Why communicate science?
In this week’s Friday Phenomenon over on BIG-chat, Erin asked us to write fifty words or fewer on the importance of doing good science communication, as might be addressed to a university-based researcher.
Here’s my entry, in 50 words exactly:
Put yourself in the place of “the public”. In fact, when it comes to most science that isn’t your own field, you are the public. How would you like it if experts in other fields were bad at communicating their science? Treat others as you would like to be treated.
I threw this together very quickly, so I haven’t thought it through particularly thoroughly. So I thought I would expand a little on here.
The point I want to make here is quite distinct from all those (equally valid and necessary) arguments about the economic value of science, researchers’ own personal interest in public engagement, and fulfilling funding requirements. Quite simply, I think that good science communication is a moral imperative, a simple case of following the “golden rule” of behaviour, the “right thing to do” as it were.
If that doesn’t convince you, consider the following. Apart from anything else, selfishly keeping scientific knowledge behind closed doors, locked away in the ivory tower, is an inefficient use of information. Scientists should abhor such waste, especially those who are capable of doing something about it.
What 50 words would you use to persuade a researcher to communicate well? You could put your suggestions in a comment below, or better yet join BIG-chat (it’s free) and enter there by Friday.
Reblogged this on The Silent Astronomer and commented:
The importance of good science communication is tantamount to a stronger “world democracy.” This allows more individuals to gain knowledge which contributes to their eventual freedom from tyranny and hate.
I enjoyed reading your post–so much so–that I reblogged it. Thank you for an enlightening post!
Glad you liked it and thank you for sharing!
Hey Jaksichja-
Though generating post, thanks. Isn’t this such a sticky issue? The ethics of communication? And even more complex is science comm. I’m interested to know what you think about how what happens when scientists step out of their roles as lab-restricted researchers to communicators of science, which some might perceive as being political or too personally invested in their work. Unfortunately, it seems that our standards–as a society–for science reinforce the cloistered mentality and culture of science to such an extent, that scientists would much prefer stay above the fray and let others do the communicating for them.
I recently posted something about this on a new science blog:
http://toseescience.org/2012/12/13/social-consequences-ofinsularity/
Much more could be said, for sure. Glad to have read your post! Keep up the fine work.
*thought
Oh my goodness. Just realized I was commenting on your blog Alex Brown! So sorry. I didn’t realize that Jaksichja reposted it! I’m new to all this…
No worries, glad to have your input either way.
Science is the window to self-discovery, and self-discovery is the foundation of cultivating a fulfilling experience of life. It is self-destructive to make the very thing which feeds us more difficult to digest. This means science communicators are the unsung heroes of healing our blindness to our own full potential.