L
Learning outcomes 1
1 Introduction 3
2 What is communication? 7
3 Producing a scientific paper: science communication as knowledge production and exchange 12
4 Science communication and citizenship: getting involved 15
5 Conclusions 17
References 19
By the end of this block you should be able to:
• Discuss the purposes of science communication in contemporary society.
• Demonstrate an understanding of science communication as a complex process, involving a wide range of social actors who are both motivated and constrained by social roles, norms and conventions.
• Discuss factors that influence the production of science communication, including the selection and construction of information for particular audiences and contexts.
• Discuss factors that influence the reception of science communication, particularly the role of prior knowledge, experience, attitudes and beliefs.
• Discuss the concept of scientific citizenship and how this influences contemporary science communication.
Copyright © 2005 The Open University WEB 88583 6
1.1

ePortfolio exercises
After reading this block you are expected to conduct one of the following three exercises as part of your ePortfolio evidence of achievement. You will find information regarding submission on the eDesktop. You may like to discuss this activity with your supervisor before submission.
Exercise 1
Demonstrate that you can communicate in an engaging way with the public by developing a weblog (also known as a blog) on your PhD research, recording the progress of your research and training for at least one month.
You should develop opportunities for science communication that are available to the public in a dialogic format (through feedback comments) and that represent the ‘human’ element of the scientist, addressing the issues raised by the activity involving the reading of Medawar (1999).
Your ePortfolio submission should include the weblog and a report on the experience of producing the weblog. You should reflect on any feedback that you have received from the public, noting the strengths and weaknesses of your approach and any lessons that you have learned from the experience.
Free blogging software is available on the internet, as well as advice and guidance on how to produce a weblog, e.g. see http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/weblogs ePortfolio assessment scheme: Exercise 1
Your submission will be assessed against the following criteria:
• Successful and satisfactory production of the weblog, with sufficient, regular postings and acknowledgement of feedback.
• Evidence of clear planning to facilitate effective communication of the scientific knowledge relevant to the research under consideration.
• Evidence of planning to address the human element in scientific research, e.g. Why is the research important and exciting to conduct? How does a scientist begin to work on a new investigation? etc.
• Is the report well structured and presented, with a logical and clearly structured series of arguments and conclusions?
• Is there evidence of reflection as a science communication practitioner?
What were the strengths and weaknesses of the weblog approach and how could the weaknesses be addressed?
Exercise 2
Demonstrate that you can communicate in an engaging way with the public by participating in an outreach activity, or public engagement event, e.g. in a local school, through a public lecture, participation in a consultation exercise or active participation in National Science Week.
Produce a report outlining the structure and content of the activity and any planning that you engaged in, drawing on the ideas and themes discussed in this block and its associated readings.
The Researchers in Residence programme is an example of an outreach activity which encourages scientists to spend time in a school, see http://extra.shu.ac.uk/rinr/site/ourmsg/rinr
2

For more information about National Science Week, which is run by the
British Association, see http://www.the-ba.net/the-ba/Events/
[Either report should be between 1000 and 2000 words long, excluding references.] ePortfolio assessment scheme: Exercise 2
Your submission will be assessed against the following criteria:
• Successful and satisfactory participation in the outreach and engagement activity.
• Evidence of clear planning to facilitate effective communication of the scientific knowledge relevant to the research under consideration.
• Evidence of planning to address the human element in scientific research, e.g. Why is the research important and exciting to conduct? How does a scientist begin to work on a new investigation? etc.
• Is the report well structured and presented, with a logical and clearly structured series of arguments and conclusions?
• Is there evidence of reflection as a science communication practitioner?
What were the strengths and weaknesses of the outreach and engagement activity and how could the weaknesses be addressed in future events?
Exercise 3
Produce a short essay that demonstrates your understanding of issues relevant to contemporary science communication.
This essay should consider issues of production and reception when communicating science through a medium of your choice. In so doing, you should consider your role as a research scientist within these processes. The text of this block and the further reading material should support this exercise.
[The essay should be between 2000 and 2500 words long, excluding references.] ePortfolio assessment scheme: Exercise 3
Your submission will be assessed against the following criteria:
• Evidence of having read and understood the ideas, arguments and concepts presented in the block and relevant associated course materials.
• Evidence of a well-structured and reasoned argument, with a clear discussion of the material assembled.
• Evidence of clear, rational and informed conclusions drawing on relevant materials from the block and associated readings.
• Evidence of a clear and effective writing style, with effective presentation and use of references.
In 2000, the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology produced an influential report that highlighted the complex and increasingly problematic relationship between contemporary science and society, particularly in the field of biotechnology (House of Lords Select Committee on Science and
Technology, 2000). The report argued that many of these concerns were seen by the public to be the result of a perceived lack of transparency in the relationship between science, industry, public policy and the public as consumers. High-
3

