --> 00:01:18.879
Aside from her PhD, Susanna also has a grad dip in journalism from the University of Technology in Sydney and an honorary doctorate in science communication from the University of Adelaide.
00:01:19.040 --> 00:01:25.120
And in 2023, she was elected a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering.
00:01:25.280 --> 00:01:27.439
This is an extremely well-deserved honor.
00:01:28.719 --> 00:01:34.560
It was a delight to hear Susanna talk about how the Oz SMC doesn't shy away from controversial issues.
00:01:35.439 --> 00:01:46.959
She spoke about how they will particularly jump in when there's a crisis, because that's when misinformation tends to bloom to make sure that expert voices are heard as early and as clearly as possible.
00:01:48.000 --> 00:01:51.519
No evidence-based subject is off the table for the Oz SMC.
00:01:51.760 --> 00:01:54.319
And as she puts it, nothing is too dangerous.
00:01:55.200 --> 00:01:56.159
I love that take.
00:01:57.040 --> 00:02:03.439
This Frankenfearless attitude relies the more nuanced underlying perspective on what success looks like for the centre.
00:02:04.159 --> 00:02:14.080
That sometimes the best service you can do for science and society is not disseminate certain work, or at the least, tone down the hyperbole and put things in context.
00:02:14.479 --> 00:02:19.759
After all, most media releases are not breaking news, or better yet, world-class discoveries.
00:02:20.639 --> 00:02:26.560
We spent some time unpacking the state of misinformation and disinformation and how this problem is bigger than all of us.
00:02:26.800 --> 00:02:32.159
That no one sector, no one group, no one organization is going to solve it alone.
00:02:33.039 --> 00:02:45.360
I must confess, though, I was left a little nervous when she told me that after running a high-level symposium on misinformation and disinformation earlier this year, her impression was the situation was actually worse than she realized.
00:02:46.080 --> 00:02:46.960
A bit scary.
00:02:47.199 --> 00:02:53.759
But that's not to say she felt no hope, just that she became aware the job is perhaps bigger than we realise.
00:02:54.400 --> 00:02:58.319
Susanna's world, however, is not one of doom and gloom, not by any stretch.
00:02:58.479 --> 00:03:03.280
If you need proof, check out her After Hours Passion project, Zoodle TV.
00:03:03.680 --> 00:03:07.759
It brings together scientists, comedians, and viral animal videos.
00:03:08.000 --> 00:03:13.759
Possibly the perfect cocktail for those days when the world seems like it's all just a little bit too much.
00:03:14.080 --> 00:03:20.800
I'm Rod Lambert, a veteran science communicator with nearly 30 years of teaching, learning, and doing SICOM under my belt.
00:03:20.960 --> 00:03:24.560
My chat with Susanna coming up next on Science with Benefits.
00:03:24.719 --> 00:03:27.599
STEM sector insights from the people who know.
00:03:29.520 --> 00:03:32.240
Susanna Elliott, thank you so much for talking to me.
00:03:32.400 --> 00:03:40.719
I uh haven't had a good long chat with you for a while, and I'm very keen to pick your brains about what you've been doing recently as well as what you do more broadly anyway.
00:03:40.800 --> 00:03:42.639
Um, but first up, how are you?
00:03:43.039 --> 00:03:43.840
I'm great.
00:03:44.000 --> 00:03:44.319
Yeah.
00:03:44.560 --> 00:03:46.479
I mean exhausted completely.
00:03:46.560 --> 00:03:47.680
But who isn't?
00:03:48.080 --> 00:03:49.360
Everybody's exhausted, aren't they?
00:03:49.680 --> 00:03:50.800
So why are you so exhausted?
00:03:50.879 --> 00:03:52.159
Is it just business as usual?
00:03:52.479 --> 00:04:00.080
Uh no, it's just we've been incredibly busy, you know, just doing so much with this symposium, which I'm sure we're gonna we're gonna talk about.
00:04:00.400 --> 00:04:01.360
Oh, we're gonna get into that, yeah.
00:04:01.680 --> 00:04:03.360
A whole bunch of other things as well.
00:04:03.599 --> 00:04:03.759
Yeah.
00:04:04.240 --> 00:04:09.120
So well let's put it in context then because um So you're the chief executive officer, right?
00:04:09.439 --> 00:04:10.080
We are a CEO.
00:04:10.400 --> 00:04:10.719
That's right.
00:04:10.879 --> 00:04:10.960
Yeah.
00:04:11.199 --> 00:04:12.800
Of this Australian Science Media Centre.
00:04:12.879 --> 00:04:16.240
And I mean obviously I've already told people that, but this is interesting.
00:04:16.560 --> 00:04:20.720
This is a very unusual organization that you've been running for how long now?
00:04:21.360 --> 00:04:23.439
It'll be twenty-one years in September.
00:04:23.920 --> 00:04:24.160
No.
00:04:24.480 --> 00:04:24.959
Really?
00:04:25.360 --> 00:04:25.600
Yeah.
00:04:26.079 --> 00:04:28.480
I feel like it was yesterday we heard about this new idea.
00:04:28.959 --> 00:04:31.519
I never thought I'd be in in one job for that long.
00:04:32.240 --> 00:04:35.600
So twenty-one years running the Australian Science Media Centre.
00:04:35.759 --> 00:04:37.120
What roughly is it?
00:04:38.160 --> 00:04:45.120
Well, um it's an organization that works basically between the scientific community and the news media.
00:04:45.680 --> 00:04:55.199
Um, you know, with the idea that if you can kind of help that relationship, then you can improve the quality of science reporting.
00:04:55.519 --> 00:04:58.079
So I guess that's the main that's the sort of gist of it.
00:04:58.240 --> 00:05:00.560
But of course there's a lot, you know, to it.
00:05:00.800 --> 00:05:08.480
Um but but that's you know, in a in a nutshell, it's about evidence, it's about getting more evidence to the public and helping the media do it.
00:05:09.199 --> 00:05:12.240
So that that's how it began, but you do more, right?
00:05:12.480 --> 00:05:17.120
I mean you I've seen it like you train scientists and journalists.
00:05:17.360 --> 00:05:17.920
Right, don't you?
00:05:18.240 --> 00:05:19.120
And journalists, that's right.
00:05:19.439 --> 00:05:19.600
Yeah.
00:05:20.399 --> 00:05:22.560
But you know, I mean it's all part of that relationship, right?
00:05:22.800 --> 00:05:29.519
I mean the thing is that, you know, as you know, Rod, scientists sometimes need a bit of help when it comes to engaging with the media.
00:05:30.879 --> 00:05:31.360
So, you know.
00:05:31.839 --> 00:05:33.759
Especially if they're working in contentious areas.
00:05:33.920 --> 00:05:38.319
And I suppose, you know, in a way, that's kind of the forte of science media centres.
00:05:38.560 --> 00:05:40.160
And we're we're just one of nine.
00:05:40.399 --> 00:05:42.399
So there's quite a few of us around the world now.
00:05:42.720 --> 00:05:42.959
Yeah.
00:05:43.360 --> 00:05:43.680
Wow.
00:05:43.920 --> 00:05:44.160
Yeah.
00:05:44.399 --> 00:05:52.959
So it started out with the UK SMC and then we opened in two thousand and five, and then since then there's been another seven in Asia and Europe.
00:05:53.040 --> 00:05:53.120
Yeah.
