Effective Communication with the General Public About Scientific Research That Requires the Care and Use of Animals: Proceedings of a Workshop (2024)
Chapter: Navigating Interactions with the Media, Science Writers, Nonscientists, and Institutional Leadership
Navigating Interactions with the Media, Science Writers, Nonscientists, and Institutional Leadership
Four sessions examined strategies for navigating interactions with different specific audiences. People with different roles in communications with the general public were invited to provide insights into their perspectives on what they need to learn from scientists, scientists shared their perceptions of what information is not being adequately communicated, and pairs of these presenters collaborated to demonstrate addressing each other’s concerns through role-playing scenarios and discussing questions raised by other participants.
CONCERNS OF THE NEWS MEDIA
Paul McKellips, Credence Management Solutions, focused on strategies for communicating effectively with the news media, drawing on his extensive experience as a national TV correspondent, media and public affairs trainer, and executive vice president for public affairs at the Foundation for Biomedical Research.
McKellips offered insights into what the media are interested in, a perspective important for scientists to keep in mind when approaching media interviews. First and foremost, he emphasized, the priority of the media is to create pieces that interest consumers, and he stressed that it is an interviewee’s personality—not experience, expertise, or education—that allows journalists to create a connection with the audience. Next, it is useful to try to discern before the interview what angle the story will likely take. With this in mind, scientists can anticipate the shape of the conversation and determine how best to express their message. He noted that it is important to focus on understanding where the audience is coming from and what is important to them rather than only on what the scientist wants them to understand. “You need to understand them before trying to be understood,” McKellips said. In general, he suggested that it will be most fruitful to “begin with the end” and focus on the shared human experiences that relate to the goals motivating research, such as reducing illness and suffering, rather than starting with the details of the complex research steps and building to the ultimate goals.
On a related note, McKellips cautioned that scientists should avoid the temptation to explain everything and focus instead on offering only a taste of the most compelling aspect of their work. Noting that the average human’s attention span is only 8 seconds—shorter than the 9.25 seconds that researchers have estimated for a goldfish (Fillmore, 2015)—he stressed that short, compelling statements will better connect with audiences, who can then decide if they want to learn more. Given that people speak at about 135 words per minute, an 8-second attention span means that a speaker has only about 20 words to engage their listener, and this is also the typical length of a soundbite that journalists will include in news stories.
McKellips also discussed how an interviewee can respond to questions that distract from their intended messages. Although it is important to be genuine and truthful, he reminded the participants that interviewees do not have to answer all questions; it is important to acknowledge the question, but they can return to a relevant talking point and move on. Finally, McKellips encouraged scientists to develop an “elevator pitch,” a well-rehearsed, 30-second description of their work that can quickly capture an audience’s attention. Ideally, he said that it should be at an 8th-grade level and begin with a focus on the audience’s perspective and shared goals or values, including phrasing that can build a connection between the speaker and listener, such as “you” and “we.” He provided examples of how it can be especially powerful to start with a provocative, rhetorical, or emotionally resonant question (such as “Do you have family members who have suffered from diseases?”) and explain how the speaker’s work aims to address this shared goal.
Media Interview Role-Play
McKellips and Matthew Rassette, Department of Veterans Affairs, prerecorded two scripted, fictional interviews demonstrating a conversation between a somewhat antagonistic journalist and a scientist who works with pigs to develop and test engineered cells intended to speed healing of skin grafts for burn victims. In the first interview, Rassette answered questions about his research and the challenges to administering skin grafts directly but not succinctly. For example, when asked to explain the research breakthrough, he gave a lengthy answer: “What’s different is we’re able to take cells from an individual and change the way that those cells go about doing their day-to-day lives as cells. Using a revolutionary new technology called CRISPR,1 once we’ve made that change, we’re able to put those cells and deploy them in the actual burn site, or any defect site—it doesn’t have to be a burn—and we’re able to find some much more rapid healing. And it’s really a revolutionary change that we’re excited to be able to bring and use to help patients.”
