In this episode, I'm joined science-communication researcher Miguel Vissers for a funny, honest, and wildly insightful look at how science actually reaches the public—and why it so often goes wrong. Check out the links below to see Miguel's work and check back for updates as one of the pieces of research we discuss will be available soon.

We start with the question, why science needs its own communication field and whether this is a unique case. We also cover Miguel's area of expertise and look at how press releases shape the news you see—sometimes a little too directly. The conversation also touches on lessons learned during the pandemic regarding transparency, trust, and mixed messaging. Why scientists, journalists, governments, and influencers all talk past each other. And finally… how Joe Rogan went from “gateway to science curiosity” to “uh oh.”

Takeaways:

• The podcast episode delves into the intricacies of science communication, particularly its role in bridging the gap between scientific research and public understanding.
• The challenges faced by scientists in conveying their findings effectively.
• The balance that science communicators must maintain between promoting scientific advancements and critically evaluating the implications of such research for society.
• The necessity of transparency in science communication, especially in light of the public's increasing skepticism towards scientific authorities and findings.

  This is the only link you need to subscirbe and never miss an episode of Two Brad For You. Please do rate and review it really helps us out.

  If you'd like to support the show with currency click here. We are grateful for that too. Finally, you can check out the website here.

  Many thanks to Freak Motif for the music and Sebastian Abboud for the logo.

  • Surfing the COVID-19 news waves - Journal of Science Communication
  • Miguel Vissers on LinkedIn
  • BE Sci Comm - BE SciComm is a community of science communicators, bringing together researchers, journalists, press officers, communication officers, policy makers, designers, event organizers, students, and anyone interested in science communication.
  • About Miguel Vissers | University of Antwerp
  • It’s the science, stupid! by Miguel Vissers for Big Bang Magazine - A warning against scientism and a proposal for science communication focused more on scientific process(es) than scientific facts

What is up, Brad fans?

How you doing?

How you living?

In this episode, I am joined by Miguel Vissers, who is a science communication researcher at the University of Antwerp.

And the conversation was recorded a couple weeks ago.

But I don't think that really matters because the topics we're talking about are, as we say, evergreen.

We, of course, are talking about science communication.

And as you'll hear in the episode, I start with this question of how many other disciplines, how many other fields have a communications branch?

You know, another field that's solely dedicated on communicating what's going on in that original field, you might say politics, but that's more journalism and commentary, and then the politicians and the governments themselves trying to communicate what it is they're doing.

Somewhat similar to science, but I'm not sure that it's a totally great comparison.

But.

But science, we do have this conundrum that feels even more important in recent times of we need to get that message out there.

We need to let people know what we're doing, why we're doing it, why it's good, why they should support us.

And then also, in some cases, as we talk about in the episode, such as the pandemic, which nobody wants to talk about anymore, scientists need to be able to prescribe what is safe or appropriate behaviors, right?

So it's a very complex topic.

And we talk about Miguel's research specifically, which is about the newsworthiness of science, what makes science newsworthy, and how does that translate from, you know, say, a press release into the actual media.

We talk about this balance of trying to be a cheerleader for science but also being critical.

So there's the different roles, right?

The science communicator, the pure science communicator, versus the science journalist.

And a lot of times, science journalists often, too, fall into this, wanting to be cheerleaders for science, but also needing to be critical and why that's so important to be able to balance those two things.

We talk about using different mediums, the new mediums that are coming out, and how this influences how we consume our science communication and how science communication communicators must put their message out.

So social media and, of course, podcasts.

And we end the discussion with a very interesting, I thought, conversation about the number one podcast.

Well, maybe not anymore, but Mr. Joe Rogan, I start off with the point that I thought at one point that podcast was the greatest thing to happen to science communication in a long time.

Obviously, that's changed.

But we discuss what's going on in this space, how one individual has that much influence and what they can do with it, and also how we see the evolution of that podcast and maybe what can we learn from that sort of journey?

It was a really interesting conversation and it had me thinking a lot.

Warning, bit of a tangent here.

Had me thinking a lot about the last couple episodes and some of the topics that I've been digging into in my science journalism work, which is really starting to push for me the idea that science is such a human thing, it is such a human endeavor.

It's, it's so human to want to look at the world around you and explain it and understand it and then also make it better, make it better for our, ourselves in terms of technologies and luxuries and things that we can do much easier.

But it also involves making the lives of humans better with medicine and things like this.

But are we necessarily making the world better?

Think about our relationship to nature and what science might do for us, but might come at the expense of nature.

And so I think this all blends into why we have this science communication field.

Because ultimately we, most people do science to make society better, to solve some problem, to answer some question.

And therefore we want to be able to say to the people that are funding the science, of course this is what we're doing.

This is why it's important.

And like I said at the top, this is why maybe we should change the behaviors of what we're doing.

It's either impacting the environment, it's making us less healthy, it's making us, our world more dangerous, these types of things.

So really fascinating journey I've been on on the last couple episodes, so go back and check some of those out.

But also this conversation with Miguel was very in depth.

He's very knowledgeable.

He's a great person to talk to about, about all these things.

And I really, really enjoyed the conversation.

So before we get to that, of course, like, subscribe, follow this channel on YouTube, on your podcast platform, wherever you're getting us.

It really, really helps out the visibility of the show.

If you drop a, like a comment, anything like that, you can reach out to me on Instagram oobrad4u or with the email tobrad4umail.com thanks so much for listening.

And now here's my conversation with Miguel Vissers.

Miguel, welcome.

Thank you for taking the time.

Thanks for joining me today.

I think we should probably start and let people know that we know each other a little bit already.

We're colleagues, we're both board members now of the Beach Group, this nonprofit here in Belgium that's working to professionalize, organize science communication in Belgium.

So this isn't our first conversation on these topics.

No, no, it isn't.

We, we've seen each other a couple of times and we had a couple of beers as well.

So.

Yeah, it's Friday morning, so no beers yet.

But yeah, we'll see how long this conversation goes and how deep it goes and maybe we'll have to start one by lunch.

Let's see.

So I wanted to start with just getting your sort of your origin story, let's say, in terms of science communication, because you are a researcher, science communication researcher.

And I always find this interesting, you know, that the more I get into science communication and stuff, you know, as a student, as a PhD student, it was always like that push from academia.

We have to get our stuff out.

We're funded by taxpayer dollars.

We need to communicate.

That makes sense to me.

Now I'm a journalist reporting on science.

So it's like there's, there's another angle there and now there's an angle of research.

So there's this big thing, science communication that I don't think a lot of other fields have.

You know, you don't have economist communication or, you know, this.

Maybe that might fit broad in broad science communication.

But I think you see what I mean, there's this interesting thing happening here.

It's pretty unique in that there's this field that we have, science broadly called, and then another field that's all about talking about that field, maybe politics is something similar.

But anyway.

And so then you have people that research how that communication is done and they kind of sit in between science and science communication.

And that's quite fascinating to, fascinating to me.

And I never really encountered a lot of science communication researchers until I came to Belgium and joined this BECOM group.

So I'm being pretty long winded here.

But let me throw it over to you.

How did you get interested in this field, science communication?

When did it start?

And in telling us this, you can kind of tell us what it is that you look at specifically.

It is quite a weird spot to be in, in a sense that indeed you're like, you're doing science social sciences for me and more specifically like communication studies, but you're also doing science communication as a practice, which is also expected of you, like you already said.

But how, how did it start?

Well, it started with an interest for me in journalism studies.

During my, my, bachelor's in communication studies.

