200 Words
Nuala Moran,—Science journalist, editor, Science|Business, BioWorld, former managing editor, Nature, former deputy editor, Computer Weekly.
Purdue is right to put the spotlight on science journalists as the main conduit between researchers and the public, and is to be commended for bringing us all together to discuss this relationship.
But we can’t do our job unless scientists see a value in talking about their work that goes beyond the fact that papers that appear in the media are more highly cited by scientific peers.
A study carried out by the UK’s Royal Society earlier this year found that rather than valuing communication, the majority of scientists thought it was bad for their careers. Is it any wonder then that the public is so sceptical of science?
The reasons for scientists talking about their work to the public are obvious – from providing them with the tools to engage in the moral and ethical debates thrown up by advances such as embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning, to weighing the risk and benefits of genetically engineered crops, or understanding why they must change their lifestyles to address global warming. Modern democracy cannot function without common scientific knowledge.
But in the end, I think there is a greater, overlying imperative for communicating science. Science is public knowledge. I don’t mean this in the sense that much of it is funded through taxation, but that it is part of the overall cannon of human knowledge.
Scientists have a duty to talk about their research findings so everyone can share in the sheer fascination of what they have uncovered.
And, I believe, once this is acknowledged as the core motivation, the public is less likely to think it is being hoodwinked or manipulated by selective communication of scientific facts.