TY - JOUR
AU - Gott, Ryan, C
AB - Explosions, cars on fire, gun shots, homemade flamethrowers? No, I’m not talking about the latest Michael Bay flick. These are actually just a few of the haphazard, dangerous, and sometimes disastrous responses people have had to the arthropods in their lives. As entomologists, we often try to defend arthropods from people, but how can we also protect people from themselves? Entomological science communication can be the answer to both of these challenges. Science communication, or “SciComm,” is any exchange of scientific information, whether among scientists themselves or between scientists (experts) and the public (non-experts). SciComm came into its own as a discipline only recently and has focused increasingly on the challenge that scientists or science communication professionals have in communicating to non-experts. To paraphrase Susanna Priest, SciComm should promote mental engagement with science, encourage a dialogue between experts and non-experts, and typically use informal education methods. SciComm efforts operate on and should promote a public understanding that although no one is excluded from science, no one is expected to constantly engage in it either (Priest 2009). Understanding that people may need to disconnect once in a while acknowledges that humans are “cognitive misers” and do not process all new incoming information with equal time, effort, or retention. People sift through the constant bombardment of information with heuristic techniques (mental shortcuts) to determine whether or not and how they will process it, which has been dubbed the low-information rationality model of information processing (Popkin 1991). The heuristics affecting SciComm include preexisting value judgments of science and scientists, trust of science and scientists in general, opinions of others, and stereotypes, among others (Laslo et al. 2011, Bromme and Goldman 2014). If new scientific information does not align with beliefs or attitudes to pass through these heuristic filters, a person will not exert the necessary mental effort to process and absorb it. Entomological SciComm is an endeavor to navigate through mental shortcuts to deliver information about arthropods and the science behind them. This comes with unique challenges inherent to our chitinous subjects and their relationships with humans. Members of the public are generally less informed about and less familiar with arthropods, including insects, than they are with other animals (Berenbaum 2017). Arthropods also seem to lack the charisma that drives public interest in other organisms (Colléony et al. 2017). With this combined lack of information and interest, public knowledge and attitudes toward arthropods rely on heuristics and tend to be negative in nature, involving fear and anxiety stemming from associations of insects with filth, disease, and damage to crops and structures (Kellert 1993, Davey 1994). Cutting through these ingrained negative heuristics to connect arthropods to positive values and beliefs can be difficult, but not impossible. Examples of major SciComm success stories include the way many entomologists have addressed the public’s increased concern for conservation of monarch butterfly habitats and, more broadly, pollinators, including bees. Many citizens feel a personal connection with these insects. It’s important that we continue to encourage others to process information about insects in a better light, because when people rely solely on heuristics regarding arthropods, there are sometimes dire results. When Entomophobia Rules To illustrate the most extreme examples of negative heuristics related to arthropods that led to serious consequences, I used a set of Google Boolean searches (e.g., bug OR pest AND fire) for news articles between 2005 and December 2018. Fifty-eight stories from around the world revealed dangerous home-brewed pest management practices used as the negative initial reactions born from fear and anxiety toward arthropods. Methods used included various combinations of fire, pesticides, alcohol, and gasoline…and one 40 mm shell that exploded while being used as a crushing implement. Arthropods—including bees, spiders, cockroaches, and bed bugs—were the reported targets of these actions. The damages reported included more than $1,300,000 USD in losses and reconstruction costs, 10 hospitalizations, and the death of one person (Fig. 1). The actual costs were likely much higher because reporting varied, and most news articles did not include updates on monetary damage estimates. Bed bugs were the most common target, with 28% of the articles describing actions taken to kill these insects (Table 1). Table 1. Percentage of news articles, separated by the arthropod targeted by homemade pest control. Where a higher taxon could be divided further based on information in the news article, e.g., order into families, percentages are given for both the total and each lower taxon individually. Open in new tab Table 1. Percentage of news articles, separated by the arthropod targeted by homemade pest control. Where a higher taxon could be divided further based on information in the news article, e.g., order into families, percentages are given for both the total and each lower taxon individually. Open in new tab Fig. 1. Open in new tabDownload slide Reported damages of misinformed pest management actions. Damages are limited to those reported in news articles, and may be underestimated. Fig. 1. Open in new tabDownload slide Reported damages of misinformed pest management actions. Damages are limited to those reported in news articles, and may be underestimated. These tragic events that resulted from a general misunderstanding or fear of arthropods should serve as a prompt to each of us engaged in SciComm to consider our specific communication and audiences. Why are these extreme negative attitudes still so prevalent, despite