Scientists Are Definitely Responsible for Communicating Their Work To the Public
Evading science communication simply because it is difficult, time-consuming or not important enough reflects more on how much scientists value their own work and its place in posterity.
Among other things, Twitter is an excellent
echo chamber. But the benefits of seeing dissenting viewpoints far outweighs
the satisfaction of getting your own ideas reinforced. Recently, I was drawn to
a thread where a scientist (Gautam R. Desiraju, a noted crystallographer at the
Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru) and a science communicator locked horns
to discuss whether scientists should be responsible for science communication.
After many exchanges of 140 characters each and a hastily
written article by the scientist explaining his point of view,
it became clear that I did not agree with his opinions. As a practicing
scientist, I think it is time to give voice to the many young and upcoming
scientists and communicators who believe that science communication by
scientists is important.
First, some context: Science communication,
which didn’t exist as a field until the 19th century, came up in response
to the emergence of ‘public science’: undertakings funded not just by private
patronage and the Royal Societies but by universities and other public
institutions. Science communication is quite simply conveying the results of
science to the public. The field gained credibility because the public
benefited from scientific advances – including the steam-powered printing
press, which greatly enhanced public education through books.
Science communication today remains fairly
unchanged. It still involves talking to the commons about how science is
done in various fields, the salient results of major experiments and how new
data from these experiments changes our understanding of the world, at least as
we know it. Not only does this help us to make informed decisions in our daily
lives, it also empowers us to choose candidates for government office whose
policies are scientifically
sound.
The importance of science communication
In the Twitter conversation that I mentioned
earlier, some of the participants argued that science communication was not the
responsibility of working scientists. By listing out their most salient points,
I am going to argue/explain why I think performing science communication is
vital for scientists. I will also propose ways in which science communication,
done by both scientists and science communicators, can be encouraged and
improved.
This work is too ‘complicated’ for the public
to understand – Explaining science can be as
complicated or simple as necessary, depending on the questions asked.
Communicating concepts can be individually tailored to the audience at hand.
To begin with, assess the general education
level. Is the audience the lay public? Do they have a working knowledge of
basic science? Can they be pegged at a high-school or college level? The
level of exposure to science in daily life is important – Is the audience from
a metropolis with a large number of universities famous for doing good science?
Are they famous in other fields such as business or law? And then, gauge
the level of curiosity. Are they mostly non-scientific but with a
curiosity for science? Are they scientists themselves and are curious about
other scientific fields?
Nobody is too stupid to understand science.
What it needs is a paring down of difficult concepts into smaller standalone
chunks that can be easily explained and later assembled into a bigger picture.
Some abstract concepts can be difficult to unpack to a lay audience, and
which might need the help of comparisons and metaphors. But no concept is
inexplicable or un-understandable. When approached properly, with the
right examples and the correct flow of thought, even
quantum gravity can be easily explained to a high school student.
Some results are too ‘sensitive’ to be spoken
and explained out in the public – In both basic and the applied
sciences, certain results need to be handled carefully before they can be
released to the public. For example, researchers work with patent offices to
ensure that their intellectual property can be transformed into profitable
products. In such cases, prematurely releasing information to the public can be
detrimental. That being said, effective science communication can still easily
straddle the requirements of financial necessity and public edification.
Explaining how a drug molecule works to cure disease, or how lasers allow iris-scanning,
can be done while allowing the researchers to reap the benefits of their
efforts.
Very explicitly, science communication is
often the dissemination of the results of research that has been funded by
public money. Scientific grants are funded by government budgets, which in turn
are fuelled by taxpayers’ money. If the public deserves to know how their tax
money is used to maintain roads, run schools and improve infrastructure, then
why should they be kept in the dark about how their money is being used to
advance science?
Scientists have too much on their plate
already – Choosing the path to becoming a
career scientist is by no means straightforward. The challenges for a
pre-tenure scientist are to generate a solid body of scientific publications,
mentor students, write to private and public granting agencies for money to
keep the laboratory funded and, finally, fulfil teaching and administrative
obligations as mandated by the university. After getting tenure, the
university will guarantee the scientist a permanent position, regular salary
and some funds to keep the laboratory running. Thus, in comparison to many
other professions, science academia relies on an unrelenting, unwavering
commitment on the part of the young scientist, despite extreme financial and
personal hurdles. Science is a demanding discipline and, yes, scientists do have
a lot on their plate.
But science communication is varied and
adaptable. Many interactions can count towards scientific communication. For
example, taking a day out of the year to go talk to school and college students
about scientific careers; volunteering to give a short talk at a local bar on a
science night about your research; allocating time to talk to the university’s
science communication representative; mentoring an interested school student;
writing articles for newspapers and magazines; maintaining a working and
updated webpage to chronicle the laboratory’s scientific advances and
publications and tweeting about new advances in the field. All these count towards
science communication and all of them can be performed voluntarily, with
flexible hours at one’s own leisure.