The next questions were about the animals and were more pointed and adversarial, with McKellips describing the study methodology as including “burning pigs.” Rassette explained that pigs were not burned and that anesthesia was provided for the biopsies, but when McKellips pressed him on what happens to them after the procedure, his answer was again too long: “So it is important to note, Paul, that what we do with these animals is intended to help the humans on the other end of it, but it also will end up helping many patients that are treated by veterinarians. In terms of how we go about, you know, what happens to these animals at the end of the study, one of the key ways that we will know whether or not this has been successful and whether or not it is been safe, is by looking at all of the different parts of the animals. And unfortunately, to do that, we do have to humanely euthanize these animals.”
In the second interview, which was played after McKellips expanded on his tips for communicating effectively with the media, Rassette applied these suggestions, making his answers much more succinct and likely to connect effectively with the audience. When asked to describe the research focus, for example, Rassette simply answered, “We found a way to change skin cells so that they heal faster and better.” His answer to the question of what happens to the pigs after the research was also shorter and clearer: “It is a great question, Paul. So, it is really crucial to the research to helping these burn victims and these patients that we know that the techniques that we’re using are safe. And so it is important to take a look at the animal once the study is completed. And so, as a result of that, we do humanely euthanize these animals.”
Discussion
Following McKellips’ remarks and the role-playing exercise, the participants were informally polled, and Huang and Landi moderated a wide-ranging discussion. McKellips reiterated that the most important skills scientists need for communicating effectively with the media are connecting with the public on a human level, capturing the audience’s interest through short, compelling answers, and crafting an elevator pitch. He stressed the importance of focusing on personality and shared values rather than expertise and scientific processes. “At our basic level, we’re all people,” he said. “We all have personalities; we all have hurts and wants and needs and desires and dreams and goals; we’re the same.” Rassette offered an example of how an elevator pitch can start with a focus on the audience’s personal experience, such as, “Have you ever had [a friend] who is suffering from cancer?” and then connect that with the scientist’s motivation and specific research goals, such as, “I have a friend who’s dying of glioblastoma right now, and we’re trying to work on…”
In response to a question from Thompson-Iritani, McKellips explained that creating and rehearsing an elevator pitch is not necessarily at odds with scientists’ desire to remain authentic to themselves and their research. The elevator pitch distills a topic into a form that can capture the audience’s attention; the
___________________
1 CRISPR stands for “clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats,” which are the hallmark of a bacterial defense system that forms the basis for CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing technology. https://www.broadinstitute.org/what-broad/areas-focus/project-spotlight/questions-and-answers-about-crispr (accessed March 27, 2024).
complete story of the research belongs in professional publications, and the general public’s short attention span requires more palatable packaging—using fewer words, fewer syllables, and relatable concepts—to be effective, he said.
Given that science is incremental, Huang raised the question of whether succinct summaries focused on the end goals of research could be misleading. McKellips said that although he shares the general public’s frustration at science’s seemingly slow progress, giving succinct answers that omit some detail is not misleading. Huang suggested that it could help for scientists to acknowledge the public’s frustration and state that they share it, without making false promises or overstating the impact of their work. McKellips agreed, reiterating that although the general public holds a wide array of beliefs, knowledge, and identities, at the core, all have shared experiences, such as losing a loved one to disease, that can form the basis for meaningful connections.
Rassette said that pivoting from adversarial questions and not knowing the questions or story angle in advance were the most difficult parts of the role-playing exercise for him. To help a scientist anticipate the angle that a journalist or eventual story might take, McKellips suggested asking the reporter beforehand about their interest in the story, requesting the questions in advance, and researching the organization or journalist to see what angles their work has taken. He added that scientists can deflect questions, acknowledge them but pivot to other topics, and be straightforward about constraints related to intellectual property concerns, to encourage a constructive direction for the interview. It is also possible to use an interviewer’s question to clear up misconceptions. Finally, McKellips noted that instead of waiting for an interview request, it can be beneficial to seek out media attention. Successful media pitches focus on the end goal of the research, especially if it is relevant to improving quality of life for pets or people, McKellips said, adding that reporters are also more likely to pursue a story if institutionally approved prerecorded (“B-roll”) video footage or photographs are also made available.
CONCERNS OF SCIENCE WRITERS
Simar Bajaj, Harvard University, an undergraduate science writer, and Maria Brake, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, introduced the session by providing their perspectives on interactions between science writers and scientists.