I had this one professor who gave like journalism lectures and, like, journalism practice and also journalism studies.

And I was really fascinated by it.

I thought, I want to do a PhD in that.

Like, in my third year of my bachelor's, I was like, okay, I think I want to go into academia.

And I had always been fascinated by science communication and more specifically by philosophy of science, in a sense that I liked.

Lectures by mostly Belgian philosophers talking about, like, how thinking works, how science works, like, literally communicating about the workings of science, also about conspiracy theories and all that kind of stuff.

It really fascinated me as a teenager.

And so when I saw this opportunity to go on a project that combined, like, science communication and journalism studies, I just went for it.

And I was lucky to get it.

The position, and it's most specifically focused on the newsworthiness of scientific research.

Why does certain research make the news, whereas other research does not?

And that's the start of it.

I kept on going deeper and deeper and deeper, and now I'm fully into it and to what does science journalism mean?

What does science communication mean?

What is journalism?

What is.

What is science, in a sense.

And those are questions I don't think we'll be able to answer in this podcast, but, well, not all of them.

So, yeah, it started with a fascination for science and for journalism, and now I'm very happy to be researching it, actually.

So you had an interest in science growing up?

Like, you know, just.

Just like the science courses in school and that kind of thing, or.

Yeah, I studied, like, Latin and languages in.

In high school, and I wasn't very good at maths and natural sciences, but still, they were interesting to me that I wasn't good at them.

But I was fascinated by people doing these things, and it was mostly just the thinking about these sciences that.

That fascinated me when I had a good teacher who was like, okay, this is how they found this.

And, like, really going into the meat of it, that was what interested me the most, actually.

And I think that's an important part of science communication as well.

Like, really explaining how science works and how certain findings, how.

How they found some things like that.

It's not just fact, fact, fact, fact and whatever fact may be, but also the methods and the workings.

I think it really helps people understand science and scientific findings more.

Yeah, yeah, I agree.

Because, I mean, yeah, I was terrible at math, and I think that's why I did biology, because there's Little math.

And it was kind of just memorization, you know, Like, I could read a text about, like, how different things work and just like recall that.

Right.

Like, it just made sense to me.

But I was always really fascinated in chemistry and physics and stuff, the ones that use more math, because it is like on the high level, when you see like, oh, yeah, you can determine exactly where that ball is going to land kind of thing, or.

Or, you know, all of these things about the position of planets and everything, stuff like that.

Stoichiometry.

When you get to chemistry, the changing of matter from one form to another, that's like.

Yeah, that's mind blowing.

It's like super cool.

Right?

But then, so.

So I love that idea.

But then it's like, get me to calculate it out and it's done.

Like, I can't, like, it's not even gonna happen.

Not even come close, you know, And I think that that is like, it's a common origin, I think we have here in terms of why you then gravitate to science communication stuff.

Because that's what it's.

To me, that's what it's about.

It's like a lot of times, especially with the stuff that I do now, it's like the real minute details, nuts and bolts of it isn't what's important.

Right.

That's not the story.

Right.

The story is about what this new thing will, you know, what it presents for us or how we got there.

Like you said, like how those things were discovered.

Those are the fascinating stories that people like.

But then you can kind of splinter off and say, well, what is your goal with science communication?

Right.

Is it just to entertain people or you just want to get people enthusiastic about science, or is there, you know, something more that you're trying to do?

Are you trying to push a policy that's informed by science or are you trying to.

Yeah.

Justify what it is that you're like, give me money, basically.

Right.

So then there's all of these different motivations.

And I wonder if you have, I don't know, some comments on that, because I think, again, as one of the things I struggle with, with science.

Science communication, air quotes, broad term, is that there.

Going back to what I was saying at the beginning, there's this big.

There's this field of science communication.

Right.

But I've just identified different, you know, specific subsets of that.

But I think that even people within science communication don't think about that enough.

Right.

So I don't know, maybe from the research side, you're thinking about it more, but I guess I'm thinking about it from journalism side and then also from the scientists themselves.

When they say we have to do communication, they're just like, we have to talk to the public.

And it's like, yeah, but why?

Why do you have to.

Do you need to.

I don't know.

That's a question.

Yeah, it's a.

It's a difficult question in the sense that there are many different practices.

And I'm also.

I try to be critical of science communication as well, in the sense that I don't want.

Also based on literature, that it's not just supposed to be like public relations, not like the public relations of science or of a.

Of a corporation.

Well, or of a university as a corporation.

You know, universities also work in a competitive context.

They have to get funds.

And we, as scientists, we also are expected to communicate, show the value of our research.

And for me, there's a fine line between, like, science communication and public relations.

And sometimes you can use science for public relations and public relations for science.

I think that's both.

Okay, but I think you still have to know what you're doing.

Indeed, you don't have to communicate everything just to communicate.

I think it's important to tell a story that's relevant to people and also be transparent and open about what you don't know.

It's very nice to say, oh, we found this and it will change life.

People will be healthier or whatever.

But then it's a, it's a study on mice, and that will start.

Will start to irritate people.

I think if there's high expectations, for example, you, you have like a chronic disease for which there's no cure right now.

But there are promises and there's great progress.

Progress is, is amazing.

But be transparent about the fact that it's progress and not the break.

The breakthrough that it's just like, okay, we're doing now doing studies on mice and we were seeing that there are developments and it's hopeful, but we're not there yet.

I think that's important.

I don't know exactly where I'm going with this, but it's just.

My point is stay focused on.

Well, that's quite ironic, but stay focused on what's important for you as a scientist and what do you want people to know?

Why should they know the things.

It's a good question by you, actually.

Like, why should you communicate?

I think you should always ask that question.

Then the next question should be, how do you communicate?

Like what's the message through which medium?

What's your audience?

All that kind of stuff.

Yeah, I guess the thing that, like.

And I don't really have a clear, you know, thought.

Well, I have some clear thoughts, but I guess it's like I'm.

There's a lot of different things that are bouncing around in my head and I've done now like three or four podcast in a row kind of specifically on science communication.

I'm really trying to think about it a lot and, and end this question of like, why, why are we doing this?

You know, because oftentimes for people within science communication, I think there is a lot of frustration that it's not working right.

And I see a lot of times, you know, one of my critical elements is a lot of science communication does the same thing over and over and over and expects a different result.

And also doesn't really, like, if you talk to people in science communication or scientists that are attempting to do this outreach, right?

It's.

We want to, we want to get people interested or we want to get people that maybe didn't know about science beforehand.

And it's like, I don't know that much.

Science communication reaches beyond the borders of those people who are already interested.

Right?

And maybe that's what it's always going to be, right?

Like, maybe that expectation of trying to, to get like, everybody or trying to get this, like this, this unicorn of like someone who has never thought about science in their life, but then you somehow hit them with something that they're like, oh my God, you know, like this is, you know, is that realistic?

Is it possible?

Should that be the goal?

Maybe it's about being more focused on what it is we're trying to do.

Now, having said all that, I feel like there's an urgency in science communication.

A lot of people are in this field and the field itself does exist because science is an important part of society, right?

That, that, that, that.

Let's say this, this again, this unicorn audience person who doesn't think about science, that's kind of what you're, why you're trying to reach that person.

Because it's like the obvious things, climate change, vaccines, you know, whatever it is, it's like this stuff matters and if people don't take it seriously, there's a detriment to society.

So it sets up this, I don't know, it's a very complicated task and I think in some ways an impossible task.

Like, I don't know.

Yeah, well, I think it's, it's Important to keep on trying.

