Engaging the Public About Science - (It's Not About Science)

He's helped lead the project to sequence the strawberry genome and continues an active research program. Somehow I don't know where he gets the time to do that. He's well known for engaging with the public through outreach programs. He has a blog, he has a podcast, very active on social media. In 2016, Folta was awarded the Borlaug-Cast Communication Award. I like these quotations that Cass cited, his ability to focus on clear, credible information. And then Julie Borlaug said that Folta has not shied away from controversial subjects and has been the number one target of anti-science movement on behalf of all of us who support biotechnology. So Kevin is a busy guy. I don't think he sleeps. He just does a lot of things. So welcome, Kevin.

Well, thank you. I do sleep. I sleep between 1 and 5 every night, no matter what. So thank you very much for having me aboard. This is a really exciting time to talk about this topic at an animal meeting. I'm a plant biologist. I'm a plant molecular biologist, a plant genomicist. But what I'll talk about today is my investigation into an animal, a very curious animal, known as the concerned consumer. And so everything we talk about in terms of biotechnology and whether it's accepted or not really hinges upon how well we as scientists and folks in agriculture touch that consumer and how we interact with that consumer. And it's something that I've been working very hard at for 17 years and something I've done horribly wrong for the majority of it. I found that by trying to venture into that space to help people understand what the science is, I actually was creating more of a problem for science to penetrate that area. And it's really only been in the last 5 years that I've really started to understand how people think and how people work. And I'd like to share that with you today. But the bottom line is, is that it's really not about science. We know certainly from many different examples that there are many different opinions about science and society. society and whether or not we should be using it, whether or not it's real, whether or not we trust the people that are doing it. It even came up in the room here today. And part of the problem has been that we as scientists and scientific interests have not engaged the public. And when we do, we do it wrong. And so we'll talk about that. The good news is, is that people are asking questions. And there are some consumers who are out there who are working very hard to understand what they're feeding to their families. What are all of these curious terms like neonics and hormones? They're doing the hard work to find credible sources to understand what these are. And they are to be commended. But they're very few. There's quite a few people that are driving the controversy, a very small vocal minority of people in the population that are— the sky is falling. They're very loud, very persistent, and people are listening. But the vast majority are the people in that blue piece of the pie. This woman here who will show up a few times in the talk today, she doesn't know who to believe. She doesn't know who to trust. She's hearing this very loud precautionary message from the person in the yellow piece of the pie and another message from others, and she doesn't know what to believe. And she's a very important person in our story because she's the one that we typically neglected. The problem is, is that when people don't know who to trust, they make some mistakes. They tend to err towards the side of precaution. They may make lifestyle-based choices upon advice given by others who aren't necessarily people familiar with science. They accept messaging that it's consistent with their values rather than necessarily scientific information. They make mistakes. They enact bad policy. And And worst of all is that when we do this, we forget about the most vulnerable in our populations, both in this country and beyond, that tend to be affected by bad policy and by bad decisions when we malign good technology. So this is a really important point. There are bigger issues as well. And for me, this is the one that really hits home as a scientist with an active program, is the collateral effects. And I see my colleagues' work, I see work in a place like this where there's a tremendous amount of innovation that's not getting to application, that these technologies are bogged down in regulatory hurdles and loops of red tape, that they never hit home to serve the people by which they were intended to serve. And for those of us in academic positions who are independent, who make decisions that are based upon the data that come out of the experiment, our innovations that are very strong and could have tremendous impacts for the environment or the needy are stuck. And it's really frustrating for folks like me, and I think that this kind of abyss is really just a very strong reminder that all of us in this room have some work to do to be communicating these concepts with people who are concerned about food and farming. So how do we fix it? And part of the problem— part of the issue is, is that it takes scientists and people in agriculture We have to be talking to people. We must take this message ourselves. We have to be taking it to people. The problem is, is that it's difficult. It's a very wide divide, and most of us who are in science, we haven't been trained as communicators. We don't know how to talk to people. A lot of us choose this profession because we don't have to talk to people, right? We can go sit in the office and work on papers and