Challenges for science communicators

[Julian Cribb]

I would like to invite every member of the network to list the three greatest obstacles, in their view, to effective communication of science and sharing of knowledge, internationally and within countries.

I would encourage the network to debate the issues thus raised, to prioritise the most important and to develop a plan of action for addressing them.

Julian Cribb

[Dambaru Ballab Kattel]

Nameste!
Julian Cribb,

We have been facing various difficulties regarding science communication in Nepal. In Nepal, with my point of view the major three obstacles are:
a) Less Priority-The Media and Publications have been giving priority to the policital news and also there is lack of Government attantion for Science Communication.
b) Lack of Training and Educational Facility.
c) Gaping between Scientific Experts and The Journalists.

[Swati Bute]

In India major obstacles are: lack of scientific temper and education/ lack of media's coverage (media says they serve what people want to read and watch, but i am not agree with this point) / lack of resources and planning.

[Mohit Mishra]

I believe three main problem in having Science as communicated as other things are

a) Lack of scientific background of Journalists.
b) Lack of glorification of Science
c) Lack of communication from Science community.

[Dr.Arvind Mishra]

1:science communicators by and large are not effective as they are not well versed in the art of sci communication.
2:Cultural and religious beliefs often resist scietific awakening
3:Lack of polatical will to propogate sci communication programmes
thanks and regards
arvind

[Julian Cribb]

Adding my two bob's worth to what is becoming a very interesting discussion, I'd put:
1. Lack of recognition by both governments and scientists of the importance of sharing knowledge more widely, leading to a lack of resources for science communication (In Australia we invest roughly $1 in communication for every $100 in science - little wonder we do great science but nobody ever gets to hear about it!)
2. Lack of awareness by scientists of their 'duty to communicate' beyond the peer group, ie a science education failure. Also lack of reward to scientists who do communicate.
3. Need for better training of science communicators, especially in mass media techniques.

[Denise Celeghin]

Those are very valid points, but I was wondering what your view was on the role of the scientist in policy and the media. As you say, scientists have a duty to communicate their findings but to what extent have scientists become advocates for opinions they (or their benefactos) hold, feeding what some call "normative science" to policy makers and the media instead of objective scientific findings?

To illustrate my point: Is it the role of the scientist to use opinion-laden words such as 'degraded', 'weakened', 'flourishing' when describing ecosystem conditions? Wouldn't the correct stance be the impartial one, 'changed', 'increased', 'decreased'?

Just throwing the question out there.

[MikeShanahan]

Hi Julian

Good questions, though it will be hard to choose just three obstacles!

I think that language is one of the biggest barriers to science communication both internationally and within countries. Most scientific research is published and talked about in conferences in English. Yet, according to the World Almanac (2005), only 514 million of the world's 6,000 million people have English as their first language. I wonder how much science gets translated in local languages in Africa and Asia. Very little, I suspect. Added to this is the problem of illiteracy, which suggests that community radio stations that broadcast in vernacular languages are a key part of the puzzle.

Another problem is a general lack of scientific literacy among the public AND policymakers in most countries. Without public and political understanding of science, there is little demand for scientific information. This is of course a chicken-and-egg situation. If science communication were better, then scientific literacy would improve and more people would demand evidence to base their decisions on. A number of factors are at work - e.g. scientists' inability or lack of desire to communicate, the general 'image problem' facing scientists (they are seen still as dull, eccentric, stuffy, out-of-touch with the real world). We need some scientific champions with a flair for communication, or better still more political leaders who have an understanding of science. The recent Reith Lectures by Jeffrey Sachs spring immediately to mind - whether or not you agree with him, here is someone who can argue passionately for evidence-based policy without ever sounding like a bore. For podcasts and transcripts, see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2007/

A third problem is, I think, is how science stories are framed. This is revealed when journalists pitch to editors and when published stories fail to touch their audiences. Many editors seem unable to realise that science stories are not just science stories, and this may well be down to how reporters pitch them. So often science stories are really economics stories, or political stories, but if they are pitched as 'research findings' or 'scientists have warned that...', the editor will be put off. Most editors are humanities graduates and see science as being something 'other' that belongs in its own section rather than having a right to the front page. Likewise, many journalists need to do more to connect their stories to their readers. There is some interesting work on 'Framing Science' being done by Chris Mooney and Matthew Nisbet. See their recent article in the Washington Post.