00:05:53.680 --> 00:05:55.439
What's the most um unexpected location?
00:05:55.839 --> 00:05:56.720
Maybe Taiwan.
00:05:57.199 --> 00:05:57.600
Taiwan.
00:05:58.560 --> 00:05:58.639
Yeah.
00:05:59.040 --> 00:06:00.480
Well hopefully they can keep that going.
00:06:00.879 --> 00:06:01.920
Yes, I hope so too.
00:06:02.319 --> 00:06:04.800
Given that possible events.
00:06:04.959 --> 00:06:05.120
Yeah.
00:06:06.000 --> 00:06:07.120
So you do more, right?
00:06:07.199 --> 00:06:10.560
We we're going to talk about the symposium that you've just finished running a couple of weeks back.
00:06:10.800 --> 00:06:15.360
But you you bring the journalists, the scientists, and others together.
00:06:15.519 --> 00:06:19.920
Do you do you work much with policymakers and things, or is it pretty much journalist scientist, journalist scientist?
00:06:20.480 --> 00:06:35.040
Look, we've been working more with policymakers more recently just because um we've started working a lot in that in the whole area of science misinformation, which you know, policymakers are really interested and scared.
00:06:35.199 --> 00:06:36.079
And who wouldn't be?
00:06:36.240 --> 00:06:38.000
Everybody's scared of this topic.
00:06:38.160 --> 00:06:41.519
Uh because it has huge implications for democracy generally.
00:06:41.680 --> 00:06:54.399
So I think you know, we've always worked in that space in a way, you know, in the sense that we will go into the most contentious areas that you can imagine, whether it was fracking or vaping or whatever.
00:06:54.560 --> 00:06:58.399
You know, nothing is too dangerous for a Science Media Centre.
00:06:59.279 --> 00:07:10.079
And and so, you know, we've always been kind of playing in this space of where is the most misinformation, where is the most public confusion, let's dive into that area and try and get some really good solid evidence out.
00:07:10.319 --> 00:07:10.480
Yeah.
00:07:10.639 --> 00:07:11.519
Um we've always done.
00:07:11.920 --> 00:07:13.759
You deliberately go for that stuff.
00:07:14.160 --> 00:07:14.639
That's right.
00:07:14.800 --> 00:07:24.720
Um and so we'll particularly jump in when there's like a crisis situation, whether that's a flood or a bushfire, uh, because that's when misinformation tends to bloom.
00:07:25.040 --> 00:07:31.759
Um so we'll try and jump in and make sure that that experts have their voice heard very early, as early as possible.
00:07:32.000 --> 00:07:39.439
But that can be quite controversial too, at those kinds of times, because it's the time when scientists don't know very much, when nobody knows very much.
00:07:39.600 --> 00:07:41.600
You think of COVID, you know.
00:07:41.839 --> 00:07:48.079
Um but when there's a vacuum, there's lots of people who don't care whether they're right or wrong and they're happy to jump in.
00:07:48.319 --> 00:07:48.480
Yeah.
00:07:48.720 --> 00:07:55.439
So but getting scientists to jump in early can be a challenge because they will say, well, hang on, I'm not sure.
00:07:55.519 --> 00:07:57.120
You know, I don't know enough yet.
00:07:57.519 --> 00:08:02.480
And we just go back to them and say, well, you know a hell of a lot more than than most of us, right?
00:08:02.639 --> 00:08:02.800
Yeah.
00:08:03.040 --> 00:08:09.680
And so I'd rather hear from you in a crisis than uh just anybody who's happy happens to have a mouthpiece.
00:08:09.759 --> 00:08:13.279
Trevor Burrus, Jr.: Well, I'd rather an expert gave me bullshit than an idiot gave me bullshit.
00:08:13.360 --> 00:08:13.920
Is that what you're saying?
00:08:14.079 --> 00:08:15.199
I mean, I I don't think you are.
00:08:15.839 --> 00:08:20.720
Well, you know, yeah, but I don't think and it's it's rare that scientists give you bullshit in a crisis.
00:08:20.879 --> 00:08:20.959
Yeah.
00:08:21.120 --> 00:08:23.199
It's just because they're usually very cautious.
00:08:24.720 --> 00:08:25.439
Does that work though?
00:08:25.600 --> 00:08:36.879
I mean having played in risk and crisis communication, particularly theoretically myself, I'm always intrigued by what I perceive as a r a reluctance to say I don't know.
00:08:37.120 --> 00:08:40.799
I'm uncertain fr from the the technical expert side of town.
00:08:41.039 --> 00:08:42.720
Um but is that just my own biases?
00:08:42.879 --> 00:08:47.759
Am I looking for that, or do you find that too you're kinda hinting at it, but Yeah, yeah, no, absolutely.
00:08:47.919 --> 00:08:52.159
And we have to actually kind of drag them out, kicking and screaming a bit.
00:08:53.600 --> 00:08:55.440
Because exactly for that reason.
00:08:56.799 --> 00:09:06.559
But, you know, the problem is that whether they have certainty or not, uh people are going to enter into the fray at that time.
00:09:07.279 --> 00:09:16.639
Um and it's when all kinds of really silly stuff can enter into, you know, media reporting or not, you know, and social media, let's face it.
00:09:16.720 --> 00:09:19.919
I mean, social media is is where a lot of this stuff really blooms.
00:09:20.240 --> 00:09:22.320
So yeah, I mean they're they're reluctant, right?
00:09:22.720 --> 00:09:34.000
And and they say that, you know, they don't know enough and it's too uncertain, and you know, but but again, uh you you just have to kind of make it clear to them that if it's not them, then who is it?
00:09:35.120 --> 00:09:38.639
So again though, is that is that comfortable for people?
00:09:38.799 --> 00:09:49.759
Because to to get up there and say, I don't know, or I'm gonna give you my best information so far, and then let's say, I mean, in COVID for example, but a week later you have to say, I actually that's not the case.
00:09:49.919 --> 00:10:02.559
Like I I'm thinking particularly not COVID-related, the little bit of the flutter that happened when recently the it was announced that the top most horrible climate scenario maybe we don't have to worry about anymore.
00:10:02.639 --> 00:10:04.480
I think it was the IPCC that said it.
00:10:04.799 --> 00:10:09.759
There were some headlines saying, look, the the the the most extreme case we may have averted for the moment.
00:10:10.080 --> 00:10:12.399
Um from reputable sources.
00:10:12.639 --> 00:10:20.559
And then immediately you see the pinging and sniping from the the right wing, the the conspiracies, etc., going, well, if you're wrong about that, what else are you wrong about?
00:10:20.639 --> 00:10:23.840
Have you been like you know, all that all that garbage and pylon?
00:10:24.159 --> 00:10:27.039
Um that's a difficult situation.
00:10:27.120 --> 00:10:29.519
Because I mean I looked at that and went, science works.
00:10:29.759 --> 00:10:31.600
They said, you know what, we've revised it.
00:10:31.759 --> 00:10:32.240
Isn't that great?
00:10:32.320 --> 00:10:34.480
We've got new data, we've got new ideas, we revised it.
00:10:34.720 --> 00:10:35.279
Yeah.
00:10:35.600 --> 00:10:39.120
Oh look, no, I I I mean I I understand what you mean.
00:10:40.080 --> 00:10:48.320
Um I guess my feeling is that it's more of an issue when you make statements and you say, it is so, right?
