Just how important is public communication? Presidential Science Adviser John Holdren believes that scientists should devote 10% of their time to talking to the public about matters of science and policy, especially in the area of energy and climate. That's what he urged in the conclusion to his 2007 AAAS Presidential address and again last year at the energy summit sponsored by the National Academies. From the report to that summit:
"I suggested in my AAAS presidential address last year that everybody in the science and technology community who cares about the future of the world should be tithing 10 percent of his or her time to interacting with the public in the policy process on these issues...if all us just got out to the public more and talked to policymakers more, we would get more of this done."
Of course, it's more than just talking to the public, it's actively framing information in a way that remains accurate and true to the science, but that connects a complicated subject such as climate change to something the public already understands or values. It also means providing the incentives for scientists to devote their time in this way, which usually means creating financial rewards, such as additional NSF funding for public engagement initiatives.
I will have more on this subject, applied to climate change, in a forthcoming article at the journal Environment. For additional thoughts, see this recent column for Skeptical Inquirer magazine.
- Log in to post comments
But, if they spend 10% of their time talking to the general public the cumulative brain damage will mean they won't be scientists for long.
I agree that scientists should communicate more with the public. However, this implies good vulgarization skills, and numerous researchers lack this important ability, especially in the beginning of their career, to speak in a proper language for the general audience to understand. After numerous years studying on specific details, it is not that easy to get back to basics.
I sent this 'round to a mailing list of my local science friends and got a great response from a retired scientist who is passionate about wanting to spend 100 percent of his time doing communicating with the public about science.
"How? When? Where?"
Great questions.
I strongly agree and am actively trying to educate the public about my field (it helps that I love to talk about it). The biggest problem is finding the proper forum. Oddly enough (or maybe not all that oddly) commercial shrimpers and fishermen are more interested in talking about coastal issues than the policy makers are.
My question is where are you going to find this 10 % of their time? A professor at an R1 mentors graduate students & post-docs, goes to various meetings, writes articles and grants, manages a group including budgeting, analyzes data/thinks of new experiments, reviews articles/grants for others, teaches classes, keeps current on work being published, and somehow has a life. If you want scientists to communicate with the public the latter is vital. The actual job requires the rest. Where are you going to cut? Guess what graduate students and post-docs want more mentoring. Undergraduates want more time spent teaching. The pressures from the university and dwindling resources require more grant/article writing and service. Heck is it important yes that people speak with the public but you have to change a lot to get scientists to do this. Adding more and more for them to do is only going to favor scientists who do not have lives outside their jobs. Is that the type of person who is going to be the best to speak with the public?