This text is part of the special Acfas Congress booklet
The COVID-19 pandemic, among other effects it has produced, has brought the scientific community into the limelight, especially that of virologists and immunologists, called upon to comment in the mass media. This new media coverage of science will be discussed at a colloquium at Acfas organized by the National Institute for Scientific Research (INRS).
Luc-Alain Giraldeau, ethologist and director general of INRS, is the instigator of this symposium. “The pandemic has sparked a lot of debate, both among the general public, but also among journalists, he says. We have even seen contradictory points of view appear. »
If science is already present in the media, both written and electronic, it is generally confined to specialized niches. The pandemic has blown this border.
“Researchers experienced an acceleration in the media coverage of science during the pandemic,” continues Mr. Giraldeau. Moreover, as a general rule, when science is invited into the mass media, it is mainly on known subjects. For example, a new drug to treat hypertension, a topic familiar to the general public. But with COVID, we were in uncharted territory. Researchers had to provide commentary on a virus they didn’t know about, as they learned about it. For all these reasons, it seemed to me that the question deserved further study, hence the idea of this symposium. »
The symposium entitled The effects of the pandemic on the media coverage of science includes three sessions. The first will address the role of research in public debate, the second will focus on the voice of scientists and the fight against misinformation, and the third will focus on urgency, science and public policy.
Luc-Alain Giraldeau will participate in the first session. What will be his contribution? “I don’t have a fixed idea about what the role of research should or should not be in public debate, because I’m not a specialist in the sociology of science,” he admits. My participation is above all an opportunity for me to launch the debate. »
Science and misinformation
Alain Lamarre, researcher and professor in immunology and virology at INRS, will take part in the second session of the symposium. “I was asked to testify about my experience as a researcher invited to comment on the pandemic in the media,” he explains. Since the beginning of the pandemic, I had to give about a thousand interviews, both in newspapers but also on radio and television. »
Has this presence in the mass media had an influence on the way he communicates scientific information? “Inevitably, there was an adaptation to be made, he continues. Less adaptation for the written media, because you have more time with the journalist, but in radio and television, time is limited. The message must then be more concise, it must not go too deeply and avoid an overabundance of details. It is therefore necessary to popularize his remarks without trivializing them. »
The speaking out of experts at the urgent request of the media is, according to the researcher, a necessary task, far from being a chore. “This is also the role of scientists. The research that scientists conduct is publicly funded and it is therefore our duty to share our knowledge with the general public. »
As for the growing place of misinformation in public discourse, Mr. Lamarre is reassuring. “Obviously, we had to speak up to counter this misinformation,” he says. Fortunately, Quebec did quite well, because the pandemic here was not a political issue. Politicians mostly chose science and not ideology, so there was no real division between political discourse and scientific discourse. »
Despite this wisdom, to the credit of Quebecers, the province has nevertheless experienced its share of misinformation on the pandemic. The best tool to counter it, believes the professor, is through nuanced responses. Nothing is all black or all white.
“What I understood, says Alain Lamarre, is that if we want to counter misinformation, we obviously have to counterbalance it with the help of scientific evidence. But you also have to use nuance. The difference between disinformation and information lies in this nuance. Misinformation has none. For example, the vaccine is said to be harmful, period. To counter this false assertion, it must be admitted that the vaccine can produce undesirable side effects, but that these do not outweigh the benefits of the vaccine. We must accept to be humble as a scientist and admit that our discourse is called upon to change according to new knowledge. »
Science and public policy
The third session will highlight the difference between science policy-making and public policy-making, especially in an emergency situation like the pandemic.
“When there is a public health emergency,” explains Luc-Alain Giraldeau, “the government wants to develop a public policy as quickly as possible to protect citizens. But science is moving more slowly. At the start of the pandemic, nothing was known about the virus and before forming an opinion, it was first necessary to study it and understand how it worked. On the one hand, you have the government’s impatience to act, and on the other hand, the patience required of any scientific approach, if it is to bear fruit. »