00:10:48.559 --> 00:10:51.840
And and you know, going back to COVID, that was one of the things that happened.
00:10:52.159 --> 00:10:57.360
You know, it was like, um, don't bother with masks, they're not gonna help because it's not airborne.
00:10:57.759 --> 00:11:03.360
And then a few weeks later, oh hang on a minute, actually it is airborne, so you better all wear masks.
00:11:04.000 --> 00:11:09.279
Whereas, you know, I think it's really important to explain to the public, not just make a statement.
00:11:09.440 --> 00:11:09.600
Yeah.
00:11:09.759 --> 00:11:22.559
Um, not to say, you know, we're certain this is what the science tells us right now, it's a fact, and just say, look, this is a changing situation, it's a crisis, evolving situation, this is our best understanding at the moment, but that could change.
00:11:22.879 --> 00:11:25.840
And I think you need to take the public with you on that.
00:11:26.080 --> 00:11:40.720
Um that's where the problems arise is when you make when people make statements, and then other people then come back and point the finger and say, Well, you made a statement and now you're changing, you know, what you're saying, so you you will you lied to us.
00:11:41.200 --> 00:11:44.720
You sounded so sure then, and now you're telling me this time for sure for me.
00:11:45.120 --> 00:11:47.600
So it's that understanding of the process of science, isn't it?
00:11:47.840 --> 00:11:49.840
Which is not easy to get across in a soundbite.
00:11:50.000 --> 00:11:51.360
Aaron Ross Powell It's not interesting.
00:11:51.679 --> 00:12:01.200
I mean the results are, but spending hours upon hours pupetting tiny little test tubes full of stuff, h banks of them over and over again for four hours.
00:12:01.519 --> 00:12:04.000
Explaining that to people is not interesting.
00:12:05.039 --> 00:12:11.600
No, but I think that you you don't necessarily need to un uh that you don't necessarily necessarily need to explain how you got there.
00:12:11.840 --> 00:12:14.639
But I think you do need to explain the uncertainty.
00:12:15.440 --> 00:12:20.879
You know, so you you don't you don't necessarily say, you know, you need to say this is what I did and then I did this and then I did that.
00:12:21.120 --> 00:12:26.960
It it's more around saying, you know, um science is a constantly changing feast.
00:12:27.519 --> 00:12:37.919
Um and you know, it it can change as we get more evidence in and as things get better, um, or as we get more information, as we do more research.
00:12:38.159 --> 00:12:40.399
So what I'm telling you now is a snapshot.
00:12:40.480 --> 00:12:42.559
That's what uh what we understand at the moment.
00:12:42.879 --> 00:12:43.120
Yeah.
00:12:43.600 --> 00:12:52.799
Um so I think it's really just making it clear that it can change, that it's not a a fact that's necessarily going to stay solid forever.
00:12:53.120 --> 00:12:56.159
It'll only stay solid until the next bit of information comes along.
00:12:56.240 --> 00:13:01.519
Aaron Ross Powell So on that, do you subscribe to the theory that I I hear it's almost become apocryphal.
00:13:01.759 --> 00:13:09.120
The public, you know, writ large, however you consider it, the non-expert people out there, non-scientific expert, oh, they can't handle uncertainty.
00:13:09.279 --> 00:13:19.360
We can't go out there until we know you know, this this this this mythical mass of people who, if you tell them something's not a hundred percent clear and true, they'll somehow melt down and freak out.
00:13:19.519 --> 00:13:21.360
Um what's your perspective on that?
00:13:21.519 --> 00:13:22.960
Because I d I just don't buy it.
00:13:23.360 --> 00:13:23.519
No.
00:13:23.679 --> 00:13:25.120
No, I I don't buy it either.
00:13:25.360 --> 00:13:29.600
I just think people handle uncertainty all the time.
00:13:30.000 --> 00:13:31.759
They're constantly dealing with uncertainty, right?
00:13:31.919 --> 00:13:35.039
Whether it's the share market or or, you know, whatever it is.
00:13:35.759 --> 00:13:47.279
Um and and the problem has been that they have have developed an i uh this impression or science has developed a reputation for being about solid facts that don't change.
00:13:47.519 --> 00:14:08.799
Um and that's why people kind of think, well, hang on a minute, what but that's because we haven't really explained it properly, that we haven't actually said, well, look, you know, I mean I'm not saying that science is like the share market, but you know, you you might some people might say that it is, but you know, but but there is that thing that you know you can handle um uncertainty.
00:14:09.200 --> 00:14:17.279
You know, even when it comes to things like your health, you know, if you if you develop an illness, you know that there's a fair bit of uncertainty about the outcome.
00:14:17.679 --> 00:14:27.120
You know, if you if you get cancer or something, then you know that there are chances that it might go well and there are chances that it might go badly.
00:14:27.519 --> 00:14:30.000
So it's not that people can't handle uncertainty.
00:14:30.240 --> 00:14:35.120
It's just that you need to explain it to them what what sort of uncertainty we're talking about here.
00:14:35.360 --> 00:14:37.360
Why is there a bit of uncertainty here?
00:14:37.440 --> 00:14:49.279
Aaron Ross Powell So is your impression then that is and please correct me if I'm wrong, but is it your impression then that it's technical folk don't think other folk can handle uncertainty rather than that being the reality?
00:14:49.440 --> 00:14:50.879
Do you see a lot of that?
00:14:51.600 --> 00:14:52.720
Yeah, look, I think so.
00:14:52.879 --> 00:14:59.120
I mean you know, I think it's quite hard for scientists in a way because they often want to provide the nuance, right?
00:14:59.279 --> 00:15:17.600
They often want to say, you know, um we think it might be this and it could be that, but we're not a hundred percent sure and we need to do more research and all of those things that they tend to say, which is in a way kind of trying to explain to the public that this is not a fact that will, you know, that that it can't be tested, it can't be proven wrong.
00:15:18.159 --> 00:15:27.679
Um but then they're put that's a lot of people push back on them, saying, You can't do that, you can't give nuance, you can't you know, tell the public that you're there's some uncertainty here.
00:15:27.759 --> 00:15:32.240
And so there's a lot of this comes in terms of the massaging of the message, I guess.
00:15:32.480 --> 00:15:33.039
Yeah.
00:15:33.519 --> 00:15:36.720
Um and that's where I think we need to be careful.
00:15:37.039 --> 00:15:44.480
I mean nobody wants to hear a radio interview, for example, where you know there's nuance at every every turn.
00:15:45.200 --> 00:15:48.799
The caveat is and it could be, but on the other hand, yeah.
00:15:48.879 --> 00:15:55.759
This week on Yeah, but um we're gonna talk about nothing who cares because it's just gonna be dreadful and boring and leave us with that.
00:15:56.080 --> 00:15:57.039
Yeah, yeah, that's right.
00:15:57.120 --> 00:16:06.879
And so when it comes out in a press release, you know, all of the cans and might might be's turn into wills and and and must must be.
00:16:07.120 --> 00:16:08.879
Um terminal.
00:16:09.200 --> 00:16:11.440
So this must be core business for you handling that.
00:16:11.919 --> 00:16:13.039
Yeah, yeah, it is.
00:16:13.200 --> 00:16:20.639
It is because we're we're constantly getting, you know, we we run a platform called SciMex, the Science Media Exchange, and that's where university is.
00:16:24.720 --> 00:16:25.279
Good.