profile issues, such as the BSE/vCJD episode, were also seen as responsible for reducing levels of trust in scientific expertise. It was argued that effective science communication could be a key factor in reducing tensions between science and society by increasing levels of democracy through greater dialogue and consultation (House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology,
2000). Of course, the picture is not all doom and gloom. Contemporary science is now more visible and easily accessible to the public than ever before, and science forms a core part of the National Curriculum in the UK. With calls for upstream engagement though (e.g. see Wilsdon and Willis (2004)), it remains to be seen whether the greater calls for dialogue and consultation will affect the progress of scientific investigations in the coming years.
As practising scientists, you will communicate science within this climate of dialogue between the scientific community and wider society. Indeed, many funding bodies now require scientists to communicate science to the public as a mandatory condition, expecting that, at a minimum, a certain percentage of an overall grant would be spent on such activities. In this respect, the requirement to communicate science is a response to the use of public money to fund scientific investigations; the public having a right to know how their taxes have been spent.
Furthermore, training programmes for research students regularly include activities designed to promote good practice in science communication. But there are more pragmatic and even altruistic reasons for communicating science. In the first instance, you will have learnt science from those with prior knowledge and experience of scientific knowledge and practices. Without these individuals to inspire and guide your development as science students you would have struggled to learn science in the way that you have. As research scientists you have the opportunity to inspire others to become scientists, or to become interested in scientific issues. Of course, not everyone will want to become a scientist. This does not mean that these individuals are not interested in science, however.
Recent events, such as Science Year and the eclipse of the Sun in the southwest of England, illustrate the popularity of scientific issues. In this sense, you have the opportunity to communicate science, both as a scientist and as a citizen, by listening to the views of wider society and producing scientific information to inform these debates.
If you are interested in investigating the issues raised by the House of Lords
Select Committee report in more detail, you will find a copy of the full report on the web at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/38/3801
.htm
The following references also discuss issues related to key findings from this report: Irwin and Michael (2003, particularly pp. 19 − 40), Miller (2001) and
Gibbons (1999) .
This overall picture places demands on you as a communicator, both in producing and receiving scientific information through a wide range of media. This block has been written as an introduction to some of these challenges. It will address the following questions:
• What is science communication?
• Why is science communication an important issue for scientists to address?
• How can an understanding of the processes of communication inform communicative practices?
4

• How does the current context for communicating science relate to calls for greater dialogue and consultation between science and society?
In addressing these questions you will be asked to consider extracts from articles and to conduct a series of short activities. (A number of optional readings have also been identified. You might choose to access these readings for interest, or if you have additional study time at your disposal.) By completing these readings and the activities it is hoped that you will develop a more sophisticated understanding of the complexities involved in the process of communicating science that will further inform your practice as science communicators. You will then be asked to demonstrate your understanding of these issues through contributions to your ePortfolio.
Scientific knowledge is very visible in contemporary society, as a wide range of scientific and science-related issues are subjected to considerable public and academic debate. Often, these debates refer, either implicitly or explicitly, to discussions of technology and/or mathematics. As a result, scientific, mathematical and technological knowledge circulates not only within the academic disciplines where this knowledge was produced, e.g. in peer-reviewed journal publications and academic conferences, but also within wider society. For example, newspapers, magazines, television, radio, school classrooms, books, the internet, advertisements and museums all represent scientific and science-related issues. Examples that have generated public debate in recent years include:
1 Cloning experiments, notably the experiment that produced Dolly the sheep and, more recently, experiments to clone stem cells for therapeutic purposes.
2 Global climate change and the role of humans in managing the environment.
3 Developments in nanotechnology and the prospects for using these techniques in the production of medicines and materials.
4 The search for extraterrestrial life within the Solar System and the identification of Earth-like planets beyond this.
5 The prospects for introducing genetically modified (GM) organisms into the food chain and the wider environment.
(Allow 15 minutes)
Take a few moments to consider each of these examples in turn, and then try to answer the following questions. Have you heard of example 1 (then 2, 3, 4,
5) prior to beginning your study of this block? If so, where did you first hear of this example? Did you actively seek further information about any of these examples? If so, where did you look for this information? Finally, are any of the examples related to the subject that you are currently studying and did this influence how you reacted to the issue in question? Can you think of other high-profile examples of science communication in recent years that are not included in this list?
Each of the five examples listed above has generated a considerable amount of science communication in recent years, and this makes them high-profile examples, both within the scientific community and within wider society. As such, it is likely that you will have heard of all five of them. It is also likely that, unless you are studying issues related to these subjects, the first time you heard of these issues would have been through news media coverage, e.g. a television news bulletin, radio broadcast or newspaper article; research suggests that these are important media for disseminating information about newly published science
(e.g. see Holliman (2004) ). Given the competitive nature of the media
5