[Swati Bute]

i am 100% agree with all your points and yes "presentation of story" is very very important. specialy subject like science need special attention, generaly people think its a very hard and tough subject, its difficult for a layman to understand scientific and technical terms, so communication in simple language is must.

[Dr Marina Hurley]

In addition to matters already raised, in Australia at least, I believe that there is insufficient attention given to the teaching of writing at high school. The shortfall is taken up by the arts and humanities at universities, but not by the science sector. When learning science at university much attention is placed on knowledge acquisition and retention, understanding concepts and the ability to correctly conduct science. Little attention is placed on making sure science students can write well. Scientists end up learning how to write for peer-review, but their writing is not necessarily easily read or understood - even by their peers.

So we end up with a situation where many good writers don’t have a strong background in science and many good scientists don’t have a strong background in writing.

[DANIEL AKOKO]

Scientists, especially in Africa, have an unexpalained fear of journalists blowing their research findings out of proportion, with the possibility of creating perceptions of false security in the form of a cure. The scientists also dread the creation of alarm, sensionalism and other 'unpalatable' reports through media reporting of their works/findings.

In states such as Kenya, beuracratic red tape, treatment of scientific data as if they are top secrets also impedes science communication.

Finally, a third factor is fear of punishment of scientists by their superiors. This bit ensures that strict protocol is followed and that only certain top officers within research or hospital set-ups are the only ones to divulge information to the media, public and other interested partoes.

[Julian Cribb]

These are very important points. Scientists everywhere fear distortion of their results. I spend a lot of my time teaching them ways to minimise the possibility of this occurring. Scientists often do not understand the media, therefore they fear it. Those who come to understand it, quickly learn to make use of it and to minimise the scope for error. It is pleasing to see a young scientists grow and develop confidence in their ability to transmit their knowledge in this fashion. We should always remember that 80% of society (those not in school) gets nearly 100% of their knowledge about new science from the media. We should also remember the media is not all of one sort - industry media for example provide very faithful and accurate reports of science, so does farming media, IT media etc. I recommend starting scientists in communication with media who will treat their work respectfully and fairly, not the rather wilder arena of daily media. This builds their confidence. I will address Daniel's other points later.

[Aleem Ahmed]

Dear Cribb,
Though we don't have the shortage of problems regarding science journalism and the public communication of science, top three among them are as per the following. I rather call them the "paralyzing myths."

1- Science is only about pedagogy:
That is, science can only be taught - and learned - through the classrooms. Thanks to this mindset, public communication of science - including science journalism - is considered as the waste of "precious national resources." In fact, the very idea of science journalism and public communication of science simply remains alien for the 'science elites' and policymakers of Pakistan. As a result of this mindset, public understanding of science remains absent from government's agenda for the national development.

2- Scientific knowledge is only for scientists/ researchers:
Scientists/ researchers - with a waste majority working in public sector R&D organizations - are the people who are paid to undertake scientific research. These people have spent lots of their time mastering certain disciplines of S&T and acheiving certain level of expertise. It is therefore the scientists/ researchers aren't encouraged to use jargon-free language - either talking with media or delivering so-called 'public lectures' on science.

3- English is the ONLY language of science:
Already, since 1994, Urdu translation of the latest scientific/ technological/ technical terms, their standardiztion and adoption at governmental level was almost stand-still. Ironically, instead of rectifying this problem, our foreign-returned educationists, prominent scientists and even the educational policymakers got convinced with a strange logic: Because English is dominantly used for the scientific/ technological communication worldwide and a researcher has to write his/ her research paper in English - for the international community of scientists/ researchers - therefore, Urdu translations of the latest sceintific and technical terms have no significance. During the last seven years or so, this mindset has become more pronounced and mature - especially in a post-9/11 scenario of Pakistan. Despite all these arguments, prescribed textbooks of Pakistan - written by the 'panels of experts' - can only be memorized, rather than understood. It holds true irrespective of the language in which these books are written. (In my humble opinion, science is the language of nature by itself - through which we understand how the nature expresses itself. On the other hand, human language is a career through which the rational understanding of nature spreads within a culture and across different cultures. To remain effective, this career needs perpetual care, continuous evolution and periodic overhaul. Without sustained attention, a language starts weakening very soon. So it the case of Urdu and other local languages of Pakistan.) Such mindsed makes it very difficult for the local-language science journalists to have feedback from the policymakers, researchers and scientists alike.