Presenting Science to the Public: Role of Scientists

Abhay S.D. Rajput

Since the start of the Public Understanding of Science (PUS) movement in the West in 1985, the need for the same has been realised worldwide. There is a global insurgence for the public communication of science or scientific research. Different groups across the globe are advocating the need for a greater understanding of science by the public. The genuine reason for this advocacy is the fact that the public is the ultimate consumer of scientific research and further, most of such research is funded by the public money.

Therefore, it is logical that public should be informed about what research is being done by using their money. Another reason is survival. In this hi-tech world of S&T, a science illiterate and technologically unaware person cannot survive or at least cannot enjoy life to the fullest. (In the following text, the terms scientists and researchers, journalists and reporters have been used interchangeably.)

Many Benefits to the Public

According to a MORI survey1 of 1600 scientists in the UK, most scientists (97%) can see benefits to the non-specialist public having a greater understanding of science. They believe that greater understanding of science is beneficial to the public. With greater understanding of science, they can make more informed decisions about their lives and can understand what scientists do.

But the specialized knowledge of S&T trapped in the technical language of science remains locked in the research libraries and laboratories. It needs to be opened up for use by the general public for their benefits. Because “the communication of research results can have significant impact on members of the public, leading to changes in their views, attitudes and behaviour,” says the Royal Society’s report ‘Science and the Public Interest’2.

Who is Responsible for Communicating Science

It is understood that the public itself cannot understand science in the technical language. However, S&T advances have a direct bearing on the public. Such advances have their own implications – social and ethical. The public needs someone to simplify science for them and communicate its implications to them in a language they can understand. But who will do this? Who is responsible for communicating scientific research and its social and ethical implications to the public? Only the media and the professional science communicators or scientists themselves too?

Here, the media and the professional science communicators have a professional responsibility for communicating science to the public. Scientists too have a moral responsibility to communicate their research to the public. Moreover, the media/communicators are no experts but scientists are. Science communicators act as a mediator between scientists and the public. Being experts on the subject, no one else than scientists themselves can communicate science better to the public. They better know what their research is meant for and what its social and ethical implications are.

The Royal Society’s report2 highlights two main responsibilities of scientists or researchers towards the public: (1) to assess accurately the potential implications of research for the public, and (2) to communicate timely and appropriately such things to the public. The report further recommends that these two responsibilities should be assimilated within the culture of science or research.

Many Challenges for Journalists

When the media report science, scientists are often seen complaining of misreporting, distortions or misrepresentations. Journalists are no scientists but act as a messenger transferring the scientific information from scientists to the public. If the source message was not communicated clearly by scientists, then miscommunication or misreporting in a journalist’s report is likely to be there. Therefore, such a bad thing can be avoided if scientists stop talking to journalists in the way they do to their peers. Scientists should try to make their interactions with journalists more interesting and help them to understand the research better by communicating clearly in simple terms.

Journalists face many challenges in getting the appropriate and timely information from scientists. In this regard, the Science Communication Survey3 conducted by the EurekAlert! and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in 2006 has identified top ten challenges to science reporters. Among these ten, four are:

1. Finding researchers who can explain science so it’s understandable.

2. Judging the trustworthiness of research or researchers.

3. Convincing researchers to talk to the media.

4. Getting institutional permission to talk to researchers.


Playing Active Role

Until and unless these challenges are overcome, research cannot reach to the general public. That is, scientists need to play an active role in the science communication process. Scientists may have their own limitations preventing them from talking straight to the public. Through the media, they can take their message to a wider public. This demands scientists to be more open to the media for interactions. But such interactions are not always very productive. Journalists face many challenges as mentioned above. To overcome these challenges and to make science communication more effective, most of the journalists [in the survey3] advise that:

1. Too many scientists need media training to communicate clearly.

2. They should respond promptly to a journalist’s query.

3. They should understand a reporter’s story interests, deadlines or the nature of news.


Confidence in Scientists

Further, the public has a fair amount of confidence in scientists1. They trust scientists more than the mediators/science communicators as authentic and reliable sources of S&T information, because scientists are the ones who actually do the research. For this reason, journalists need quotes from scientists for their stories. Therefore, if scientists are not open to the media and are not playing their role sincerely, then they should not blame the media for misreporting science.