our already significant efforts? Does our target audience not hear us because we are using inappropriate methods? Are we targeting audiences unwilling to listen, or are we completely missing certain critical audiences? Is our message excluded by heuristics because we are not delivering information that connects to our audience’s values and attitudes? These are questions about which we need to reflect to improve our science communication and connect with broader audiences, which differs from communicating and connecting with a pre-interested subset of the public. External influences also may undermine our science communication efforts. Even as entomologists try to spread the good word about insects, some online news outlets publish sensationalistic “fear factor” articles to garner clicks and advertising revenue. A Google news search for the word “insect” brings up articles with titles such as “Next Biological Weapon Found? Insect Army Being Harnessed in the US,” and “Why There May Be Thousands of Stink Bugs Hiding under Your Sofa” (Fish 2018, da Silva 2018). These headlines play into and reinforce the negative attitudes toward arthropods that prevent positive entomological messages from being processed. Worse, perhaps, than overblown news, false information spreads like wildfire across social media, especially when based on fear. A Facebook post in August 2018 used a University of Nebraska Department of Entomology photo to give credibility to a fake warning about a “new deadly spider” that killed five people in a week and spread across multiple states (Fig. 2). The species pictured is Dysdera crocata Koch, the woodlouse hunting spider, which is harmless to humans. The inaccurate post went viral anyway, gaining millions of likes and shares. Given the apparent readiness of the public to accept negative information about arthropods through nameless posts like this, it may not be surprising that homes have been burned down in response to the mere presence of insects and spiders. Unfortunately, well-intentioned entomological social media efforts are also thwarted by fear tactics used by far more popular accounts that spread false information, such as @NatureisScary on Twitter, which has almost 200,000 followers. The good news is that many entomologists develop and deliver successful outreach every day and often serve as leaders in science communication. Fig. 2. Open in new tabDownload slide The offending Facebook post claiming that the woodlouse hunter spider is a “new deadly species,” which ultimately gained well more than a million likes and shares, contrasted with actual facts about this unassuming spider. (Original creator unknown) Fig. 2. Open in new tabDownload slide The offending Facebook post claiming that the woodlouse hunter spider is a “new deadly species,” which ultimately gained well more than a million likes and shares, contrasted with actual facts about this unassuming spider. (Original creator unknown) The State of SciComm in Entomology is Sound Entomologists have long served as some of the most prolific “SciCommers.” Perhaps the longest-standing entomological SciComm effort in the United States is the Cooperative Extension Service partnered with the land-grant university system (NIFA 2015). Extension professionals effectively communicate with clients and stakeholders through informal educational activities such as tours, printed and electronic newsletters, blogs, webinars, and websites to encourage understanding of and active engagement with entomological concepts that benefit them. Think of a farmer learning about a new, potentially damaging insect, its biology, and its control. The farmer processes and engages with that information presented by their extension agent to manage the pest in their crop to prevent yield losses. Thus, information on insect pests, a subject that would be viewed negatively, is connected to protection of their livelihood—something of core value—and is processed and used, passing the farmer’s heuristic shortcuts. Traditional media such as books and newspapers remain a popular avenue of SciComm to promote entomology. A perfect example is Erica McAlister’s recent book The Secret Life of Flies. This fascinating dive into dipteran life history has gained much attention, and for good reason. It’s accessible, it’s funny, and it’s interesting—the perfect combination to encourage readership and engagement with scientific concepts. Potentially unsavory topics that might turn off an audience if discussed at the get-go, such as sanguivores and disease, are presented after readers have become invested and interested by reading positive stories about fly pollinators that breach initial heuristics. Science comics also provide a medium to explain scientific fact, with the advantage of illustrating concepts that are potentially difficult to describe through words alone, and are worthy of further investigation (Tatalovic 2009, Tribull 2017). Traditional media, such as television news programs and print newspapers, are the preferred method of getting information for older generations (Pew Research Center 2016), and these traditional platforms need to be employed as much as possible in conjunction with online platforms to maximize our SciComm reach. Online SciComm efforts have the advantage of potentially reaching a huge international audience, especially when marketed appropriately on heavily trafficked platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and others. The blog “Ask an Entomologist” and the hashtag #BugID on Twitter, among others, connect to people interested in insects either positively or simply out of curiosity by fielding user-generated questions (Mars et al. 2014). Addressing questions that are born purely out of negative attitudes is more challenging. Panicked submissions of pictures and questions about bed bugs, for example, come from a difficult starting place, and are something many entomologists