Stories

By Emily Howell, Associate Director of Research at the Science Communication Lab

This spring, I’ve been finding inspiration and opportunity in the words of a random sample of Americans. Working with many collaborators, including Civic Science Fellows (CSF) host partners Sarah Goodwin and Elliot Kirschner at the film production and science education non-profit, Science Communication Lab, my fellow social scientist Nicky Krause (a 2021 Fellow), and director Ian Cheney of Wicked Delicate Films, we’ve recently created and released a documentary film, Observer.

The film explores observation as an inherent human activity core to science through eight stories that take place around the world. Funded by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, we had the opportunity to work together as social scientists and filmmakers from the beginning to the end of making and distributing the film.

One of our hopes was to help make science accessible by telling a story of science as an inherently human endeavor. By that I mean, portraying how science depends on human creativity and care, collaboration across (sometimes wildly) different viewpoints, and looking carefully to understand the world (all parts of the world, especially those we might think mundane or take for granted) in new, more detailed ways. Through screenings around the US, we’re researching, what experiences do people come away with from viewing the film? How can film (and the way we tell stories about science and who does science) seed new conversations and relationships across people of different backgrounds, and with science?

As part of that research, this March we asked a representative sample of more than 1,000 Americans to watch one of the eight chapters of the film and share their thoughts. The open-ended responses are offering insight into the relationships people do and could have with science and stories of science. People reported that they felt a sense of curiosity, of adventure, of color and beauty in unexpected or even mundane places, of identification with the characters’ insights and approaches to life, and a suite of emotions including peacefulness, sadness, jealousy, and joy. As one respondent said, “I saw beauty in . . . how it spoke of us all looking at the same thing, at the same time, and in some ways, seeing totally different things.” Overwhelmingly, people reported something, and often someone, that they felt a personal connection to. And found that connection despite having no idea really what they were getting into when they sat down to take a survey.

The results are building on other research I’ve been working on with the Science Communication Lab on portraying “the nature of science”—or science as a human endeavor—as well as with Nicky Krause’s research on U.S. publics alienated from science. In studies in classrooms, at in-person film screenings, and through national surveys, we’re finding that the vast majority of people, often regardless of demographic background, can feel engaged with science stories—even if they don’t otherwise feel connected to science.

People often identify with the scientist characters, as well. Often not because of a shared visible identity, but because of the opportunity the story provides for seeing what they have in common that might run deeper. The commonalities—such as being a “deep thinker,” enjoying observing, or being dedicated to your work, other people, or the place you come from—might be invisible without time spent together, even if that “time together” is through seeing someone’s story in film.

The responses from viewers illustrate in part the power of building relationships, including through media and art, and how we can tell stories of science in ways that facilitate those relationships. My background is in history of science and science communication. So I often see the work of civic science through the lens of what stories—including theories, myths, examples, and assumptions—we’re using to understand science and its place in society, and how these might invite or keep out people and viewpoints we need for strong science and effective decision-making.

For example, in the United States, one dominant story of science has been of an enterprise removed: special and awe-worthy, but also apart from politics and beliefs, living in culturally or geographically remote institutions, and done by an unrepresentative few. Revisions to that story have grown in recent decades, especially with greater focus on how science (particularly publicly-funded science) is political, as we humans use it to reify or change societal understandings and action, and that science is always human—dependent on people systematically compiling partial views, tied to what we care about. Under the older story of science, highlighting how science depended on the people who fund, conduct, and use it was often seen as a weakness. Science’s power seemed tied to believing that science was more removed from fallible humans. But under the newer stories, there’s recognition that not only is acknowledging the many human sides of science more accurate, but also is a way to strengthen science and create more beneficial relationships with people across civic life. Sure, a limitation of science that us humans are the ones doing it, I suppose. But it’s a limitation that comes with anything people do. And it’s part of the power of science: people from different backgrounds and viewpoints working together to try to see a part of the world in a new or more complete way—an understanding we could never gain working alone. As one of the anonymous survey respondents wrote, “The potential of humanity is infinite.” Science is part of that.

Because people are unnecessarily alienated from science based on zip codes, social class, education levels, skin color, gender, and differing abilities, we have yet to tap into the full potential of human imagination and experience that would further more innovative, effective science. Advancing science by building new relationships with different people and in more places in the U.S. and around the world to draw on the rich insights around us is central to making more civic science. It also is work that is going on around us all the time, even if it doesn’t make headlines. And it’s important to recognize what does already exist as resources and examples to grow with. I find the survey responses inspiring because they help remind me of that. They give just one sample of the wealth of people around us who are old, new, and future collaborators to learn and act with.