The Perspective of a Science Writer
Drawing upon his experience reporting on biomedical research involving pigs, Bajaj highlighted factors that he has found to influence the nature and quality of interactions between science writers and scientists. As other speakers noted, Bajaj said that research with animals is crucial to medicine, but its role is frequently omitted or obscured, even in the way that scientists themselves discuss their work. For example, stories on advances in xenotransplantation, in which humans receive animal organs, tend to center on the humans, with very little attention paid to the animals or how they are treated. At the same time, animal research is highly polarized, with the extreme ends of the spectrum shaping an unproductive conversation with little space for nuance.
Telling stories about how research with animals is carried out can help to close this gap by enabling more genuine understanding and empathetic discussions, Bajaj said. By presenting multiple angles, science writers can play an important role in crafting a narrative that increase the public’s understanding. For more successful interactions, Bajaj suggested that both scientists and science writers approach interviews with openness and respect. Recognizing that they may have different goals—journalists want a good story, and scientists want to explain their work—Bajaj explained that engaging in more open and productive interactions can help scientists to communicate more effectively. Speaking with science writers may be risky, but scientists can also use interviews to explain or clarify their work, correct errors, and help to prevent their stories from being misrepresented. To prepare for an interview, Bajaj suggested that scientists can benefit
from creating a good quote or apt metaphor for their work and identifying other people or sources of information that the journalist might consult. If a published article contains an error, he suggested that scientists contact the writer privately to offer specific, factual corrections, remembering that people make mistakes and writers do value accuracy.
Science writers can promote effective communication with scientists by building trust with them, Bajaj said, which may involve starting with easier questions, encouraging them to talk freely, and helping them feel safe and understood. With this approach, scientists are less likely to shut down when asked more challenging or contentious questions.
Bajaj stated that it is also important for both scientists and science writers to understand what matters to the public. For example, the public is aware of and cares about the history of research and experimentation with animals and may remember sensational stories from the past that bear no resemblance to current research, such as “Baby Fae’s” baboon heart or Serge Vorneroff’s xenotransplants (Annas, 1985; Cooper, 2012). Recognizing this, scientists could proactively acknowledge past harms while explaining the expectations, values, and regulations that apply to research conducted with animals now.
The public also cares about the choice of species. According to Bajaj, it is often scientifically important for research to be conducted with animals to yield insights that are useful for understanding human biology, but people generally feel more comfortable with research involving species that are more distantly related to humans, such as mice or rats, than species that seem more similar, such as primates. Research with larger animals is often important for validating scientific findings and translating to humans. All animal models have limitations, and Bajaj underscored the importance of acknowledging these limitations and the economic and social factors that determine which animals are selected for use in research.
Finally, Bajaj said that the public is concerned with the long-term trajectory and consequences of decisions around research with animals. This research is part of a continuum, and it is important to put today’s advances into perspective and acknowledge the potential consequences—good and bad—of scientific breakthroughs. For example, some have raised concerns about xenotransplantation experiments leading to animals being raised in large numbers to supply “replacement parts” to extend human life, which some may find ethically questionable. Bajaj said that it would be helpful for scientists and science writers to recognize such concerns and encourage frank discussions of the potential benefits and trade-offs of current and future research with animals.
The Perspective of a Scientist
Brake described four key elements of effective conversations between scientists and the public, when combined with preparation and patience: listening, context, empathy, and knowledge.
Listening without judgment is important for scientists to gain a better understanding of a person’s questions and concerns. People may be curious or worried about specific animals, research, or diseases, for example. Once they have identified the main concerns, Brake said, scientists can target their answers to be more effectively responsive.
Brake stated that context has two elements: the audience and the environment. The former can include their demeanor, their openness to discussion, any group affiliations, and what they might already know. Speaking with a group of veterinary students, for example, is very different from speaking with relatives at Thanksgiving dinner. The environmental context is where the conversation takes place and how much time is available for it.
The third element is empathy. Brake noted that scientists may not be accustomed to embracing empathy or discussing emotions in the context of their work, but doing so can help to make their research more meaningful and impactful and create common ground for more productive conversations with the public. As part of embracing empathy, Brake said that she encourages researchers and animal caretakers to forge emotional connections with the research animals. “I personally do not believe [this] will compromise your science; it will make your science better. As a veterinarian, it makes my care of these animals better,” she said.
