Science Communication during Covid-19: An interview with Dr. Stephan Schleim

Written by one of our bachelor students, Jan Failenschmid

In the last year no topic has been as all occupying as the Covid-19 pandemic. It heavily impaired everyone’s life, tested our solidarity, made us miss our loved ones and for some it had even more devastating consequences. With the virus entering the midst of society, so did the information surrounding it. It has become essential to find ways to communicate new scientific evidence and the uncertainty that surrounds any scientific statement, especially with regard to Covid-19, without confusing laypeople or even making them loose trust in science and hence the political measures that have been derived from it. But what makes for good communication in this pandemic? We posed this question to Stephan Schleim an associate professor at the department for Theory and History of Psychology in Groningen who has been an active science communicator for the past 15 years. His science blog “Menschen-Bilder” was nominated for “science blog of the year 2020” by the German “Wissenschaft Kommuniziert”. In his own work he mainly focuses on the communication of psychological and neuroscientific discoveries. In the current blog Stephan reflects on how communication surrounding the Corona pandemic can be improved.

Focus on hope rather than risk

“We have seen many frightening claims in the media” says Schleim right at the beginning of the interview. Without wanting to downplay the risks of this virus, Schleim does think that communication has thus far focused too much on these risks. The assumption is that this might increase the degree to which people follow the rules to control the pandemic. Unfortunately, this has not proven very effective, as people tend to deny risks (and therefore not adhere to measures). Instead Stephan Schleim proposes a balanced approach, a realistic representation of the dangers, but also of the hope we might find during the Covid-19 pandemic. “For many people, the dangers of the virus are very abstract, while they experience the downsides of the lockdowns as very real. Anxiety might have been a good motivation to follow safety rules at the beginning of the pandemic, when much was unclear. But now we see more and more people disbelieving communication about the risks and then ignoring the rules.” He relates the communication about the Coronavirus to research on the placebo effect: “In the last twenty years, we have seen impressive research on the health effects of positive expectations. Trust, hope, and the belief that everything gets well can actually molecularly activate the same pathways that some medical drugs work on. This is unfortunately also the case in the opposite way: Negative expectations can be bad for one's health, but this ‘nocebo effect’ is less investigated for ethical reasons."

Be honest about the Limitations and the Uncertainty surrounding Scientific Discoveries

During the Covid-19 crisis, every branch of science has had to deal with many uncertainties. Scientists are far more used to dealing with environments like a well-controlled laboratory, yet this control is lacking with regard to the global phenomenon Covid-19. Moreover, during the crisis it became more common that scientific discoveries appeared in the media and were communicated to a broad audience before the peer review process is completed and the data has been published in a journal. Schleim is very much in favor of communicating any sort of uncertainty openly. “I think the only way we should communicate about is that we should also be honest about the uncertainty.” He doesn´t think that communicating your own uncertainty makes your position less credible. Instead he argues that if a statement or prediction is communicated with a lot of certainty and it turns out to be wrong, then this would undermines the sources' credibility in the long run. We ask Schleim how this should be done. Schleim: “one could make clear on which assumption a prediction is based – and that the prediction can and actually should change in the light of new, contradicting information.”

Make room for Criticism

With the Covid-19 crisis pushing science and science communication into the middle of society, so also critique of scientific insights increased. How should scientists and policy makers deal with such contrary opinions? Although critique stands right at the heart of scientific control, one might be concerned that giving space to critical voices in the media could decrease trust in science and political measures. Schleim thinks there should certainly be room for criticism and that it should be taken and responded to seriously. Alternative strategies like ignoring critical voices or making fun of them, have in his opinion not worked and might have even increase resistance. He thinks that criticism should be responded to “on the basis of arguments, by analyzing the arguments of the other party and then presenting better arguments if you have them. This should be the primary way to discuss scientifically rather than attacking the persons or their institutions.” He further elaborates that “many scientists and science communicators alike have a limited view about whom they're writing for. The communication model of just getting enough facts out there and then the debate will be resolved is really outdated. We've seen this often enough in discussions about climate change, evolution, or vaccination. People interpret scientific findings in the light of their opinions and world-view." Schleim also calls for more transparency and self-criticism: "We have seen enough scientific scandals, not just in psychology. We should communicate openly to get people's trust back. Scientific knowledge does have a special status and is more than just an opinion. But we should avoid excessive simplifications and promises out of career interests."

Inform the public about the benefits, risks, and uncertainty of the new vaccines

One of the most recent and important developments in this Pandemic are the new Cov-Sars-2 vaccines. However, as any new development in this crisis does, the new vaccines introduce many new challenges which need to be addressed. Some people have been calling for laws that ensure that everyone is being vaccinated or for similar measures to ensure that the vaccine will be widely accepted, while others argue heavily against this. Moreover, a lot of people are understandably worried about the risks that such a recently developed vaccine may bring with them. Schleim is in favor of communication that recommends the new vaccine, as long as an evaluation of the risks and benefits of the vaccine support this. However, he is against a possible mandatory vaccination; “I would say we must be honest about the benefits, but also the dangers of this vaccine and then people should decide for themselves whether they want it.” He also feels that enforcing vaccination on a legal basis may create more resistance against it. He hopes and believes that enough people want to return back to ‘normal’ that the majority of people will have themselves vaccinated.

As scientists we are all communicators!

Science communication is an important topic and it has become even more so, since our daily live is blatantly and radically influenced by the most recent scientific developments. Stephan Schleim has offered us insights into how the science communication during the Covid-19 crisis can be improved. But how relevant is this information given that the influence that we as scientists have on the public via different forms of media, is limited and can even become negligible in the face of big media companies. But here Schleim reminds us: "Even the mass media depend on their consumers. We thus have some power by preferring one news site over another."

It is also important not to forget that every professional and every student can now, more than ever, make use of their academic background and reach as far as they can to communicate scientific developments regarding Covid-19 to others. This could be simply explaining the latest press conference to one’s family and neighbors, a conversation with a stranger about why face masks should be worn, to a discussion with one's hairdresser about the new vaccine. In times where solidarity and societal cohesion are most important, to get through this crisis together, it is crucial to be aware of the responsibility that comes with the privilege of academic education.

About Jan Failenschmid

“I am originally from Germany and I have been in Groningen for almost three years now. I am currently in the last year of my Psychology Bachelor, which I really enjoy and I am excited to see where it will take me.”