# Becoming a science champion

> We should be advocates for general scientific literacy in our organisations and the public.

The previous sections developed the main points of the manifesto and are an attempt to provide the best practices for doing outreach and to show how academic institutions can foster and promote outreach. However, we believe that the effort of individuals is still fundamental in changing the way science and evidence-based decision making is viewed and approached in society. This section will discuss how we, as individual researchers, have the responsibility to advocate for
scientific literacy and the importance of evidence based thinking.
> [name=Camila Rangel Smith i think something]
From herd immunity going into dangerous low levels
due to the anti-vaccine propaganda to climate change deniers occupying top offices in government, science denial has
become a threat to our society and the future of our planet. Furthermore, at the moment the fields of data science and
artificial intelligence are prone to hyperbole and hype that create misconceptions and over-expectations.
> []
Scientists not only need to spread scientific knowledge, they need to help the public separate the hype from reality as well as address the social drivers of science denial [1].

In the following sub-sections we will provide some ideas in how to assume this
responsibility. These recommendations come from either personal experiences or literature review from
experts in science communication and outreach.

## Become more approachable as a scientist

Because science has its own secret language, it can be intimidating to the general public thus creating a myth around the idea of
who a scientist is and what they do. Some of the stereotypes are exacerbated by popular culture or the fact that researchers
can be a rare species (according to UNESCO, in 2013 there were only 7.8 million full-time researchers in the wold [3]). All this
means that is our responsibility to demystify the typical idea of a scientist.

One first steps to become approachable is to understand that we are all at some level, science communicators, therefore
we need to have decent communication skills. A useful thing to have is the so-called "elevator pitch",
where in two minutes you try to sell your what you do for work to a neighbour, a family member or even potential employer. An effective
pitch can get people exited about science and even educate about the importance of taxpayer-funded research [4].
Whilst designing your pitch we need to have in mind who is our audience, avoid jargon and always aim for the
the big picture, as well as any other practices discussed in section 04.

One of the easiest ways to engage in outreach as an individual and become more approachable is to use your own social
media profiles. The typical individual scientist’s social media audience is large and personally connected,
allowing scientists to serve as a science advocate for their online friend and family networks.
Posting science related news as well as sharing the process of doing science in your everyday life can be an easy
way to keep interested colleagues, family, and friends informed about scientific topics. Furthermore,
in the era where fake news and alternate facts are common, scientists have the expertise to
vet online content for scientific accuracy. Any scientist can quickly post a comment or share a link to correct
misinformation in txhe news or on a conversation thread with minimal effort [5].

## Be an advocate for data and evidence

Scientists are trained in the scientific method which promotes evidence over believe. This practice should not
be restricted only to our research, but used to all areas of our life.
When making decisions, consuming news or building opinions we must always consider all the available evidence and data.
Furthermore, we should be evangelists of this practice with people around us.

Some of the small actions we can take in this direction:

* When discussing with family and friends, lead by example and use evidence to backup arguments (it would be nice
to have an link to how to do this properly).
* Actively work with those closest to us to recognise false news (particularly with the older generations that might not be tech savy),
* Have a curated pool of media sources with a high reputation for publishing data-driven confirmed information, share this
with your close ones.
* Demand the media that you consume to include links to the data or original sources they discuss in their articles (e.g., if they are talking about a scientific result they should link to the original paper).

Finally, we need to be extremely vigilant on our own sensitivity to confirmation bias (both in our lives and our research),
this is the tendency to cherry-pick evidence that confirms our existing beliefs. There are some techniques that you can use
in order to reduce confirmation bias, for example you can avoid forming a hypothesis too early when consuming new information,
frequently ask yourself why your hypothesis might be wrong, or why alternative hypotheses might be right, finally always try to
process new information in a conscious and unemotional manner [2].

## Addressing science denial and desinformation,

Fake news, alternative facts, although they are new terms in our vocabulary, they are not a new phenomenon
but their dissemination has been accelerated by social media. As scientists we are drawn to denounce science deniers, by exposing them and providing scientific evidence to shows
that they are wrong, but this might not be the most effective way to get people on our side.

Research on the backfire effect phenomenon shows that when we are presented with
facts and knowledge that threatens our self-conception and worldview, we tend to refuse to
accept the facts and retreat further to our initial beliefs[5].

Whilst talking to a potential science denier, think about who is your audience to frame your message,
a person that believes anti-vaccine propaganda, does not necessarily subscribes to the idea that human made climate change is a
hoax, they are not denying in all science, but just some part of it. We must listen first to understand the mentality
behind the denial, and taylor our message accordingly. A popular technique from psychology that you could use can be
summarized under the acronym EGRIP (emotions, goals, rapport, information and positive reinforcement)[6], you can find a
detailed explanation in how to use it in here [7].

Finally, we must always remember that we are representing our institutions and science itself, and that engaging into
useless discussions with trolls or ridiculing 'non-believers' is not going to foster the trust that we need so badly to
build up.

# Further reading

1. [Science denial: a guide for scientists](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2012.10.002)
2. [Practices and promises of Facebook for science outreach: Becoming a “Nerd of Trust”](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2002020)
3. [Unesco Science Report: towards 2030](https://en.unesco.org/unesco_science_report)
4. [Communication: Two minutes to impress](https://www.nature.com/naturejobs/science/articles/10.1038/nj7435-137a)
5. [Identity and Epistemic Emotions During Knowledge Revision: A Potential Account for the Backfire Effect](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1136507)
6. [The Truth-Seeker's Handbook: A Science-Based Guide](https://www.amazon.com/Truth-Seekers-Handbook-Science-Based-Guide-ebook/dp/B078429WCF)
7. [How to Talk to a Science Denier without Arguing](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/how-to-talk-to-a-science-denier-without-arguing/)