according to a study conducted by the proceedings of the national academy of sciences, the planet could see a greater increase in global temperatures in the next 50 years than it did in the last 6,000 combined.

climate change has already started to affect global affairs and today strains relations between countries.

countries in the middle east are fueding over water, a decline in agricultural output is fueling hunger and poverty in latin america, and changing weather patterns are contributing to rapid urbanization worldwide, which in turn reinforces the problem of climate change.

as demonstrated by publishers and magazines like the council on foreign relations and foreign policy, climate change is a foreign policy issue and will require multilateral cooperation to mitigate, or it will continue to affect international relations for years to come.

interestingly, the language used to refer to this global phenomenon has shifted over the years. it was first referred to as “global warming,” but this term has been phasing out in the past decade or so in favor of “climate change” which is an all encompassing term that better describes the worsening environment.

however, there has been a third term that has gained popularity in recent years: the “climate crisis.” other related terms include the “climate emergency” and “climate catastrophe.” these terms put more urgency on the situation so that people can better understand the stakes of climate change.

various organizations have made a point to replace outdated terminology with more accurate ones in regards to the environment.

for example, in 2019 the guardian, a british daily newspaper, published an article addressing the fact they are updating their “style guide” to “to introduce terms that more accurately describe the environmental crises facing the world.”

these changes came less than a year after the un secretary general antónio guterres first used the term “climate crisis” in a speech in september of 2018.

the guardian made six main language changes on the environment. for example, “climate crisis” will be used instead of “climate change” in order to more accurately reflect the seriousness of the situation. also, “climate denier” will be used instead of “climate skeptic” to be more specific, as well as “greenhouse gas emissions” in place of “carbon emissions.” 

the guardian stands as an example of how language can have power in society and can affect public opinion, and prompts other news sources to make similar changes. 

in addition to rhetoric changes in the media, new words have even been added to the dictionary.

in the month prior to the 26th conference of the parties to the united nations framework convention on climate change (cop26) in november of 2021, the oxford english dictionary (oed) released an update on climate terminology.

according to the oxford monitor corpus of english, a source that analyzes trends in the english language, the term “climate crisis” made its first appearance in the dictionary in 2021 and the term became 20 times more popular from 2018 to 2020. also, while the oed usually doesn’t usually include chemical formulas, it recently added co2 to the dictionary because of its frequent use in society today.

“global heating” is another addition to the dictionary –– despite “global warming” already existing –– because of how it reflects a more urgent and accurate connotation. additionally, terms like “eco-anxiety” and “climate refugees” have been added as well.

the update on the oxford english dictionary is a telling sign of the urgency of the climate situation and better equips people to add to the discourse on environmentalism. 

it has become clear that the climate crisis is a problem that cannot be solved by one actor alone.

it will require global governance and the participation of leading international organizations, individuals, and states. the window for action is closing, and measures need to be taken immediately to mitigate the climate crisis.

language and rhetoric hold a lot of power in our society and should be used with caution and good intentions. news sources can learn from the guardian, which made a point to switch to more effective and informed language when referring to the climate crisis.

this switch in rhetoric has many political implications, which consequently affects the economy and society as well. despite clear scientific evidence of a worsening environment, climate change continues to be one of the most polarizing issues in the world today.

there is a clear partisan divide over environmental regulations in the united states. presidential candidates often address energy and environmental issues during their campaigns, and how their policies will (or will not) affect the economy. 

in an interview for the journal of critical thought and praxis, dr. danielle endres, associate professor of communication and faculty in the environmental humanities masters program at the university of utah, introduces climate change rhetoric as a social phenomenon.

she states that “climate change is not only a material phenomenon; it is also a social phenomenon. we cannot hope to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, slow the warming of the planet, and adapt to the changes already in effect without broad societal change.”

the science itself is rather straightforward, but it is what we do with the science that is causing extreme deliberation in our society.

increased environmental regulation is necessary to mitigate the effects of the climate crisis. new environmental organizations, regional responses, and improved education methods are just a few ways in which we can halt or even reverse the effects of climate change in our generation.

the climate crisis is one of the largest and most consequential problems that we have faced as a society and will require collective action to overcome. changing the way in which we refer to the changing climate will determine the methods we use to effectively respond to the situation –– rhetoric holds power and it is time that we yield this tool to create a more environmentally-conscious society. 

