Science Communication: What is it?

Share

Science Communication deals with an issue that is important, not only, or even mainly, for the scientific community, but also for the nation as a whole and for each individual within it. More than ever, people need some understanding of science, whether they are involved in decision-making at a national or local level, in managing industrial companies, in skilled or semi-skilled employment, in voting as private citizens, or in making a wide range of personal decisions. The Public Understanding of Science, The Royal Society, London, 1985.

Science communication generally refers to public communication presenting science-related topics to non-experts; this includes, among other forms, science exhibitions, journalism, policy or media production. It can aim to generate support for scientific research or study, or to inform decision-making, including political and ethical thinking. There is increasing emphasis on explaining methods, rather than simply findings of science; this may be especially critical in addressing scientific misinformation, which spreads easily because it is not subject to the constraints of scientific method.

Effective science communication has actually changed the world; a case in point would be the Copernican Revolution. Copernicus published a book in 1543 on the movement of the Earth around the Sun, not the Sun around the Earth, which was the established belief at the time; it was a revolution in the way people thought. These revolutions, in the way we think, are fostered by great communicators.

Charles Darwin’s books were bestsellers, the Theory of Natural Selection that he promoted was an amazing transformation in the history of human thought. Almost nobody has heard of Alfred Wallace, while almost everybody has heard of Charles Darwin. The truth is both Wallace and Darwin published papers back-to-back in Nature on the theory of natural selection; they each came up with this independently. Yet, we are far more familiar with Darwin, because he communicated the idea effectively. He was a very popular author who wrote eloquently; it was his communication skills that differentiated him from Wallace.

Einstein led a revolution in physics and atomic energy, while Watson and Crick led a revolution in biotechnology and medical science; these pioneers of science communication have transformed the way we think, and they did it because society needed to know something. Society needed to know where we were in the universe, and where we came from; these are very fundamental human knowledge needs.

At the height of the Enlightenment in the late 19th century, science was characterized by significant public participation, the “Republic of Science”, even if the extent of participation was limited by the lack of education amongst the wider, unskilled population. By the end of the 19th century, however, science became increasingly professionalized and aligned with the interests of government, a trend which has continued ever since.

The relationship between science and the public became characterized by scientists communicating to a “scientifically illiterate” population, often referred to as the “deficit model”. Critics of this model suggest that the public will not be interested in information that is not in context, or does not relate to their lives in some way (Kahlor and Rosenthal, 2009).

Writing in 1987, Geoffery Thomas and John Durant advocated various reasons to increase public understanding of science, or scientific literacy. If the public enjoyed science more, they suggested there would presumably be more funding, progressive regulation, and trained scientists. More trained engineers and scientists could allow a nation to be more competitive economically. Governments and societies might also benefit from more scientific literacy, since an informed electorate promotes a more democratic society. Moreover, science can inform moral decision making.

In the UK, the modern approach to science communication began with the Public Understanding of Science model (PUS); post-2000 and the House of Lords’ Jenkin report “Science and Society”, the model changed to Public Engagement in Science and Technology (PEST). Although the aim was to improve interactions between scientists and the public, engagement was still on the scientists’ terms and reflected only a minor change from the deficit model. The public still has to accept the message on the scientists’ terms, with no true engagement or dialogue.

On the other hand, Bernard Cohen points out potential pitfalls in improving scientific literacy; he explains first that we must avoid “scientific idolatry”. In other words, science education must allow the public to respect science without worshipping it, or expecting infallibility. Ultimately, scientists are humans; they are neither perfectly altruistic, nor perfectly competent. Science communicators must also appreciate the distinction between understanding science and possessing a transferable skill of scientific thinking. Indeed, even trained scientists do not always manage to transfer the skill to other areas of their life.

An open dialogue between scientists and the public fundamentally, thus, changes the practice of science communication, developing from a one-way to a two-way system. The idea is to have an open debate in which all stakeholders could participate, deliberate, and critique the issue. This new age of science communication certainly has potential and “good intentions”, but many critics question if scientists would actually take on board the public’s opinions or if this was just a public relations campaign (Davies, 2008).

At this time, it is probably too early to see what long-term trends will arise from the Internet and social media, or how the move to Open Access will make an impact. Will we see a revival of the Enlightenment’s Republic of Science, or Citizen Science as it is often now referred to? Beyond amateur astronomers and naturalists, can the public lead or participate in science discourse? Examples of online public participation already exist, Galaxy Zoo and Foldit; yet, these are still top-down approaches.

Recent Periodic Table Videos have been made in direct response to the comments and requests of the audience, and social media has exposed some of the trade secrets of researchers. There are also signs that social media is challenging the internal hierarchy of science; even if such conversations are between scientists themselves and not scientists and the public. Clearly, the Internet does allow “outsiders” to debate the methods, motives, and conclusions of science in public. It may also allow scientists expand their networks, while overturning preconceptions about their fields. Whatever the results will be, the Internet and social media will surely become integral in how future relationships between scientists and the public develop.

References

victoriaellis.scienceblog.com

carlsagan.com

blogs.nature.com

ian.umces.edu


This article was first published in print in SCIplanet, Autumn 2016 issue.

Cover designed by Freepik

About Us

SCIplanet is a bilingual edutainment science magazine published by the Bibliotheca Alexandrina Planetarium Science Center and developed by the Cultural Outreach Publications Unit ...
Continue reading

Contact Us

P.O. Box 138, Chatby 21526, Alexandria, EGYPT
Tel.: +(203) 4839999
Ext.: 1737–1781
Email: COPU.editors@bibalex.org

Become a member

© 2025 | Bibliotheca Alexandrina