An editorial by 17 professional societies at the FASEB Journal details the findings of a new survey on public opinion about evolution. The editorial closes by urging new approaches to public engagement, citing and echoing our Framing Science thesis at Science:
These data indicate that Americans respect the expertise of science and education professionals and also look to clergy for guidance on scientific issues of potential relevance to religion. The value of encouraging each of these groups--including scientists who hold religious beliefs--to become involved in promoting quality science education cannot be overstated. In communicating the value of science, scientists must emphasize the outcomes that matter to people--advancing medicine, improving health, fostering critical thinking--and they must do so clearly and understandably. Technical expositions on scientific topics will not get the attention of the public or policymakers who lack relevant expertise. If researchers cannot communicate their findings in ways that are comprehensible, meaningful, and relevant to non-scientists, their message to the public--and their effectiveness as spokespeople for science--is lost.
- Log in to post comments
While I mostly agree with the statement "If researchers cannot communicate their findings in ways that are comprehensible, meaningful, and relevant to non-scientists, their message to the public--and their effectiveness as spokespeople for science--is lost," I also don't think it's communicatively normal to hold out field practitioners as "spokespeople" for their discipline. I think that the communication of science is probably best handled by science communicators, who may or may not be "researchers." (I was under the impression that most researchers had jobs already, and that their job was generally to do research and facilitate peer communication, not to communicate their ideas to lay people.) Researchers should be researchers, and spokespeople should be trained communications professionals with a deep subject matter grounding. I think, especially in the current US political climate, that science communication is too important to trust to people who are only moonlighting at it. (I am a communications professional with a Master's in what amounts to applied rhetoric, so I'm probably also biased.)
On the other hand, I'm all for (and then some) fostering good communication within science.
Also, much as I loathe the "separate magisteria" argument, I think there might be a rhetorical strategy there -- going to clergy for scientific advice is like going to an auto mechanic for dental work. (To speak both literally and figuratively, I don't even own a car, so I go to the dentist, like sane people.)
This is so true, but so difficult to do. As Scientists, most of us have been so focused on producing "knowledge", if you will. And we are trained to communicate effectively to each other - conference presentations, posters, talks, etc. There really isn't any formal training for communicating science to the general public.
But that is changing...thank goodness. As a scientist with a Strong interest and committment to sharing science with broader audiences, I have been working my tail off trying to learn how to effectively communicate with people. I think it behooves any professional to know how to effectively communicate with people beyond his/her sphere. Science Communication could be the responsibility of a separate professional "class" or it could be the responsibility of researchers. It depends on one's interest, inclination, and committment. As a scientist interested in outreach, science communication is considered an "alternative" career choice in science, but one I'm proud to pursue.
It depends on one's interest, inclination, and committment. As a scientist interested in outreach, science communication is considered an "alternative" career choice in science, but one I'm proud to pursue.
Posted by: DNLee | January 12, 2008 10:56 AM
I like your blog, post and attitude! Some people are naturally gifted for a talent. Some work their tails off, and some are gifted and then work their tails off! These set the world class standards!
Not everyone is going to be world class, but I think everyone can pursue improving from where they are. I love this blog because I have openly declared I am a Christian and have never been attacked or mocked for it. I am a Christian who also believes in evolution and have scientist friends who believe the same.
Having membership in both camps I think we need to work at respecting those in the other camp and realize that some topics are going to be a minefield, like evolution. Travel with extreme caution.
It also seems to me that the ultimate goal of science should be to take the knowledge we are fortunate enough to have and get it to the place where it will do the most good: The general public and the whole world. So if we all just work at being a little more tolerant and respectful of those who hold different thoughts the world gets a little better every day!
End of speech! Hope I didn't get too corny! LOL!
Dave Briggs :~)