Science Communication — Science for Everyone?
Science communication
Finally, here it is. A blog-post about the posts on this website — science communication!
Gotta admit, there might be more creative approaches. But there are some good reasons out there to fully focus on this topic (at least that’s what I try to convince myself of).
Science communication is not just essential, it’s actually part of a scientist’s job. If only there weren’t the word “actually,” because reality is quite different, and science communication outside of the science community isn’t really at the center of interest.
But step by step
Do we really need science communication?
To begin with, when discussing science communication in this post, I’m not referring to scientific publications or presentations at large scientific conferences (where, by the way, you often have to pay an entry fee). It’s all about reaching out to the non-scientific community, who aren’t accustomed to technical jargon. A brief reminder: this constitutes the majority of the world!
While it may sound idealistic to proclaim “science is for everyone,” let’s be honest: a bit of idealism never hurt anyone. So, let’s agree to pursue this ideal. Science should be accessible to every single one of us, regardless of our origin, salary, gender, education, etc. The true purpose of science is to enhance life for the common good, whether directly or indirectly. However, how can we enhance the common good if scientific knowledge doesn’t even reach the community?
As mentioned earlier, it may seem idealistic, perfectionistic, perhaps even illusory, and you may argue that not every research topic is relevant to everyone. That’s true, but that’s not the point here. Ultimately, everyone should at least have the opportunity to decide for themselves what’s relevant to them.
Science communication — the crisis
To claim that science communication is in crisis would be inaccurate. In fact, the opposite holds true, especially given the urgency highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic, emphasizing the need for clear science communication. So, why am I sharing this blog post with you anyway? That’s a fair question. I simply believe we’re making progress, but we still have a long road ahead of us.
Therefore, I aim to provide you with honest insight into the life of a scientist (like myself). Crafting scientific knowledge that is engaging and understandable for everyone demands something quite rare in the fast-paced world of science — time. Yes, Einstein famously stated that time is relative, but it seems deadlines haven’t quite grasped that lesson yet…
Indeed, science is riddled with deadlines (experiments, fieldwork, publications, project proposals, research grants, etc.), and as a result, science communication often takes a back seat. But why is communicating with non-scientists the last thing a researcher devotes time to? Simply put, it’s not highly valued. Let me clarify: I’m not suggesting that scientists are solely motivated by money, but who dedicates significant effort to tasks that offer little reward or advantage in their career? The issue is that communicating science to the broader public is time-consuming… you could theoretically hire someone solely for communication tasks! However, who understands the research better than the scientist who conducted it? Do you see the dilemma?
Let’s start with clear communication!
We scientists have a penchant for technical jargon. In fact, you might think we’re competing in the World Championships of stuffing the most hard-to-understand words into a single sentence. We can discuss concepts like gravitation in such a way that nobody outside a community of experts understands a word — that’s how adept scientists are at employing technical terms. And this is one of the reasons why translating scientific knowledge for the broader public is so challenging. Additionally, many scientists fear missing out on crucial information, yet often overlook the fact that such details may not be relevant to the rest of the world.
Another reason why clear and accessible science communication often falls short is likely because no scientist is ever trained for it during their education. Perhaps it would be a step in the right direction to train young scientists in this aspect.
One of the reasons why a clear and easy way of science communication fails is probably also the fact, that no scientist will ever be trained for that during their education. Maybe it would be a sustainable step in the right direction to train young scientists in this field.
Publish or perish — the killer of science communication?
“Publish or perish” is a phrase every scientist is familiar with, and it essentially signifies that you must consistently publish in prestigious journals to maintain your status as a scientist. This is closely intertwined with securing new research grants and project opportunities, which, in turn, require a high volume of publications in reputable scientific journals. And thus, we find ourselves caught in a perpetual cycle.
The funding of projects is often sourced from the public purse, meaning that taxpayers are primarily funding most of the research. So far, so good. However, what’s truly intriguing is that taxpayers essentially pay twice to access the results of these funded projects. This happens because scientists are required to publish their work in prestigious journals, and accessing these articles often incurs additional costs. It’s pure absurdity when you think about it: taxpayers fund the project with their taxes and then need to pay again to read about the results of the very project they’ve already funded. Whaaaat?
There’s the approach of open access, which could provide free access for everyone, but unfortunately, it isn’t particularly conducive to a researcher’s career, given the prevailing “publish or perish” mentality.
Regardless of the route taken, it seems the only consistent winners in every case are the publishing companies that own the prestigious journals.
Is it all that bad?
Clearly, not everything is bad. On one hand, journalists are striving to cover aspects of science and disseminate knowledge to the broader public, although the quality of these reports may vary. Nonetheless, it’s a step in the right direction. However, the recent explosion in the number of publications surpasses the capacities of public news agencies. Therefore, it falls upon us scientists to provide scientific news to everyone out there. While some, including ourselves, have already taken the initiative and begun to improve the way we communicate science, many others still require a little nudge. Interestingly, this nudge might come from outside the scientific community. One thing is certain, though: whether it’s through politics, the non-scientific community, or any other avenue, science communication needs to be valued more highly than it currently is to ensure successful science communication in the future.