marketplace in the UK, these issues can be considered to be of great importance because that they generated such extensive coverage.
It is more difficult to judge whether you will have sought further information about any of the five examples. Some of you may have been more interested in one example, compared with another, and you may have investigated a range of sources regarding this topic, including books, web-based information and university courses that address this example. Indeed, previous media reporting may even have indirectly influenced your current choice of research topic and how you subsequently react to communication about your subject area. For example, you may be more likely to check newspaper articles to see how your current (or previous) research topic has been reported. Subsequently, you may feel so strongly about this reporting that you contact the media outlet, e.g. by writing a letter to the editor. In this sense you are receiving science communication, reacting to it in a variety of ways, some of which may lead you to produce a response.
By contrast, you may have investigated all five of these topics in your spare time, e.g. through a regular subscription to a popular science magazine such as New
Scientist or Scientific American . Alternatively, you may find yourself so busy with your studies that you become focused on the academic literature and avoid other scientific issues when you are not studying, e.g. in favour of other entertainment or leisure activities. As a final example, you may not be interested in any of these topics and, therefore, you may have avoided any further investigations. In part, this might be because of the sheer amount of scientific information that there is available through the news media, radio programmes, the internet, etc. Indeed, even if you did consume information about these issues, you may have switched channels before the end of the television news bulletin or radio broadcast, or turned the page of the newspaper prior to completing your reading of the article, or chosen not to click on one hyperlink on the internet in favour of another. In this sense, it could be argued that individuals are likely to have different levels of knowledge and experience of scientific information, in part because of their different responses to the issue under consideration.
This activity has very briefly asked you to reflect on how you consume science communication. Two key points are suggested as a result of this exercise. First, that consumption of science communication is complex and indeterminate. We cannot assume that simply because science is communicated that the audience will consume these messages. Furthermore, the producers cannot know with any confidence how their science communication will be interpreted and contextualised. Second, unless you are studying a subject in great depth, your knowledge of that subject is likely to be patchy and incomplete and affected by your interest in the subject matter. In this way the notion of scientific expertise is dynamic, in that a biochemist may be an expert in that field, but have limited, if any, detailed knowledge of astrophysics; see Fuller (1997) for a discussion. These issues have important implications for science communication because, to be effective in communicating a message, the communicator requires some understanding of the prior knowledge, experience, attitudes and beliefs of the receivers. In other words, even though a group of individuals may have different experiences of science, for science communication to be effective requires a level of shared understanding between the producer and receiver. Thus, to become a professional scientist requires, among other knowledge, experiences, attitudes and beliefs, that a student of science becomes aware of scientific practices and conventions relating to science communication. By contrast, for a scientist to communicate effectively with non-experts there is need to be aware of the different practices and conventions influencing those individuals, whilst having an awareness and respect for any different attitudes and beliefs. To do this effectively requires exchanges of information between experts, and between
6

experts and non-experts. In other words, the communicators learn from each other. However, it does not follow that the communicators will always be in agreement.
You may be asking why these five examples were chosen over others. After all, these examples represent only a tiny fraction of the scientific, technical or mathematical work currently being conducted and communicated. Other highprofile scientific issues that have received similar levels of exposure that you may have listed include the BSE/vCJD episode, the HIV/AIDS pandemic, and debates about sustainable energy. The five examples were chosen, in part, because they represent different scientific disciplines that are studied at the Open University
(OU), such as biology, chemistry, physics and astronomy. They also draw on the work of technologists and mathematicians. Hence, a key aim in selecting the examples was that they worked for the first activity you have just completed. But they were also chosen because they are useful vehicles to investigate science communication in a range of different contexts, which is an important theme for this block.
Of course, this block is, in itself, a partial introduction to issues relevant to contemporary science communication, and it is hoped that you will continue to reflect on your experiences as a science communicator as your career develops. If you are interested in considering these issues in more detail, there are a number of optional readings identified throughout the block, similar to the ones that you encountered at the start of this block. Alternatively, you may wish to consider studying the OU’s MSc in Science courses S804 Communicating science and
S802 Science and the public .
The previous section introduced you to a number of issues where scientific, technological and mathematical knowledge played a key role in generating highprofile contemporary examples of science communication. One of the key issues that links these examples is that they have all be the subject of a considerable number of communications in a wide range of contexts, e.g. within (in the form of journal articles) and outside (in the form of news media reporting) the scientific community. The science communication related to each example was produced by a range of social actors, including scientists and representatives of scientific institutions, media professionals, non-governmental organisations and members of the public. As such, these examples represent interesting opportunities to investigate how science is communicated both within and outside the scientific community, focusing, in particular, on the role of the scientist and scientific institutions. But what do we mean by communication? Fiske argues that:
Communication is one of those activities that everyone recognises, but few can define satisfactorily. Communication is talking to one another, it is television, it is spreading information, it is our hairstyle, it is literary criticism: the list is endless.
(Fiske, 1993, p. 1)
In this quotation, Fiske makes two points relevant to defining communication.
First, he notes that communication is an everyday activity. Indeed, without communication we would not be able to operate in society and society would cease to function. We all communicate, often in complex ways, as you have just illustrated by reading this sentence, in that to do so required an understanding of the English language, the purposes of an academic teaching text, and a motivation to complete this aspect of the course. And you probably achieved this without
7

