The SCIRIC proposal in full colour and stereo

The SCIRIC story started with a proposal we planned to submit to the Science Committee of SETAC Europe (SC). They were expected to evaluate the idea and give recommendations to the SETAC Europe Council (SEC), who would finally decide on establishment of the group. However, the proposal got already circulated in advance among SC and SEC members. And suddenly I got invited to present the proposal at the May 3 SEC meeting prior to the Barcelona meeting 2015. The presentation went quite well, and I was in good mood afterwards that the proposal has a fair chance once submitted.
Surprisingly though, right after I left the meeting the SEC went on to vote for the proposal and readily approved it.

Here's the winning text. It gives you a deep insight into the idea and mission behind SCIRIC.


Proposal for a SETAC Europe advisory group on science and risk communication (SCIRIC)

Thomas-Benjamin Seiler1, Agnieszka Hunka2, Gerd Maack3, Sarah Bowman4, Henner Hollert1, Pernille Thorbeck5, Katja Broeg6, John Redshaw7, Jennifer Best7, Blair Paulik8, Ceri Lewis9

1 RWTH Aachen University, Germany
2 University of Twente, The Netherlands
3 Umweltbundesamt, Germany
4 The Ohio State University, USA
5 Syngenta, UK
6 Stockholm University, Sweden
7 Scottish Environment Protection Agency, UK
8 Oregon State University, USA
9 University of Exeter, UK

Steering committee
Thomas-Benjamin Seiler, Agnieszka Hunka, Gerd Maack, Sarah Bowman, Henner Hollert, Pernille Thorbeck

Acronym
SCIRIC

Logo

Mission statement
We propose the formation of a SETAC Europe advisory group on science and risk communication (Acronym: SCIRIC). The mission of this group will be to collate expertise and experience on communication within SETAC to establish the communication of scientific findings as an essential aspect in environmental and ecotoxicological science and research. This advisory group aims at providing SETAC scientists with state-of-art communication practices, tools, and strategies to optimize their outreach to other scientific disciplines, stakeholders, agencies, politics, media and the general public.

Rationale
The list of SETAC advisory groups clearly resembles SETAC's ambitious claim: Environmental Quality through Science. Within SETAC we are not only doing science as our everyday task, but with the advisory groups SETAC aims at ensuring highest quality and continuous advancement of research. Nevertheless, scientific knowledge is in that context rather communicated and disseminated within the community than outreached to decision making and the public. We often seem to avoid communicating to people outside our own scientific community. Balancing quality science and lay understanding is a very fine line, and therefore the risk and fear of failure is high within the scientific community. Nevertheless, since the results obtained from environmental sciences raise concern about the environment as a whole, disconnection from the general public is more than just a typical academic characteristic. In the end it is a complete failure of our fundamental intentions. Connections between ”the laboratory” and “the public” of course exist, via, e.g., press offices of institutes, news on institute web sites, or reception of important findings in newspapers. However, the crucial questions are: what is perceived by the public that can generate impact on the politics and decision making? Are scientific results which can provide important information for decision making reaching their targets in an appropriate and timely manner?

Communication means to convey meaningful information to create shared understanding. If messages from environmental science are not suitable to generate public comprehension and endorsement, we remain in our “Ivory Tower” despite all connections to the outsie there might be. This demands easily understandable and clear communication and also for subsequent confirmation of the right understanding. Consequently, it is not sufficient for environmental science to merely contact the interested public but to effectively and sustainably compile and distribute scientific findings for a safer and healthier environment.

Past activities
Recognizing an urgent need for expansion and improvement of communication of scientific findings by the SETAC community, we started a series of well-attended sessions on science and risk communication, beginning with SETAC World Congress 2012 in Berlin, continuing with SETAC Europe annual meeting 2013 in Glasgow, and most recently at the annual meeting 2014 of SETAC Europe in Basel. The Glasgow session also featured a panel discussion with participants from academia, authorities, industry, and media. Panelists and audience agreed that environmental scientists should communicate research results not only within the scientific community, but also to the public and decision making. The encouraging outcome was that communication is seen as a topic of large interest within SETAC and that many colleagues already have clear views and distinct opinions about how communication could and should work. Yet, most of us do not have the time and resources to realize it properly.

We furthermore initiated an article series on science and risk communication in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe (ESEU) to provide a platform for colleagues with expertise and/or interest regarding communication-related topics. The collection meanwhile features five articles and several more are in review or preparation.