“i thought, you know, what in the world is this guy doing?” said brown, who owns a corn, soybean, hay, and beef cattle farm with his wife, jennifer, in highland county, ohio.

he couldn’t figure out what was growing — it was too tall and lanky for wheat — so he made a point of meeting his neighbor that summer. turns out, he had been tending to his field of cereal rye, a popular cover crop, a type of crop grown usually in off-seasons to improve soil health and mitigate erosion.

the pair got to talking about soil health and erosion, and soon brown set aside one of his bean fields for a cereal rye crop of his own.

interest in sustainable farming practices is building, and while independent and governmental conservation organizations can be good resources for promoting ecological practices, farmers say that swapping information peer-to-peer works best.

“i think the number one way this movement is growing, just like it grew with me, is from another farmer,” said brown, a 40-year-old first-generation farmer.

it’s been 10 years since he spied his neighbor drilling in the winter chill. today, he keeps 90% of his roughly 1,300 acres covered year-round.

wide lens mobile phones are important information-sharing tools for rural farmers around the globe, but many lack access to data and internet service. across africa, less than 40% of farming households have internet access, according to a 2020 study published in nature sustainability.

the missing ingredient

farmer interest in sustainability practices has grown, especially in soil health, said taylor dill, agriculture and natural resources educator for ohio state university’s darke county extension program.

it’s a national trend. the number of organic farms increased 39% from 2012 to 2017, according to the latest united states department of agriculture census, while the average farm put in place no-till practices on 374 acres of land, 29 more acres than in 2012. for cover crops, that average acreage increased from 77 to 100.

dill said that younger farmers — “the next generation that will inherit the land” — show a particular interest. with farmers of any age, “one of the most effective ways that we can teach farmers is being able to have another farmer speak to another farmer about an experience. they’re going to listen to their peers,” she said. 

greg mcglinch owns and operates down home farms in darke county. “word of mouth still means a lot in rural america,” he said.

wide lens farmers use mobile phones to grow their businesses, but the cost of owning a phone can set them back. low-income farmers in asia spend anywhere from 11 to 24% of their income on mobile services, according to a 2009 study. 

in that vein, brown started the “ohio soil health and cover crops” facebook group, which has racked up over 1,600 followers as of august 30, 2021. the feed includes everything from no-till instructional videos to requests for advice on best ratios for soil additives.

brown had a bad slug problem this year, but saw that the unwelcome pests weren’t showing up on his cover crop fields. he threw that idea out for the community to mull over. the page is there for farmers to crowd-source, said brown — “to bounce ideas off of one another, or solutions.”

farmers talk to each other. but that point is often missed on the national scale, dill said. much of the time, farmers are “overlooked,” she says, while the public, clamoring for sustainability measures, “want to go straight to having a policy rather than having a conversation first.”

that’s wonky, said dill, since “all of those decisions directly affect producers.”

science in the field

greg mcglinch’s farm is a checkerboard of harvestable crops, conservation practices and experimentation. on a clear june day, the 41-year-old farmer pointed out all the pieces from behind the wheel of a trundling four-wheeler.

there’s the strip of flowering plants between the forest grove, and a harvest field that acts as a habitat buffer. a low, concrete mass buried at one end of the creek is a head wall that keeps rainwater from ripping up the waterway’s banks. there’s the field of perennial wheatgrass that mcglinch said he didn’t quite know what to do with yet, except to “start playing and learning” how he could sell the hardy crop.

“it’s a real complex career,” he said, between deft sips of coffee from a sloshing mug as the four-wheeler tooled down a path toward his vegetable plot. mcglinch rotates the garden every year from one side to another, and moves the mobile chicken coop he built to the unoccupied side for a season of good fertilizer.

learning these techniques — “it’s kind of hard knocks,” he said. “i do a lot of reading and researching and talking with friends and (seeing) what other farmers are doing.”

sustainable farming practices aren’t just handed down from a lab to farmers, dill said. farmers often offer their own ideas; researchers try the ideas out on a farmer’s fields or at a small plot at a university, which publishes the results in peer-reviewed journals and in fact-sheets that farmers and extension educators use in field trips to disperse the information. and money is always part of the equation.

“when we’re talking with farmers, we’re talking about how we can be more sustainable,” dill said, “but also we need to be able to make sure they’re still productive.”

it’s not a simple yes or no as to whether sustainability practices cut costs, brown said. there are a lot of factors that make up the cost and profit of any one plot or field. he said he sees returns on expenses for seeding and tending cover crops in the reduced use of fertilizers and nutrient applications.

it’s a lot of looking forward, brown said. if his soil is healthy, for example, it will hold more water, making his crops less vulnerable in dry years.