consciously considering these aspects of the communicative process. Second,
Fiske argues that communication is very difficult to ‘define satisfactorily’. In this instance he lists a number of activities that could be defined as communication, but these are not directly associated with science communication. Therefore, it is worth considering some examples that do relate to science communication.
(Allow 15 minutes)
Take a few moments to re-read the quotation by Fiske. You should then jot down two ways that you have experienced science communication in the last month, noting how you participated in these communicative acts. For example, what role did you play in these examples? Were you actively involved in producing scientific information? Were you receiving scientific information? How many people were involved in the communicative act?
There are many ways that you will have experienced science communication, both as a practising scientist and as a citizen. The following five points list examples that Anna, a 22-year-old postgraduate research student, has experienced in the last month:
1 In preparation for an experiment, Anna searched for and read a series of journal articles that were relevant to her scientific research, accessing online versions of these articles and then printing them out in hard copy so that she could make notes on the manuscripts.
2 Having recently completed a series of experiments, Anna accessed an online discussion list relevant to her research and contributed to this ongoing debate.
The discussion list includes participants from 25 countries, mainly practising scientists from North America and Europe. Following the posting of her message she received several replies, both direct to her personal mailbox and posted on the discussion list.
3 In preparation for a conference presentation, Anna participated in a supervision meeting with her two supervisors. Prior to the meeting, Anna sent both her supervisors a draft of the paper she was intending to present and an outline of her presentation.
4 As a member of the department, Anna attended a recent seminar organised by her department. The speaker was a professor presenting work that was relevant, in part, to Anna’s research. During the question and answer session that followed the presentation Anna chose not to ask a question.
5 As part of the Science Faculty, Anna is invited to participate in an outreach and engagement activity in a local school. First, she conducted a series of simple experiments in the laboratory. She then presented a short talk on what she did as a scientist. Finally, she participated in a question and answer session with the students.
You will now have prepared your list of two examples of science communication.
Were they similar to any of those listed above? It is unlikely that your examples will match these exactly. However, it is likely that you will come across situations like these during the course of your research.
Let us take a moment to reflect on the questions posed and the answers provided in the examples. First, we can see that Anna has taken on a number of roles in these examples, e.g. as a research student, and as a member of her department.
These different roles overlap, of course. The important thing to consider here, however, is that, even if she is not aware of it, these roles can both motivate and constrain how she communicates. For example, as a research student Anna will be motivated to conduct her research so that she can complete her studies. If she
8

is studying for a PhD though, she will need to fulfil certain criteria to be awarded the degree, not least producing a written thesis in a certain format, and successfully completing a viva voce examination. During her studies, Anna will learn the key skills necessary to become a research scientist capable of independent research, including skills in science communication. Now compare this with the final example. In this instance, Anna has been invited to represent the Science Faculty in a local school. As such, she is likely to be seen as an expert scientist by the students and teachers, with all the skills necessary to conduct the experiments, present her talk and provide instant answers to the schoolchildren’s questions. And this is likely to be the same whether it is her first or fifty-first outreach and engagement activity. But that is not all. She is also an ambassador for the Science Faculty, for her academic subject, and for science more generally.
She therefore needs to consider carefully how she communicates with the students and teachers so that she can represent a positive image of a young research scientist. If you participate in a similar activity, you may find this quite a daunting and demanding task at first, particularly when faced with a classroom full of students who require an immediate answer to questions that may, or may not, be in your sphere of expertise. However, with practice, these sessions can be great fun.
We can see from these examples that Anna will communicate science as both a student and an expert, and that the context for the communication and social role that she plays as a science communicator are both sources of motivation and constraint.
In terms of the second and third examples we can see that Anna was mainly involved in the active communication of science, both as a producer and receiver of information. For example, Anna has actively contributed as a producer and a receiver in the online discussion forum and the supervision meeting. In the first instance, she produced and sent her message. She then received several responses, both direct to her mailbox and to the wider discussion list. In the production of her responses to these messages she needed to consider the content of those messages, as well as whether she should to respond to individual messages, the discussion forum, or both. One of the key differences between this and the other examples is that the communication is asynchronous; in effect,
Anna could also choose on what time-scale she wanted to respond. This allows for a more measured response, facilitating reference to other works, whether online (e.g. as hyperlinks) or as hard copy (e.g. as references). This situation is different from the supervision meeting, where Anna prepared information for discussion, or the outreach and engagement activity, where she responds to questions as soon as they are asked. In these cases the communication is direct and face to face. Therefore, it is more immediate and dynamic, with individuals acting as both producers and receivers of information. By contrast, in the fourth example, Anna is in a more passive role during the presentation, mainly receiving information from the professor, but also from other members of the department as she witnessed the question and answer session that followed. However, she could have chosen to ask a question following the presentation. If this had been the case then she would also have produced science communication and, hopefully, received an appropriate answer. This may have enabled her to feel confident to introduce herself to the professor following the presentation.
Finally, we can see that these examples involve different numbers of participants, ranging from Anna working alone on her research, to the supervision team, to a classroom of schoolchildren, to an email discussion list. The number of individuals involved in the communicative act will, therefore, differ greatly, in part because of the medium for the communication. Fiske defines three types of media for communicating messages. They are:
9