I agree with that.

We shouldn't keep on doing the same things expecting a different result.

I think there have been some nice developments in science communication as well.

People diverging.

We have a lot of podcasts now, now we have TV programs, we have newspapers, we have people who just do things online on their own.

So the spectrum has broadened like with all communication.

But I do believe science communication does have effect.

I think you can reach people who are somewhat on the fence about certain issues.

I don't think you should try to convince whatever that may be.

People who are like, who don't believe in climate change.

You can try, but like die hard believers, I don't think you'll be able to convince them because then, yeah, they have made their other minds and there's like with everyone there are certain biases in how you process information.

But I do think there are people in the middle about certain issues and if you give them good arguments, if you try to read them in a respectful way, I think that can help.

And also why I think we should keep on trying is because science is not intuitive.

A lot of things in life you can do like with intuition, but the scientific process has methods, has strict guidelines.

We have like peer review and there are certain expectations depending on the field of which people do not know things and think.

We shouldn't present science as intuitive either.

It is a process and it's with step, step, step and not like larger leaps.

And that's why I think we should keep on trying to communicate because it's not something people feel naturally.

If you look outside, yeah, the earth seems flat, but it isn't.

But your intuition will tell you.

Yeah, well I don't see a curve.

So.

Right.

What happens and then, then you can maybe try to reach people.

Yeah, I think you've hit on something that I also find is like this, you know, double edged sword or however we want to call it.

Because there's a challenge.

I think one of the big challenges and I've, I've interviewed, did podcasts with a quite a well known science communicator broadcaster back in Canada.

And he's talked about this where it's like, you know, he's been in the field for 30, 40 years, whatever it is, you know, radio, TV, all this stuff.

And he's like, I still haven't found a good way to tell the story of the process of science.

Right.

Which is what I think right now in this current moment, a lot of us are feeling we need to do because that's where it feels like this, you know, whether again, the things that are going to be detrimental to society, the anti vax, the anti climate change, you know, all this stuff, it's a.

Well again, a bunch of different audiences, people have all the different biases and different reasons for why they think what they do.

But science communicators seem to feel that it's, it's a lack of understanding of the process, right.

And that if people understood the process, they would understand, you know, some of the failures of communication, let's say during the pandemic or you know, these kind of things, right?

So there's that and then there's also, you know, that that's kind of separate from science itself, like the cure, the, the curiousness, the creativeness of the scientists itself.

Because I think when you say science isn't, isn't intuitive, I think part of it is what the scientist is doing, you know, that, that desire to question, that desire to figure things out, you know, to observe and then make connections and then say, oh well, let me test that.

Like if I do this again, am I going to get the same result?

I think that is a very human thing, right?

Like that's a very innate thing.

You know, you could say again, our desire to explore new things, right?

Like that's very human.

But the formalized process that we've built around it to check it, to make sure that it like, you know, that it's self correcting, that the information that we're providing is as rigorous as possible.

That is not intuitive in a way.

I think it might be, but yeah, it's foreign to people.

And so I think you're right.

But this is like again, this is one of these things that doesn't quite mesh.

You wanted, you want to say like it is intuitive, but it's not intuitive.

Like it's a creative thing, but it's got to be rigorously checked.

And so in one form, you know, a lot of science, like promotion, let's say communication or we can even say science triumphalism.

It's all about, look at this ingenuity and this innovation and this like, you know, these eureka moments and all of this stuff, right?

That's a great story.

But it negates this other side of it that is, it's actually teams of people doing boring stuff that is then rigorously checked and all of that.

And so how do you blend those two things?

And I think that's where we haven't really found, I haven't found a good way to balance those two Things.

No, I think it's hard to balance those things because indeed you want to make people enthusiastic for science as well and for the scientific process.

It is indeed a creative process.

It's people who are really interested in one niche specific thing.

Like I myself, I'm very interested in a specific journalism studies theory.

Yeah, most people wouldn't care about it, and I completely understand that.

But still, I can get excited about it.

And you try to make people excited as well, but it is hard to balance the boring and the exciting.

But I think if you show your enthusiasm, you can really give it to people as well.

But what makes it hard, I think as well, is trying to study the effectiveness of science communication.

You've pointed to it a couple of times.

Like, with all scientific research, it's also always like specific things that are being tested.

Okay.

If you do this type of messaging on this type of medium for these type of people, we might have this effect.

But like in natural setting, like just if you're scrolling to through Instagram or Facebook or whatever, it's different than if I were to test it on you in a lab setting.

Because in a lab setting you might say, yeah, yeah, this, I remember, I remember I read about this, this paper because I made a fake Facebook timeline for you.

But maybe if you're just scrolling on the train, you're like, it passes by but you don't register it.

So trying to study the effect of certain things and consequently knowing what works is hard.

It's a lot of trial and error.

I think in practice as well.

I think we have a lot of nice and good practitioners.

But I think they will also say that it's seeing what sticks, I feel like.

And often what sticks in practice then gets studied and then maybe we can go on.

Yeah, or it changes, right?

Like, you get a new technology, you get a new algorithm, you get a new something.

Right?

Like, I mean, it is funny that it's like, I always think it's kind of funny that.

And it's again, it's kind of this duality.

It's like science communication.

You want to be creative.

It blends all of these creative things, much again, as science does.

It's a creative endeavor.

I think that's something that maybe people don't really understand how much creativity really is in the sciences and then in science communication.

But then again, you come back with this analytical lens of like, let me dissect the thing that we just, you know, and it's like, that's such a science nerd thing to do.

But Anyway, I don't know, these are just some of the broad, you know, these broad, big, broad ideas that I'm thinking about, because it really does feel like in this moment, everybody feels an urgency for more science communication.

But it's like, I.

And maybe it's just I'm impatient or something, or I, you know, I don't know what it is, but it just feels like just throwing more stuff at the wall, maybe that'll work.

I don't know, because then maybe you.

Maybe you kind of have to have that big thing, and then you see what, like, as you say, what sticks, right?

But it just really feels like there's an urgency in science communication because of some of the societal, political, you know, things that are happening right now.

And I don't know, maybe that.

Maybe that urgency is also, you know, a bit overblown because of the way we consume media and all of these things, but feels like there's that we got to get this out, we got to do this.

We got to help change the path that things are going on.

And I just wonder if that's even possible, I guess.

I don't know.

I'm trying not to be too cynical, because I.

At my heart, I'm not cynical.

I am optimistic.

But, yeah, I don't know.

I think.

I think the urgency is a bit overblown.

I'll speak for myself, but if I'm going through social media or if I see certain news reports, I get anxious.

I'm like, oh, no.

People are stopping to believe in vaccines and they don't trust them anymore, and they don't trust scientists anymore.

But I think it's also because I focus on that as well, because I'm in the field and I'm in research.

So I'm like, oh, no, no.

This is a big, big issue.

But I think the general public still trusts science and still consumes some science messages.

So I think the urgency isn't as great.

But I do feel the urgency has increased mostly because of the pandemic.

I don't have any literature to support this, but I think the pandemic was a pivotal moment in the sense that people have had to listen to scientists.

And mostly, I think scientists were also used for, like, political communication.

Like politics or politicians didn't really know what to do, which is normal for politicians.

They usually don't have a scientific background.

I also wouldn't know what to do.

I'm not a virologist, for example.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

But at the same time, they often just, like, pushed the scientists to do the political communication, whereas that's the job of a politician.

We can't, we can't vote for scientists, we can't vote for politicians.

