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

[DANIEL AKOKO]

Dear Ernawati

I couldn't agree more with your diagnosis and prescription for science communication between scientists and journalists. Locally, I have been appalled to read in a respected national daily the line "Malaria virus" when in fact it's the 'malaria parasite. The same has been uttered by a TV journalist who was reporting on this deadly tropical disease and its' causative agent. Some journalists need to go for the real stuff- update their science and medical/entomology terminologies. We could team up and help equip our colleagues if they so admit that shortcoming. Sadly, some are not aware that they don't quite get the stuff right and that they must strive to be grounded in science to perform better.

Regards

Daniel Akoko

[Dr. CM Nautiyal]

In my opinion the three greatest obstacles for this are:

1. Limitation(s) of the researcher and of the journalist: The inability in expression (due to technical nature of info), lack of will ('what will I gain?') on the part of researcher. The latter is also related to employer's indifference to such efforts if not dislike. Besides, a scientist finds matter to put in perspective quite a textbook stuff and repetitive. The increasingly specialised nature of research also makes it extremely difficult for the writer to comprehend and reword so as to be comprehensible to a layman.

2. The increasingly commercial/ secretive nature of research: The commerce makes it fierecely competitive. Even in the govt. (even if you exclude defence etc., there are restrictions. This restricts the researcher from communicating. I doubt if an official will be willing to be quoted in print even on '2 and 2 add to four' unless (s)he has permission to talk to the press! May be UNESCO etc. can intervene.

3. The commercial interest of the media: You can see the best of science story shortened, if not deleted, to make room for an ad! Here public pressure can matter. If there is readership, sooner or later media will realise this and come around. But true science stories may go against the commercial interests too! What if a research proves that cream can't lead to fair skin or damages skin, or criticism of the God-men etc.?

CM Nautiyal

[DANIEL AKOKO]

HOW COMMERCIAL INTERESTS' TENTACLES KILL SCIENCE COMMUNICATION

I absolutely agreed with you. You hit the nail squarely on the head. The worst is tentacles of specific vested commercial engulfing the media. There are firms which, by servant or agent, snoop for whatever and whoever threaten their future! I have come across journalist who discreetly got messages of coercion and, upon persisting on writing articles unpalatable to the purveyors of certain biotechnology issues, finally got stopped on his tracks, through intentional killing of the 'offending articles'.

Indeed, the journalist seemed to have crossed swords with researchers and administrators of a firm that was well-connected with a genetically modified organisms (GMOs) multinational. His arguments for or against the introduction of GM foods in Kenya at the time spelt doom for the writer as he was deemed to be a threat to the interests of certain parties, not science. How can such journalists, media outlets (and their rabid editors) and researchers/science news sources co-exist. I would like to hear your opinions.

Many thanks for keeping this debate alive

Regards

Daniel Akoko