00:16:25.679 --> 00:16:43.200
It's it's really a a place where journalists can pick up uh embargoed science and you know it means that institutions around the country can upload their releases and their um research, and we can put up extra expert reaction to controversial science and all sorts of things happen on SciMix.
00:16:43.519 --> 00:17:02.960
But one of the things is that we spend quite a lot of time working with organizations on the releases that they put up and on making sure that they feel or that they're they're able to give a clear message that is interesting and enticing without actually being misleading.
00:17:03.039 --> 00:17:06.240
Aaron Ross Powell And do you get much resistance or are people pretty amenable to you helping out?
00:17:07.279 --> 00:17:08.799
Yeah, we do a bit, you know.
00:17:08.960 --> 00:17:18.319
I mean, sometimes organizations have quite valid reasons for not wanting to say whether some research was done on animals, for example.
00:17:18.480 --> 00:17:19.519
That's probably a classic case.
00:17:20.000 --> 00:17:20.160
Yeah.
00:17:20.480 --> 00:17:31.039
You know, um and and you can understand it, but at the same time, it's really important for a journalist to know whether this research was done on roundworms or fruit flies or mice or humans.
00:17:31.519 --> 00:17:36.640
Because it makes a big difference to um whether you can extrapolate.
00:17:37.039 --> 00:17:42.000
And so sometimes the headline will make a piece of research sound like it was done in humans.
00:17:42.160 --> 00:17:50.400
You know, we've discovered the cure for hemorrhaging after birth or something, and yet you'll find that that was actually in mice.
00:17:50.559 --> 00:17:50.720
Yeah.
00:17:51.039 --> 00:17:55.440
So, you know, they actually they haven't cured it in humans, but they just don't tell you that.
00:17:55.759 --> 00:17:55.920
No.
00:17:56.160 --> 00:18:07.359
And so, you know, or they'll use they'll use terms that are, you know, c confusing, like preclinical model, which basically means basically means an animal, right?
00:18:07.839 --> 00:18:08.880
Preclinical model.
00:18:10.000 --> 00:18:12.000
But and you look, you can understand it.
00:18:12.079 --> 00:18:18.240
At the same time, they, you know, organizations don't want to be harassed and attacked for for doing research on mice.
00:18:18.559 --> 00:18:21.920
But at the same time, you know, I th we we're pretty strict on that.
00:18:22.079 --> 00:18:24.640
So we'll always ask people, what did you use?
00:18:24.799 --> 00:18:26.319
What what what are we talking about here?
00:18:26.480 --> 00:18:27.920
What kind of experiment was it?
00:18:28.000 --> 00:18:30.319
And what kind of um model did you use?
00:18:30.480 --> 00:18:31.680
What kind of animal?
00:18:31.839 --> 00:18:33.920
Uh also was it peer-reviewed?
00:18:34.079 --> 00:18:48.079
You know, that we do we really need some um basic information that journalists can trust and and always go back to to work out the um the reliability of the research and how far advanced it is and whether to report on it.
00:18:48.799 --> 00:18:56.400
So this kind of starts us tiptoeing along the edge of the whole misinformation, disinformation, malinformation, etc.
00:18:57.119 --> 00:19:01.599
So you guys down at the Oz SMC just recently ran a two-day symposium, was it?
00:19:01.920 --> 00:19:02.480
Yeah, that's right.
00:19:02.720 --> 00:19:07.599
Yeah, two-day s uh symposium just called science misinformation symposium.
00:19:08.319 --> 00:19:11.920
So you only had two days to get all the misinformation out of your system that you could.
00:19:12.000 --> 00:19:14.720
Aaron Ross Powell Well, it wasn't quite like that.
00:19:14.960 --> 00:19:22.000
Really, more what it was was we had um like nearly 180 people come together from lots of different sectors.
00:19:22.400 --> 00:19:25.200
So we had people we had a really interesting group of people.
00:19:25.359 --> 00:19:33.759
We had people from the tech industry, from research, from government, uh, from um the arts, from the media.
00:19:33.839 --> 00:19:38.319
So we had journalists and musicians and filmmakers and all sorts of interesting people.
00:19:38.480 --> 00:20:03.519
So uh I think you know that the key thing really was to get a really diverse group of people together to say, hey, um let's kind of stop pointing the finger at at each other and saying, well, it's the tech sector's fault or as you know the research's the fault or whatever and realize that this problem is bigger than all of us and that no one sector, no one group, no one organization is going to solve it.
00:20:03.759 --> 00:20:09.440
And we're gonna have to work together if we're gonna find ways to deal with this problem.
00:20:09.920 --> 00:20:12.400
Um, how to go?
00:20:12.799 --> 00:20:14.480
What actually no, that's not fair.
00:20:14.640 --> 00:20:15.359
That's not a fair question.
00:20:15.680 --> 00:20:18.240
What um what um What did you take away?
00:20:18.400 --> 00:20:27.119
Like I suppose I I want to ask you what was the what were you left with that was still the most sort of disheartening or scary, and what were the things that made you go, ah, this is good.
00:20:27.359 --> 00:20:28.319
We've gotten somewhere.
00:20:28.880 --> 00:20:29.200
Yeah.
00:20:29.359 --> 00:20:38.160
Uh on the scary side, I I think it was just the sheer size of the problem and the fact that it's coming from so many different areas.
00:20:38.319 --> 00:20:40.640
So we talked about meme factories.
00:20:40.880 --> 00:20:41.119
Ooh.
00:20:41.519 --> 00:20:47.920
And how meme factories are basically paid to put out propaganda and they just churn out huge amounts of it.
00:20:48.000 --> 00:20:53.440
And obviously AI supports that process and just makes it so difficult.
00:20:54.079 --> 00:21:00.240
Um there was also the problem of fake um deep fakes.
00:21:00.400 --> 00:21:05.279
Um, you know, it's really bad for the reputation of scientists generally to have these kind of deep fake videos.
00:21:05.359 --> 00:21:05.519
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
00:21:05.839 --> 00:21:09.839
This is really interesting to me because I had a couple of questions I wanted to ask you that were related to this.
00:21:09.920 --> 00:21:23.839
And one one is when I hear about misinformation, disinformation, etc., and because you know we move in the worlds we do, we hear about it what, every damn day plus you know, eight days a week, twenty-five hours a day, there's always some version of it snapping around.
00:21:24.160 --> 00:21:27.039
But I also wonder how how big is it really?
00:21:27.119 --> 00:21:32.880
Like how much of it is people on the inside freaking out and how much of it is not quite as bad as it looks?
00:21:33.440 --> 00:21:36.319
Um I think it it probably depends a bit on what you're talking about.
00:21:36.799 --> 00:21:43.680
What worries me is um that the fact that we don't really know.
00:21:43.920 --> 00:21:45.200
I mean, that's part of the problem, right?
00:21:45.359 --> 00:21:46.319
We don't actually know.
00:21:46.720 --> 00:21:52.880
And part of the reason that we don't know is that you and I can go along thinking, ah, you know, it's not a really big issue.
00:21:53.119 --> 00:21:57.920
But we're not getting the s the kind of not bullshit out there.
00:21:58.079 --> 00:21:58.880
Sorry to use that word.
00:21:59.200 --> 00:21:59.759
I think we'll cut
00:22:00.480 --> 00:22:01.200
You cope?
00:22:02.160 --> 00:22:03.759
Connor code cope with BS.
