As I noted when the Pew science survey was released last month, there was a disturbing tendency among some bloggers and commentators to seize upon the findings as yet more evidence of a "dangerous divide," a "widening disconnect," and a "gulf" between scientists and the public. I summarized some of the problems with this narrative at the time as did others.
In a follow up article at The Scientist titled "Are Scientists Really Out of Touch?," several researchers who have conducted similar surveys of scientists and the public have noted their own reservations about the "dangerous divide" claims. As these researchers warn, it is never good to jump to dramatic conclusions without taking into account the cumulative research and expert views in an area:
In a recent AAAS/Pew survey [1], one in five U.S. scientists named the chronic difficulties [2] in communicating with and educating lay audiences as one of the greatest U.S. scientific failures of the past 20 years. The real surprise, however, was that scientists do not seem too eager to find a solution -- at least not according to the AAAS/Pew data [3]. Only about two in five AAAS scientists reported that they often talk to non-scientists about findings from their research, and only 3% often talk to reporters.
But are things really that bad? As part of two independent research teams, we interviewed nationally representative samples of scientific experts in nanotechnology [4, 5], stem cell research and epidemiology [6]. Data from these surveys suggest much more optimistic views among scientists about interactions with journalists, mass media, and lay audiences. At least two important differences in survey technique may explain these contrasting findings....
The authors then go on to summarize these important sample and question wording implications. As they conclude:
These more positive attitudes toward public communication across disciplines also translate into scientists' openness to connect with lay audiences. Data from our nanotechnology survey shows that more than half of all scientists "strongly" or "somewhat" agree that "[s]cientists should pay attention to the wishes of the public, even if they think citizens are mistaken or do not understand their work." And scientists believe that communication can make a difference, with more than 80% in the nano and the biomedical surveys disagreeing that "[c]ommunicating with the public does not affect public attitudes toward science." Judged against scientific norms and priorities, media coverage of science will always be incomplete and -- at times -- flawed. But scientists, it seems, are open to a dialogue.
Overall, we do not mean to imply that data such as the recent AAAS survey are not helpful in guiding our thinking about the future of science communication. But data that potentially overstate the problem could drive a wedge between already divided groups and discourage both sides from building bridges. We continue to be convinced these that bridges have to be built, and -- based on expert surveys across disciplines and continents -- can be built.
- Log in to post comments
One problem with communication is that for many of us who are or were in private industry, we had lilited flexibility to talk to the public.... often only when there was a "issue" such as a spill or an unwelcome application that might affect neighbours etc, and those meetings were often rather tense.
I was lucky in that my company sponsored an outreach program that allowed me to talk to students in Grades 7/8, and separately Grade 12. These sessions, with appropriate demos, were always very rewarding for both parties as kids usually don't have too many pre-conceived ideas and want to hear your story.
I'm confused.... if it is just a matter of communication, why is it that other countries more readily adopt ideas, like evolution? Are the proposing that scientists in America are as bad at communicating with the public as those in Turkey? Are they suggesting that there is more communication in the Nordic countries thus explaining why they have greater awareness and adoption of scientific ideas?
Without looking at the article I can't help but wonder about the reasons they picked the stem cells research, nanotechnology and epidemiology (think vaccines, autism and the swine flu). All are all the time on the first pages, and therefore the specialists in these fields are more often in direct contact with the media and the public and better aware of the importance of touching the base with an average citizen from time to time, so to say.
How did they account for bias?