What Scientists Believe

According to the MORI study1, a vast majority of scientists in the UK believe that it is their duty to communicate their research and its social and ethical implications to policy makers, and to the non-specialist public. Most scientists feel that scientists themselves should have the main responsibility for communicating the social and ethical implications of scientific research to the public1. But only a few feel that scientists are the people best equipped to do this1. Therefore, as stated earlier, scientists need to learn how to do this job effectively and efficiently.

No Personal Benefits

Many scientists do not see any personal benefits/advantages in communicating research to the public, reveals the MORI study. But there are many such benefits in communicating research to the peers (scientific community). Therefore, to increase the role of scientists in presenting science to the public, governments and other funding agencies should offer personal benefits to scientists for communicating science to the public.

Communication of research and its implications to the public should be made a vital part of any research project/activity and should be supported by a budget. In fact, like the communication of research to the peers, it should also be made a mandatory thing.

Scientists should be encouraged to communicate to the media, write popular articles, appear in popular science talk shows on TV/the radio, deliver public lectures, etc. Participation of scientists in such activities should also be considered for promotions, salary increments and other personal benefits to them.

However, not caring much for personal benefits; scientists, in general, should sincerely play their role in science communication and should consider the following points seriously.

1. Misreporting of research by journalists may result from miscommunication of research by scientists to them. So communicate clearly and in a simple way to the media and do so to inform and not to impress.

2. Respond effectively and immediately to a reporter’s queries.

3. Try to find out what a reporter wants from you.

4. Check out a reporter’s background and knowledge about the subject of query. If needed, supply the reporter with appropriate background information or relevant explanation. This helps to avoid misunderstanding and misinterpretations by the media and so misreporting.

5. Respect journalists and their professional constraints. They have deadlines. Furnish them with the required information within the deadline.

6. Present your research/information in a way that can be directly communicating to the general public.

7. Repeat important points for clarity.

8. Check that a reporter has got the communicated information clearly by cross-questioning.

9. Provide reporters with the relevant material in writing (if possible, available or needed).

10. Be concise and focused on the main points that you want to communicate. Reporters have constraints of time/space too and they have to report you in sound bytes or in a limited space in a paper.

11. Ask yourself – Am I well-qualified to answer a reporter’s queries?

12. If you are not well-qualified in the concerned subject of a reporter’s query, then don’t comment and simply decline the interview. Because it is much better not to communicate than to mis-communicate.

13. If possible, refer the reporter to the most appropriate sources/experts.

14. Receive reporters or their calls open-mindedly.

15. Give yours contact numbers and e-mail to reporters and invite them for any queries or doubts arising later. This can save science from being misreported.

These points may help scientists to meet their responsibilities for communication of research and its implications to the public and to play an active role in helping the media for presenting science to the public more effectively and accurately.


References

1. The Role of Scientists in Public Debate – a study conducted by MORI for the Wellcome Trust in U.K., 2000.

2. Royal Society's Report: Science and the public interest: communicating the results of new scientific research to the public, 2006.

3. Science Communication Survey, Euroscience 2006 conducted by the eurekAlert! and the AAAS.

(This post is the edited version of the original article: Rajput, Abhay S.D., Presenting Science to the Public: Role of Scientists, Indian Journal of Science Communication, Vol. 8, No. 1, Jan-June 2009, Pp. 16-18, http://www.iscos.org/)

Cite this post as

Rajput, Abhay S.D. (2011), Presenting Science to the Public: Role of Scientists, www.abhaysdr.blogspot.com