00:22:05.039 --> 00:22:09.200
Um we're not getting that because the algorithms are not sending us that stuff.
00:22:09.839 --> 00:22:20.480
So talking about the health and wellness sector and just how massive that is and how vulnerable people are being, you know, g bombarded with this stuff.
00:22:20.559 --> 00:22:31.759
Because of course, once you click on on any bit of health misinformation, then algorithms will will sort of start giving you more and more and more of that content until you're kind of swamped by it.
00:22:31.920 --> 00:22:33.759
But you and I wouldn't know that because we don't see it.
00:22:33.839 --> 00:22:39.200
It's not like we can look at the nightly news and say, Oh gosh, isn't it bad what the you know the information that's getting out there?
00:22:39.680 --> 00:22:41.119
Because this is personalized.
00:22:41.359 --> 00:22:44.000
And so we don't know really how bad it is.
00:22:44.319 --> 00:22:51.200
But from what I can hear, I actually my feeling after that symposium is that it's actually worse than I realised.
00:22:51.599 --> 00:22:52.079
Oh no.
00:22:52.480 --> 00:22:53.599
I don't want to hear that.
00:22:54.960 --> 00:23:07.519
Well, you know, just because there I mean look, the the thing is too, one of the things I did want to say is that um the way that we started this symposium was to say not only should we not blame everybody, but we all have a role to play.
00:23:07.680 --> 00:23:12.079
And that we should be looking at this as a sort of paddock-to-plate type situation.
00:23:12.400 --> 00:23:15.680
So you've got to look at what's happening in the creation of science.
00:23:15.839 --> 00:23:20.960
So for example, you've got AI um helping the whole paper mill, right?
00:23:21.039 --> 00:23:28.319
Which means there's publishers receiving pa fake papers and a lot of them are getting through, unfortunately, just because of the sheer volume.
00:23:28.480 --> 00:23:31.839
You get a lot of fake papers that are polluting the scientific literature.
00:23:32.000 --> 00:23:34.559
And that's worrying because you know how what do you know?
00:23:35.119 --> 00:23:43.839
How can you trust th what what comes out in a peer-reviewed journal if especially when some of them turn around and start using AI to review them as well.
00:23:44.319 --> 00:23:45.119
Yes, that's right.
00:23:45.279 --> 00:23:51.680
And so we looked at that whole situation, which is messy and nobody, you know, it's a bit taboo in some ways.
00:23:51.759 --> 00:23:56.640
It's like it's all the problem of bad actors just sending disinformation, putting disinformation out there.
00:23:56.880 --> 00:23:57.119
Yeah.
00:23:57.279 --> 00:24:12.160
Um but it's you can get a lot of misleading information through, coming through from the creation of science through to the peer review process, preprints that get published or get um media coverage before they've actually been peer reviewed.
00:24:12.559 --> 00:24:18.960
Um then you've got the media releases which claim to be world firsts or claim that they've cured something when actually they haven't.
00:24:19.039 --> 00:24:23.519
Um that's before you even get to the dissemination of it to the public.
00:24:23.920 --> 00:24:28.720
So we're you know, and so there are points along that way where we all can play a role, right?
00:24:28.880 --> 00:24:37.759
So from the creation of science through to the press releases, through to the media, through to the platforms, we all can play a role.
00:24:38.000 --> 00:24:46.240
So so in a way that's the positive, is that if we did actually all come together, um, then we could actually come up with some ideas.
00:24:46.400 --> 00:25:01.599
You know, if you've got the tech sector and you've got the journalists, and you've got the scientists, and you've got arts people and government on regulation, you know, if you've all if you you can come together, then you might be able to come up with some new ideas for solving some of these problems.
00:25:02.000 --> 00:25:05.680
How how quick did people seem to feel to be able to do that?
00:25:06.480 --> 00:25:10.960
Well, we so we spent the morning kind of looking at all of the scary stuff.
00:25:12.559 --> 00:25:13.359
Yeah, gotta warm up.
00:25:14.240 --> 00:25:15.759
Yeah, and you've got to know what you're dealing with.
00:25:15.920 --> 00:25:17.519
You've got to know the extent of the problem.
00:25:17.680 --> 00:25:22.480
Um and in the afternoon we looked at some real solutions that are already happening.
00:25:22.559 --> 00:25:26.480
So things that people are doing, like you you probably have heard of Newshounds.
00:25:26.559 --> 00:25:27.680
I don't know if you've heard of Newshounds.
00:25:27.759 --> 00:25:28.480
Have you heard of Newshounds?
00:25:28.640 --> 00:25:29.279
I don't think I have, no.
00:25:29.359 --> 00:25:30.240
What about No, okay.
00:25:30.400 --> 00:25:37.119
So Newshounds is um it's it's something that was created by an organization called Squiz Kids.
00:25:37.440 --> 00:25:44.160
And Newshounds is basically a cartoon dog that helps primary school children sniff out misinformation.
00:25:44.559 --> 00:25:44.960
Interesting.
00:25:45.279 --> 00:25:48.880
And it's being used, you know, in a lot of different primary schools now.
00:25:49.279 --> 00:25:56.640
Um in fact the South Australian government just has paid for it to be accessible for all primary schools in in South Australia.
00:25:56.799 --> 00:25:58.880
So it's it's kind of yeah.
00:25:59.119 --> 00:26:01.119
So that was a really great, a positive thing.
00:26:01.279 --> 00:26:12.640
You know, and and they did some research as well that found that if they did that kind of sniffing out misinformation with primary school kids, then those kids would often go home and talk to their parents about it.
00:26:12.880 --> 00:26:20.240
And their parents might say, Well, I saw this thing on fake Facebook, and then the children will say, Ah yes, but you know, can you really trust that?
00:26:20.880 --> 00:26:23.119
My cartoon dog has another story about that.
00:26:24.000 --> 00:26:24.640
That's right, exactly.
00:26:25.519 --> 00:26:25.920
That's very cool.
00:26:26.079 --> 00:26:26.799
You know, so that was great.
00:26:26.880 --> 00:26:33.440
You know, then then so after all of that gloom, you feel inspired by some of these things that are actually happening and people are doing stuff.
00:26:33.759 --> 00:26:40.720
And so on the second day, we used all of that um energy to come up with new ideas.
00:26:40.880 --> 00:26:46.480
So we had th four different parallel groups and they all um sat down together.
00:26:46.559 --> 00:26:52.079
So we had about thirty people in each group and they put their heads together and they came up with some ideas.
00:26:52.480 --> 00:26:57.200
And then in the afternoon we had a shark tank with philanthropists.
00:26:57.920 --> 00:27:02.720
It was really actually for for such a gloomy and scary subject, it was actually a lot of fun.
00:27:02.960 --> 00:27:03.119
Okay.
00:27:03.440 --> 00:27:06.960
Because, you know, when it comes to something like a shark tank, people become very theatrical.
00:27:07.119 --> 00:27:07.279
Yeah.
00:27:07.519 --> 00:27:11.200
And so they put their ideas through the shark tank, and that helped refine them.
00:27:11.279 --> 00:27:16.480
And you know, and so we came up with about there's about eight you know, quite nice ideas come out of it.
00:27:16.559 --> 00:27:18.559
Some of them probably have more legs than others.
00:27:19.039 --> 00:27:20.799
Are these going to be or have they been shared?
00:27:20.880 --> 00:27:22.720
Are they are they for distribution at some point?
