We sat down with Professor Callum Roberts - conservationist, University of Exeter academic, Author, Blue Planet II Chief Scientific Advisor and Seaspiracy interviewee. What makes scientific communication effective, and how can the public educate themselves?

Illustration by Nathalie Dickson for Bloom in Doom.

Professor Callum Roberts. Image from the University of Exeter.

As a researcher at the University of Exeter, Professor Callum Roberts’ research focuses on how people have affected the oceans over time and understanding how the ocean has changed under human influence.

“My focus of research is how we protect, restore and recover life in the sea - the whole arc, from history, to where we are now, to where we need to be in the future. Very much in keeping with the Bloom in Doom theme, I don’t want the narrative to end today, where things are going wrong; increasingly so in many places. I want us to see how we can plot a course out of the problems that we have right now”.

His research untangles influences, looking at the state of the sea and trying to make people aware of how we, humanity, have changed the ocean.

“A lot of people look at the ocean and say it looks perfectly healthy. Maybe there’s some overfishing, but mostly it’s fine. What they miss is that many of those seas have been profoundly impacted. They were full of very different kinds of wildlife, even as recently as 100 years ago, the seabed habitats were very different. A lot of that has been swept away by bottom trawlers and dredges. Today, the shifting sands and gravels and muds that you see aren’t natural. They are a product of how we use the ocean. One of the things that I want to do in the science that I do and in communicating it is to open people’s eyes so that they can see the impacts that we have caused [...] it changes the narrative about what we should do about it”

Roberts is passionate about using his knowledge and influence to educate the public, and encourage change. As an author of award-winning books such as The Unnatural History of the Sea, and Reef Life, Chief Scientific Advisor for Blue Planet II and most recently a featured interviewee in the Netflix documentary Seaspiracy, Bloom in Doom wanted to ask Professor Roberts how science communication can be made more effective and accessible to the masses.

Q - What does effective scientific communication mean to you, and why is it important?

A - “It was Albert Einstein, who said, ‘everything should be made as simple as possible’. But then he also added that you should simplify things as much as possible, but no simpler.”

“Science is something which should be accessible to anybody. We all have an interest in science, we all depend on science in so many different aspects of everyday life. The more you understand about how science is contributing to your life, whether it's the computer that's sitting on your desk or the vaccine that you've just had, the richer your life will be and the more you can avoid falling into the traps, fallacies and conspiracy theories that are peddled by people, both naive and malicious, around the world.”

“Science is a way of freeing yourself from those malign influences and enabling you to understand what is true and what is false in the world or at least, getting you as close to an understanding of truth as science can take you, given that science is all a process of continuing discovery.”

Roberts’ works include ‘The Unnatural History of the Sea’ and ‘Reef Life - An Underwater Memoir”. — Roberts’ works include ‘*The Unnatural History of the Sea*’ and ‘*Reef Life - An Underwater Memoir*”.

Roberts continues by talking about his own experience in scientific writing.

“One of the reasons that I write books is because it's a way of sharing my passion for the sea with a much wider audience than just my academic colleagues. But it's also a way of putting the messages from the science that I, and many other people, have done in a form that is digestible, for grassroots people who are just interested in their local environment or who want to choose more sustainable fish, right up to top-level politicians who have the power to take action.”

He adds “It's been fabulously rewarding for me to hear from so many people who have read my books about how it's changed their view of the sea, their understanding of what we're doing to ocean life and how we need to change what we're doing to improve things. One of the things that brought the director of Seaspiracy to me was that he came across one of my books. [...] By communicating in one form, you then get the opportunity to communicate via other media, whether it's radio or TV or movies. I've been very lucky to be able to do that on many occasions.”

Q - Do you think that there’s any place for sensationalism in scientific communication?

Sensationalism is often used in documentaries; exaggerating facts and figures for more ‘wow’ moments and harder-hitting messages. Scientific findings are often vulnerable to distortions and misrepresentations that stick in the public mind, especially if they fit ideological biases.

A - Roberts notes that if the information is true and verifiable, then it’s not sensationalist.

