SAVING THE BEST FOR LAST: ADDRESSING SUBJECTS OF PUBLIC CONTROVERSY BY ANSWERING QUESTIONS FIRST AND PLACING CONCLUSIONS IN SCIENTIFIC CONTEXT

Myths and misrepresentations persist in areas where the scientific evidence is strong but public comfort with the conclusions is low. The lack of comfort may be due to a variety of reasons and it is often easier for people to reject the seemingly complex science than to accommodate the conclusions. When conclusions are presented first, as a structural frame to provide context for the data, personal bias may cause a rejection of subsequent supporting information. Answering questions at the start of a presentation and presenting core evidence with historical context prior to providing overarching conclusions can help dissolve some of the barriers commonly encountered when presenting information on subjects such as climate change and organic evolution.

Typical presentations end with a time for questions. People saving their questions may have trouble focusing on the material at hand. When the presenter opens by soliciting and addressing audience questions immediately and with respect, the audience can begin to discard their preconceptual baggage, focus on the material being presented, and treat the presenter with similar respect. The presenter can identify and discuss common myths and misperceptions immediately, and, because they are gleaned from the audience, they are not viewed as “straw men” set up by the presenter as easy targets.

Presentations often cut to the chase and give the most recent evidence and overarching conclusions in order to “wow” the audience into submission. However, with an audience of novices and skeptics, the structure of the presentation should proceed as has the science, with some of the foundational questions and explanations used as the introductory material, followed by a description of the evidence as it was accumulated, initial skeptical responses by scientists, and a conclusion explaining how those skeptics were addressed and where the science stands today. This style of presentation places most objections into an appropriate historical context and explains why they are no longer accepted by scientists. This structure also allows for a narrative approach, wherein scientists are placed in the role of protagonists seeking answers to interesting and important questions. This can lead to a greater appreciation of what the science shows and why the scientific consensus lies where it does.