And I think people got confronted with a lot of scientific insight, insights and current findings and uncertainty, but there wasn't the time to communicate all that uncertainty.

And now I think there has been some friction.

I think people have to see signs more again for what it is now.

That's also a bit more on the background than it was every day.

Like, oh, maybe there's a new vaccine coming or maybe we can develop a pill that makes the symptoms less intense or maybe like a nose spray or every day there was some kind of hope or yeah, we still have to wait long for a vaccine or should we use masks and all that.

It was, yeah, it was a constant stream of information.

Even for me it was, it was too much, even though I was interested.

But so duality again, I think the urgency has increased, but it's not as urgent.

Urgent as it might seem.

At the same time, I think what.

You'Re saying there maybe makes me think that maybe there is a moment to capitalize on because, because it's not.

Or maybe the strategy is to try and do this messaging not in the urgent way, not in that everyday hitting the, the alarm bell kind of thing.

And maybe that was a problem with, you know, the pandemic.

Again, we can use the pandemics kind of like a case study of like when science really, really impacts, I would say it's always impacting your life, but this was when it was like front and center for a lot of people probably for the first time.

I have a question for you on that.

And this is, I'm maybe deviating a little bit, but do you think during that time, and this is very broad, you could look at different countries and stuff, but just a broad sense.

Was it the friction that came this sort of, let's say, anti science or antitrust movement that I think kind of really accelerated during that pandemic.

And it's kind of what we're, what we're seeing now is like, it's the legacy of that.

Where do you put that?

I guess blame is maybe the wrong word, but the blame for that kind of thing is it failure of authorities and scientists to communicate or a concerted effort by some people with loud microphones to undermine that message?

Yeah, that's, that's a tough one.

And I'll, I'm gonna go ahead and say, like, for me, a bit of both.

That's the, that's the.

The cop out answer.

But I wonder what you.

How you see those.

I'll diverge a bit as well.

This summer I read a pist from by Camus and I was quite relieved actually, not to read about the plague, but because I noticed a lot of things that were the same during the COVID 19 pandemic.

You had like local authorities who didn't know what to do.

You had scientists working a lot.

You had like doctors going everywhere and you had people who didn't believe them who were like, no, this will just blow over and it will be fine.

Or I know.

You see, the authorities also don't know what to do, so I just won't listen.

And it's.

I think people stay largely the same, but the context changes.

And now indeed there are those people who.

In.

Yeah, those people would just go to other people and start rambling about.

Yeah, no, this is all just.

It's just some rats walking around.

It's not.

Nothing's happening.

It's just something simple.

Those people can now go on social media and find companions all around the world, whereas then it was just in one village, for example.

So I think the microphone has, or the audience has gotten bigger for those people.

But at the same time, I do also think it was a bit of failing of the authorities in the sense that.

And I understand that they didn't know what to do, but sometimes they gave the illusion of knowing what to do and not being transparent about the fact that they actually didn't know what to do.

So I think, and I understand that you have to take measures, you have to do, try things just to stop the spreading of a virus.

But I hope next time, because it had been a long time since we had a pandemic, and especially never in this global or globalized world.

I hope the next time there will be a better plan on how to communicate, how to keep in touch with people and how to use science and scientific insight.

So I think there were some mistakes made there, like how to use scientific insights for policy.

I think that that was the biggest feeling.

Yeah, yeah, I agree.

I think there was.

And I mean we can, we can.

I want to move to your, to your study on press releases, which also happened during the pandemic you were studying.

But I just a closing kind of thought on that because I talked.

Everybody talks about this period.

You know, we're now looking back on it and having.

I think it's useful, but Yeah, I feel like there was exactly what you said.

It's like it's, there's human dynamics that, that are always at play and they just now played out in a globalized world and in a very connected where, you know, people with, who would have had no audience or a very small audience previously now had access to a bigger audience.

And there was a lot of people, you know, that, that they get into that for profit, right?

They're selling some kind of snake oil treatment, you know, like whatever it is, right?

And then you.

But then, and I think it didn't help that the, you know, the, the asshole in chief at the time and with the loudest microphone in the world, you know, had a, a motivation to undermine.

Right?

He had his own political, you know, need to undermine his own experts.

And in doing that, that just opened the floodgates, right?

And, and if you go back and watch that one, it's the same thing.

You see these same dynamics play out and it's like the movie itself didn't get a lot of, you know, it's not like a big thriller but you know, it's rather slow kind of movie, but the same thing.

They have the same character.

They have the Alex Jones type character.

They have the, you know, all of these again, dynamics that play out and you go back and you watch and you're like, oh yeah, like this is not new, right?

Like it's so, so in, in saying that you think, well, we should be better prepared to sort of handle these.

And I think again, that's where I'm not absolving, I'm certainly not absolving authorities and scientists for, for the way that the messages were conveyed.

This sort of top down approach.

Maybe that's a, that was a little too, Yeah, I don't know, not transparent or condescending or whatever you want to.

But anyway, let's move to your study on press releases during the pandemic and I'll get you to sort of highlight or explain to us what it is you were looking for.

And then maybe I can give my perspective on press releases.

It's something that I deal with as a journalist.

These are, you know, bits of communication that are put out usually by the university or a research institution and it's meant to summarize, you know, a new finding, give it to the media.

So people like me, journalists, science journalists or just broad journalists, and give them the facts that they need.

Often Time it gives some quotes that you can use or some experts that you can follow up with.

And again, from my perspective, the goal is the institutions, the scientists, the scientific field is putting these out there in order that their story will get picked up by, by a larger media.

So I'll leave it to you from here.

What were you looking at here?

And yeah, we'll go from there.

Yeah.

I must say I also feel more comfortable talking about this because I've been in the literature more.

So the fundamental thing was science journalism and science news is still important.

It's still important to reach people.

Although we have social media and other channels now, science journalism is still consumed and it's still a profession that's very valuable.

But at the same time it is under pressure, like journalism in general.

But science journalism has always been seen like a nice extra at like news desks, a luxury, although it is quite.

Well, it's red as well.

But now we have more cost cutting and less expertise at science desks.

Often the expertise needed to also like assess scientific papers or scientific findings, put them into context, see what the relevance is for, for the news public.

And then by consequence science journalism is becoming like more source dependent, like sources such as press releases or scientists themselves.

And then I was like, okay, let's look at university press releases.

Because press releases are also still often used by universities, especially in Europe.

I found the literature, but also around the world I would think, because press releases are a nice duality as well.

It's an information medium.

It's like science communication in the sense that you are communicating a scientific finding at your university, but at the same time it is a marketing message.

It's more like an undercover marketing message because you're using your science as the marketing of.

Look, we are researchers at our universities have found this.

And you hope that journalists use your message as the input or as the content of their article.

And because if they do that then your marketing message becomes objectified by the journalist, it becomes a news article and then, well, the marketing worked in a sense, but at the same time it is still science communication.

So I don't want to sound cynical, I think it's a good medium to also to use for science communication because you can still write quite a lot, you can provide quite a lot of insights, which I think you should also do.

And like you said, you can provide some quotes and maybe some pictures as well.

So I started looking at all the press releases sent out by the university.

I'm working at the University of Antwerp, focused specifically on research because you also have a lot of press releases who are really focused on how the university works.

Like, for example, a new professor being here or whatever.

But so the research articles, research press releases.

And then I was like, okay, we have those press releases.

I looked at them, I coded them based on newsworthiness, which I won't get into too much.

And then I looked for the news articles that were based on these press releases to see.

To look at the overlap, like how much is copied.