have experienced in one way or another. The pro-spider @RecluseOrNot? campaign on Twitter—managed by Catherine Scott, Matt Bertone, and Eleanor Rice—tries to assuage fears of brown recluse spiders (Loxosceles reclusa Gertsch & Mulaik) by providing not only information about the distribution and low danger of these spiders, but also interesting facts about whichever species purported to be a brown recluse spider that has been submitted in a photo. SciComm on social media can be used to advocate for entomology as a whole, in addition to question-specific information. Merely teaching people that entomologists exist and impact everyday life can be considered a major accomplishment in many cases. The hashtag #BugsR4Girls on Twitter exemplifies the usefulness of social media to connect to the public in this way. Morgan Jackson enlisted entomologists to use this hashtag to encourage young Sophia Spencer to pursue her interest in insects (Jackson and Spencer 2017). Dalton Ludwick’s hashtag #BillNyeMeetScienceTwitter gained the attention of the titular popular pop-science giant, ultimately giving Ludwick an international stage to stress the importance of entomological research on the Netflix show Bill Nye Saves the World (Bill Nye Saves the World 2018). The public can also learn about insects on the go and on their own schedules with podcasts like Arthro-pod, hosted by Jonathan Larson, Jody Green, and Michael Skvarla. Clearly, entomologists are engaging in SciComm in creative ways, using both traditional media and progressive platforms every day. Taking Our SciComm into the Future How do we continue to improve the quality and reach of our SciComm to achieve goals, such as assuring the public that insects, in fact, do not need to be killed with fire? First, we should strive as a collective whole to have all communication media covered. Interested entomologists are encouraged to create blogs and social media accounts to provide interesting and personal narrative-based accounts of research and entomology. Informative guides about creating, effectively using, and marketing these social media platforms for SciComm can help scientists achieve maximum reach. For example, Twitter becomes more effective for reaching general audiences (i.e., audiences other than researchers in disciplines related to one’s own) when a person has more than 1,000 people following their account (Côté and Darling 2018). Growing a follower count to this size is difficult, so guidance about quickly expanding an account’s reach would be useful for new users. Projects like Morgan Jackson’s growing online list of entomology subject area experts (goo.gl/kieSRs) help to ensure that appropriate experts can be reached when needed. These kinds of lists should be promoted heavily and should be distributed to media outlets to ensure that relevant, informed opinions are delivered to the public. Entomologists could also try to develop their own relationships with their local television and print news outlets to become the go-to source for entomology interviews. It must be noted that SciComm outreach efforts such as these are often not considered during job and tenure evaluation in positions that have no outreach appointment, so it cannot be expected that all scientists will participate. I believe it is more important today than ever before to create jobs and hire SciComm professionals whose sole focus can be effective communication. Second, SciComm could pursue more collaboration with professionals in formal science education. Here I’m choosing to distinguish between the two (i.e., a scientist expert in SciComm or a trained school educator in science education) based on who is communicating and where the education is happening (informal non-classroom settings in SciComm; formal school classrooms or labs in science education). This distinction may be tenuous at best in some situations, but we can use it here as a simple framework. By bringing researchers and practitioners from the two fields together in open dialogue, we can identify the unique strengths of each field, what is missing in each field, and how the two might synergize (Baram-Tsabari and Osborne 2015). As we examine the links that exist among knowledge, communication, values, and attitudes about science (Allum et al. 2008), cooperative and creative solutions and research-based educational strategies would benefit both fields and fill those gaps. The annual Invertebrates in Education and Conservation Conference, part of the Terrestrial Invertebrates Taxon Advisory Group, could be a fruitful starting point for these discussions. Entomological SciComm and science education professionals could also unite within ESA, perhaps in an appointed network or task force that spans sections (such as Professional Extension, Education, and Communication [PEEC]), to connect those at the forefront of interacting with the public and enhance our advocacy for entomology at local and national scales. We need to connect to our audiences’ core values, beliefs, and attitudes with relevant, beneficial information so that we are not completely ignored (Dietz 2013, Fischhoff 2013). Our communication must be guided by an understanding of how society at large interprets science (Nisbet and Scheufele 2009). The public’s basic questions that inform their judgment of science, such as “Does science/scientific knowledge even work?” need to be considered (Marris 2001, Marris et al. 2001). These challenges can be addressed more effectively with an increased emphasis on engagement and interpretation in our science communication (Pearson 2019). Bringing science to the people and allowing them to participate in that science can help build bridges between science and the public into the future, and hopefully prevent a few fires at the same time. Acknowledgments I thank David Coyle, Karly Regan, and Rebecca Schmidt-Jeffris for their comments on previous versions of this piece. References Cited Allum , N. , P. Sturgis , D. Tabourazi , and I. Brunton-Smith . 