• Presentational media, which includes the voice, the face, the body, and spoken words and gestures. These media are particularly important in face-toface communications, but they can also be represented in other communications, e.g. see below.
• Representational media, which includes books, paintings, photographs, writing, architecture, gardens, films and, more recently, web-based information.
• Mechanical media, which include telephones, radios, televisions, fax machines, and computer networks. Mechanical media are the transmitters of the two other media.
(Adapted from Fiske, 1993)
Fiske’s categories provide a useful delineation for analysing media for communication. His categorisation facilitates discussion of how we communicate science through these media. For example, in terms of presentational media, if you were attending a job interview, you would make an effort to present yourself appropriately to the interview: initially, in terms of the clothes you wear, and subsequently as an attentive candidate during the interview, e.g. in terms of your body language. And you would expect the same of your interviewers, in order to be confident that the position was one that you would be interested in accepting, if offered. Communication in this sense can be very dynamic. For example, if you had carefully prepared for the interview but found that your interview panel appeared disinterested, this may influence how you continue to communicate; you may even decide that you wish to end the interview prematurely. In this sense, your behaviour will have been directly influenced by both your and others’ use of presentational media.
This issue of presentational media becomes more complex when we consider how presentational media can be represented, because representational media can move the discussion from face-to-face communication to a distinction between where messages are produced and where they are received, and by whom. In this sense, as producers of communication, the author of a book is rarely present when their book is being read and the newscaster cannot judge the audience reaction to their news bulletin. In keeping with these ideas, it has been argued that the relationship between production and reception of representational media is
‘characterised by distinctive kind of indeterminacy ’ (Thompson, 1999, p. 17, emphasis in original) in that the producers of mass communication rarely have direct contact with their audience and the audience are rarely in direct contact with the producers. Both are therefore deprived of the continuous feedback, e.g. from visual cues, that is apparent in face-to-face communication. Predominantly then, this form of mass communication is one way: from the producers to the receivers. And yet, for the communication to be effective, the producer must be aware of some of the ways in which their communication will be received, as well as having some idea of their audience’s prior knowledge, experience, attitudes and beliefs with regard to the subject to be communicated. Those involved in the production of representational media, therefore, need to consider their audience by attempting to resolve the ongoing tension between the requirements for accuracy in their communications alongside the desire to be both attractive and comprehensible to consumers. In these ways, the elements of production, content and reception are inextricably linked. You may, therefore, find it useful to think of the relationship between production, content and reception as a continuously moving circuit, involving a wide range of social actors, representing a diverse set of issues.
This has important implications for science communicators, not least for those concerned with involving the public in dialogue and consultation about scientific
10

issues, because to reach large audiences requires ‘mass’ communication or ‘mass’ media, such as television and radio programmes. And mass media are received by mass audiences. McQuail defines a mass audience as:
[…] a product of the new conditions of modern industrial urban society, especially its largeness of scale, anonymity and rootlessness. It is typically a very large aggregate of detached individuals, anonymous to each other, but with their attention converging on some object of interest that is outside their immediate personal environment or control.
(McQuail, 1997, p. 7)
According to McQuail’s definition, a mass audience is heterogeneous, making active choices in terms of what to consume. Furthermore, research has shown that mass audiences will not interpret messages in the same way, drawing on a range of resources and prior knowledge and experience:
[…] people do not passively absorb everything that is beamed from their television set. Instead they interpret and contextualise. Public views are not formed from thin air. Equally, they are not simply dictated by the media or by ministerial pronouncements or by lay ‘perspectives’ or
‘cultures’. Judgements are made according to information available from the media, education, friends and family and other sources and evaluated against previous experience and information.
(Miller, 1999, p. 218)
In this way, members of the audience use their prior knowledge, experiences, attitudes and beliefs to make sense of mass media (Holliman, 2004), as well as other forms of communication. This is an important issue for science communicators to consider, because it follows that audience interpretations may be different from those intended by the producers. Audience members may choose to accept, challenge, ignore, or even reject messages from scientists, regardless of how well they are communicated. They may also fully understand a message, but choose to act contrary to the advice given. In this way, parents may choose to inoculate their child with a series of single vaccines even if they have understood advice that an alternative combined vaccine provides equivalent protection. In addition, audience members may also choose not to consume media reporting of biology, but retain an interest in physics, in much the same way that you may have responded to the initial activity in this block. As a science communicator, then, you should not expect every communication you make to be understood in the way that you intended, or for everyone to choose to consume your communication. And if your messages are understood you should not expect those affected to act always according to your advice. In the same way, you are unlikely to always interpret communications from others exactly as they had expected. Being aware of the sophisticated processes of interpretation and contextualisation may help, however, when you consider how best to communicate with a particular audience.
Finally, we can talk of mechanical media. These are the artefacts that communicate messages, whether this is by mobile phone or television, etc. The important thing to consider here is the role of technology and how this influences cultures of communication.
When Fiske wrote his book in 1993, the World Wide Web, mobile phones and digital technologies were not included in the descriptions of mechanical media. In the contemporary context these would be key aspects of mechanical media, in part because of developments in information and communications technology
(ICT). These media have changed the nature of communication for those who can access ICT, by introducing dynamic interactivity where producers and receivers exchange messages from any computer that is connected to the internet and the
11

World Wide Web. (There are important issues of equity to consider when discussing the impact of new technologies. Use of these communications requires regular access to the mechanical media that produce, deliver and receive messages and a common language for those communications. This can lead to an unequal distribution of information, and the emergence of information-rich (those who have ICT access) and information-poor (those who do not have ICT access) communities. In terms of science communication, this means that the development of science tends to be located in information-rich communities, drawing on a partial body of pre-existing knowledge, experience, attitudes and beliefs and, importantly, talent. As science communicators, you may wish to consider ways in which you can communicate science to the widest possible audience.) The speed of communication has also changed. New technologies mean that communications can be received very speedily, and expectations for how quickly people will respond are shorter. In addition, those involved in the communication, can, potentially, be in contact over great distances. Where we would once send letters as a matter of course, we may now choose to send emails.
These can be sent to one or many individuals, from diverse places in the world, leading to new connections between scientists and other groups. This has led some to talk of a ‘network society’, where electronic communications have had a profound role to play in developing connections between groups who might otherwise not have communicated (Castells, 1997).
New technologies have changed the working practices of scientists and science communicators, not least by influencing the volume of information that is available. Overall, these changes not only introduce new opportunities for communication, but also novel challenges. As an ICT-literate science communicator you can choose to consume a huge amount of digitally stored information, either in the course of your work as a scientist, or as a citizen, and you are also likely to be a contributor. The challenge for you is to make sense of which information is relevant, credible and useful, both as a scientist and as a citizen consuming science in the ‘information age’.
If you are interested in considering the role of the internet on science communication practices, you may find the following references are of interest: Wulf (1999), Rzepa (1999) and Rowland (1999a).
So far, you have been asked to reflect on your experiences of science communication both as a receiver and as a producer. You have also considered a definition for communication in terms of different types of media, noting how this influences the context for science communication (e.g. ‘face to face’ in the seminar room, ‘interactive’ over the internet, or ‘mass’ via newspapers and television) and the social role of those involved (e.g. as a student and member of a department). The following section develops these ideas by examining one example in more detail; the production of a scientific paper.
As with all other communication, the production of science communication does not exist in a social vacuum. It involves norms and conventions that science communicators learn as part of the process of becoming a scientist. As you have seen, in taking on this social role scientists are both motivated and constrained in how they communicate, depending on the content and context of the
12