grants and, you know, teach a class here and there. But it is— it's maybe because we don't want to talk to people. to engage the public. And the problem is, is that this leads to problems when we do try to engage. And so I'll show you some of the mistakes we make. It all boils down to this curious thing in our heads, this brain, and the way that we process information. And there's been some very nice books on this, one of which is by Nobel laureate Dan Kahneman. And what Dan Kahneman tells us is that there's 2 really basic parts in which we as humans process information. There's one part that he calls System 1. It's emotional, it's reactive, it's irrational. It's the one, it's the one that makes fast decisions. This is about evolution and survival. This is the one that makes the decision to move fast. There's a second system that is slow, logical, processing, methodical. Integrating. So in other words, these 2 different systems can be typified as System 2, I just bought a Speedo, and if I'm gonna wear this thing to the beach, I better watch my calories and do some push-ups. System 1 says, I want ice cream. Okay? So there's, there's 2 very different systems that are working kind of in opposition to each other. And messages of fear and emotional triggers hit that System 1 really hard. And that's where the fear elements of the discussion around biotechnology, that's where they're targeted. And people know who are against the technologies that that's where you hit. Show the pictures of the lumpy rats. Say the children will have autism. Those are the kinds of messages that we see from the technology— from the movements which really are working against biotechnology. Those of us in science come back and say, hey, look at Figure 3. Let me show you the data. Let me show you this. And so you can see how a battle between these 2 very different ways of information processing, how we tend to appeal to the wrong one. The other big thing we're up against is that humans tend to exhibit tribal behaviors. And this again is an evolutionarily ingrained mechanism that helped make us very successful as a species. We tend to associate with others of similar worldview, share ideas with people of like-mindedness. We tend to adopt and defend different premises even if they're wrong. That we tend to— we don't want to be singled out of our tribe, right? So we tend to adopt the ideas of others that are around us. A phenomenon called cultural cognition. Groups tend to identify based upon their beliefs. And even the folks who claim to be against biotechnology or against vaccines, very, very strong identity within those groups. And what's really interesting about tribes is that even if we don't Have a tribe, or, well, we are all in one way or another, but we tend to create tribes just because it's a good time. You know, we're comfortable with like-minded people, and even if that's around some sort of spurious event or association, we tend to be very comfortable in those tribes and form very deep-seated relationships within them. So part of our way of getting out of the— out of— to discuss with other people what this technology is and isn't, is to remember that reptile brain that's fast and reactive, and to remember that people are part of tribes that can be recalcitrant to information that challenges their beliefs. So the way that we're going to break through, and the way that all of us have to start revising our thinking and our strategies towards approaching the public, is to establish trust by getting around that reactive brain and tribal tendencies. And the way to do that is to establish first that we're not a threat. We don't threaten the other tribe and we're not going to give messages that will appeal to that reactive, irrational brain. It's very difficult to do, but I'll give you some ideas on how to do that. It boils down to listening, empathy, this concept of shared values, but a word that I really like is building rapport. And it really is about trust. And we talked a little bit about this briefly today. You know, scientists and folks in agriculture already have an outstanding basis for trust. We're considered competent and knowledgeable. Why some— there is a perception of a lack of independence. If you go to biofortified.org, it came up earlier about, you know, industry drives everything and is on all the papers. If you go to biofortified.org, there's a database called Genera. That shows that 50%, at least 50% of the papers in biotechnology are derived from independent sources. And when that 50% agrees with— or the industry stuff agrees with that 50%, that's pretty reasonable data that we're looking at robust information. The problem is, is that even though we're perceived as knowledgeable, that we're good sources of information, when we go to the public, we do it wrong. And so this is what we're going to fix today. As scientists, how do we build trust? How do we think we're going to build trust? Well, you know what? We go into this situation with a hammer and we say we're going to educate them. We will give you information. We have letters after our names. We will save you from your ignorance, right? I did it for a long time, and I'll tell you what, I didn't change any hearts and minds. I made people mad. I actually worked against our mission. I mean, this is what— this was an amazing revelation for me, that here I was as a guy who was thinking that I was solving a situation and putting a lot of energy into it only to make it worse. How do we do it? Facts don't matter. Now, to scientists, and probably most of you in this room, that is a really scary statement. Facts don't matter.