Finally, she noted that knowledge is essential. It is important for scientists to be able to communicate why they conduct this research: who do they want to help, what problem are they hoping to solve, and how were their protocols created? In addition, Brake said that it is important for scientists to be knowledgeable about and willing to discuss the relevant legal requirements, institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) rules, audits, and international standards to ensure that animals are treated humanely. She added that it is valuable to communicate that researchers and veterinarians are continually seeking opportunities to further improve animal welfare, such as by developing better pain medicines or less stressful handling techniques.
Veterinarian–Public Interaction Role-Play
To highlight some communication strategies and potential pitfalls in discussions about research with animals, Bajaj and Brake engaged in a live role-play. Brake explained her work as a laboratory animal veterinarian, noting that it sometimes includes euthanizing animals. When Bajaj, as a member of the public, pressed her on this point and asked how she could feel good about that as a veterinarian, she called herself an animal advocate and described her role as ensuring that animals are properly cared for both during their life and at the time of their death. Bajaj pointed out that the animals lack the ability to consent and noted that many experiments fail, thus “wasting” animals’ lives. Brake acknowledged these points and explained how she feels about the animals and their treatment, the laws in place to protect them, and how their involvement in research helps to ensure safe medicines for humans.
Bajaj asked for more information on the relevant regulations, and Brake explained that compliance is high because scientists care about the animals and know that proper treatment is important to ensuring reliable results. Although stories of poor treatment make headlines, she said, the vast majority of facilities follow the rules. She also shared an anecdote about how her research animals had better access to fresh food than she did, discussed how researchers are working to improve practices to further reduce animals’ stress levels, and reiterated the importance of monitoring and regulation to ensure that facilities are following appropriate protocols.
Discussion
Expanding on their presentations and role-playing exercise, Brake and Bajaj shared additional advice on effective communication with science writers and the public in a discussion moderated by Huang and Landi. In response to a question about the role of public relations professionals, Bajaj said that, ideally, public relations officials can partner with scientists to communicate effectively on behalf of an organization. He highlighted how institutions benefit from having expert communication staff to facilitate interactions with journalists and train scientists to navigate interviews effectively. However, he cautioned that it is important to remember that the scientist and not the public relations official is the one who speaks from a position of knowledge and authority about the research. Reiterating McKellips and others, he suggested that scientists can prepare by asking interviewers what topics they plan to cover and distilling their work ahead of time to focus on its most important elements. By working together effectively, science writers and scientists can contribute to telling stories that are both factually correct and interesting. He added that journalists strive to be empathic to all points of view during an interview and encouraged science writers to fact-check their reporting with scientists, while recognizing that the writers make the final decisions about what they publish.
Brake and Bajaj also discussed how informal conversations with friends, students, and family members can contribute to a cultural shift by providing opportunities for scientists to listen to the concerns of nonscientists, share stories to help people better understand their work, and discuss more broadly the nuances of the potential benefits and risks associated with research with animals. For example, they noted that Brake’s anecdote about food created a memorable and relatable image of what animal care looks like in her facility. Brake also recalled her informal conversations with those who work at animal shelters who said that they regularly see animals that have been abused and abandoned and were concerned that research
animals are similarly mistreated; taking the time to listen to such viewpoints can help scientists understand how a person’s experiences can influence their feelings and concerns about research. Landi noted that younger people can sometimes be particularly open and willing about open conversations that explore the struggles, ethics, benefits, and burdens of working with animals.
Other speakers joined in to discuss strategies for navigating the conversation when someone points to examples of poor treatment of animals, as Bajaj did in the role-play. Noting that simply refusing to comment can lead to frustration, Bajaj suggested that scientists can listen empathetically, answer what questions they can, and pivot to focus on what they do know. If a facility is cited for violations, Brake suggested that it can be constructive to present the incident as an opportunity to improve the facility and build institutional knowledge and emphasized the importance of communicating what is being done to ensure it never happens again.
