A bit late to this but some thoughts…
It’s a tricky one, overall I like the approach others laid out about sticking to the science being presented.
Part of me would like to take things head on. The history is important in terms of context, but perhaps only for those having to deal with people still pushing old and disproven ideas. Do the wider public need to know all this? How does it help them understand let help us?
We should probably steer clear of stuff that is open to interpretation. And explaining what BPS is and all the history is complex and wooly. The researchers should probably stick to what they are experts in, communicate that and think about the average listener.
- how do people talking about other conditions deal with this?
- if there are no similar examples, that tells us something and can itself be the answer to any questions
- non engagement with derailing questions is also a strategy but maybe shouldn’t be the only one
- throwing the questions back at those real or hypothetical people asking them
- focusing on evidence ‘we have evidence here to show xyz, if others have the evidence for their theories let them present them’ maybe add ‘in the past their evidence has been shown to be weak’
- maybe turn it around in a way listeners may find relatable ‘that’s an interesting question, unfortunately it’s the sort of thing people with this condition have faced when seeking help and support for decades, and what has meant they haven’t been helped as they should. today we’re hoping to change that by clearly showing….’ And return to the evidence.
- comparisons to other diseases may be useful, but we’d probably need to be careful because it can be a minefield too
I really like the combined positive messages of
- long overdue focus on the science
- which is yielding clear results
- here they are and what they mean
- we hope to use this to finally improve lives (when other approaches have failed)
- much more to do, here is what we need next
Just return to those again and again. Don’t get stuck in the weeds.
Picking what we/they want to achieve with the results is important. You can’t do everything or beat every poor or bad faith argument at once. Pick a message or few targets and focus on them.
I don’t think we’re going to ‘beat’ the BPS crowd or die hards by evidence or any other way. But we may be able to get the wider non engaged public on side. And other good scientists on board to help find and deliver treatments.