“when i sit down and look at my budgets,’ he said, “i don’t want this to be an extra expense.” 

mcglinch also knows that balance well. “you’ve got to make a profit, or you can’t keep going,” he said. “at the same time, you’ve got to find a good balance, because we want to keep the land in the best shape.”

the farming industry hasn’t reached equilibrium yet, he said, but it can.

“we do need large-scale agriculture because we have a population to feed. it’s just a matter of how do we balance all that, too. i think there’s a way, it’s just, we’ve got to learn.”

it’s not all up to farmers, though. “at the end it’s going to come down to consumer decisions,” mcglinch said. “it’s the buying power. it’s what the consumer wants.”

—

about this series: the planet forward-fao summer storytelling fellows work was sponsored by the north america office of the food and agriculture organization of the united nations (fao), and the fellows were mentored by lisa palmer, gw’s national geographic professor of science communication and author of “hot, hungry planet.”

these thoughts were expressed by three journalists at the event, “conversations in science communication: news, journalism and a global pandemic”, hosted by the george washington university school of media and public affairs. panelists were laura helmuth, the editor-in-chief of scientific american, mark johnson, a science reporter for the milwaukee journal sentinel, and nancy lapid, editor at reuters health medical news.

smpa director silvio waisbord delivered opening remarks to 100 attendees on webex and lisa palmer, the national geographic visiting professor of science communication, moderated the discussion.  

covid-19 has infected 7,168,077 individuals since january 21 and caused 205,372 deaths, according to the cdc covid-19 data tracker. the virus upended the entire world, causing everyone to demand answers from the scientific community. 

johnson spoke on the difficulties of reporting accurate science because research papers are being published so quickly.

“i kind of made a decision early on that i felt it was more important to tell people what the scientists were doing than to take too much of a paternalistic approach and say nothing is a story until it’s been peer-reviewed,” he said.  

as information spreads rapidly, it is more difficult for journalists to speak to their audiences. 

“it’s scary – it’s really hard to communicate with people when they are scared and confused, and that means we’re using all of our skills and experimenting in real-time to figure out how to get messages across in a way that people can hear and comprehend,” helmuth said.

helmuth acknowledged the coronavirus “landed in a massive moment of misinformation and disinformation,” adding that elaborate conspiracy theories have been released even from the president of the united states. 

the misinformation became so dangerous that the magazine endorsed a political candidate for the first time. 

“we felt it was our responsibility to use our platform to urge people to vote for joe biden,” helmuth said.

she claims that the trump administration is harming science and especially public health. 

lapid said that reuters, the news organization where she works, declared a news emergency during covid-19 and rearranged their reporting staff to involve the medical health news team more broadly. 

“reuters quickly realized the general news team needed help from my team who know the difference between dna and rna,” lapid said. 

event attendee heidi estrada, a junior at gwu majoring in international affairs, was surprised to hear about the struggles journalists faced. 

“i feel like journalists were often battling two different battles… the simple battle of understanding the science and the virus itself, and then fighting another battle of fighting the misinformation that was spread online,” she said. 

reflecting upon these times, each panelist shared a key takeaway learned from covering the pandemic. 

helmuth said it’s important to call out racism and lies and to not “give climate science skeptics a platform,” she said. johnson shared that this profession is “endlessly humbling” and you will always be learning something new. lapid encouraged students to develop sources and gain an understanding of basic science to support themselves.

the complete event is archived on gwu school of media and public affairs’s youtube channel. 

for more information about the center for community resilience visit go.gwu.edu/ccr.

hosted by frank sesno, healthy you: surviving a pandemic is a co-production of the george washington university milken institute school of public health and the school of media and public affairs.

healthy you: surviving a pandemic is a co-production of the george washington university milken institute school of public health and the school of media and public affairs.

hosted by frank sesno, healthy you: surviving a pandemic is a co-production of the george washington university milken institute school of public health and the school of media and public affairs.

healthy you: surviving a pandemic is a co-production of the george washington university milken institute school of public health and the school of media and public affairs.

in addition to writing about climate change, deaton also runs a website called climate chat, which aggregates research on climate change communication. climate chat began as his thesis project in grad school at gw, and now he uses it to keep people informed on the latest research, sending monthly updates via a newsletter.

we recently spoke to deaton about how to overcome the struggles in communicating the gravity of climate change and why climate change denial is a problem in the u.s. 