Clearly, modern societies are becoming increasingly worried about environmental and personal chemical risks. Environmental sciences were established as a response to the anthropogenic impacts on environmental and human health, e.g., on reports about acid rain and its impacts on forests, or effects of chemicals in the environment (see Rachel Carsons pioneering report “Silent Spring“). Environmental sciences are at the heart of what people deal with in their daily lives: environmental quality, food safety, clean air, fresh water, human health. Why aren't the results of our work in their daily thoughts? How can they get there? Numerous decisions are taken every second which could be supported by knowing the outcomes of our research.

Work programme
Environmental sciences provide results which are essential for the maintenance of environmental- and public health, and hence have a “traditional” link to the public, media, and decision making. As a consequence for environmental scientists it should be easy to distribute and publicize their work. Even if the „Why“ regarding science and risk communication is obvious to researchers, the more fundamental questions often remain unanswered:

• How can we make science and risk communication more trustworthy?
• What kind of “stories“ find their way into the media? Is it necessary to express our work in terms of disasters?
• Are there other possibilities to tell “good stories“ about what environmental scientists are doing, and still show the relevance of our topics?
• How can we improve science and risk communication with the general public?
• How can social and political scientists and communicators work together with biologists, chemists, geologists and other natural scientists?
• What can we learn from each other?
• What are the specific information needs of, and communication formats for, the single target groups (e.g. public, media, stakeholders, agencies, politics).

The advisory group on science and risk communication will work to fundamentally improve the way dissemination of scientific findings is regarded and carried out within the researcher's community of SETAC and beyond:

1. We will collate expertise and experience on science and risk communication within SETAC to identify those colleagues capable of advising others and giving input to the work of the AG.
2. We will deeply analyze environmental research and identify the special requirements of communication of environmental sciences.
3. We will review the state-of-art in science and risk communication and develop methods, tools and strategies tailored for the special requirements of environmental sciences.
4. We will continuously emphasize the importance of communicating research to all different levels of the society as an integrated part of environmental science.
5. We will establish trainings for SETAC members, teaching those interested in science communication the available tools and strategies to succeed in proper dissemination to the „outside of the Ivory Tower“.
6. We will continuously review the state-of-art in communicating science and adapt as well as develop novel concepts for a successful outreach of scientific findings from environmental research.
7. We will be seeking to become one of the major platform for discussion and sources of advice on science and risk communication within SETAC and beyond.
8. We will be working to ensure that the quality of science conducted within the SETAC community is maintained also upon dissemination to the media and the public.

For all our activities we will consider the tripartite structure of SETAC to ensure proper communication from and to all different parts of the society. We will furthermore seek to include views and perspectives of media, policy and education.

Detailed strategy
We propose the following strategy to reach our goals (see also figure below). It is based on two pillars, namely “people” – which focuses on educating and connecting the SETAC community – and “topic” – which aims to understand, describe and develop science and risk communication as an important part of environmental research. The AG will work on both parts in parallel:

For the “people” part the process of collating expertise and experience (1) is the initial step forward and started already with the session on science and risk communication at the SETAC World Congress 2012 in Berlin and the initiation of the ESEU article series. These events founded a continuously growing network of social, political, communication and environmental scientists with a link to science and risk communication. Our sessions on science and risk communication bring together and connect those colleagues capable of and interested in contributing to communication as a topic within SETAC and let us build up a directory of communication experts. The work for the article series continuously identifies authors and reviewers with expertise in communication. As a first outcome from the AG this growing directory will be used to provide all colleagues a list of people within their own networks who could support them in questions of science and risk communication. In the ongoing process of advising and learning a strong community of scientists experienced in communication of research will then be build up; we also propose to include a “science communication” tag to the SETAC members directory for easier identification of skilled colleagues. This continuously growing and interconnecting community of scientists interested in communication and convinced of its importance will strongly facilitate the establishment of proper dissemination to all different target groups in society as a crucial part of the scientific process (4). This will finally help us to successfully run trainings, such as short courses at SETAC AMs, special sessions, workshops etc. (5). The growing awareness for science and risk communication should also allow for the introduction of an own session track at SETAC Europe annual meetings.
We intend to closely co-operate with

