Four Ways Scientists Can Give Good Answers to Bad Questions

, former science communication officer | February 19, 2015, 2:25 pm EDT
Bookmark and Share

This post originally appeared on the American Geophysical Union’s Plainspoken Scientist blog.

One of the reasons I love working with scientists is that they tend to be very direct. Ask a question: get an answer. Sometimes the answer is a little long and makes me revisit basic physics I haven’t thought about since middle school, but I definitely get an answer.

Thankfully, most of the questions journalists, policymakers and citizens ask scientists are straightforward. But many are off-base and sometimes even badly framed. If a scientist provides a direct answer to a bad question, they can inadvertently leave audiences with an inaccurate impression of their work. While the examples below won’t happen to every researcher, they illustrate good principles for effectively dealing with such questions.

1. Challenge bad premises, get back to what you know

Scientists talking at AGU

Scientists are used to asking each other tough questions, but questions from the media, public and policy makers often come with buried assumptions that are worth surfacing. (Source: AGU)

Someone once asked a climate researcher during an online Q+A session to calculate whether or not global warming over a very short time period was “statistically significant.” It wasn’t, because the time period was so short, but he calculated it anyway and shared the answer. The result? Misleading headlines saying a scientist had “admitted” there was no significant global warming.

A better response would have been to reject the misleading premise of the question outright: “Scientists don’t calculate climate trends over that short of a time period,” the scientist might have said, before explaining what we do know about longer trends.

2. Discussing not knowing vs. not knowing right now

Another scientist told me about a time a reporter asked her a question on a topic that was outside her wheelhouse. “I have no idea,” she replied, meaning that it wasn’t a question she could answer with confidence at that moment. Unfortunately, the reporter used that quote in the story, which made it sound like scientists generally did not understand much at all about the topic at hand.

When scientists don’t immediately know the answer to a question, it’s better to say things like: “I can refer you to a colleague who works on it,” or “I can look it up later if you’d like.” The answers are often out there, even if scientists don’t have them at their fingertips.

And if a question is highly specific, but largely irrelevant – in other words, a bit of a rabbit hole – it’s worth pointing out what is relevant and well known.

3. Understand what’s really being asked

Often times, my colleagues get questions from people who care deeply about climate change and feel despondent. “Is it irreversible?” they ask. “Is it too late to do anything?” What people are really saying is: “Can you give me some hope here?” Similarly, when people ask scientists challenging questions, they’re often really saying, “This whole thing makes me uncomfortable. Why should I trust you and what you’re saying?”

These questions are really about people’s values and their personal reactions to what we should do as a society in response to scientific findings. Many scientists are happy to share their own views on those topics; others are less comfortable doing so. Regardless, it’s important for scientists to point audiences to people who are using science well to inform decisions and policy. On climate change, it might be a local group working on adaptation. On near-Earth-object detection, it might be the Planetary Society. Good science communication anticipates people’s needs and points them to like-minded citizens who are using the science in responsible ways.

4. Robots are awesome, but don’t turn into one

Asimo! Way cuter than a T-1000.

Honda’s Asimo robot. He’s awesome. And kind of cute. But I wouldn’t want to listen to him given an interview. (Source: Romram via Wikipedia)

Celebrities are great at dodging direct questions. So are politicians. They tend to stick to their messages – no matter what. Taken to the extreme, however, strict “message discipline” can come across as robotic, untrustworthy, and a little slick.

The good news for scientists is that they have the facts, evidence and a healthy dose of public trust on their side. So while it’s important for scientists to emphasize what they do know, it’s also important for them to remain direct and transparent, especially when there are legitimately difficult questions to answer about their research.

Posted in: Global Warming, Science and Democracy, Science Communication Tags: , , , ,

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

Show Comments

Comment Policy

UCS welcomes comments that foster civil conversation and debate. To help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion, please focus comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand, and refrain from personal attacks. Posts that are commercial, self-promotional, obscene, rude, or disruptive will be removed.

Please note that comments are open for two weeks following each blog post. UCS respects your privacy and will not display, lend, or sell your email address for any reason.

  • Here’s some thoughts. Global warming is terrible theater. It’s an endless argument over the cost of doing something about it. One side demands an impossible price while the other refuses to be fleeced. The haggling is getting so stale. Fortunately there is an ‘Off Broadway’ production offering an incredibly affordable alternative. We can end the boring theater.

    The main issue with CO2 ought to be about it’s impact on our oceans. There it has produced cataclysmic collapse in ocean productivity. By restoring ocean pastures to the condition of health and abundance they and we enjoyed a century ago billions of tonnes of our noxious CO2 will be repurposed from becoming certain ocean acidifying death into ocean life itself. In the bargain this Good Shepherding work will bring back the fish.

    In my demonstration project in 2012 in the NE Pacific I and 11 indian shipmates replenished and restored a large and vital ocean salmon pasture with just half a boat load of mineral rich dust, 100 tons. The ocean pasture bloomed and was restored. The proof was revealed in nearby Alaska the very next year. Where Alaskan fishemen were expected to catch 50 million Pink salmon instead they caught 226 million pasture fed salmon. The largest catch in all of history!

    Was this a good thing? Just ask any of the needy hungry American kids who are today being fed more than 100 million servings of nutritious ocean pasture fed Alaska salmon in USDA food aid programs.

    The endless argument about global warming is all about the cost that we are all being told to it will take to manage societies 10 billion tons of CO2 that we emit each year. That cost, at $100 per ton, is said to demand $1 trillion dollar per year and that gigantic pork barrel has attracted all manner of hogs and vultures in the climate industrial complex.

    The good news is that replenished and restored ocean pastures will turn billions of tonnes of deadly CO2 into ocean life for a cost of less than a penny per ton! We can begin by restoring 100 ocean pastures around the world at a cost of mere millions not trillions! In the bargain we will put billions of additional fish on the plates of hungry people around the world.

    This ain’t rocket science it is just plain pasture management good sense. Read more at