Are press releases selected for news?

What happened to those who aren't selected?

And then I found that for one, press releases are very successful at making the News.

I think 80% of all the press releases sent out during the COVID 19 pandemic focused on research by the University of Antwerp were selected.

And there's a lot of copy pasting done.

You notice that?

I think every.

You notice a lot of like literal sentences being copied.

I don't know the exact numbers anymore because it's been a while since I wrote this paper.

It's still under review, I want to say as well.

But I'm going through it right now.

Yeah.

You see, if a press release changes, it's mostly being shortened to fit a news newspaper article.

And for the rest, it's a lot of like, textual overlap, which is something I would like to get into with you, actually.

You have a background in the journalism side.

What do you think about it?

About that?

I'll bounce back the question.

Yeah.

The copy and pasting thing, I think is a real problem because I think, and I should maybe caveat that I don't have formal journalistic training.

You know, I was a Science, a scientist, PhD.

I completed a PhD in biology and then moved into writing about science and science journalism.

My understand.

And I've had mentors and you know, I've learned the ropes on the way.

Right.

But I think it's not a stretch to, to.

For people to.

To understand that the role of journalism is to be critical is to investigate, it is to report.

Right.

And reporting isn't just parroting what somebody said to you.

Right.

Like, so if you just take the press release and say, ah, this is it, that's not reporting.

Reporting has to be, well, talking to those people, talking to other people that have a different opinion on that, you know, that.

All that kind of stuff.

And I think so, yeah.

In general, I think that that's a problem.

But I also have, I think, a different perspective because of, you know, my, my position, what I do and where I came from.

I'm doing science journalism for, specifically for science publications.

You know, like my articles don't go into the newspaper or you know, like those sort of broad, you know, publications.

My, my articles go into science specific magazines, right?

Or science specific websites.

And so there I think you would probably find less of that, less of that copy pasting.

You know, even, you know, I use press releases a lot, but I generally use them to find, to find the story.

And then I go talk to those people.

In some, for some stories, for some, like short news stories, you use the quotes directly from.

But that's fine, that's what they're there for.

You're supposed to use the quotes from the people in there, but then you generally talk to other people.

So the copy pasting thing is not good.

But I also understand why it happens.

I think because again, if you're just, if you're a trained journalist, not a trained scientist, you're going to read that press release and you may or may not understand what's going on in, in that story.

And that's a, a failure of science communication or just the nature of some of the stuff, that not everybody can be an expert in everything.

Some of this stuff gets kind of complicated, right?

And so without the time, if you don't have the initial expertise to really grasp what that press release is about, what the unique angles are, where you can make criticisms, or where you can look to find alternative sources, that kind of thing, then you're left to just, you either have to do that work, that legwork of going and finding those people if you don't initially have that knowledge.

And reporters at a local newspaper, at a provincial newspaper, at a national newspaper, they don't have that.

They don't have that time.

And I think it's interesting because you're studying this during the pandemic.

I was surprised when I looked through the data, your paper stuff, how many press releases actually made it to the news.

And I wonder if it's a consequence of the time of the pandemic where it's like, and maybe I don't know if you have the numbers, were all of those press release pandemic related?

Because I would wonder on a, like outside of a pandemic if that many press releases got into the news.

Yeah, it's a very interesting question.

I actually coded for that.

I have to look at the exact numbers, but I remember not every press release was about COVID or didn't even mention Covid or a synonym.

And also an interesting finding was that it was not necessarily necessarily the case that I have Found it.

All the press releases mentioned Covid in 61% of the cases.

So it's not, it's like more than half mentioned Covid, but.

But not overwhelming.

And the interesting thing was that there was no significant difference in like the selection of a press release based on the fact that it mentioned Covid or not.

So if you mentioned Covid, it didn't increase the chance of it becoming a news article, which was interesting.

But this doesn't mean that Covid didn't have anything to do with it because it was different time back then.

It's like journalists had to stay.

Well, they were allowed to go outside here in Belgium, but it was a lot of desk work, which I completely understand.

And then if you get a lot of press releases, I can imagine that due to the situation, you just use them because you don't have the time.

The resources and the availability of people was also lower, I think we could call them, but they were all, I think scientists were also trying to work with the environment they had or within the environment they had.

So I think the context did indeed increase the amount of copy pasting.

But I can't, I don't have numbers for that because it's hard, it's almost impossible to test because it was the context, the societal context.

You can't really control for that, but you have to be mindful of that.

I think outside of a pandemic context it will be lower.

And I do have some literature saying that journalism is increasing throughout the years and the copy pasting is increasing throughout the years, but the general numbers were a bit lower than mine.

But nevertheless, copy pasting is a thing with science journalism and in journalism in general.

And I don't want to point the finger at journalists here.

I completely understand it.

Like you also mentioned that if you don't have the expertise, if you don't have the resources, then it's hard to like really go, go into the meat of it all.

Like calling three different experts, reading the actual scientific paper.

Yeah, it's almost impossible to do if you have to write, let's say five news articles a day.

You don't have the time for that.

And you have more and more freelance work, you have less stable contracts and just people are.

Journalists are expected to put out a lot of news because online news has to be filled, the newspaper has to be filled, there has to be something for social media that's catchy.

So there has to be a lot of content.

So I completely understand it.

But for me, and I'm going on a Rant a bit here, but for me, the responsibility changes.

I think if the trend continues that we see a lot of copy pasting, then we as scientists, universities and science communicators have to be very aware of what we send to journalists.

We have to be very strict for ourselves.

I think we have to be very transparent about the methods, we have to be very transparent about the limitations, because the chance exists that it just gets copied.

And there are already some studies on that showing that exaggerations of findings, for example, don't happen necessarily in a news article.

They started in a press release.

So if you have an exaggeration in the press release, the chance is higher that it's in the news article.

So we as communicators have to be very responsible.

Not saying that journalists don't have any responsibility.

They are still gatekeepers.

And if they can, they should still do journalism, not like just promote whatever press release that is being sent out.

If you can, please, please go and look for more sources and call people and dive into it.

So it's a shared responsibility.

But I feel the responsibility of the communicator is becoming bigger.

Yeah, that's an interesting point.

And it's, I think, makes sense.

And again, I can see the.

The tension for the people that work in the press office for a university, because their goal, and they're probably.

Well, I'd say they're more likely to have some science training than a journalist.

Like if we're just looking at a journalist again in a local newspaper, sort of, you know, the broadsheet, right, that covers sports, it covers politics, it covers everything.

Right.

Whereas a press officer in a university, this is just my intuition, more likely has come from a master's program of some kind in communication or maybe even some sciences, now that I'm saying it, I'm thinking of all the people I know that were journalists that went into press.

I want to speak in on that very quickly.

Indeed, there is some literature showing that a lot of press officers are former journalists also here at the University of Anthrop.

Yeah, yeah, he is a former.

But that also means that they know the workings of journalism very well and they know how to play on it and how to convince their former colleagues, in a sense.

But I also do believe they have.

Well, I also think your scientific background just increases or you know, a bit more about science just by being here and having a lot of scientists talk to you as well.

So I think.

Right, exactly.

And so that's what I'm saying is that I wonder if, like the Tension there is your job is to promote like the goal of this press release is to get it into the press.

So you're going to do, you know, that bias, that pressure is going to lead to some of those things you're saying where it's like you, maybe you're not as cautious or that exaggeration, I guess is, is the one that I'm thinking of.

But it's your point, I think, is, is a good one that it's like the entire, for the entire, you know, scientific practice, it would be best if that's how people treated it.