00:27:22.799 --> 00:27:22.960
Aaron Ross Powell, Jr.
00:27:23.039 --> 00:27:23.920
Um They will be.
00:27:24.079 --> 00:27:34.720
I'm uh working on a white paper now to come out of the symposium and get everybody's input because it was a closed event with Chattermouse rules just so that everybody could feel safe.
00:27:35.359 --> 00:27:40.640
Um but you know, once everybody's happy with what I've written, then we'll make that available.
00:27:41.039 --> 00:27:41.200
Okay.
00:27:41.519 --> 00:27:42.079
Absolutely.
00:27:42.640 --> 00:27:43.680
Yeah, look, this is great.
00:27:43.759 --> 00:27:55.119
I think it's it it's kind of like these sorts of things to my my misinformation, disinformation, and the fear and concern around it more than anything, that needs a light of day shone upon it because it's it's so easy to get hysterical.
00:27:55.279 --> 00:27:55.759
One way or another.
00:27:56.079 --> 00:27:57.119
It's so easy to get hysterical.
00:27:57.279 --> 00:28:06.880
And I I'm I'm not saying it isn't bad, but I do remain sceptical about how bad it is until I see evidence to support it is that terrible or not that bad either.
00:28:06.960 --> 00:28:09.519
I d because I just think that's a safer position to take.
00:28:09.839 --> 00:28:10.799
Because everyone's freaking out.
00:28:10.880 --> 00:28:13.279
AI's killing everything and and no one's gonna have a job.
00:28:13.519 --> 00:28:17.920
Everyone's misinformed and disinforming and malinforming and on and on it goes.
00:28:18.000 --> 00:28:20.000
And I think okay, cool.
00:28:20.720 --> 00:28:22.960
But is it as bad as we think?
00:28:23.279 --> 00:28:24.480
Should we be as panicked?
00:28:24.640 --> 00:28:31.920
I'm not saying we don't do anything, but how do we keep the hysteria levels low so that we can actually do real stuff, see real things and then do real stuff about it?
00:28:32.240 --> 00:28:38.240
Um do you feel you've got a bit of a central role in this, you in the center in general?
00:28:39.039 --> 00:28:40.079
Look, I hope so.
00:28:40.240 --> 00:28:46.880
We earlier in the year we launched something called Friends of Evidence, which was really a call to action.
00:28:47.039 --> 00:28:51.279
Was basically, you know, um, okay guys, we've all got to work on this.
00:28:51.440 --> 00:28:55.039
Um philanthropists, you know, you've got to put your money where your mouth is.
00:28:55.200 --> 00:28:56.480
Let's really get together.
00:28:56.559 --> 00:28:59.839
And in fact, that symposium was the first project of Friends of Evidence.
00:29:00.160 --> 00:29:00.559
Oh, cool.
00:29:00.640 --> 00:29:00.720
Okay.
00:29:01.200 --> 00:29:10.160
Um and so our focus now really is on getting people together, trying to understand the the extent of the issue, and that's why we held the symposium.
00:29:10.319 --> 00:29:12.160
That's why we focused on that on the first day.
00:29:12.240 --> 00:29:13.599
You know, what where is it coming from?
00:29:13.759 --> 00:29:14.799
Who's driving it?
00:29:14.960 --> 00:29:17.759
You know, what are the the different facets of this problem?
00:29:17.920 --> 00:29:21.039
Because it is complex and it's not just one simple thing.
00:29:21.200 --> 00:29:22.400
Um, it's a lot of things.
00:29:22.480 --> 00:29:27.759
And also what's the interaction between health misinformation, for example, and political misinformation?
00:29:28.000 --> 00:29:28.160
Yeah.
00:29:28.400 --> 00:29:30.400
Health is m health misinformation is huge.
00:29:30.640 --> 00:29:31.039
Yeah.
00:29:31.359 --> 00:29:38.319
So that was one of the things actually we had a chart that just showed how prevalent health misinformation is in Australia.
00:29:38.559 --> 00:29:42.480
And it it outweighed political misinformation by about two to one.
00:29:43.200 --> 00:29:48.400
So these are websites that you wouldn't normally trust, but they still have a lot of traction.
00:29:48.880 --> 00:29:53.440
So there's about 150 of them and you know they they put out quite a lot of misinformation.
00:29:53.519 --> 00:29:57.839
And so just really looking at that data set, what kind of misinformation are they putting out.
00:29:58.079 --> 00:30:04.160
I would love somebody to do some research on this because why would health misinformation be such a big thing?
00:30:04.319 --> 00:30:08.559
Is it because um a lot of people Google symptoms?
00:30:08.720 --> 00:30:29.920
You know, they they they look for information, whether it's about vaccines or whatever it's about, and then they um they end up going down perhaps rabbit holes with information, and then they end up with um, you know, sort of uh in a in a kind of cesspit, if you like, of conspiracy theories and and other forms of misinformation.
00:30:30.079 --> 00:30:37.279
So in a way, you can almost see health misinformation as like a gateway drug or a kind of lure because it's not political.
00:30:37.440 --> 00:30:39.039
It's just I'm looking for information.
00:30:39.119 --> 00:30:42.319
I need you know, I've got symptoms, I want to know what's going on or whatever.
00:30:42.559 --> 00:30:43.039
You know, yeah.
00:30:43.359 --> 00:30:49.440
And so it's a kind of fairly um in neutral space to play in.
00:30:49.680 --> 00:30:55.359
But it's a good way of getting people down rabbit holes into rabbit warrants of of misinformation.
00:30:55.599 --> 00:30:57.759
Now, I'm I'm not saying that that's definitely happening.
00:30:57.839 --> 00:31:00.240
It might be an organic thing, it might be just happening by chance.
00:31:00.640 --> 00:31:00.960
Could be.
00:31:01.519 --> 00:31:02.160
Um Okay.
00:31:02.400 --> 00:31:03.279
There's a couple more things.
00:31:03.680 --> 00:31:04.880
Uh trust in science.
00:31:05.279 --> 00:31:09.680
Hearing about this whole restoring trust in science, we need to restore trust in science.
00:31:10.799 --> 00:31:12.799
I'm very interested to hear your opinion on that.
00:31:14.160 --> 00:31:28.720
Yeah, look, you know, I mean, it's one of the things that the Science Media Centre, I think, has had to deal with quite a lot over the years because there has been a bit of a tendency for people to see us as like a PR agency for science.
00:31:29.440 --> 00:31:31.200
So, you know, we've had organizations.
00:31:31.359 --> 00:31:32.480
What are you doing for maths?
00:31:32.640 --> 00:31:38.480
What are you doing for you know you know, why aren't you promoting this my field of science?
00:31:39.200 --> 00:31:48.559
It's like, well, actually, we're we're really here to inform the public, so we care much more about what's got going on for the public than we care about promoting science per se, right?
00:31:48.640 --> 00:31:49.759
It's not it's not about that.
00:31:50.000 --> 00:31:50.240
Yeah, yeah.
00:31:50.640 --> 00:32:09.039
Um, you know, so I think there has been a lot of that kind of confusion about you know communicating science and this whole idea that, you know, are you a cheerleader for science or are you an objective journalist who is, you know, looking at both sides, for example.
00:32:09.839 --> 00:32:13.680
So the way we see this is it's not about trust in science.
00:32:13.839 --> 00:32:20.880
And look, going back to what we were talking about before, if you've got pollution of the scientific literature, what you don't want is blind faith.