Finally, the importance of empathy was discussed. Brake said that scientists can acknowledge that their research simultaneously involves the potential for important benefits to animals and humans, difficult work and potential animal suffering, and doubts and compassion fatigue on the part of the scientists. Recognizing that all of these feelings can coexist, she suggested, can lead to more effective conversations. Communicating openly about complex feelings can also help to dispel the myth of the “cold scientist” who works without understanding or compassion, helping the public to appreciate that scientists do grapple with difficult decisions and to be reassured by the measures in place to ensure appropriate animal care and treatment and the knowledge that the benefits of the research can outweigh the risks or potential harms.
CONCERNS OF NONSCIENTISTS
Jessica Kwan, University of California, Davis, School of Veterinary Medicine, provided tips for talking to animal enthusiasts about the use of animals in research. She defined an “animal enthusiast” as anyone who likes animals, which includes a broad range of people, such as young children, pet owners, shelter volunteers, and activists. As a veterinarian, she added that she considers herself to be a strong animal enthusiast and said that many people in the scientific community fall into this category, including many of the people involved in caring for research animals and the scientists who study them in the field or laboratory.
Kwan stressed that scientists and veterinarians have an important role in collaborative, constructive discussions with animal enthusiasts about research with animals. She acknowledged that the relationship between researchers and some groups, such as activists petitioning for improved animal welfare, has often been contentious, but fostering productive dialogue can help to overcome some misconceptions and areas of disagreement. “Ultimately, they’re here because they care about the animals, too, and if we can synergize with them and work with them, I think we can get to a better place,” said Kwan.
Noting that animal enthusiasts have varying ideas about how research animals are treated, Kwan highlighted misconceptions she has encountered in her own experience and described how she views the role of laboratory animal veterinarians. She shared negative statements, such as “You must hate animals to be able to experiment on them” and “How can you condone animal research if you’re a veterinarian? Doesn’t that go against your oath?” On the other hand, some have praised her for going into the field, stating, for example, “We need more people like you who care deeply about both the animal’s well-being and sound research.” Like all veterinarians, laboratory animal veterinarians take an oath promising to protect animal welfare, prevent and relieve suffering, and commit to ethical behavior and continual improvement. They fulfill many critical research roles, ensuring compassionate animal care and valid research data through their work as animal doctors and advocates, facility operators, regulatory and protocol reviewers, and scientific collaborators. Although researchers and laboratory animal veterinarians can disagree, Kwan emphasized that fostering collaborative working relationships with mutual respect, support, and open communication can ensure that animals are well cared for and the research results are sound.
Kwan identified five strategies for improving understanding between scientists and animal enthusiasts. First, she suggested that scientists can present facts and connect with animal enthusiasts’ emotions. Second, the scientist can support dialogue and engage the other person more fully by inviting them to describe what they believe the scientist has said, so the scientist can better understand their perspective. Third,
scientists can assure them of the concern that scientists and laboratory animal veterinarians have for animal welfare by describing their specialized training focused on animal care. Fourth, scientists can realize when it is appropriate to leave a conversation because it is no longer productive and have a closing statement ready. Finally, Kwan encouraged scientists to be brave in standing up for their beliefs but also ready to forgive themselves when they feel they could have better navigated a difficult situation.
Nonscientist Interaction Role-Play
Kwan and Katherine Serafine, University of Texas at El Paso, prerecorded two fictional conversations between a scientist and a nonscientist. In the first, Kwan took on the role of an enthusiastic undergraduate student asking a scientist about her work involving rats as models for human behavior and neurochemistry. After some basic questions, Kwan asked how Serafine studies the rats’ brains. In response, Serafine explained why euthanasia is necessary, stressing the benefit for humanity and the ethical and respectful care the rats receive, in compliance with the requirements of the local IACUC, national standards of animal welfare ethics, and best practices to minimize their pain and distress. Serafine noted that the best researchers who work with animals are animal lovers, because they understand the importance of compassionate animal care. Kwan listened attentively and appeared to understand and accept the responses.
In the second scenario, Kwan took a more confrontational approach, describing Serafine’s work as “torture.” She pointed out that animals cannot give consent, and although Serafine described the same review committees and standards, Kwan acted unconvinced, using words such as “killing” and “sacrificing.” Serafine defended her work and closed the conversation respectfully when she sensed that it was no longer constructive.
