Communications
In the public health arena there is no such thing
as “pure research”. Actions and communications always
have the ability to influence opinion and policy one way or the
other, and must be conducted with the greatest responsibility.
The challenge with communication
Many of the problems with highly emotive issues such as BSE or mobile
phones stem from confused, misguided, or insensitive communications.
There are also several recent salutary lessons of the effect of
irresponsible communications. For example
- scientists expressing concerns about side effects of the MMR
(measles, mumps and rubella) vaccination has led to vaccination
rates dropping below the critical level needed to prevent a serious
measles epidemic.
- when scientists expressed concerns about possible side effects
of the contraceptive pill, use of the pill fell, pregnancy rates
rose, and abortion rates rose.
The Economic and Social Research Council have recently funded research
into the effect of media coverage on people’s perceptions
about one of these issues, MMR. They concluded that media coverage
led to people having a misunderstanding about the scientific position
– and that this could have serious consequences for public
health.  more
Responsible communications
Responsible communication involves honesty about the science. With
BSE (bovine spongiform encapalopathy), much damage was done by reassurances
about safety which current knowledge does not substantiate. This
has understandably left many people distrustful of statements about
safety.
This web site is intended by National Grid to
present the science of EMFs as honestly as possible. We recognise
that there is some evidence that magnetic fields may be a possible
cause of childhood cancer. It is not possible to guarantee that
EMFs are safe. It would be wrong to try to hide that fact.
Getting the balance right
However, the state of the science must not be exaggerated. It is
notoriously difficult for the media to convey shades of scientific
uncertainty. Dramatic claims of new scientific certainty are tempting
but rarely justified.
There is also a growing recognition in the scientific
community of the need to think carefully before talking to the media.
The Royal Society and the Royal Institution have both made the point
recently that not all science is equally good science. It is only
by exposing both the working and the results to scrutiny by fellow
scientists that the scientific community can come to a judgement
on whether what a scientist has done is valid or not, and therefore
that the public can be given a fair presentation of the facts. More
on communicating research
Communicating sensitively
Effective communication requires sensitivity as well as honesty.
Much research has been done on communicating health issues. One
presentation of the results is shown in figure 1. This conveys an
important lesson:
- It is not sufficient to have a factually correct message.
- It is not sufficient (though it is important) to be able to
put the message about EMFs in context with other issues.
- Communicators also have to try to gain people’s trust.
Figure 1
Risk Communication: What you have
to do
1. All you have to do is get the numbers
right.
2. All you have to do is give people
the numbers.
3. All you have to do is explain
the numbers.
4. All you have to do is show how other
numbers are even bigger.
5. All you have to do is show how the numbers are part of
a bigger picture which is good
for them.
6. All you have to do is tell people the numbers in a friendly,
caring way.
7. All you have to do is enlist people
in a partnership to find out the numbers for themselves.
8. All you have to do is all of the
above
|
For examples of communications on EMFs, see finding
out more. The World Health Organisation have a good
booklet
on communicating EMF
back
|