It is not the scientists’ ‘job’ to
communicate to the public – Aptly phrased by Bernard of Chartres,
we are dwarves standing on the shoulders of giants. All new knowledge is
discovered while standing on already well-established truths. These truths are
hard to understand and difficult to scale – much like climbing giants. Since
scientists are the ones who take pains to climb to such heights to look
upon the horizon, who better to explain how beautiful the sunrise looks
from up there?
Doing science has not been and never should
be ‘just another job’. Scientists are among the few and fortunate that work on
the very limits of human knowledge. It is our duty and privilege to create new
knowledge and push existing boundaries, along with the best and brightest
minds in the world. And therefore, communicating science to the public is, in
fact, the best chance scientists have to inspire young minds and motivate the
people to know more about their world.
It is also very easy for scientists to wash
their hands of this important task by claiming that, since they have published
in a scientific journal and passed peer review, they are under no obligation to
explain anything else to the public. This point of view is not only dangerous
in the short-term but also absolutely detrimental to science in the foreseeable
future. There are two major explanations for why publishing in a journal is not
equivalent to science communication.
First: Scientific papers are specifically
written to pass peer review. This means that all scientific papers are written
to explain new results of the field to other scientists in
the same field. They are written in highly technical language for effective
communication between peers. The common
man reading any given paper from a scientific journal, without any
background, will fail to understand anything.
Second: The way the scientific publishing
system is currently designed, it is impossible to get hold of peer-reviewed and
published work from a well-known journal without paying a substantial sum of
money for a subscription. Unless one has access to a university or an allied
subscription (or an open-access journal), it is not possible for the public to
read any of the articles published in for-profit, closed-access scientific
journals.
Thus, even though a scientist can claim that
she has done her ‘communication duty’ by publishing her work in
a scientific journal, the net result is that the public is still in the dark
about her work, simply due to a lack of access. Therefore, the onus is on
the scientists to make sure that their work actually reaches the public.
It is “demeaning” to discuss science in
social media – Science does not exist in a vacuum. It is
a deeply human endeavour intertwined in our social fabric. Social media, like
all methods of information distribution, is a tool. There is nothing demeaning
about using a tool that makes it easy to reach out to a potentially large
audience. It is in fact unforgivable not to. There are many different styles of
communication to suit every need: Twitter for short updates; blogging for
long-form; podcasts for better speakers and storyboards for visual explainers.
The only effort is in picking the right medium.
Now that we’re here, what can be done to
improve status quo? Science communication can be significantly improved by
making it a priority for both scientists and communicators. One way is to
create incentives to help scientists.
We could include science communication as a
course in graduate school. Just as medical students have a residency year to
begin practicing medicine, graduate students in science can have an option to
work with local and national agencies to improve the penetrance of science in
the country. We also ought to increase opportunities to interact with the
public. Regular public lectures held in universities can promote interaction
between scientists and the commons. And motivated scientists should be given
the chance to hone their communication skills by learning from experts in media
and communications.
Science communication can also be
incentivised by providing extra funding from the university. They, along
with other public institutions, can promote effective science outreach by
rewarding the extra time spent by a scientist through salary bonuses and
intramural and seed grants. Moreover, if a scientist meets a specific
target per year of adequate science communication, the university can relieve
her of some administrative or mentoring duties.
The history of science communication could be
used as a metric for awarding tenure. Just as the number of publications,
grants and mentored students are used to decide the eligibility for tenure, a
scientist could also be judged by the merit of their outreach. A good scientist
with excellent communication skills can effectively influence policy-making and
large scale funding decisions, significantly improving the field as a result.
In terms of helping science communicators, we
ought to make science communication courses act as an interface between
journalists and scientists. This will help dispel any misunderstanding and
miscommunication between how scientists wish their work is projected and
how communicators ‘package’ it for wider distribution.
There is also a need to
project science communication as a legitimate career choice. Whether
it is approached from the science side or the media side, it should be
should be shown to have a clear future and achievable goals, which it
increasingly does. There must also be better access to graduate-level
courses so that communicators can learn or brush up on basic knowledge. These
courses can then also help build a community over time.
Ultimately, as a scientist, I find it
difficult to understand how another scientist can so easily justify dodging the
responsibilities of the profession. As graduate students and postdocs in
training, we are made to learn and master extremely difficult protocols and
techniques. Evading science communication simply because it is difficult,
time-consuming or not important enough reflects more on how much the scientist
values their own work and its place in posterity.
Shruti Muralidhar is a neuroscientist in
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Regards
Pralhad
Jadhav
Senior
Manager @ Library
Khaitan & Co
No comments:
Post a Comment