We're a bit more cautious and we're were developing the press releases in that way so that, that nuanced, balanced, trustworthy, accurate portrayal of science is what goes out then to the public.

And then you don't have those, you know, those areas where, where mistrust can form and wow, they said this.

But it actually, you know, we haven't seen the cure yet.

And they keep saying there's going to be a cure in, you know, 10 years and it never happens and all of that kind of stuff.

So I take your point and I think it's important to know how that information travels, right, and where those points come up because I think it would be, I think if you pulled just people outside of this field completely, they would say it's the journalists that are, that are exaggerating, right?

It's the journalists that get it wrong, that, that, you know, that have their own spin or whatever and that, and for sure that that definitely can happen whether it's purposeful or accidental, right?

Like it's, it's, it doesn't imply that there's some nefarious activity going on.

But going back to the source and seeing where that actually starts is, is important.

I don't know how you fix it again, because again there's, there's the motivation to, we have to promote our, you know, and that's another thing about science communication is that it is, like you said, it's public relations, it's marketing, right.

Like the university needs to make money.

So they also have this, this bias.

And I guess that's something that you'll just, you never get away from and maybe an acceptance of it more by everybody, scientists, press, press officers, journalists, everybody.

Just understanding that more would lead to a more honest portrayal.

Because I think scientists also have a role in this, in that they want to just be this totally, you know, objective, unbiased, you know, not motivated by these things.

Like I'm just here for the, for the truth for the sign and portray it as that.

And I said, well, that's not really true either.

Like you're competing for grants, you're competing for, you know, you're have a vested interest in your university, making money, getting students, all of this kind of stuff.

So it's like just understanding, at least acknowledging that there is these biases along the way.

Might, might be.

I think it's mostly acknowledging that you have to work in a certain system because I do believe a lot of scientists really are in it for the love of the game.

Yeah, yeah.

And I don't question that communicate about their research.

And also I also believe that press officers also really care about the science that you are sending out.

I also believe that.

But of course they have to work in a system.

They have to indeed they are probably evaluated on the fact whether or not a lot of press releases make the news.

So yeah, of course they try their best to add some, a bit of spice to make news.

And for scientists and for myself, it is also good to have my face out there or have my voice out there and promote the research I'm doing, in a sense.

But it is because you work in a certain system.

And I think universities indeed also are also not necessarily happy with the system they have to work in.

They don't have all the resources they need.

If they had all the resources they needed, then they wouldn't have to promote or whatever they were doing.

They would just do whatever they want.

Go and do it.

So I think it's mostly that.

I think it's indeed acknowledging biases, not just the biases in the sense that you have to compete for grants.

Also like logical biases or biases in certain fields or certain predispositions you have.

And also acknowledging the fact that it's competitive system.

And also newspapers are a competitive system.

Journalists have to write a lot of output.

They're also evaluated based on the fact of whether they get clicks or how many news articles they like.

It's, it's, it is, yeah, that's, that's, that's the system we live in for you.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

And I think that that's where, you know, it's, it's difficult again, we're kind of hitting on all of these different like dualities or, you know, places where there's that tension, which is good because it's, that's the system we live in.

I also see that that is such that just the mere existence of a profit motive is enough to discredit, is enough for some people to use to discredit research or science or the pharma industry as a whole, right?

Like, it's just, well, they're just after money.

They're just like, it's such an easy slander to threaten to throw at somebody.

And it's like, again, if there was, I don't know, maybe there's just like this sort of.

How do you protect yourself against that slander?

By just saying, yeah, I mean, yeah, I got to make money.

You got to make money.

Like, we all, like, we're all in this system together, right?

But I think sometimes, or at least maybe it's just like this historical stereotype that we have of science as being sort of above it, all, right?

Like, it's sort of like for the good.

It's.

It's just for, you know, there's no profit there, but then it gets put in the hands of the greedy pharma companies or this.

I don't know.

I'm just thinking of all these things.

And I wanted to work, as we've been talking for quite a while now, so this is great.

But I wanted to work in one last.

One last topic, and it was podcasts, and I think that this might be our segue.

It's a rough segue, so give me a minute here.

But these kind of things, right?

Like these kind of discussions about science and I think leading from the press release thing, there's a question I have about, you know, is science journalism questioning science or is it just cheerleading science?

Is it just a.

Whatever they say goes, right?

Like, I get the press release, they say that they got a cure for cancer, then great.

That's what I'm putting out there, right?

Because who am I to question it?

That kind of thing.

And I think that, that, that sort of portrayal of science and these other things that I've just mentioned is.

Is.

Is not good because it leads to this, you know, these things that, that I've.

The.

The phrase that I came to hate during the pandemic.

To trust the science.

Just trust the science.

Don't question it, just do it.

They're right.

Like, that's it, right?

So I think that's a problem.

And you get that if you don't have questioning again, let's go to the flip side.

Questioning everything to the point of conspiracy, to the point of.

Again, like I said, it's so easy to just throw this slander of money and stuff out.

That's not going to get you anywhere as well.

And I think that the example of the history of the Joe Rogan Pocket, I think someone could write a thesis on.

This is an example of how that evolution happened.

It was one of the first podcasts that I really listened to.

And I'm not unique in saying that that show got me into podcasts, got me into doing podcasts, was very influential in, you know, and was.

And was.

It was groundbreaking, I think, in terms of people realizing what is possible with this medium.

And I loved the show early on.

I was an avid listener.

And the way that he had scientists on, like big, credible scientists and science Communicators like Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Brian Greene, all the physicists that he had on and that I maintain that that was one of the best pieces of science communication that has ever, ever been done, right?

Because he was playing the role of, you know, science cheerleader.

He was balancing science cheerleader and curious audience member, right?

And so many people, I think that that unicorn that we talked about at the beginning, so many people were in that audience that got exposed to science and science ideas that they never would have before, right?

And they saw themselves in him, in Joe Rogan, the way that he was speaking to them, asking the questions that they would ask, you know, not being afraid to be, quote, unquote dumb, not being afraid to look dumb, and getting a chance to have these big guys with all their big knowledge and be like, yeah, but how does it work?

And.

And, you know, along the way, you saw him drop his moon landing conspiracy.

Like, that's one that in real time, you could see him change and be like, okay, I now don't believe that anymore because I've talked to these guys, right?

Then the pandemic comes and you get this crisis of communication, all this thing.

And now it is a completely different show, right?

And I've stopped listening.

Like, I stopped listening a little bit before the pandemic, but certainly during the pandemic.

And I don't think I've listened to an episode now in years, right, because it's now become this, you know, completely the opposite thing, right?

And that's very frustrating.

And I still keep tabs on it, you know, of course, what's going on, because it's still a cultural thing, right?

It's still.

It's such a big thing that.

That you kind of have to know what's going on in that space.

But that, that transition is wild.

And it's just.

It's it's, it's sad to me because it was such a, it wasn't perfect, but those early years, I think, again, it was.

I was like, this is how science communication could be done, should be done.

At least it could be a big part of it.

And you saw a movement, right, of, like, intellectuals into the space of comedy and arts and all that stuff.

And now we see the backfiring of it because, again, some of those intellectuals turn out to be grifters.

Some of them turn out to have their own, you know.

Right.

So you still need that rigorous, you know, bias.

But I don't know, I've thrown a lot out at, at you there, but I know you have thoughts on the podcast space as well, so I'll, I'll let you respond and, and kind of take it, take it where you want.

I don't have a specific question for you, let's say.

