Friday 25 September 2009
Communicating Science - Challenging old Perceptions
The title of this - my very first blog - is intended to suggest that for those of us communicating science (largely clinically focused in these pages) we should not forget that communications itself can also be something of a science. Clearly when working on any pharmaceutical product in Phase 2 or 3 a priority has to be getting the data published. But too often that is the only focus, and we are driven by impact factors of journals, readership levels and general all round kudos of being published in a high profile title. Not wrong, but not very creative either. As communications channels change, merge and diverge, we can be left wondering where else to focus our efforts, can we have closed blogs, websites, twitter feeds, facebook pages etc... where can we get meaningful discussion of new data withour jeopardising a publication? How will the regulators consider this, how will journals consider this, are we prepared to do something different to be more engaging with our clinical audiences? I don't propose any simple answers, because each pharmaceutical brand, medical device or diagnostic has its own unique challenges and unique audience sets. What I do propose though is that we don't ignore the fact that there is a whole host of new - and potentially more engaging - ways to bring the data to life. I hope that subsequent blogs and your comments will begin to explore where some of these opportunities lie.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree. Making data more accessible, more compelling, more relevant are very important considerations. We just need to be certain that, as medical information gets more widely distributed, it is being understood by the receiving audiences. Science literacy needs to be considered, too.
ReplyDeleteExcellent points both in the blog itself and the subsequent comment. Ensuring the development of a science identity as early as Phase 2 and ensuring that it is consistent, cohesive, and relevant across communications channels is the challenge. As new communications channels emerge, one needs to ensure that the image of the science -- and ultimately of the brand -- is optimized by those channels and that it does not become unintentionally fragmented.
ReplyDeleteThank you both for your comments, it never ceases to amaze me how reluctant both clients and agencies can be to embrace better ways of communicating data. Great point Camille on establishing the sciene identity - this is after all what ultimately will drive the credibility of the brand itself.
ReplyDelete