After each exercise, participants were invited to react via an informal online poll. Most respondents considered the first interaction to be constructive and effective, although a few found it frustrating, inadequate, or counterproductive. Respondents were more dissatisfied with the second interaction, with “frustrating” more frequently chosen. In both scenarios, Serafine, as the scientist, had followed at least one of the communication strategies Kwan had described.
Discussion
Despite its being performed as planned, both Kwan and Serafine said in the follow-up discussion moderated by Thompson-Iritani and Newsome that they felt frustrated and uncomfortable after the second role-play. Serafine worried that some of her responses were dismissive of Kwan’s concerns, wished she had paused to consider her answers more carefully given the emotional tenor of the conversation, and noted that in future conversations, she will try to better acknowledge the other person’s feelings and that she finds it difficult to manage her own emotions, especially if she feels attacked and forced to defend her work.
Kwan shared that despite not agreeing with the values expressed by her role, she, too, left the conversation feeling flustered and unheard. She also cautioned that it is important to recognize that emotions tend to flare when people find themselves reconsidering long-held beliefs. She suggested that scientists thank the person for sharing their perspective regardless of the outcome of the conversation.
Kwan posited that veterinarians could enhance their role as trusted sources of information about research with animals by making themselves more available for constructive conversations and their messages more accessible by avoiding scientific jargon. Serafine agreed, stating that by failing to communicate with people outside of one’s area of expertise, “essentially, you’re missing the people that you need to reach the most.” She also noted that McKellips correctly pointed out that scientists are trained to present data to other scientists but not taught the essential skill of effectively communicating their work—and the relevant regulations—to nonscientists through honest, open, and constructive conversations. Serafine reiterated the value of highlighting the medical benefits that come from research involving animals.
Asked about opportunities to improve the relationships between laboratory animal veterinarians and scientists, Kwan answered that it requires time to talk and listen, especially if conversations become contentious and both sides feel misunderstood. The veterinarians have the ultimate say in animal treatment, but
it is important for them to recognize that scientists also care about the animals’ welfare, know that proper care leads to sound research, and may have more experience with these particular animals. She added that it is helpful if scientists recognize that veterinarians are not trying to make the work more difficult but are focused on maintaining animal welfare. Serafine said that it is important to connect as people and that small, friendly interactions can help establish congenial, collaborative, and productive relationships.
CONCERNS OF INSTITUTIONAL LEADERSHIP
Bill Yates, University of Pittsburgh, gave an introductory presentation and was interviewed by Landi about strategies that scientists can use to engage with institutional leadership around issues involving research with animals and efforts to communicate about it. He noted that leaders often began their careers as faculty and are therefore familiar with the challenges of that role. As vice chancellor for research protections, Yates oversees research and regulatory compliance and works closely with the Office of University Communications and Marketing. He noted that communications and marketing teams are focused on promoting the institution to stakeholders, such as government funders and prospective students, and this naturally affects the decisions they make about how to engage with the media and communicate research. Against the backdrop of such institutional motivations and structures, Yates described how conversations among scientists, department heads, legal staff, and other stakeholders can inform and guide communication regarding potentially controversial research.
A compelling story—for example, demonstrating how research with animals can contribute to curing diseases—can be an effective promotional tool for an institution, Yates said, explaining that the University of Pittsburgh recognizes this and has taken a transparent, communicative stance around animal research on its campus, and its communications office has taken steps to publicly highlight such research and welcome reporters to visit its laboratories. However, he cautioned that reporters can sometimes be more interested in their idea of a good story than in getting the details right. “They’re not there to tell your story—they’re there to tell a good story,” he said, and it is important for researchers to be aware that often only a portion (if any) of what they say in an interview will likely be included in media stories.
Yates also emphasized that it is important for scientists to be aware of any restrictions imposed by their institution, government bodies, or funding agencies; communications may be constrained if an investigation is ongoing or sharing the work raises concerns about physical security or data security, for example. Yates cautioned that it is important for faculty members to consult the communications office before agreeing to give a media interview and not to invite the public to visit their laboratory or vivarium without permission from their institution.