00:32:21.039 --> 00:32:22.880
You don't want blind trust in science, do you?
00:32:23.119 --> 00:32:26.240
When when some of it is AI generated and not to be trusted.
00:32:26.559 --> 00:32:31.599
So in fact, you have to be really uh you have to be skeptical about everything.
00:32:31.920 --> 00:32:35.119
And so, you know, I don't think it's about trust.
00:32:35.359 --> 00:32:42.640
However, it could be about confidence in research, for example, and confidence in the process of science.
00:32:43.039 --> 00:32:45.200
And con confidence in evidence.
00:32:45.440 --> 00:32:48.000
Um but you know, there are problems, right?
00:32:48.240 --> 00:32:49.680
And we need to be open about that.
00:32:49.759 --> 00:32:52.160
You know, I think we need to be quite upfront.
00:32:52.319 --> 00:32:54.079
But science is not a perfect process.
00:32:54.559 --> 00:32:55.359
But this is important too.
00:32:55.440 --> 00:33:01.599
So this is this risk aversion thing that I've always found interesting, and I see it in scientists, science-related bodies.
00:33:01.920 --> 00:33:05.200
This th there there seems to be an under underpinning of you know fear.
00:33:05.359 --> 00:33:06.319
What if we're found out?
00:33:06.400 --> 00:33:07.599
And there's nothing to be found out for you.
00:33:08.079 --> 00:33:11.680
We talked about this earlier on, you know, we we changed our minds, we got new evidence.
00:33:12.559 --> 00:33:23.920
It's interesting to me that that still seems to be so strong in in that that sort of DNA in in a a science and science supporting institution is fear of what if we get something wrong?
00:33:24.640 --> 00:33:26.079
What if someone gets mad with us?
00:33:26.240 --> 00:33:35.680
And I think maybe that's a good thing too, because if someone's mad with you, you get more attention than you would have otherwise, and you get it from sources or or s from places you probably wouldn't have had otherwise.
00:33:36.000 --> 00:33:40.079
But in theory, that also offers you opportunity for conversation and dialogue.
00:33:40.240 --> 00:33:40.880
In theory.
00:33:41.680 --> 00:33:43.200
But Yeah, totally.
00:33:43.359 --> 00:33:56.559
I I mean I I think it it can be a real problem when there's this perception that the public can't understand or that they need a very simple message.
00:33:57.039 --> 00:33:59.599
Um and I understand why people think that way.
00:33:59.759 --> 00:34:06.559
I understand that sometimes science is very complicated and you can't tell them all of the complexity, they just tune out.
00:34:06.960 --> 00:34:09.280
Or they you know, they they won't read it, right?
00:34:09.440 --> 00:34:11.199
So or listen or watch.
00:34:11.519 --> 00:34:14.559
So you have to be very creative in the way that you do it.
00:34:15.039 --> 00:34:24.159
Um but I think that going down that path of saying, well, we need to be singing from the same hymn sheet, for example, and that's one thing that we've never done.
00:34:24.400 --> 00:34:42.960
So we when we put out uh an expert reaction, which is all of the these scientists or experts from around the country who we can trust to give us expertise, that they really are working in that field, when they g give us that um those comments, we don't go you know to all the people that we think are going to say the same thing.
00:34:43.280 --> 00:34:44.400
I mean, that would be crazy, right?
00:34:45.199 --> 00:34:52.159
So we go to a wide range, and if they happen to have different per um points of view, as long as they have expertise in that area, well that's okay.
00:34:52.719 --> 00:34:56.559
And the journalist then can see, well, actually there's a variety of scientific opinion here.
00:34:56.639 --> 00:34:58.000
It's not all one message.
00:34:58.639 --> 00:35:00.880
And I think the problem can be okay.
00:35:01.039 --> 00:35:02.239
And that's okay.
00:35:02.400 --> 00:35:02.800
That's right.
00:35:02.960 --> 00:35:03.440
That's okay.
00:35:04.079 --> 00:35:06.719
One scientist says this, but then another scientist will say that.
00:35:06.800 --> 00:35:13.039
Or I mean a really classic one was a few years ago when um there was a lot of debate about nuclear, well, it comes and goes, right?
00:35:13.199 --> 00:35:14.079
It's up and down.
00:35:14.320 --> 00:35:27.360
Um and you know, if you only went to to nuclear physicists, you'd probably get a sort of similar message, really, which is you know, it's safer now than it's ever been, you know, we should go down that track, because that's their field, and you can understand.
00:35:27.440 --> 00:35:28.800
They and that's not wrong.
00:35:29.119 --> 00:35:36.639
But then if you talk to the energy strategists and the pol and energy people, they'll say, well, yeah, that's that's not wrong.
00:35:36.800 --> 00:35:39.119
But you know, on the other hand, does it make sense for Australia?
00:35:39.280 --> 00:35:40.880
It's going to take twenty years to develop.
00:35:41.280 --> 00:35:45.280
You know, we've got all this solar and wind, and why would we why do we need to do that?
00:35:45.360 --> 00:35:50.320
You know, and then you've got the the policy people who talk about the non-prolifer proliferation treaty.
00:35:50.800 --> 00:35:51.920
So there's l there's layers.
00:35:53.199 --> 00:35:54.639
There's more to science than just science.
00:35:55.119 --> 00:35:55.920
That's right, exactly.
00:35:56.159 --> 00:36:03.280
And so you need actually to build those layers and to provide that nuance for people to to understand that it's not a simple thing.
00:36:03.360 --> 00:36:20.480
And it can really, really backfire if you try to massage the message and make it one you know, one m clear message that people, you know, can understand, but at the same time will come back and bite you when when they say, well, hang on a minute, you said that month ago, and now you're saying this.
00:36:21.119 --> 00:36:22.079
Now they're all wrong again.
00:36:22.480 --> 00:36:30.480
So what do you just again I I'll I'm rounding up now, but I'm I'm interested, how do how do you tell or or feel you've done a good job?
00:36:30.639 --> 00:36:34.480
How do you know when something you in the centre does has worked?
00:36:35.840 --> 00:36:38.800
Uh look, it there's a sort of few different things.
00:36:38.960 --> 00:36:56.639
Um interestingly, and this is where we really are very different to a PR organization, in the sense that um sometimes it's when we have informed journalists about some some really controversial research that actually, you know, maybe it's it it shouldn't be covered.
00:36:56.960 --> 00:37:10.000
And so you know, and so um, you know, because for whatever reason, it might be because it was done on six mice, mice that were predetermined to get cancer, and so you really got to take that in, you know, all of uh caveats.
00:37:10.320 --> 00:37:18.239
Um and so you get these independent experts saying, well, it was done on six mice, so you know, we can't really, you know, make any judgment about this.
00:37:18.320 --> 00:37:22.159
And then a journalist will go, Oh well, actually that's not what the press release said.
00:37:22.320 --> 00:37:26.079
That doesn't sound like that's not really a story, so maybe I just won't cover it.
00:37:26.320 --> 00:37:35.039
And so sometimes our our uh indicator of success is less coverage of of an issue or of something, you know.
00:37:35.199 --> 00:37:38.400
Um and then other times it can be a lot of coverage.
00:37:38.639 --> 00:37:56.800
So when we're raising an issue, when we're putting the voice of scientists out during a crisis time, and you get lots of coverage, and you get lots you can see it, you can see the coverage happen, you can see all those experts being used, and you go, Great, now we've got some really good science voices out there at a time when p the public really needs to know, isn't that terrific?