q: generally, how informed is the american public on climate change and climate issues?

a: i would say that the public is not as informed as scientists and advocates would hope it is. when you look at what people think of the causes of climate change, we are at the point where a little more than half of americans say that humans are causing climate change. but when you break that question down and ask, “do you think humans are the sole cause? do you think humans are the primary cause? do you think that humans are causing climate change, but also nature is causing climate change?” — that is a lot more confusing. and it seems that not enough americans understand that humans are the primary driver of warming. 

q: do the american people have an understanding of the mechanism behind climate change? it can be a relatively abstract concept at times, and what is your feeling on americans understanding of this?

a: i think that people, generally, have a pretty vague understanding of the mechanism of climate change. i think they understand that industrial pollution– pollution of carbon from cars and trucks and planes and factories and power plants–is making the earth warmer. but if you ask people to name as many greenhouse gasses as they can, i imagine that people might say co2, but they wouldn’t get to methane or hydrofluorocarbons or some of the other more obscure gases.

but i also don’t think it’s really important that americans understand the mechanism of climate change. i don’t think they need to understand the nitty-gritty of the science. i think they need to understand the basics — that pollution from cars and trucks and planes and factories and power plants, pollution from agriculture — from specifically raising livestock — pollution from deforestation is warming the planet, and that is a catastrophic risk. 

q: while only 5% of americans, in recent polling, fully deny climate change is occurring. why is there still a relatively large chunk of americans who are not willing to pin climate change on human activity? what do you think the root cause for that is? are there things that are causing that?

a: let me break that answer down into a couple of parts. one, i think it is tempting to divide climate change deniers into these many different groups, depending on what their specific views are… i think it is functionally fine to just group together anyone who denies that climate change is an overwhelming problem that requires an immediate and drastic response. you can just put them all together. if someone acknowledges that the planet is warming but denies that we need to do anything about it, that is functionally the same as someone denying that the planet is warming. 

as for why people would deny the need for drastic action for climate change, i think the answer is tribalism. for 30 years now, fossil fuel companies have been aligning with conservative politicians and conservative media to persuade conservative americans that climate change is a liberal conspiracy to create a global government, and you have gotten to the point where climate denial is a shibboleth for conservative politicians. membership to this group is now contingent upon denying the need to take drastic action to address climate change. it is really hard to change that. it is completely entrenched, and is really hard to form a new norm, particularly when you have all these forces that are reinforcing the current norm. 

i think there has been a lot of time and attention and energy devoted to trying to convert conservatives on climate change. the environmental movement has spent a lot of time and energy and money on that cause in the last couple of decades. and i think that energy would be better devoted to trying to mobilize people who are already inclined to care about the problem. and i think that the movement we’ve seen in public opinion in the last few months or last year, where you see more americans caring about climate change, and it has risen in importance among liberals and democrats, i think it has to do with the fact that you see more movement on the left.

you have charismatic politicians like (alexandria ocasio-cortez) who are making this an issue. you have advocates like the extinction rebellion that are making this an issue, and you are pulling from the left, and it’s having an effect on the whole spectrum of public opinion. you see progressives care about it more, and you see swing voters starting to pay attention. and, as a result, you’ve got republicans starting to — or at least trying to — sound sensible on climate change. mitch mcconnell acknowledges that it’s a thing. i don’t think he should get any credit for that, but i think that it is a result of pulling from the left.     

q: if drastic measures are necessary to make the impact that needs to be made to save the planet and try to mitigate as many problems as possible, wouldn’t you need that percentage of people on the right to be on board, especially when it comes to policy?

a: i think that in our system of government you need consensus to make policy, because of the way electoral votes are distributed across the country and what you need to win a presidential election and because of the way the senate works. you have to win in conservative-leaning states and you have to persuade people in conservative-leaning states because in the senate, at least currently and for the foreseeable future, you need 60 votes to pass anything.

so when i look at that, and i consider that fact, one conclusion you could draw would be that environmental advocates need to win over conservatives. now i think that is a reasonable conclusion, but i think that that is actually much harder than trying mobilizing progressives, mobilizing people to care about this problem. our system of government may be such that it is difficult to pass policy without bipartisan cooperation, but it is easier to imagine democrats taking unified control of government and passing climate policy than it is to imagine that conservatives will come along with that policy.   