communication. Indeed, part of the remit of this course is to develop your skills as scientists, to ensure that you obtain the transferable skills that are generally regarded by your peers as acceptable scientific practices. In this way, scientists are taught how to represent their work to other scientists, and this process of representation involves the selection and construction of information into a format acceptable for the chosen outlet.
The most important medium for knowledge production and exchange between scientists is the peer-reviewed academic journal. Publication in this format is crucial in documenting scientific knowledge that is credible and trustworthy.
When preparing a paper for submission, scientists choose the information to include in their paper and then structure this in such a way so that it conforms to the requirements of the chosen journal. They are, therefore, constrained in what they can and cannot communicate. So how are scientists motivated to communicate? Over time, if you are successful in these activities, you will publish articles and become more widely known, gaining a reputation for a particular area of expertise. This, in turn, can lead to others trusting in your skills, e.g. as a scientist and a communicator, thereby increasing your chances to influence these areas. All this is based, primarily, on effective science communication.
You should now read the following extract from ‘Is the scientific paper a fraud?’, by the late immunologist, Sir Peter Medawar. As you read through the extract you should consider the following question: What are the implications for the production of scientific papers that Medawar raises?
Just consider for a moment the traditional form of a scientific paper
(incidentally, it is a form which editors themselves often insist upon). The structure of a scientific paper in the biological sciences is something like this. First, there is a section called the ‘introduction’ in which you merely describe the general field in which your scientific talents are going to be exercised, followed by a section called ‘previous work’ in which you concede, more or less graciously, that others have dimly groped towards the fundamental truths that you are now about to expound. Then a section on ‘methods’ – that is OK. Then comes the section called ‘results’. The section called ‘results’ consists of a stream of factual information in which it is considered extremely bad form to discuss the significance of the results you are getting. You have to pretend that your mind is, so to speak, a virgin receptacle, an empty vessel, for information which floods into it from the external world for no reason which you yourself have revealed. You reserve all appraisal of the scientific evidence until the
‘discussion’ section, and in the discussion you adopt the ludicrous pretence of asking yourself if the information you have collected actually means anything; of asking yourself if any general truths are going to emerge from the contemplation of all the evidence you brandished in the section called ‘results’.
Of course, what I am saying is rather an exaggeration, but there is more than a mere element of truth in it. […]
So to go back once again to the scientific paper: the scientific paper is a fraud in the sense that it does give a totally misleading narrative of the processes of thought that go into the making of scientific discoveries. The inductive format of the scientific paper should be discarded. The discussion which in the traditional scientific paper goes last should surely come at the beginning. The scientific facts and scientific acts should
13

follow the discussion, and scientists should not be ashamed to admit, as many of them apparently are ashamed to admit, that hypotheses appear in their minds along uncharted byways of thought; that they are imaginative and inspirational in character; that they are indeed adventures of the mind. What, after all, is the good of scientists reproaching others for their neglect of, or indifference to, the scientific style of thinking they set such great store by, if their own writings show that they themselves have no clear understanding of it?
(Medawar, 1999, pp. 27 − 8, 30 − 1)
Medawar’s argument has profound implications for the communication of science, both within the scientific community and in wider society. His core argument is that the conventional structure for a scientific paper fails to represent the authentic processes of scientific work adequately; the ‘messy’ thought experiments that lead a scientist to conduct one experiment before another, and to one line of investigation rather than another; thought processes that will be influenced by a scientist’s prior knowledge and experiences. In this way,
Medawar argues that, through practising the norms and conventions of science communication, scientists are misrepresenting the processes of science because they remove the scientist’s input, i.e. the human element.
It is worth noting that the structure of scientific papers has developed towards the structure that Medawar outlines. In this respect, the original works of
Galileo or Newton would look very different from a contemporary journal article. If you are interested in considering these issues further, the work of
Montgomery (1999) should be useful.
For a more detailed discussion of the processes and motives of communicating science within the scientific community, see Rowland
(1999b, 1999c).
The important thing to remember here is that these processes of representation are often hidden, although not deliberately, from the receivers. This is less of a problem for scientists, because they become aware of these processes as they become scientists. However, this does have important implications for how science is communicated in wider society, because much of the scientific information consumed by individuals once they have left school comes from news media. Research has shown that science journals are a key source of information for news media outlets (Nelkin, 1995). In part, this is because peer reviewed journals, particularly high-profile publications such as Nature , Science ,
The Lancet and the British Medical Journal , which have built up a reputation for publishing important scientific reports, are seen as trustworthy sources by media professionals ( Wilkie, 1996 ). As such, these publications are likely to have influence both within the scientific community and, less directly, in wider society.
If we take the production of a newspaper article as an example, a journalist is likely to regularly access information from high profile sources that s/he trusts.
Peer-reviewed academic journals, such as those listed above, are such sources.
The information a journalist receives from these sources is likely to come in the form of a press release, delivered electronically, listing the articles to be published in the latest edition with further relevant details. This information will have been selected and then constructed into a press release by the journal’s staff, in discussion with the author(s) of the paper. Taking Medawar’s argument forwards, the information that the journalist receives is, therefore, already a
14