• the SETAC Europe (SE) committee for education in organizing training courses, share expertise and experiences, and to avoid overlapping and redundancies. This committee already supported our activities by inviting us to organize a short course on science communication at the SETAC Europe annual meeting 2014 in Basel.
• the SE Committee for membership and public relations to harmonize PR activities, exchange experience and expertise, support each other in generating the best possible impact of either work, and by that increasing the awareness of the different target groups (public, politics, media, stakeholders) concerning environmental sciences and SETAC.
• the SE Science Committee by identifying scientific issues in need of proper communication to the respective target groups, to learn about scientific issues that will require tailor-made communication strategies and to provide advice also in advance and/or response to emerging topics, and to ensure that the high scientific quality of SETAC is maintained upon communication.
• the SE Awards Committee regarding the establishment of a SETAC Communications award; this award should highlight exceptional performances in science- and risk communication with a clearly measurable positive impact on the addressed target group(s).
• the SE committee for regional branches to better distribute the idea of proper communication within SETAC Europe, and by that to increase the awareness of the community of the AG’s activities; to identify and address local characteristics of communication processes (e.g. stronger emphasis of the media on science writing in some countries compared to others, different use and/or availability of the large variety of information channels and platforms), and to tailor communication strategies with respect to the specific circumstances of the different regions.
• the SE Long range planning committee to work on a shift in awareness for proper science and risk communication, and establish a sustainable strategy to educate SETAC scientists in high quality communication of their research work.
• the SETAC Europe Council, since a large part of our activities will reach beyond the SETAC Europe society, and mutual understanding is needed on how and what to communicate. We intend to reach an agreement on a trustworthy and at the same time streamlined process for approval, based on a categorization of communication activities within a tiered approval scheme.
• the SETAC Europe Students Advisory Council, to implement the idea of proper science and risk communication as a crucial part of environmental research already at the level of young scientists; to include also the view on communication of SETAC’s student members, as well as benefit from the young and increasingly technology- and media related generation for our activities towards best practice and the application of novel tools and strategies.
• the SETAC Global Publications committee and the various SETAC publications directly (Globe, ETC, IEAM, SETAC News) to establish new periodicals and space within the current publications, respectively, aimed at comprehensible description and communication of scientific research; to utilize the expertise and experience in scientific writing and successful publication of the committee and the editorial offices together with our knowledge on communication to create attractive training courses in scientific writing and communication skills.
• the respective SETAC North America committees (e.g. education, awards, public relations and communications) 
• the respective SETAC Global committees, already in preparation of moving from the European to the global level, once the AG is well established in SETAC Europe.
• the specific thematic communities within SETAC directly, especially those that have a naturally strong link to public perception, such as the scientists doing LCA studies. These topics can readily raise interest by the relevant target groups if communicated properly. The AG will support dissemination of research findings from the respective community and by that gain valuable experience from the practical application of communication strategies and concepts.

Within “topic”,  analysis and identification of specific requirements for communication of environmental research (2) will be the initial task of the AG after its foundation. Only when we can base our activities on fundamental knowledge of what is needed to be changed, created and established, we will be able to work efficiently and focused towards our goals. Once such knowledge is available, we will derive tailor-made strategies built upon the current state-of-art in science and risk communication, develop novel tools and methods (3) and eventually provide the scientific community a toolbox for proper communication that is easily adaptable to the specific situation. This toolbox will undergo continuous review and being updated by the most recent development in communication science and practice. The aggregated expertise on communication within the AG will also lead to the development of new concepts and strategies, especially based on the ongoing worldwide technological progress (6).

Figure Schematic of the activities and their interrelations of the AG SCIRIC. The top-down view also resembles a chronological order of the AG development.

All these measures are envisaged to strengthen the value and visibility of the AG within SETAC and its community and getting AG members involved in consultancy on science and risk communication at the various levels of the science communication process (7). We especially aim at acquiring members which are participating in at least one other SETAC advisory group (European, North American and/or global). Those persons can act as ‘ambassadors’ for science and risk communication and (a) bring the ideas, knowledge, experience and visions from our AG to all other AGs, while (b) learning about issues and problems for which our AG could provide tailored solutions. By that, we also get to know the specific communication perspective of a wealth of different groups within SETAC, thus increasing our knowledge and experience. Furthermore, on a regular basis we will organize workshops for the AG chairs to learn about communication and discuss current communication issues from their specific topics, and we will offer demand-driven advice meetings with AGs to work on specific ideas or issues that they bring in. This will lead to a large pool of properly educated and sufficiently committed environmental scientists communicating SETAC research to all different levels of the society, developing and using target group-specific concepts, which will strengthen SETAC's visibility and reputation in the public. An increase of societal and political impact of SETAC is expected as a result, helping to facilitate our vision of environmental quality (8).

Specific activities
Our goal is to fascilitate a development we call “Public Understanding of the Scientific Process” (PUSP). Communication of scientific facts in the 1950s was dominated merely by science fiction. The more complex and powerful scientific findings and technological achievements got, the more skepticism spread along – which spawned large-scale information campaigns. However, public understanding of research is not a matter of sufficient knowledge through comprehensive explanation (a so called „deficit model“), but rather driven by personal concern and interests as a result of emotions and individual involvement and a certain code of values. As a consequence, science communication started to enhance public understanding based on the concept of science and humanities (PUSH phase). This strategy, combining scientific knowledge with the information needs of people, effectively constituted the understanding of scientific research within the public. Nevertheless, many scientists are not aware about it and thus, a large amount of dissemination activities and communication efforts often are still based on a scientist's monologue on facts. On the other hand, most of the people “consuming” science communication know little to nothing about how scientific research happens. Hence, even if they understand based on acquired knowledge, their view of science is generally biased by their imagination of how science happens.

