Paper Title: Words Matter: Reflective Science Communication and Tradeoffs in Environmental Health Research

Author(s) and Year: Kevin C. Elliott, Heather B. Patisaul, Robert M. Sargis, and Laura N. Vandenberg, 2024.

Journal: Environmental Health Perspectives (open access)

TL;DR: Once their manuscript is published, researchers have little say in how their articles are used. Particularly for environmental health scientists, the specific framing of an article can be used and twisted to back up different narratives, including narratives that deviate significantly from what was originally intended. This paper aims to help scientists communicate research in socially responsible ways and minimize the risk of their work being taken out of context.

Why I chose this paper: Innumerable times, I’ve seen scientific research taken out of context to back up harmful movements—vaccines and autism, social Darwinism, scientific racism, and eugenics are a few that come to mind. This can be prevented if scientists understand that the first step in communicating science takes place inside the lab, when they write up their findings in a research paper that will soon circulate freely around the world. I think scientists and science communicators should learn ways to frame their investigations in sensible ways to mitigate the stigmatization of vulnerable groups and not get caught up in the arguments of harmful ideologies.

When Louis Gillette shocked the U.S. Congress in 1993 by declaring, “Every man in this room is half the man his grandfather was,” he likely didn’t expect that his warning about the link between pollutants and decreasing sperm count in humans would later be used in campaigns promoting fears about the end of masculinity and the “feminization of men.”

Gillette is one example among many of how a memorably worded statement ended up being exploited for nefarious purposes. Unfortunately, this is commonplace for researchers of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), industrial substances that affect human hormonal systems. Since the work of EDC scientists impacts population health, all the attention they can garner is vital. The commentary discussed in this bite aimed to help scientists and science communicators navigate this issue as socially responsibly as possible.

The Background and objectives

What’s in a frame

Framing, as used by Kevin C. Elliott and co-authors in their commentary article “Words Matter: Reflective Science Communication and Tradeoffs in Environmental Health Research,” refers to the choices scientists and communicators make that shape science narratives. Framing can be done by highlighting or downplaying specific aspects of the research, such as consequences, relationships, or the conditions of the affected groups.

An alarmist framing or one that overemphasizes the condition of a vulnerable population can easily be used as ammunition for harmful ideologies. A better option, according to the authors, is to frame research in a more thoughtful and socially responsible way.

But one could argue that deliberately framing an article or a journalistic piece could make it less objective; however, framing is inherently part of writing. From the language used to the comparisons made, what authors choose to highlight frames the article, especially when discussing public health and social structures. Thus, the objective of this commentary article is to help environmental health scientists “communicate their work more effectively and reflectively.”

Communicating effectively and reflectively

Still, sensible framing can act as a double-edged sword, as addressing specific problems can sometimes trigger others.

Take, for example, the case of EDCs. Their side effects on human health range from alterations in gonadal and neurological development to obesity, especially if someone is exposed to them at a young age. Papers regarding these chemicals need to reach as wide an audience as possible while still communicating responsibly. So, when researchers referred to atrazine, an herbicide that could alter sex-specific organs in frogs, as “chemical castration,” they guaranteed this news would spread like wildfire. However, the message was shared by the media as a challenge to masculinity and was soon followed by some groups with misogynistic remarks and homophobic connotations.

What can be done

Frames to avoid and creative framing decisions

While there’s no simple one-size-fits-all answer, the authors of this commentary identified questions that can help guide framing in the right direction:

–   Are there groups that could be stigmatized or harmed by this research?

–   Is there a historical context that could impact the reception of this investigation by various audiences?

–   Are there social or political debates that could affect its interpretation?

–   Are there major ways by which it might be intentionally or unintentionally misinterpreted?

–   How is this research usually framed, and does it generally contribute to stigmatization or social and political debates?

Additionally, it’s important to be aware of terms with negative connotations. For example, gendered terminology such as mother cells and sister chromatids can be misleading, so it’s recommended to seek alternatives or address their problematic implications. In a similar case, “race” is an inaccurate scientific term and can easily be used to promote harmful stereotypes. Again, researchers can address its implications and replace it with other terms, such as “ancestry”.

 Opting for a communal framing instead of an individual one “can lessen stigma and promote effective solutions.” For example, framing obesity as a “self-control problem” overlooks broader factors like exposure to EDCs and the obesity-promoting actions of ultra-processed food and other chemicals in food. In general terms, the potential to generate moral panic is a frame’s worst enemy.  

Some frames might be harder to work around than others, especially when it comes to issues that can’t be solved by disclosing their problematic nature or by replacing them with other terms. In that case, the authors of the paper recommend avoiding them altogether. For example, “chemical castration” or “obesity epidemic” are terms that are too volatile and negative, so the safest bet should be to aim for another frame. Quoting the authors, “As the language by which people communicate about the world and their experiences of it evolves, scientific communication must evolve with it or risk further erosion of trust in science.”

Finally, consulting external sources should be a priority. Whether they be experts in other fields (like social scientists, or historians of science) or members of the population studied, their input can prove extremely useful.

The Impact

Reflective writing

Environmental health sciences serve the public interest in multiple ways, therefore, more responsible and reflective writing that understands the political and cultural ramifications of its studies will better serve its purpose.

As such, a more conscious science also requires clinicians, policymakers, and educators to be well informed about these nuances. For example, physicians should inform patients that excess adiposity isn’t always linked to poor health and educate them about environmental factors like ultraprocessed foods that contribute to obesity. Educators should teach about the distinctions between sex and gender, as well as their cultural aspects. Journal editors and peer reviewers could help researchers find better framings. Funding agencies should support researchers seeking to implement interdisciplinary collaborations to promote mutual understanding and a common language. Universities should train scientists in effective communication. Although accomplishing every part of this process might feel like an impossible task, each one feeds and relates to the other, so every step forward is an important one.

Science may constantly be framed as impartial and apolitical, but as a human product, especially when focusing on human health, it’s key to communicate humanely. As the authors said, “the words we use matter, and the way we frame our results, and their implications for human and environmental health, matter.” Thus, sensitive communication should help move research forward to a place where the framing stays on the science rather than the people.

Written by Diego Ramírez Martín del Campo

Edited by Elena Reiriz, Sarah Ferguson, and Crystal Koralis Colón Ortiz

Featured image credit: Disha Sheta