partial representation (the press release) of a partial representation (the paper) of actual scientific practices. Furthermore, the journalist will take the information they receive and then select from this, constructing a further mediated account according to the norms and conventions of the newsroom. As a result, the reports of science that are widely available to the public not only reflect a very small selection of science, but they also appear to the public following a ‘filtering’ process involving a range of actors, including the scientist who conducted the research, the journal’s editor, the peer reviewers, the journalist who wrote the story, the news editor who agreed to publish the article and the sub-editor who checked the article and produced the headline. This translates actual scientific practices into a range of partial accounts for particular audiences, whether within or outside the scientific community.
If you now think back to the initial activity in this block, where you considered several high-profile examples of science communication, you can see that the accounts you have consumed will have been highly mediated, by a wide range of actors selecting and constructing information for a variety of reasons and taking account of certain social norms and conventions. In each case a level of shared understanding was crucial for the communications to be successful, involving science communicators of reputation and influence, and who were seen as trustworthy. This does not mean, however, that the producers can assume how their audience made sense of these communications.
Of course, this assumes that you are working in an area that is likely to generate media reporting. Many scientists go through their entire careers experiencing few, if any, interactions with media professionals. What then of science communication that is unlikely to generate mass communication? What opportunities are there for scientists to communicate more directly with nonexpert audiences? To consider these issues you should read the following section.
This block began with a brief review of the current context for science communication, noting the calls for greater dialogue and consultation between science and society. This is important for a number of reasons, as illustrated by the following simplified examples. It has been argued that we are currently living
(in the UK) in an ‘information age’ and that we rely on a ‘knowledge-based economy’ for economic prosperity. To these ends a common argument put forward by Western governments is that the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge are crucial factors in securing a future society that can compete economically with other countries. But this is only one small part of the story, because for the knowledge-based economy to work effectively requires a workforce with suitable skills. To achieve this requires effective education and training completed by a body of students who are motivated to study the relevant subjects in sufficient numbers to fill the requisite posts. In other words, the UK economy requires a healthy and productive scientific community, and this requires, among other factors (e.g. funding, infrastructure, etc.), well-trained and highly motivated scientists. As research scientists you are part of the scientific workforce and can play a part in engaging potential future generations of science students through participation in outreach activities, such as school visits, workshops, or public engagement and awareness events organised by scientific institutions (such as the British Association, the Royal Society, the Royal
Institution) and scientific research councils (e.g. National Science Week).
Of course, engagement activities do not have to be events run by formal scientific institutions. For example, new communications technologies provide novel ways
15

of engaging with the public. By creating a weblog to represent the everyday authentic practices of a research scientist you can engage fellow citizens and scientists in your work. Through your weblog, you may wish to reflect on your own and your colleagues’ experiences of conducting science; communicating the human element to your audience that would otherwise be removed through formal academic publication. You might also wish to consider what motivated you and your colleagues to study science, using this to inform your communication to others. But most importantly for all engagement activities, you need to see science communication as an active and ongoing exchange with audiences, and a weblog provides such an opportunity for exchange. To this end, you should develop engagement activities with the audience to facilitate interactive exchanges. In this way, the expert and the non-expert can learn from each other. This may not resolve all the differences between those communicating, but it does have the potential to increase levels of shared understanding and mutual respect.
This is particularly important because we live in a representative democracy, which means that the incumbent government is accountable to the electorate for a range of issues, including science policy. The government is responsible for producing legislation that facilitates the development of the knowledge-based economy and, therefore, of a healthy and productive scientific community, but within a regulatory framework that addresses issues of safety, ethics, security, and so on. In keeping with this system of representative democracy, citizens have an important role to play, not only in participating in the democratic process, but also in making everyday decisions based on science. Overall, this means that the government needs to address issues relevant to its citizens to ensure that public perceptions of science involve high levels of trust, confidence and informed consent. At the same time, citizens have a democratic right to support or challenge aspects of science policy, providing relevant local knowledge to inform these processes. This brings us back to the relationship between science and society and the importance of science communication. We are all citizens and we all make decisions based on scientific knowledge, drawing on our prior knowledge, experience, attitudes and beliefs. The recent moves towards dialogue and consultation will make demands on you as an expert to exchange information rather than just provide it. But it also provides you with the opportunity as a citizen to engage with the development of science policy through consultation exercises, such as the recent GM Nation?
public debate (for more information, see http://www.gmnation.org.uk/ ).
Debates about the relationship between science, citizenship and democracy continue to influence public policies related to science communication and public engagement in science. In part, these debates involve discussions about scientific and other ways of knowing. For an introduction to these issues, see Irwin (1999).
This premise, of exchanging information and learning from others, is also relevant to your communication with other expert scientists. As a research student you will learn from your colleagues, but you will also bring new ideas and knowledge to these exchanges. As your career progresses, you will develop communication skills, e.g. in writing, presentation and teaching science. In this way, you will learn to communicate ‘scientifically’, following the practices and conventions of your chosen specialism, with a view to developing a trustworthy and influential reputation. Whether you continue to practice science or not, it is important to remember that one of the key skills for an effective science communicator is to know how to communicate scientifically to different
16