One example is the uncertainty of findings as a key concept of proper science. Uncertainty of scientific findings is one of the main drivers for misunderstanding, distrust and consequently lack of interest or even opposition of the public. To understand, why certain results are vague; clear findings are scarce; several aspects remain uncertain, people must have the opportunity to look behind the scenes of scientific research. Seeing this as an approach based on the fairness theory, which postulates that transparency of a process increases willingness to accept its outcome, it would be a measure of informational justice, meaning access to appropriate information, and transparency of the relevant processes leading to a certain result. It has been shown that people can better accept a negative outcome when they feel they know how a decision was made. In the perception by the public, scientific uncertainty has a quality similar to that of a decision's negative outcome, since common expectations – as detailed above – rather demand for clarity. The conclusion is that the public needs to directly participate in the scientific process.

This transparency will be more than anything else a matter of communication from within the scientific arena. For the format of such communication a large variety of choices are available, ranging from open days and science nights over science slams, public lectures and video blogs to articles in popular journals and TV or newspaper interviews. Especially for the purpose of letting the public look behind the scenes of science a novel concept that uses theatre-based communication can be applied. A similar approach in legislation, the “legislative theatre”, proved a very successful and suitable way of democratic decision making according to the fairness theory. Involving scientists as actors which just play the role of their everyday working life, with all difficulties, decisions, discussions and especially also failures could bring on stage the reality of research, and thus correcting the media-biased image of scientific research in the public. This more realistic view on researchers and research will encourage common people to more directly approach environmental scientists. Nowaday's polished image of scientific research as an ever highly successful endeavour rather scares away public curiosity; common people, especially at lower educational levels, feel weak and unsecure.

We will also put one strong focus on communicating to the younger part of the society in terms of a start-of-pipe approach. Educating already the young generations to take care of their environment and to consider anthropogenic contamination can significantly reduce diffuse pollution in future, thus enhancing environmental quality. Concepts and strategies for activities especially aimed at schools will be developed in close cooperation with local teachers and pupils, thus taking into account differences between regions and countries. In the interest for a long-term awareness of the society about environmental issues and the science taking care of them, the communication and education should start already with the children, who are particularly interested, curious, easily fascinated and eager to learn.

Long-range vision
We believe in and will work towards our vision that proper training of environmental scientists in science communication based on a strong theoretical foundation that recognizes the specific aspects and requirements of environmental research and communication can eventually increase awareness, interest, comprehension, and appreciation for environmental research. This can lead to a true participatory role of the public in environmental sciences, thus strengthening the impact of the SETAC community on societal development as well as political decisions.

Organisation
The AG should be established first at the European level. Since cultures in science and risk communication can differ strongly between different geographical regions the initiation of AG on the European level will limit the complexity to challenge and thus help building up a strong initial platform and network for the various activities. We will immediately apply for moving to the global level, once the framework of the AG is established and structured properly (e.g. steering committee, thematic groups, regular meetings, promotion material), and it is working on a routine basis.
We are thinking of communication as a multilateral exchange between all relevant groups concerned about a certain topic. Our steering committee (SC) will therefore be clearly balanced in terms of stakeholder participation and gender equality. Furthermore, we will try to include a member from every Geographical Unit of SETAC. This will allow for consideration of the different regional views and opinions, and will help to adapt our activities specifically to the varying characteristics of communication. The SC will contain between 5 and 10 members and vote the chair(s) of the AG. It is preferred that members of the SC do not serve more than 3 consecutive years. When a person leaves the SC, a substitute will be nominated by all members present at the next AG meeting, preferably in such a way that the balance of the SC is respected. We will try to strictly resemble the tripartite structure of SETAC and will actively recruit members to represent this structure. Moreover, among the representatives from academia, industry and authorities we will seek to have as much diversity as possible, which will give the benefit of a high variety of different perspectives and needs of communication. On the other hand, this will allow for a rapid identification of points where strong agreement exists as well as conflict areas. By that the activities of the AG can be directed towards immediate progress and success in the beginning, and thus facilitate establishment of the AG as a communication think-tank for SETAC Europe.

The composition of the AG is intended to adhere to the basic SETAC guidelines, i.e. comparable representations from academia, industry, government and non-profit organizations. This also means that we will actively recruit members to resemble the tripartite structure. We know that we need a balanced representation of all different perspectives to achieve our goals. The AG is open to any interested parties and both scientists and students of SETAC are encouraged to join.