Although he said that scientists who are unwilling to discuss their work with the media should not be forced to do so, Yates added that those who are willing can have productive interactions with reporters and the general public, particularly if they take advantage of media training and other types of support from their institutional communications experts and leadership. He added that it is helpful for scientists to tailor their remarks to the audience, recognizing that some audiences are intent on being adversarial, so engagement may not be productive. Yates also advised scientists to be clear that they speak for themselves and not the institution (unless they have explicit permission to do so). Finally, he suggested that one-on-one social settings are perhaps the most conducive environments for effective communication about particularly controversial issues.
Institution–Scientist Interaction Role-Play
Yates participated in an unscripted role-playing exercise with Lana Ruvolo Grasser, National Institute of Mental Health. Grasser played a scientist soliciting advice from her institution’s communications staff after being contacted by a reporter for an interview. Yates confirmed that the institution supported accepting the interview request and offered several pieces of advice: review her funding agreements for any restrictions on public statements, investigate the media outlet and its possible viewpoint on research with animals, consider media training, and choose her words carefully during the interview. If she felt unfairly
targeted, Yates said that she should let the university respond rather than try to defend herself; if the targeting turned into harassment, with threats or violence that go beyond protected speech, the institution could involve law enforcement and security personnel.
Grasser asked what researchers should do if they see or suspect a problem or incident involving research animals. Yates noted that institutions have mechanisms to report concerns, whether anonymously or openly, to the institutional animal care and use committee, which is responsible for investigating them. He again reiterated that it is inadvisable to speak publicly about issues that are under investigation, as the purpose of an investigation is to elucidate the facts.
Finally, Grasser asked for advice if she were approached by a legislator or lawmaker about visiting her laboratory. Yates suggested that she should contact the appropriate university team (typically a government affairs office), let them handle the request, and ensure that a visit would not disturb the animals. Yates reiterated the benefits of drawing upon the established structures and expertise within the institution: “You have a large staff at your university, a lot of very trained professionals who are expert in dealing with the press, with the government, et cetera. Make good use of them; make use of their expertise, and they can give you good advice.”
Discussion
Planning committee members Alissa Hatfield, American Physiological Society, and Jeffrey Henegar, University of Missouri, moderated a discussion following Yates’ remarks and the role-play. Asked about the impacts of his university’s stance of intentional openness, Yates replied that this approach has created an environment in which scientists are more engaged with the public, their work is better communicated to the public, and the university receives more positive media attention. He encouraged scientists to take advantage of their institution’s resources, support, and expert staff to help them navigate communication with the media, the public, or government officials; Grasser and Yates also noted that it can be particularly helpful to conduct mock interviews with an imagined adversarial interviewer to practice pushing back. They also reiterated the importance of focusing on the target audience and interview goal and suggested that scientists could turn to scientific colleagues for advice and even include communications or legal staff in interviews for added support. Asked what to do if certain details about a research project cannot be divulged to the public, Yates suggested that a scientist could pivot to discussing details of animal models and care instead.
Huang and Hatfield asked the speakers to comment on opportunities for researchers to advocate for more openness about research with animals at their own institutions. Yates suggested that researchers could approach leadership and point out how reputable peer institutions have embraced openness. He hoped that even scientists who are early in their careers would feel empowered to reach out to these leaders, who were once researchers themselves and whose job involves advocating for the work at their institutions. Some useful steps toward implementing a more open approach can be for communications staff to reach out to media outlets and create web pages highlighting scientists’ work. Yates noted that sometimes it can take a crisis to force changes and increase openness but cautioned that when an institution is focused on refuting accusations is not the best time to develop an openness strategy to tell these stories. In general, however, Yates said that institutional leadership is typically aware of how research with animals benefits the institution and supports more open communication about it. Grasser suggested that early-career scientists can also increase institutional openness by hosting Biomedical Research Awareness Day events, visiting K–12 schools and community events, participating in educational workshops, and improving their own communication skills.
During leadership changes or staff turnover, Yates suggested that researchers could take steps to proactively express their views on the benefits of openness to new leadership and staff to build and maintain institutional support. He added that openness may look different at public and private universities, since by law, public institutions have to be more open, although certain internal discussions can remain confidential. Private institutions are not necessarily subject to open-records laws and may be less forthcoming about their
research. Hatfield wondered if a mandate to increase institutional openness might be helpful, but Yates responded that voluntary initiatives are likely to be more successful and can benefit from informal commitments to create a “safety in numbers” feeling that encourages other institutions.