q: we talked about what you believe should be done when it comes to tackling this problem of acceptance of the problem and understanding of the problem on a macro level, what about on a micro level? let’s say you are going to thanksgiving and your more conservative family members are there, and climate change comes up. what do you think the best way to deal with a situation like that? you are addressing someone face to face instead of a constituency or instead of a whole population, what would you suggest someone do?  

a: first, i would say, i wouldn’t get your hopes up. even if you are able to persuade someone to care about climate change — and there are a lot of conservatives who do — climate change still ranks pretty low as an issue for conservatives. they are going to vote on issues like terrorism, or fears of immigration, or concerns about national security, and those issues will likely supersede any concerns they have about climate change.

that doesn’t mean you can’t try. if you are going to try, then the way to do it is to make climate change a local and personally relevant problem. there is a lot of research that, in particular, points to the efficacy of highlighting the health risks of climate change.

let’s say you live in arizona, and you have historic heat waves, record-setting heat waves, that are making life miserable and are also a life-threatening risk for elderly people, and the infirm, and children. and those heat waves also make pollution worse, and that pollution is a threat to children. it’s a threat to your kids. it raises the risk of asthma, or it exacerbates existing asthma, those are the kinds of arguments that resonate with people.

one thing i would add to that is that there is a temptation to think that extreme weather on its own is going to change minds about climate change, that when people see and experience severe storms, drought, wildfires, heat waves, that they will be converted by virtue of their experience. but the research tends to suggest that extreme weather does not have a lasting impact on public opinion. people may be more concerned for a short time, but that is not going to convert them over the long term.

the things that do convert people are the efforts of advocates, cues from political elites, and the volume and quality of news coverage. those are the things that tend to change minds. you can point out to that, “hey, scientists say that burning fossil fuels has made this heat wave worse, and is a threat to your health,” and that might make someone more concerned about climate change, but you can’t assume the heat wave will do that on its own. you have to consistently repeat the message. it has to be present in the mind of the person you are talking to. it has to be a salient concern for it to matter.  

q: what science is saying now is that we need to start taking drastic and immediate action, not just in our county, but around the world. do you think that the level of support for something that drastic is possible to get in the timeframe that it needs to happen?

a: i don’t know the answer to that. i am a bit pessimistic, but i will also say i have been surprised by the shift in public opinion the last few months and the last year. so it is certainly possible. but whether or not it is possible doesn’t really have any bearing on what advocates or elected officials do. it has to be done, and we have to make every effort to persuade the public and persuade policymakers… we have no other choice.

q: the first democratic debate was last night, and there was a question about climate change, but there has been some criticism that climate change should be the first and biggest issue that anyone running for president should be addressing, because of the gravity of it. do you think that the issue of climate change should be more elevated in the current campaigns and current political discourse?  

a: yes, absolutely. i think there are moral reasons for that, as you suggested. climate change is the defining issue of our time. it is the biggest issue. it is the literal end of the world, and it is the thing we should be talking about more than anything else. it is also an issue that encompasses every other issue. it is an issue of public health and national security and inequality and injustice and so forth.

in addition to the moral argument, there is a pragmatic argument. across several polls and according to different methods of trying to determine what is important to democrats, we find that climate change is the number two or three ranked issue. it’s something democratic voters want to talk about. it is something democratic voters care about.

at the first debate, i think that moderators waited more than an hour to ask the first question about climate change, and the questions weren’t great. they were questions that tend to focus on the politics of climate change instead of the policy of climate change. i think that journalists who are going to be asking politicians about climate change, particularly in a debate setting, should understand this is something that democratic voters want to talk about. 

i like to do a little thought experiment sometimes when i think about the news coverage of climate change. we know that climate change is a problem that threatens the health and safety and lives of hundreds of millions of people — billions of people over generations. and we know that it is a problem that demands a world war ii-scale mobilization to solve. that’s a comparison scientists have used again and again. so we have a problem on the order of world war ii. are we talking about this problem the way that we would talk about world war ii? are we talking about this problem the way we would talk about the threat of japanese imperialism or nazi fascism? no, and we should be.

what would that actually look like? climate change would be the first question in the debate, and then the next 12 questions would also be about climate change, and they would be substantive questions about what candidates would actually do to solve the problem. 

when i visited woodland, california, i saw first-hand how producers are working with consumers through different avenues to attempt a more sustainable future. click on the story below to learn more!

yet scientists, like teachers, have lives outside the four walls of their work domain. media often focuses on the difference between those who practice science and those who don’t, rather than the things we might have in common, like family, sports, and love for pizza.

