Who are the effective mouthpieces?

Effective communication is the business of getting people who are listened to, to say things.

So, if we are going to change people's perception of say, CAM, we need to find out who they listen to when it comes to medical matters.

Now, the Wellcome Monitor survey I referred to earlier didn't specifically ask who people turn to for medical advice, but they did ask about medical research.  The breakdown of preferred sources of information on medical research looks something like this:

Two things mean that blogging away here would actually be constructive, providing I had a significant audience:

(1) I'm a scientist, a preferred source of information (especially for younger people).
(2) People get 33-81% of their medical information from the internet (depending on their level of education).


Now, I don't have the energy to try and build a significant web audience to communicate medical matters to, so we'll cross that out from the start.  Most people would probably feel the same way.

So, what to do?  Well, getting clinicians with a significant audience to speak out more against CAM (our example in this case) would be one way.  Preferably, clinicians with a significant online following.  Dr Goldacre comes to mind, of course, but his audience is a pretty narrow field.  Furthermore, he's widely (if erroneously) seen as a journalist, and they rate at the bottom of the pile when it comes to public trust. Note: he's doing a fabulous job all the same.


If I was really interested in changing public perceptions of CAM, I'd be writing to every clinician who writes for a newspaper, asking them to be a little more critical and reminding them that they are very influential.  So that's what I'll be doing from now on.  And encouraging others to do the same.


What else could we little folk be doing, do you think?

"I don't believe in molecules"

This opening post takes its title from a comment left on a science journalist's (@TomChivers) blog. You can read it, and the predictably lengthy exchange of apparently insane and rational comments that followed it in equal measure, here.

Molecules exist. Unfortunately, we now live in a world where many feel they would have to apologise for saying as much.

Is there really any point in engaging with people who wander about a world so beautifully made of molecules, all the while denying that molecules exist?

These people are so untouchable, that they will happily argue - at length - with a simple computer algorithm, without realising it. Watching thoughtless people argue with a database of counter-arguments could well become a new sport.

If you spend some time looking at blogs and the associated comments, you could easily fall into the trap of thinking that there are only two types of people in the world: the forthright, stoic and completely rational, and their naturally enemy, the borderline insane. But, it is a trap, because so many people don't leave a comment at all. Blog traffic statistics confirm this time and time again.

This majority of voiceless readers are the people who may be lost in the mire of the endarkenment. Hundreds of equally vitriolic blog comments possibly do nothing to help many of them back towards truth and reason

Comments threads often appear to be little more than a battleground for two diametrically opposed groups, with equally immutable views; a place to enjoy the ritual of repeating the same old tired counter-arguments. Nomadic trolls and counter trolls appear move from blog to blog fighting their endless battles. Is it really worth all that effort to persuade just one, of possibly thousands of voiceless readers, who can be bothered to follow it all?

So, point 1: Let's leave the untouchable trolls to algorithms. No one will notice the difference. Is that dishonest?

Point 2: We need to think about how to communicate with the voiceless. One way conversations are trying. Any lecturer will tell you that.

Who would be best placed to do the talking, and what should they be saying?

[Next: Assessing the damage]