What?

Here we are sharing with each other facts and information, and so we talk to the public, it doesn't matter. They don't care. To us, It's great. That's the conduit. That's our dialogue. That's our language. But when we're talking to a concerned parent in the produce section of the grocery store, she doesn't care what transgene it was or how it was regulated. She wants to know if she can feed it to her kids. And that's why it's important not to bury people with information, but instead to build trust. Trust is the magic word. Maya Angelou says it very well here. I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel. And this is what we have to remember as scientists, is that all the stuff that we do that oozes out of a test tube doesn't matter until we make it matter to somebody, you know, until we were able to touch their heart with the science that we do. And this is what we have to do if we're going to make a change in the communication in this area. So instead of So rather than beating people to death with data, we have to learn about audience empathy, values, and what is the correct evidence. And I'll zip through that in the rest of today's talk. So first of all, audience. And this is the most important sentence I've distilled over the last 17 years. People are seeking honest answers about science, medicine, food, and farming, and they don't know who to trust. That is the most important statement. If you take home anything today, that is really it. They're looking for information. So, are you going to get it, you know, from— are you going to change Ronald McDonald with the meat cleaver down there, or, you know, these other folks with your information if you engage them? You're not. You have to be engaging the people who are just seeking the information, the blue part of that pie. You're not going to get anywhere with them. Work with them. They want to know what you think. The other trick is building that rapport pipeline. Coming up with this— and rapport is a beautiful word. If you look at the dictionary definition, a close and harmonious relationship in which people or groups concerned understand each other's feelings and ideas and communicate well. That before you hit people with facts, you have to develop this pipeline of trust. I call it pre-sciencing. That before you start using the science and evidence, show who you are and why you do it. Develop the trust. And the ways that we develop trust come from different examples. Law enforcement is a good one. We look at hostage negotiation. The way that they used to solve the problem of hostage negotiation would be to have a hostage negotiator or tactical person on the ground say, okay, we'll rappel in a SWAT team. We'll throw in a concussion grenade. We'll have people storm up both staircases and seize the hostages. And people got killed. People got hurt. It was a failed idea because the System 1, that irrational reptile brain of that hostage taker, was what you were working against. You have to be able to appeal to that System 2. And that's what came out in this book called Never Split the Difference by Chris Voss, another great book for you to listen to or take a look at. He talks about this idea of active listening. When you're actively listening, you're not listening to somebody to debate them. You're listening to them to understand them. And scientists, we're not good at this. We're in this for the debate, right? We're listening to try to figure out how we're going to, you know, catch your mistake. Intellectual charity. The idea where we actually go to help someone reinforce their argument against us. We give them evidence that defeats us. And that idea of intellectual charity means If we're helping them build their argument, we must really understand their argument. And we develop a lot of trust in that situation by practicing intellectual charity. Some people know of the straw man argument, the easy-to-knock-down one. This is where you're helping them construct the steel man argument, right? You're giving them the— you're showing them that you're going to help them build this argument. It gives them a sense of power and control in that conversation. And now you start to develop trust with somebody who has a very different mindset. The other person we can learn from is Aristotle, and this is a really important part too, that he always told us that good persuasion was based upon 3 points: on ethos, logos, and pathos. Pathos being the root of sympathy and empathy, logos meaning words. So really what you're setting up there is emotion with pathos versus logic with words. The heart versus the head. The heart always wins, right? It's that scare reptile part of the brain again coming back. What we have to do as scientists and folks who are interested in the scientific message is to lead with our ethics, to key off of logos. Why do you do what you do? Why is it important to you? What are your values? And I think that's what's really important, is if we go to this idea of Why we do what we do. What are our mutual concerns that we share with someone who has concerns about biotechnology? Well, for us, it's about increasing the information in basic research. It might be about helping farmers maintain profitability as 1% of the population feeds the other 99%, which is a rather precarious situation in my mind. Something to go for the needy throughout the world. better food and better products for the American consumer, and doing all of this with the most environmental sustainability. These are the things that get me excited. These are the reasons I'm so excited to be the chairman of a department in plant biology, because this is what my faculty does every single day. These are our values. These are the things that we do and the things we care about. If we lead with our values, that's how we build trust. So the other big part of this is the evidence that we present must reinforce those values. We talk about the way that the evidence that we have helps create a better product that can solve the problem for swine that are suffering from a disease, that can solve the problem of disease in a crop that grows exclusively in a part of India and is a staple part of the diet. Those are the conversations that help ease the suspicion. around new technologies. So the whole idea is developing rapport with knowing your audience, practicing listening with intellectual charity, sharing your values, and letting the evidence come from areas that reinforce the values. This is how we have to connect with the consumer. The last part of the talk is where do we connect and how do we participate in this dialogue? And scientists, we're getting better at this. And if you don't do it, I need you to start.

Thank you.