Well, I, I must say I, I really enjoy podcasts.

I, I listen to them quite a lot.

I think it's a very nice medium.

So I wouldn't throw any shade on podcasts as a medium.

But for Joe Rogan, yeah, I think it started out the same with me.

I also listened to him when I was younger.

I wasn't really into Post Malone or something, but I was just, ah, this is fun.

Crack a beer, have some and just sit back and enjoy.

And also talking to scientists.

Indeed.

And I think it was quite, quite interesting.

I think it did it well.

And coming back to certain points of view, I do believe we shouldn't treat scientists as like a voice of authority, because then I've written a piece about it.

We don't want science to become like an argument from authority, because if people don't lose their trust in the authority, then we lose the science as well.

And that's, that's not him.

And he.

That's a good point.

I really enjoy that point.

Yeah.

And he.

I think what Joe was actually good at was like, showing that these are just normal people, scientists, but still having, like, a fascination.

But he was never very skeptical or he was skeptical in his own way.

And I don't think there's anything.

I think skepticism is good.

I think journalists have more skepticism.

But there's a difference between skepticism and paranoia.

And I feel during the pandemic, Joe became skeptical of certain things and then became paranoid.

And his paranoia.

I don't know the man, of course, but I've seen quite a lot of things.

I've seen also seen parts of his podcast where in the beginning of the pandemic, he admits that he's very frightened about being sick, is quite.

Well, he's.

He's an athlete, is.

So I get why he's afraid to get sick, but I think the anxiety, the fear, the different messaging, also him being like the US Context really also hit on certain anxieties and really increase his paranoia.

And now I feel you see certain biases shine through quite a lot and you see a lot of confirmation biases, bias for the things he believes and a lot of like a really stark skepticism for the things he doesn't like, like vaccine skepticism has really increased.

And that's interesting.

I think Joe Rogan fascinates me as a person, but mostly as a cultural phenomenon and especially the Joe Rogan podcast.

And I'm working a bit on a side project around it.

But like you said, you could try the whole thesis on it.

And things you see now already shine through in earlier versions of him.

Like, in the beginning, he was, I think, pro vaccines.

He thought they were a cool invention.

I think that's something he said, if I remember correctly.

But you also see his fascination for, like, alternative treatments.

It has always been there.

Like, I remember talking him talking about some kind of guru drinking his own urine in the morning every day because that had some health benefit.

And okay, if you can balance those things, I wouldn't recommend it.

But now you see that has won the battle, in a sense.

Now the alternatives are better than the traditional science.

And I feel he uses the fact that he has spoken to a lot of scientists and still speaks to certain scientists as, as a.

As an argument, like saying, well, no, I know this because I talk to a lot of people, so you can't really get through.

And he also doesn't really check his sources.

That's the thing.

There's one very good YouTube video about him that Joe Rogan doesn't understand.

Graphs.

I think that's what it's called.

It's about.

Yeah, I think I've seen that about a guy focused very much on the climate change research.

And Joe really hammers on, like an article from the Wall Street Journal, if I can remember correctly, which had like a title which implicit with which had the implication that we're in like a cooling period with the earth.

But if you actually read the full article and looked at the graph, we're in the biggest increase of temperature throughout the whole history of the earth.

But he was like, oh, no, we're in a cooling period chill.

And it's just because it confirms his.

This idea.

And I, I understand that It's.

It's a human thing.

You have.

We have confirmation bias.

And there and then, I want to add, Joe always had very interesting people on.

I must say that he, he has also a lot of power.

He could get, like, yeah, he had Elon Musk on, he had Donald Trump on, he had Bernie Sanders.

He can really get into, like, the top regiment of elites to say.

But he also always had very questionable people on.

Like, he had Alex Jones on.

Just.

Yeah, I do think Donald Trump is also questionable, just to be clear.

But, yeah, and now he has been used for quite a lot of political reasons as well.

But the combination of, like, this less questionable people and questionable people, I think that was part of his charm.

But I think that's also part of the issue, like platforming.

A lot of people are saying that every message is equal in the sense that.

Well, I think everyone is free to say and think whatever they want, but not every argument made is factually as correct as the other.

So, yeah, that's.

That's kicking an open door.

I know that.

But.

Yeah, and it's even just like, it's, it's also the weight of it, right?

Like, you know, yes, some people believe, you know, this thing, but 99.9% of the scientists believe the opposite.

And you put those two things, those two opinions or those two, you know, sides of the coin at the same level, you don't get that sort of weight.

Right.

So it's not even just factual correctness.

It's like, there's also this whole, like, the majority of people that have looked at this have come to one conclusion and a small minority have come to another conclusion.

You know, you don't get that.

I think it's interesting you say, well, the skepticism, the skeptic, when he was with the scientists in the early, in the early times, there wasn't that skepticism.

There's a bit of skepticism, bit of pushback.

But he's always kind of been that.

That open vessel, right?

Like, when the person on the show is talking, he doesn't.

Unless it's something that he's really, really passionate about, he'll push back.

Right.

And now it's unfortunate because he's deciding to push back on the things that I would say are the truth and going the opposite way.

But that's.

It's.

Again, it's a, It's a.

It's a.

It's a gift and a curse.

Right?

You can have that.

You're letting people speak and hearing the ideas is good.

And when you're talking to a scientist who's telling you about, you know, the Earth and the.

And the planets and all this stuff, it's fascinating, it's exciting.

But then if you don't have that sort of critical view going forward to other things, it's a problem.

And you can portray by not criticizing the scientists or pushing back on scientists, you again, you're getting that science cheerleading, that triumphalism where it's just whatever they say goes.

It is just such a fascinating how all of these things that can be good in one context when flipped go to the other.

Right.

And your distinction between skepticism and paranoia, I think is very apt.

So I don't know what you take away from this sort of.

I think there's lessons to be learned.

I think there was a big, again, the big lesson of showing scientists as humans, as people that just that like to joke around and have a beer as well.

You know, I think that's something that science communication could do much better.

You know, is humanizing this because then you can see that it is a human thing.

They are flawed individuals.

They do have biases.

They do have, you know, rather than trying to sanitize it as like, like I said, like these completely, you know, totally a neutral, you know, unaffected by all of this stuff and just purely focused on data and objectivity and stuff.

Like it's just not true.

Right.

But I don't.

Yeah, I don't know.

I think, yeah, it's a big.

It's a big thing.

I think I do have something for this and I go back to the shared responsibility, which I said earlier.

I think if you're an interviewer, let's just say Joe, I think Joe should take responsibility for his own biases, should be.

Try to be transparent about that.

Think about that, think about this epistemology, like how he sees knowledge and science.

And at the same time, I think his.

His guests should also be responsible about the message they bring and which bias.

Which biases they bring to the table.

But of course, that's hard to do and it's utopic.

But.

And I don't think it will happen in the Joe Rogan experience context, but I think in other contexts we can try to do that.

I know I have biases.

I know I work in a certain system.

I hope I have been transparent about that.

And I think you also do a good job as an Interviewer of just being transparent about how you think about certain things.

Whereas I feel now, Joe Robin is very much like, no, I know the truth, and it's not what they're telling us.

And it's this paranoia.

And he is correct always.

And people who add to his worldview are also correct.

Those who question it are not.

That are not there to be trusted.

And I think if I want to give one example, if that's okay.

And I wrote a piece about that for, like, the Big Bang magazine by Becicon, just to promote it a bit as well.

The whole magazine, not just my piece.

And it was about.