“If you wanted to get people's attention about the issue of whaling carrying on in the Faroe Islands, then, you know, showing people what happens there, no matter how harrowing and difficult it is to watch, is probably a good way of raising their awareness. It's probably more likely to raise their awareness than to just talk about it in abstract terms. Storytelling is an incredibly important part of scientific communication. […] What is troubling is when you take a fact, and then you distort it, or you ignore facts, and you make up stories to suit your agenda, and I think that's when you start becoming unscientific”.

Storytelling is especially important in scientific fields such as sub-atomic studies, and studying things far away in the Universe. Image of the Milky Way by Hristo Fidanov, Pexels

Roberts gives an example to help us to understand further the importance of storytelling in science communication. “A recent study co-authored by Richard Sherley at Exeter demonstrated that there had been a 71% decline of shark and ray populations since 1970. That’s a savage decline and loss of those sharks. Now, how do you tell that story? Do you tell it by talking about the tonnage of sharks that's been taken, or the numbers that have been taken? Or do you show somebody on a fishing boat hacking the fins off a living shark? That's a choice that a filmmaker makes. But if the underlying science is right, then you're not sensationalising it”.

He goes on to talk about the varying importance of effective storytelling in different scientific fields. “In some circles, the only way to talk about the science, even among scientists, is through storytelling. Once you get to sub-atomic particles, all of what we say is based on indirect experience of what we’re studying. We can’t see an electron, except by the traces that it leaves and the way that it interacts with our monitors. We have to infer its properties and characteristics. It’s the same with what’s going on far away in the Universe. All of those things are about constructing stories based on many sources of scientific evidence”.

Some of Professor Roberts’ colleagues have been uncomfortable with being on television, the radio or being quoted in newspapers. Journalists have been known to go beyond what they would think are the reasonable limits of the science or interpret findings differently. “And then they [academics] feel, you know, ashamed and angry and embarrassed that they are associated with this sort of false story, and colleagues struggle with that”.

Roberts was a featured interviewee in Seaspiracy. The documentary sought to educate viewers about the environmental impact of fishing across the world but has been met with mixed reviews.

Callum Roberts featured on the 2021 Netflix Documentary Seaspiracy.

“Seaspiracy has been attracting a great deal of criticism from many corners around the world for somewhat dodgy use of science in places. But the fundamentals of the message are correct. We are having a massive impact on ocean life. We are engaging in destructive fisheries and doing incredibly unethical things and we are doing them without concern for either people or the environment. We need to change that. That’s a solid message. There's no need to distort the science around that.”.

Roberts then adds “Do I feel bad that I was in that movie and being quoted? No, because everything that I said, is backed up by good science. And I think that the message has been amplified to an audience that is now seeking more solid sources of information about it. So there's an opportunity for us to communicate science effectively.”

He mentions that he is currently working with a team of scientists to produce a more scientific response for Seaspiracy viewers to seek more solid sources of information. One issue is finding a way to present this response in a way that will attract Seaspiracy viewers.

“Roald Dahl was writing for an incredibly demanding audience. Children lose their attention to things very quickly. You think writing a children's book is easy, that you just need to sit down and write a story and that’s it, job done in a month. But he slaved away on his books for years. One of his mantras was ‘never be dull’. Whenever you're trying to communicate science, you must never be dull. If you are, for even a moment, you’ll lose your readership. People reading science communication have a choice, they can read something else or dig the garden, they don't have to be reading your article [...] you've got to keep people hooked to the end.”

Q - How can non-scientists know which sources to trust, and how can they improve their understanding of the natural world?

A - “As soon as you step outside your discipline, it becomes quite hard to understand, because the jargon is different. You can train yourself to be better at extracting information from sources, but it’s hard and not a lot of people do. Those who haven’t had training generally rely on secondary sources” (newspapers and reviews).

Scientific communicators with backing from NGOs and other groups, are likely to have an agenda and will all view things through a different lens. Image from Bud Helisson, Unsplash

Roberts then makes an interesting point about how to realise trustworthy sources.

“Science books that are written by journalists, are they sensationalising things? Or is the book written by very careful and accurate journalists or active scientists? If they're in an academic position they've got a reputation to uphold, they're not going to want to put nonsense into their books.”

He refers to a quote by Winston Churchill, “History will be kind to me for I intend to write it” and says “You have to remember they've [scientific communicators] got an agenda. A book is a great way to push your side of the agenda rather than somebody else's. It’s not a fully objective view that you’re getting from that source of information”.