And unfortunately, the major discussion is happening in social media space. We have to be present in that space, sharing our values and talking about technology based upon the values that we hold important. There's 2 ways that you participate, either by generating content or by sharing the content of others. So you don't have to ever write anything. You just have to share the information from those who do. Building networks of people who are sharing ideas. This is what the folks opposed to technology have been doing for 30 years. They did it before the internet. For us to push back, we need to be doing the same thing, using the networks that are present. Think of it this way. If you generate a new piece of information and share it with 1,000 followers, which isn't very hard to do in social media, and then those 1,000 followers share it with 1,000 followers, your idea has now hit 1 million people. Think of the power of that, that with just 5 minutes in the morning to write something that can reach 1 million people. That's an amazing way for us to be able to disseminate messages through social media space. And this is what an actual social media network looks like. Each dot is a different user that's connected by Twitter to another. And you can see the power that that small dot down in the bottom corner here, the small little purple dot in the bottom left, can speak with this entire network. Down in the bottom left, there's those lines that connect to each other. That's us. That's us talking to each other. Or scientists talking to scientists, farmers talking to farmers. We're good at talking to others in our tribe. So we have to be able to be that node, that red dot that's like a spoke on a wheel that's able to— or a hub on a wheel with lots of spokes that is speaking to many different places to disseminate that information. How do we do that? Well, you have to reach out from within your comfort zone and your tribe. You have to create content, but create content for other tribes. Be the trusted source outside of your immediate group. Can you as a scientist be the trusted scientists in with dietitians or physicians? Can you be the trusted scientist in the farmer group? Can you be the farmer that's in the group of athletes? It's very possible, and all you have to do is do it. For early career people, this is a great way to develop a brand. You know, students, postdocs, you know, early career faculty. You can develop a brand very quickly by using these principles. We can talk about that some other day. Cook's Cook Magazine. You can kinda guess who the shoppers are, who would— where they would shop if they read Cook's Cook. High-end foodie stuff, right? Well, I wrote an article for them, for free, on genetic engineering, lost opportunities. And I didn't talk about Roundup Ready and BT. I talked about the vitamin-enriched crops that could change the lives of others around the world, yet are stymied in a web of regulatory disorder. I talked about those examples, again, playing off of values. And leading with our values and ethics. I write articles for physicians groups. You can do this too. They would love to have your thoughts. Writing for farmers about complex topics like gene editing so that they can now carry that message and talk to their clientele and people in their communities, their churches, about what this technology is and isn't. It's about creating that messaging and then disseminating it. Parents' magazines, they'd love to hear from scientists. They need to know who to trust. I do a podcast every week, as was mentioned, and we share information on those podcasts. Like the coffee episode has been downloaded 30,000 times. We can now put that coffee medicine— or coffee episode on the Maxwell House website. You can put that coffee episode in the Starbucks website, and people will listen to that and learn to trust science. because they understand it better. The last area is amplification. You can have a huge effect on this conversation simply by amplifying the information. This comes from someone in my department did a story about a new gene that he discovered. I wrote about how it was linked— this gene in corn was linked to a gene that was found in cancers. So this idea of being able to disseminate information, scientific information, through nontraditional channels is very important. And of course, sharing the information of farmers who already have tremendous amounts of trust. The last thing I'll conclude with is how to deal with trolls. They're very, very important. Jay Baer writes a book called Hug Your Haters, and the reason I want you to know this is because it's important. The internet is a spectator sport, and people are watching how you're going to behave in that space. And all of us as scientists and folks associated with ag Need to be in that space with grace and handle these, taking the high road. Here's a good example of how it works. This is a great way to earn trust. And this comes from a Yelp review. Taste of Venice Restaurant, food was awful, service horrible. If you think this is Italian food, go open a jar of Prego. It might be Taste of Venice if you drink the canal water. I'll never eat there again.

Right.

So upset client. Chef Mario from the restaurant comes in and defends his family's business. Obviously, you know nothing about Italian food. It's my family's restaurant. Hope you never return. We don't need people like you here. Did Chef Mario earn your trust, and would you go eat at Taste of Venice?

Nope.

That's us as scientists, right? We're coming back and saying, here are the facts, not saying we understand and here's how we're going to fix it. What he should have done was this. I'm sorry you had a bad experience. Meals out should be special times, and I understand why you're disappointed. There's that empathy, right? Listening. My family has run this business for 15 years, and consumer satisfaction is our first priority.

Values.

We'd love to try again, so come in, ask for Chef Mario, and dinner's on me. I'd like to sit down and learn what was objectionable. We're sorry. You were disappointed. Now, you, as one of the thousands of eyes who are reading that Yelp review, are now compelled to listen to Chef Mario. He's earned your trust. This is what we can do as scientists if we learn to hug our haters and learn that the people who are pushing back against us are really just opportunities for us to impress those that are watching. Because they're the ones who are watching. They're wondering who to trust. Thank you. We can do that. We can be it. So to wrap things up, identify your audience. Remember that facts don't matter until you've earned their trust. Effective communication starts with establishing rapport. That scientists and academics are good at talking to each other, but we need to be in those other tribes and other spaces. We need to generate content, amplify the work of others, use conduits to build a brand, handle criticism with class, and most of all, Defend science. Defend scientists and the people who are taking the heat because they're standing up for what's important for science to go forward. So I will stop there. Very happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Kevin.