24 hours after my blog post of yesterday, I’ve been thinking.
It was a wonderful vision, but how on Earth can we get there?
To fuel the fire, I had a twitter chat with the expert herself in Kristin Alford, who is used to to looking forwards to scenarios of the future.
This is what she said:
I read that, got me thinking. But I’m wondering whether all that knowledge and choice is just hard work? #bigsci13
Why not make our systems so those are the default options as per @TimJarvisAM’s opt-out suggestion. #bigsci13
Wouldn’t system change rather than knowledge be more effective in changing health and sustainability? #bigsci13
Her point is that it’s no good hammering our communities of people with scientific and health information if it’s just too damned hard for them to act on.
(Thinking of climate change, anyone?)
Kristin mentions Tim Jarvis in the conversation above as a result of his presentation at TEDxAdelaide in 2010, in which he asked:
Why is it that we have to opt in to environmentally-friendly plans in our home energy packages?
Why is it that legislation is not in place to make environmental choices the default position? Consumers can then opt out if they feel motivated to do so.
So, to reflect on the original question of ‘What does science communication look like if it’s successful?’, the answer is perhaps ‘it is reflected in the guidelines and systems in which our societies operate.’
And hence to a new question: How can we make our cities and communities and government policies structured to reflect current scientific evidence, and to easily incorporate new evidence as it emerges?
Oh man, I think you’ll just have to go and ask Kristin.