It was a debate on his podcast between archaeologist Philant Dibble and, let's say, a writer, Graham Hancock.

He's quite well known, I hope I'm not promoting him to anyone right now, but I think, well, he's so well known, actually, it's a funny anecdote.

I was walking through Brussels, where I live, and in like a box, he had, like, free to take books.

And one of his books was there, and I took it home with me because, wow, that's a nice coincidence.

But okay, the next thing.

Let's leave that.

But.

So they had a debate, and Graham Hancock has been on the Joe Rogan Experience, I think, for a total of 12 times.

So Flynn Dibble once for that debate, and they had a nice debate.

I think Joe did a very good job as a moderator.

Actually.

He's friends with Graham as well, but he pushed back on Graham a bit when Flynn Dibble gave the archaeological findings.

He had like a PowerPoint slide with 100 different sources and a lot of images and all that he did.

I think Flynn Dibble did a really good job.

I think Graham did quite a poor job.

And he also admitted that afterwards.

But then some spin started.

Graham posted a response to the debate that Flint Dibble lied about this, this, and this, which was questionable.

Flint did make a mistake somewhere about the number, and then he went really hard on it.

Graham.

And then in the next podcast, Graham was invited again without Flint.

And Joe and Graham were like, yeah.

And then you have these academics who just come here and lie about whatever just to make their point.

And.

And then Graham was free to go again.

And that's what I want to say.

I do still see opportunities with Joe.

Like, when you have two people in front of him and he has a moderator can be quite good.

But then once his worldview just turns back again and he's just with the person who confirms his worldview, you really notice that that's what he wants to hear and that's what he wants to promote, in a sense.

Sense.

But now I give a very long answer to a question.

I don't remember anymore.

No, it's okay because I don't think I had a question and it's just a fascinating topic and I think you're bringing up things that I hadn't thought of, which is always nice, not just confirming my own biases, although I do think we're pretty aligned on this subject.

I just think it's so interesting, you know, this evolution, right.

Like, and how you could see things that were that.

That we would say from science, communication, from, from that, you know, what we, what we believe is true and all that that worked so well.

Now the same thing in a different context or with a slightly different motivation becomes a negative.

Right?

And I think that we're also, you know, your, your, your, your prescription of, like, well, be more transparent, be more, you know, during, during the interviews and stuff.

I think we're expecting too much of the guy, you know, And I mean, he uses that as a crutch all the time too, right.

Like, I'm not a journalist, I'm not a, you know, but then pretends to be one, you know, like, puts these things out, you know, so he jumps back and forth in those roles at convenience, which is, I think, a tactic.

But it's, I guess it's just an interesting case study because, yeah, there is things to learn and I don't think that, you know.

Yeah.

Is it useful for people to still go on that show?

Yes, I think so.

You know, to get those messages out and stuff because the audience is so big.

But it is a really interesting, I think, just, yeah.

Case study in communication and, and how all of these, these things, you know, work.

But I don't expect, Yeah, I don't expect the, the ship to turn around too, too much, but, you know, it's a case study in communication.

It's also an interesting case study in like, one man psychology because he's on air so much that you can, you can kind of see these shifts, right?

Like, we all feel like we can make a diagnosis almost of like.

And we can't really because, like, as you said, you know, we, we don't know the guy, but there's enough public talking and, and, and the way that he talks, the way that he goes about his show is that it is very, you know, you can't really keep up an act for that long.

Right.

Like, there is a kernel, I think, of who he Is that is the charm again, that was one of the things that made the show so successful, so unique, was just that, like stripping away all of the production and all of that and just getting to two people talking.

So you can, but you can kind of see this, this evolution of things, right?

Like, his interests have always been there and now they're coming at the health interest, the alternative stuff.

Now it's dominating.

So I think we can, we can, we can wrap it up, we can leave it here, because we're not going to solve any of these issues.

I have one interesting question for you.

It will, I think, will never happen, nor for me.

But just imagine a world, if you're invited, would you go on?

Yeah, absolutely.

Yeah, 100%.

Yeah, 100%.

I think a lot of people, you know, in, in my shoes, I think a lot of people in general that have something they want to talk or that have listened to the show have probably run that scenario in their head.

What would I say if it did this and what would I do if I said, you know, how would I approach it?

I've run that scenario a million times.

It's never going to happen.

But I feel like I'm decently prepared in my own mind.

I have the same.

But I think it's.

Yeah, I think it's, I think it's a useful exercise though, too.

Right.

Because you see, again, it's a, it's such a.

Because it's such a big thing.

It's such a big cultural thing, such a big media thing.

You can see what the, what the narratives are, what the arguments being made are, and then you can start to think, okay, well, how would I, how would I counter that?

How might I approach this person who, again, like, you kind of feel like, you know, you kind of feel like, you know, the motivations, you know, that, that antitrust, that anti.

Authority, you know, thing.

How would I talk to somebody like that?

You know, so I think there's value in that too.

And just, in just understanding.

Well, how would I approach that empathetically or to not, you know, just have that person shut down?

You know, so there's.

It's, it's a lot of work.

Yeah, it is.

And something I would like to add just to move on from Joe a little bit.

I think people have to be aware of the audience they are reaching.

I think he has to be aware of the massive reach he has.

Like, there's a reason why people like Bernie Sanders and especially Donald Trump want to come on his podcast.

He can literally influence a Lot of people for votes.

But also journalists have to be aware of their audience.

We have to be aware of our audience.

When I post something on LinkedIn, most of my connections on LinkedIn are people within scientific field and social sciences.

So I know what I can post and how I can make it interesting.

But if I were to go, yeah, for example here on your podcast is also quite science public focused.

So I know what I can do there.

But I've given like lectures to children, then you have to do it different, differently.

And I think you have always have to be aware of who you can impact and how you are impacting that.

And I hope.

Well, I think you should always be, try to be as ethical as possible or follow your moral compass.

Or try to follow a moral compass.

I feel like my whole point is I think about responsibility.

That's actually the point I wanted to make.

Yeah.

And I think that's a great one and probably a great one to end on because I think that is so true.

We want to say on one hand again to get it to a duality.

On one hand, words can't hurt you.

Words, you know, this, that, all the other, you can say what you want, but your words, especially when you are in the business of communicating something, you're doing it for a reason.

What reason are you doing that for?

And under really understand the impacts of what that could be.

Right.

So responsibility I think is a big one and that's, you know, for the scientists community communicating their message.

Be responsible in what you're saying and how you're saying.

It's, that's going to benefit you and it's going to benefit everyone else.

And then for everyone else along that, that, that chain, right.

Of information, press releases, journalists and something.

It's good, it's a good point.

Very good point.

So thank you for this long and very interesting conversation.

I really enjoyed it.

I don't feel like I need a beer yet.

I'll wait till the evening, Friday evening to enjoy myself.

But no, this was a real treat.

Thanks, Miguel, for, for, for taking the time.

Thank you, Brett.

I really enjoyed.

I, I, I would like to keep on talking with you like for a couple more hours.

So.

But which, which is a good one, but yeah, exactly.

Thank you for having me on.

Well, we'll do it again.

We'll, we'll definitely do it again.

Thank you so much for listening and thank you to Miguel for joining me for a long, lengthy and very interesting conversation.

As always, please like subscribe, follow, comment wherever you are Getting this on YouTube or your podcast platform.

You can follow us on social media at twobrad4u or send us an email at tobrad4um, rather toobreadforyoumail.com Please reach out.

Please tell your friends about the show.

It really helps us.

That's all I have for now.

Take care.

Bye.

Sam.