while this seems trivial, making the humans behind science more relatable is important for getting different kinds of people involved with science. dr. tesla monson, a postdoctoral scholar at the university of california, berkeley, maintains that this idea is key for people to realize that there is a pathway for everyone, especially for those less inclined to view themselves as potential scientists, into the field.  

one goal of monson’s podcast and radio show the graduates is to illustrate the different ways graduate students got involved with science. the show is a platform for these students to explain their research and its importance to radio audiences, all while giving them an opportunity to get to know them on a personal level.

highlighting that scientists don’t get involved with the subject at the same stages in their life is an important part of diversity in the scientific community, explains monson: “the last thing we want is for people to think, ‘i can’t understand biology right now, so i can never be a scientist.’”

monson felt the same way as a high school student and undergraduate: the way she was taught science was rigid and memorization-based rather than a creative and flexible process. framing of science — and scientists — as tough, cold, and disconnected, compounded by the fact that many underrepresented populations can’t view themselves as scientists, discourages participants in the field.

representation of real scientists and their stories can change that. the more we identify with someone, the more we understand where they come from and why they do what they do.

the perception of scientists isn’t the only problem in science communication. currently, many attempts at science communication have failed because of an audience disconnect problem. sara elshafie, a graduate student at uc berkeley, maintains that unsuccessful science communication is due to those disseminating the information failing to recognize how its consumers will perceive it. elshafie is involved with science communication through the creation of a workshop series, “science through story,” geared toward using storytelling strategies in science communication.

“the science itself is important,” she argues, “but the most important thing is making it meaningful to the audience.” information that the audience feels, rather than simply understands, has more of an impact.

it can be hard to make a significant impact when you cast a wide net, so elshafie advises targeting communication for a specific group. targeting communication towards a specific audience can seem paradoxical, but can often have better impacts than just the “general public.” it has a greater chance of making a lasting impact and a well-crafted piece might even have spillover effects into other demographics.

science communication is not only about getting views, it’s about getting people to care about issues enough to do something about them. thus, a better strategy is needed than the one for clickbait. it can be hard to balance thoughtful communication in the era of mass media, when it is hard to resist turning to sensationalism to get readers’ attention.

an effective and honest strategy involves consideration of how your words can be interpreted while critically thinking about how to use these words to better connect with consumers.

“it’s more about the audience than the speaker,” elshafie concludes, “and the ultimate goal is to make it meaningful to the audience.”

monson experienced a similar problem with audience relatability when she taught a class on human variation at berkeley. the biology class, touched on many controversial topics such as clinical obesity, skin pigmentation, and evolution. in a 300-person class, there was a potential for great social, cultural, and political diversity among students.

“i couldn’t be flippant with my language,” monson said. “for example, i couldn’t casually say that creationism shouldn’t be taught in schools — i had to be considerate of how students’  individual backgrounds lead to different interpretations of my words and find a respectful way to convey that.”

whether it’s through writing or through teaching, those with the responsibility of delivering information also have the duty to ensure that it is communicated in an honest, meaningful way.

what about the consumer’s duty? we should, as consumers, demand factually accurate information about the things that matter to us, such as our communities, environmental health, and governmental affairs. if we don’t care about the quality of our information, it means other people can change the way we think and act through how we learn about these issues.

it’s impossible for everyone to have a comprehensive technical background on every subject, so it’s important that we have accurate and high-quality information filters. the biggest thing preventing us from caring about an issue is lack of knowledge about the problem.

in a country where public opinion matters, it is important to have a scientifically literate citizenry that is aware of the problems our nation faces. it is imperative our community members feel empowered to be advocates for real change. many issues are preventative, and it is incredibly important to get people to care about them before it is too late.

we consumers should change the way we think of science. instead of something abstract and inaccessible, science should be thought of as a creative process. the only thing blocking someone from science is lack of wonder. science is tinkering and experimentation, with the end goal of truth above all else: pipetting in the lab, traveling to rainforests, and publishing papers are just a means to an end. most consumers won’t have much of a science background beyond their long-forgotten high school chemistry and biology lessons. it can be hard for readers to get past the jargon, to separate fact from opinion, and to see who is genuinely intentioned in communicating the truth. in this situation, maintains elshafie, it’s great to be skeptical. “if (something) doesn’t satisfy your curiosity, keep searching,” she advises. “and if you do that, you’ll find you have a lot in common with scientists.”