2008 . Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: a meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science 17 : 35 – 54 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Baram-Tsabari , A. , and J. Osborne . 2015 . Bridging science education and science communication research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 52 : 135 – 144 . Berenbaum , M.R. 2017 . Communicating about science communication: a brief entomological history. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 110 : 435 – 438 . Bill Nye Saves the World . 2018 . What is your pet really thinking? Netflix . 11 May 2018. OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Bromme , R. , and S.R. Goldman . 2014 . The public’s bounded understanding of science. Educational Psychologist 49 : 59 – 69 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Colléony , A. , S. Clayton , D. Couvet , M. Saint Jalme , and A.-C. Prevot . 2017 . Human preferences for species conservation: animal charisma trumps endangered status. Biological Conservation 206 : 263 – 269 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Côté , I.M. , and E.S. Darling . 2018 . Scientists on Twitter: preaching to the choir or singing from the rooftops? FACETS 3 : 682 – 694 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Davey , G.C.L. 1994 . Self-reported fears to common indigenous animals in an adult UK population: the role of disgust sensitivity. British Journal of Psychology 85 : 541 – 554 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat da Silva , R. 2018 . Why there may be thousands of stink bugs hiding under your sofa. The Conversation, 28 October 2018 . http://theconversation.com/why-there-may-be-thousands-of-stink-bugs-hiding-under-your-sofa-100353 (accessed January 2020 ). Dietz , T. 2013 . Bringing values and deliberation to science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 : 14081 – 14087 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Fischhoff , B. 2013 . The sciences of science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 : 14033 – 14039 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Fish , T. 2018 . Next biological weapon found? Insect army being harnessed in the US. Express: Home of the Daily and Sunday Express, 27 October 2018 . https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1035340/darpa-insect-allies-insect-bioweapon-biological-weapon-us-military (accessed January 2020 ). Jackson , M.D. , and S. Spencer . 2017 . Engaging for a good cause: Sophia’s story and why #BugsR4Girls. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 110 : 439 – 448 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Kellert , S.R. 1993 . Values and perceptions of invertebrates. Conservation Biology 7 : 845 – 855 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Laslo , E. , A. Baram-Tsabari , and B.V. Lewenstein . 2011 . A growth medium for the message: online science journalism affordances for exploring public discourse of science and ethics. Journalism 12 : 847 – 870 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Marris , C. 2001 . Public views on GMOs: Deconstructing the myths. EMBO Reports 2 : 545 – 548 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Marris , C. , B. Wynne , P. Simmons , and S. Weldon . 2001 . Public perceptions of agricultural biotechnologies in Europe: final report of PABE research project, Centre for the Study of Environmental Change (CSEC). www.lancaster.ac.uk/fss/projects/ieppp/pabe/docs/pabe_finalreport.doc (accessed November 2018 ). Mars , J. , N. Miorelli , and J. Ballenger . 2014 . Ask an Entomologist. https://askentomologists.com/ (accessed November 2018 ). NIFA (National Institute for Food and Agriculture) . 2015 . Cooperative Extension history . Available from https://nifa.usda.gov/cooperative-extension-history (accessed October 2018 ). Nisbet , M.C. , and D.A. Scheufele . 2009 . What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany 96 : 1767 – 1778 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Pearson , G.A. 2019 . Alternative facts and entomological engagement. Annals of the Entomological Society of America say055. https://doi.org/10.1093/aesa/say055 (accessed February 2019 ). OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Pew Research Center . 2016 . The modern news consumer: news attitudes and practices in the digital era . http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/pathways-to-news/ (accessed January 2019 ). Popkin , S.L. 1991 . The reasoning voter. University of Chicago Press , Chicago . Priest , S.H. 2009 . Reinterpreting the audiences for media messages about science, pp. 223 – 236 . In R. Holliman , E. Whitelegg , E. Scanlon , S. Smidt and J. Thomas (eds.). Investigating science communication in the Information Age: implications for public engagement and popular media . Oxford University Press . Oxford, UK . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Tatalovic , M. 2009 . Science comics as tools for science education and communication: a brief, exploratory study. Journal of Science Communication 8 : A02 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Tribull , C.M. 2017 . Sequential science: a guide to communication through comics. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 110 : 457 – 466 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat © The Author 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Entomological Society of America. This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)
TI - Please, Don’t Kill It with Fire: An Exploration of Entomological Science Communication
JF - American Entomologist
DO - 10.1093/ae/tmaa013
DA - 2020-03-12
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/please-don-t-kill-it-with-fire-an-exploration-of-entomological-science-o05eS3cGs5
SP - 56
VL - 66
IS - 1
DP - DeepDyve
ER -