00:37:57.199 --> 00:38:01.920
So, you know, we have different ways of measuring um what success looks like.
00:38:02.400 --> 00:38:06.880
And particularly in controversial areas, I think, where the s where the public can get quite confused.
00:38:07.360 --> 00:38:08.159
Oh, we all can, huh?
00:38:08.320 --> 00:38:09.840
I suppose we're all public, so I should remember that.
00:38:10.159 --> 00:38:10.559
Yeah, sure.
00:38:11.840 --> 00:38:12.559
We can get confused.
00:38:13.039 --> 00:38:13.599
Very easily.
00:38:13.760 --> 00:38:14.400
Probably too easily.
00:38:14.559 --> 00:38:15.840
Because we think too much about everything.
00:38:16.079 --> 00:38:21.199
Um So you've been in this door for twenty-one years and clearly it suits you well and you like it.
00:38:21.440 --> 00:38:22.719
What if someone else wanted to do it?
00:38:22.800 --> 00:38:24.239
Like how how would they be you?
00:38:24.639 --> 00:38:25.920
What would you say they should do?
00:38:26.239 --> 00:38:29.840
Seven PhDs, become a journalist, don't ever do it.
00:38:31.280 --> 00:38:33.039
No, no, no, none of that.
00:38:33.280 --> 00:38:34.320
None of the above.
00:38:36.159 --> 00:38:47.519
Uh look, I I I think it really has mostly to do with just having that ability to put aside your own subjective views on things.
00:38:47.760 --> 00:38:53.519
I mean, a lot of the time, you know, I might really hate the idea of nuclear, but that's not what it's about here.
00:38:53.679 --> 00:38:59.119
I have to put aside any of my own personal views in order to be able to run a science media center.
00:38:59.199 --> 00:39:02.639
And the minute you've got an agenda, then it's not going to work.
00:39:03.199 --> 00:39:06.719
Um but you know, journalists are are great at this kind of work.
00:39:06.800 --> 00:39:10.400
Um you don't have to be a scientist with a PhD, that's for sure.
00:39:10.960 --> 00:39:12.320
Um I think you just have to get it.
00:39:12.480 --> 00:39:14.880
You just have to understand what it is that you're doing.
00:39:14.960 --> 00:39:22.480
It's not about cheerleading the science, but it's not about um just sending out media and getting media at all costs either.
00:39:23.039 --> 00:39:27.519
So you know there's th there's it's it's just it's about understanding.
00:39:28.000 --> 00:39:28.239
Okay.
00:39:28.880 --> 00:39:30.559
So final question.
00:39:31.360 --> 00:39:37.360
There is never a moment I experienced this myself in my many incarnations to do with science and science communication.
00:39:37.599 --> 00:39:42.079
There's always something sciencey going on in the news, in a feed, in a conversation.
00:39:42.400 --> 00:39:44.000
Um Are you ever off the clock?
00:39:44.079 --> 00:39:46.239
And if so, how do you turn your brain off?
00:39:46.400 --> 00:39:47.519
Do you watch crappy TV?
00:39:47.679 --> 00:39:49.199
Do you read weird books?
00:39:49.440 --> 00:39:51.119
I don't know, do you collect turtles?
00:39:51.280 --> 00:39:55.199
I mean, what what do you do when you're not doing this job, or are you just always doing this job?
00:39:55.920 --> 00:40:00.480
Um No, that I do I do have other things that I'm interested in.
00:40:00.800 --> 00:40:04.079
Um, mind you, I do have that news radar on all the time.
00:40:04.239 --> 00:40:06.960
I think everybody in the Science Media Center does, because you just can't help it.
00:40:07.039 --> 00:40:11.920
Like Saturday we're all working on on bird flu, you know, for obvious reasons.
00:40:12.400 --> 00:40:12.559
Yeah.
00:40:12.880 --> 00:40:18.880
So sometimes we will actually be working at night or on weekends, you know, depending on the breaking news story of the day.
00:40:19.199 --> 00:40:24.159
Um but um I have a a passion project that I work on called Zodal.
00:40:24.559 --> 00:40:25.199
Zoodle.
00:40:25.440 --> 00:40:26.079
Zoodle.
00:40:26.320 --> 00:40:26.880
Yeah.
00:40:27.199 --> 00:40:29.519
And it's just a few friends really.
00:40:29.679 --> 00:40:31.760
And we we in fact we had one last night.
00:40:32.000 --> 00:40:43.199
It's a show, and we get scientists together with um with comedians to look at viral animal videos and uh in front of a live audience.
00:40:43.360 --> 00:40:49.039
And so basically the scientist um that well the comedian has to guess what's going on in these viral animal videos.
00:40:49.280 --> 00:40:49.440
Right.
00:40:49.760 --> 00:40:53.039
And the scientist then comes in and says, What's actually going on?
00:40:53.280 --> 00:40:58.239
And so last night we had one called uh Welcome Squid Underlords, and it was all about septopods.
00:40:58.320 --> 00:41:00.400
It was all about octopus and squid and stuff.
00:41:01.039 --> 00:41:02.800
So anyway, that's what I do in my spare time.
00:41:02.880 --> 00:41:03.039
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
00:41:03.119 --> 00:41:04.000
And how can people find this?
00:41:04.159 --> 00:41:05.679
Do they just type in zoodle and they'll find it?
00:41:07.760 --> 00:41:09.840
Not to be confused with zoo zucchini noodles.
00:41:10.400 --> 00:41:11.519
I I definitely won't.
00:41:11.599 --> 00:41:12.559
And I think you'd know the difference.
00:41:16.559 --> 00:41:17.440
Yeah, zoodle TV.
00:41:19.679 --> 00:41:21.039
On Instagram and Facebook.
00:41:22.079 --> 00:41:22.880
I'll have to have a look.
00:41:23.119 --> 00:41:27.519
Um look, I've I've got a million more questions, but you know, we'll do it in episodes nine and seventeen.
00:41:28.000 --> 00:41:30.400
But it's um look, it's always good to talk with you.
00:41:30.480 --> 00:41:31.760
We always have these good conversations.
00:41:31.840 --> 00:41:36.400
It's just nice to get some down on the record so future generations can benefit too.
00:41:37.119 --> 00:41:37.519
Great.
00:41:37.679 --> 00:41:37.920
Excellent.
00:41:38.719 --> 00:41:39.519
Thanks, Suzanne.
00:41:39.679 --> 00:41:40.400
I really appreciate it.
00:41:40.880 --> 00:41:41.840
Thanks a lot, Rod.
00:41:42.079 --> 00:41:43.280
Nice talking to you.
00:41:43.840 --> 00:41:46.639
Speed Science with Benefits, and I'm Rod Lambert.
00:41:46.800 --> 00:41:50.480
If you enjoyed the show, please like, rate, share.
00:41:50.639 --> 00:41:52.239
You all know the drill by now.
00:41:52.480 --> 00:41:56.159
Also, if there's someone you think I should talk to, it might even be you.
00:41:56.559 --> 00:41:59.920
Drop me a line either via LinkedIn or on email.
00:42:00.239 --> 00:42:06.159
Rod.lambert lambertburnet at anu.edu.au.
00:42:06.800 --> 00:42:08.079
Talk to you too.
