Deepening Understanding of Public Trust in Science

As changes sweep the scientific enterprise, researchers’ questions about how the public connects to, trusts in, and supports science have taken on urgency. Science and Society Sparks, a bite-sized program for researchers with a connection to The Kavli Foundation, offered webinars, readings, and discussion sessions examining how society engages with scientists, research, and evidence. This story series highlights instructors and participants in the Sparks program to showcase the insights emerging from the sessions.

What do ski trips, handwritten letters, and arts events have in common? They’re just a few settings that The Kavli Foundation Science and Society Sparks Program’s fellows are considering for making connections with communities and building trust in science.

The two-month-long Sparks program provided funding for 18 researchers to explore evidence and insights about the relationship between science and society. While experts led them through poll data, listening techniques and practical strategies in three webinars, participants say the program would not have been as impactful without its discussion sessions and reading materials. They explained how the program helped them question assumptions they were making about science and society, and they expressed excitement at disseminating what they’d learned.

“I’ve never seen a program like this, and I thought it was really important for any scientist that has a mild interest [in expanding] their knowledge on how to communicate,” says Sparks participant Sharlen Yared Moore Corona, a distinguished Kavli Neuroscience Discovery Institute postdoctoral fellow at Johns Hopkins University.

At the end of the program, we sat down with participants to hear about their experience. The following conversation included three Sparks program participants: Moore Corona; P.S. Nandini, a Kavli Center for Ethics, Science, and the Public Graduate Fellow affiliated with the UC Berkeley-UCSF Joint Bioengineering Graduate Program; and Gregory Handy, an assistant professor and Kavli Exploration Award winner at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities. We have edited this for length and clarity.

What drew you to the Science and Society Sparks Program?
Nandini: My research involves reading brain activity of psychiatric patients but also using electrical currents to change emotions. I wanted to delve deeper into what should we as humanity do now, before this technology goes into the commercial sphere, to make sure it’s used in the right way.

Moore Corona: I’ve always been interested in science communications. There are a lot of outreach opportunities at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City, where I did my bachelor’s degree, so I tried to participate as much as I could. I thought this program was a rare opportunity.

Handy: As a grad student, I participated in an outreach program called the STEM Ambassador Program from the University of Utah. It was a great program, but I participated in 2017. COVID-19 happened, and during my postdoc, I got lost in doing research and trying to go for that tenure-track job. I had been looking to revamp my engagement side of things. When I saw that Kavli had this opportunity, I jumped at it.

Tell me about an experience in the program that you found especially valuable.
Handy: The discussion sections were a big component of this program. I give all the speakers credit for how interactive they made the webinars, but there’s a ceiling to how interactive that can be. The discussion sections allowed us to meet in smaller groups and have follow-up conversations.

Nandini: The discussion sections walked the talk. In the webinars, we had time to ask questions, but the discussion sections offered dedicated time where we as peers can actually throw the ball around and discuss what went through our minds during those sessions. It also was thoughtful of the program to send hard copies of the reading materials to enjoy.

Moore Corona: During a webinar, one speaker shared a video where she made a kind of miscommunication. She was brave to share that. Seeing how she corrected herself on the spot and moved on was powerful for me, as somebody who is not a native English speaker. It made me less scared of making mistakes.

What assumptions did this program help you realize you were making (or not making) about science and society?
Moore Corona: One presenter talked about how our professional positions play into power dynamics during communications. I never thought about how other people might see me, a scientist, as a figure of power. That was surprising. It helped me understand, or maybe reshape, the way I approach people. When I was new to Baltimore, I did some public health outreach. You share with people what diabetes is, what HIV is, and how you can prevent them. I encountered people saying, “Oh, yeah, sure, you come here being Johns Hopkins and we don’t know what you really want.” At the time, I wondered, “What are they talking about?” And then I started reading about the history of Baltimore, the history of Hopkins — an elite university — and its relationship with the community. And, of course, I don’t understand everything, but I can see where skepticism comes from.

Nandini: I hadn’t given much thought to the fact that not everyone would be seeing the same news that I do. I guess I was assuming that truth is the same for all, or news is the same for all. But one of our readings was a book by Mónica Guzmán called “I Never Thought of It That Way.” She described how people of certain opinions tend to sort themselves into similar groups, and then they would “other” other people. Once they’re in their group, they would create a silo so that all they hear are the viewpoints that they believe in.

Handy: The biggest thing was my assumption that most Republicans right now don’t see the value in science. And the data just doesn’t back that up.

What are you excited about doing now that you’ve learned so much about science, society, and science communication?
Nandini: I am thinking of starting a pen pal program where I can connect scientists at my institution with communities that don’t have access to scientists. I haven’t narrowed down the exact population, but some ideas would be students or old-age home residents. They could exchange handwritten letters, so it breaks a barrier and makes scientists accessible.

I also thought I could apply the lessons that I learned in the Sparks program to analyze community needs in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the Indo-Pacific that can be addressed with science, to make sure that solutions that are proposed are effective in addressing the actual needs of the community. I’m a Quad fellow, and I am planning to work on this project with another fellow. The fellowship is given by the Quad countries — India, Japan, Australia and the U.S. We are planning to have open-ended interviews with people, see what the spectrum of needs might be, and then write up a policy memo and see where that can take us.

Handy: I’m thinking about coupling up with a program called Courage Kenny. It’s an outdoors program for people with different levels of disabilities. The way that I think science should be accessible, I also think that outdoor sporting activities should be accessible. I’m looking to go skiing with them. When I first do it, I just want to be there and see what their day-to-day is. I don’t want to start talking about my work in neuroscience to someone who just wants to have fun skiing. There are ways to naturally embed the fact that I’m a scientist and do brain-computer interface research in natural conversations without having it be an agenda. I had this idea ahead of the Kavli Sparks program, but I want to approach it sensitively, and I think the program helped me frame my approach.

Moore Corona: I have a few ideas for workshops that bring together arts and sciences. Baltimore is the perfect city to do those kinds of things. It has this huge artistic community, and I’ve connected with a bunch of artists. It’s not going to be a workshop about teaching something or giving information. Something that I learned from Sparks is that sometimes just creating a space for people is the key to making a connection stronger in the long term.

To what extent did the funding support from the Sparks program allow you to make the time for an interest that is important to you but secondary to doing experiments?
Handy: My position now is about doing research, training grad students, working with postdocs, and getting papers out. It’s also about getting funding. And so there exists this kind of relationship: If you’re getting funding for something, that means it is worth your time. The funding allowed me to point to the Sparks program as something worthwhile to my colleagues. It doesn’t need to be a ton of money for it to have that stamp of approval.

What would you say to other scientists who are interested in exploring the relationship between science and society but feel pressed for resources and time?
Moore Corona: Change doesn’t have to be a huge energy investment. Within the yearly books you read, pick one that is about science communication. Use the knowledge from that book to shape your interactions and spread that knowledge within your environment. And change can also be enacted by day-to-day communication with your peers.

Nandini: Join a structured program like this. It gives motivation and a peer network to rely on. Use it as a stepping stone for projects, rather than doing it alone.

Handy: You don’t need to give a presentation. Just be present.