“At face value, these scientists are credible - they work in academic institutions and their insights should be trustworthy. The other side of it is disclosure - disclosure of who funds them.” For example, scientists working for NGOs or being funded by organisations - funding may shape if and how writers distort their science.

“Now, that doesn’t mean they’re bad people, but it does mean that they look at things through a different lens. I don’t get funding from the fishing industry, but I do get funding from conservation bodies. So does that warp the way I look at things? Maybe. I don’t personally profit from it. But I think you’ve always got to look at that, as well as the science that people do. Because people are people, they’re human, they’re fallible and they’re subject to their own biases.”

“That’s why there’s so much argument in science because everyone is promoting their theories and trying to knock down other people’s theories - it’s quite a combative process”. Roberts adds that “One of the lessons in life is that objective data will not necessarily solve arguments. The same data can be perceived very differently by different people, depending on what their perspectives are. It’s important to be transparent. And if somebody is not transparent, you should also worry very much about that”.

It’s important when you find out new information, to research around it, and remember that sometimes science can change and move on. “When people ask me for a source of information about climate change, I’d point them to public statements made byThe Royal Society, or The National Academy of Sciences in America. Those have been carefully put together for a public audience. The science moves on so there's a certain snapshot of the understanding at the time it was produced, but that has more credibility than if you go to a link that is much higher in your Google search, that may take you straight into the arms of climate change deniers and those who are peddling misinformation for instance. Scientists can be a trusted source of information for other people.”

Q - How can science be made more accessible?

Storytelling has dated back for thousands of years, and is a key element in effective science communication. Image by Robson Hatsukami Morgan, Unsplash

A - “Everyone can communicate science. Some people can do it better than others, some people more consciously than others, but it can be taught, and it can also be learned. If you’re interested in science communication, you should read, and read not just a lot of science communication but you know, novels, literature, because people who are writing fiction are telling stories that are engaging and keeping your interest. You need to learn how to use the power of storytelling to keep the interest of people in science.”

He then goes back to his earlier point about the importance of storytelling in scientific communication, adding that “Storytelling is a very ancient art. You know, the Homeric Odyssey was an oral tradition for thousands of years before it was written down for the first time. People would tell these stories to each other again and again, and they would learn them by heart. And gradually over time, of course, they would be embellished too but the fundaments of the story remained true. That’s the fundamental first thing that you’ve got to do, is you’ve got to learn how to weave science into stories and stories that will engage and interest people. And then you need to figure out how much of the science you need to say for it to be valid and detailed enough that people can understand it without it being trite or trivial”.

Extra resources and reading:

Sensationalism in the Media: When Scientists and Journalists May Be Complicit Collaborators
Considerations for effective science communication
Scientific News as a Genre: A Linguistic Account of ‘Distortion’ of Scientific Information
Science Communication & Science Journalism - The Gap Between What Scientists Say and What the Public Hears (p61 onwards)
UN talks ‘honestly’ about the environment and avoids ‘scaremongering’ - “Our job is not to speak in complicated scientific terms that people can't understand, because science has to make its way to the dinner table, to the voting booth, to the school playground, into the boardrooms. Science needs to be understood by all people, not just those sitting in an ivory tower.” - Inger Andersen, Head of UNEP
How to Become a Science Journalist
Science journalism in a digital age
Selling Science: How The Press Covers Science And Technology

Thank you to Professor Callum Roberts for his time, and for sharing his story and knowledge with Bloom in Doom. You can purchase his latest book, Reef Life An Underwater Memoir here, and follow him on Twitter @ProfCallum.

Thank you to Nathalie Dickson for her beautiful illustration. You can find more of her work on her Instagram @nathalied_art.

Changing the World through Scientific Storytelling: In Conversation with Professor Callum Roberts

We sat down with Professor Callum Roberts - conservationist, University of Exeter academic, Author, Blue Planet II Chief Scientific Advisor and Seaspiracy interviewee. What makes scientific communication effective, and how can the public educate themselves?

“Science is a way of freeing yourself from those malign influences and enabling you to understand what is true and what is false in the world or at least, getting you as close to an understanding of truth as science can take you, given that science is all a process of continuing discovery.”

Emily Gilford