Curator of Invertebrates Rodrigo Salvador led the team investigating how science communication of invertebrate animals is done and how the general public feels about it. Here he talks about some of the findings.
Endless forms most ignored
Invertebrates are animals that neither have nor develop a vertebral column, more commonly known as a spine. But that word is a grab-bag term to contain dozens of distinct lineages that share the ‘feature’ of not being a vertebrate.
Unbeknownst to most people, invertebrate animals make up the vast majority of life on the planet and represent over 97% of all animal species known to science.
To those unfamiliar with their astounding diversity and complexity – and the evolutionary history behind them – invertebrates are perceived as ugly or repulsive creatures; or even worse, as “lower” forms of life.
Nevertheless, they’re the ones that keep the world going round. Invertebrates are key animals for maintaining most ecosystems, from coral reefs to the Amazon rainforest, and it’s not a stretch to say that guaranteeing their wellbeing is a requirement for the survival of our own species.
Even as concerns about mass extinctions and biodiversity loss increase, invertebrates are rarely acknowledged by mainstream media, which tend to focus on “lovable” and “adorable” creatures such as pandas and whales.
An unfortunate side effect of this is that science communication of invertebrates is thus very specialised and a large part of it falls to scientists.
Good science communication about this topic is a must going forward, given how public perception can affect nature conservation. In fact, it has been proposed that the present crisis in invertebrate conservation might be rooted in public prejudice against those animals.
Therefore, we set out to investigate effective science communication practices about invertebrates, drawing on the perspectives of both scientists and members of the public.
Surveying both sides of the equation
We prepared two questionnaires, one for scientists and one for members of the public. The former was shared online with scientists worldwide. We collected data about which strategies and approaches they use when talking about invertebrates to the public.
The latter questionnaire was done in person with visitors to Te Papa, Zealandia, and Otari-Wilton’s Bush. It happened in pre-pandemic times, so we had a lot of international respondents as well.
We collected data on their knowledge about invertebrates, engagement with science, and preferences. We did so in such a manner that the answers could be immediately compared to the first survey.
The scientists’ point of view
We discovered that scientists typically prefer to use biodiversity as an overarching topic and mostly resort to the following approaches when talking about invertebrates to the general public: the pleasing aesthetics of some animals (the prime example being butterflies); the amazing feats some animals are capable of (like the monarchs’ migration); and “disturbing” facts of the animals’ biology (such as female mantises).
However, scientists know that different age groups require different approaches. For instance, they tend to focus on those disturbing facts and on pop culture when addressing younger audiences but will resort to history and the animals’ importance to humankind when dealing with older audiences.
The voice of the people
Most of the members of the public had a good grasp of what invertebrates are (if they didn’t, we made sure to tell them). However, the majority was unaware of the proportion of biodiversity made up by invertebrates – that 97% mentioned above.
Our respondents said they got most of their information about invertebrate science from TV documentaries, though many also relied on museums and zoos/aquaria and internet articles. Going against expectations, they had a clear preference for cephalopods (such as octopuses and the giant squid), jellyfish, and crustaceans.
Conservation was reported to be the most interesting overarching topic, though that could be a bias created by our ecofriendly kiwi respondents. The topics of evolution and biodiversity come right after conservation.
Finally, respondents were more interested in the animals’ amazing feats and in which species are “beneficial” or “harmful” to humans.
A bit of a misalignment
Our study, thus, has some bad news and some good news.
The bad news is that scientists and the public are only tangentially aligned. For starters, scientists think the public likes butterflies, when in fact they don’t. Instead, there is an unrecognised love for jellyfish and crustaceans.
Furthermore, among other findings, the public is more interested in evolution than the scientists are willing to admit. Likewise, there is interest in topics that scientists rarely address, such as history, folklore, pop culture, and pathology.
Thus, there is plenty of ground for scientists and communicators to pay attention to and explore in order to achieve more meaningful and balanced science communication.
The good news is that, now that we are aware of this, we can start defining the way forward. Scientists need to account for the public’s interests and institutions such as museums should start considering that as well when allocating the budget for exhibitions and events.
You can find all the details in the full article, published in the journal Frontiers in Environmental Science. It is open-access and written with a non-specialist audience in mind, so be sure to check it out.
Invertebrates in Science Communication: Confronting Scientists’ Practices and the Public’s Expectations by Rodrigo B. Salvador, Barbara M. Tomotani, Katrin L. O’Donnell, Daniel C. Cavallari, João V. Tomotani, Rhian A. Salmon, and Julia Kasper