audiences, both to your peers and to non-experts. This requires skills in the production (e.g. speaking) and reception (e.g. listening) of information, and an ability to identify, acknowledge and respect the prior knowledge, experience, attitudes and beliefs of other communicators, which is a challenging set of skills to master.
The contemporary context for science communication is changing as policy initiatives introduce options for dialogue and consultation between science and society. At the same time, new communications technologies are being introduced that facilitate novel science communication activities. These new technologies, which exist alongside well-established channels for science communication, mean that scientific knowledge has the potential to be visible to a wide range of audiences. Those audiences are increasingly engaging in dialogue with experts and policy makers, contributing knowledge, experience, attitudes and beliefs to these consultation processes. As research students and citizens you are part of this wider context, and this places demands on you as a science communicator, as well as providing new opportunities for you to discuss science.
This block has discussed science communication as a process involving producers and receivers who are both motivated and constrained in their communicative practices. This process forms an ongoing cycle, in that the producers (e.g. scientists producing a journal article) will produce their paper within a set of norms and conventions that will be accessible to the receivers
(fellow scientists). To do so, the producer will select information and then construct it to meet the expectations of the receiver. If the producers fail to follow these conventions, then the receivers may be confused, or not understand the communication. Alternatively, they may simply reject the communication as not being credible or trustworthy because it failed to follow recognised production processes. And to ensure that these processes are followed correctly, the editor of the journal (normally) appoints anonymous independent peer reviewers, as well as checking for themselves, to ensure that the work conforms to the journal’s requirements and is an accurate, valid and reliable representation of the experimental work described therein with no mistakes. Hence, the producer needs to be aware of what the production processes are, as well as thinking through how the communication will be received, first by the editor of the journal, then by the reviewers and, if the paper is published, by the readership of the journal. To be successful in communicating science, then, scientists need to develop production and reception skills. If they succeed consistently and over a period of time then they are likely to establish a reputation as an effective scientist and science communicator.
This example gives primacy to the scientist as a communicator, producing knowledge. But, as has been argued, a wide range of social actors are also involved in communicating science, particularly when we consider science communication as dialogue and exchange within wider society. These social actors include:
• scientists and scientific institutions, e.g. research councils, the Royal Society,
Sir Robert Winston, Professor Susan Greenfield;
• media professionals, e.g. journalists, editors, public relations agencies, educational programme makers;
• non-governmental organisations, e.g. Save British Science, Genewatch, the
Cystic Fibrosis Trust;
17

• representatives from industry, e.g. pharmaceutical companies, the nuclear industry;
• politicians and officials, e.g. the Science Minister, Chief Scientific Adviser;
• other professionals and experts, e.g. patent lawyers;
• members of the public, or citizens who do not fall into the categories above.
And these categories can overlap, e.g. the parent who insists that their child always washes their hands after they have used the toilet, the activist who campaigns against the introduction of GM crops, and the Professor of Geology who gives the keynote address at a prestigious scientific conference could be the same person. The Professor of Geology may advise their child in the morning, give the keynote address in the afternoon and eat GM-free food for lunch in between. In other words, we all communicate science, whether implicitly or explicitly. We all consume scientific information, whether via formal science education, informal learning (e.g. in museums), or as part of our everyday experiences. And we choose whether to do this with within specific circumstances and with a range of motivations and constraints.
In addressing some of the key issues facing contemporary science communication, this block has introduced a series of short extracts and a number of activities. A key aim of this block has been to reflect on the dynamic and indeterminate relationship between the production and reception of science communication. In discussing science and the media, Silverstone provides a useful summary to these issues in the form of four key assumptions:
1 There is no such thing as the communication of science. Neither science nor the media environment is a unified phenomenon. Scientists disagree; the media present different accounts; receivers of scientific communication interpret each set of them in different ways, which may result in distinct, even disjointed, understandings.
2 There is no such thing as the public. There are many publics for science: the specialist and the lay, the interested and the disinterested, the powerful and the powerless; young and old; male and female. While these publics will share much, they will also understand and misunderstand, remember and forget, in different ways.
3 In the modern communication environment, science cannot claim any privileged status. Science has to compete for attention, from the producers and the receivers of communication. The knowledge claims of science will not necessarily […] float to the surface of media, professional, or public understanding of the world.
4 The omnipresence of the media does not equal omnipotence. There can be little doubt that the media play an important role in bringing science to a wider public. Schools, through their delivery of formal knowledge, and television and museums, through their delivery of informal knowledge, play complementary roles in science education. Yet these sources of knowledge and understanding about science have to compete with and take their place alongside other sources and influences, both supportive and antagonistic to them. Local knowledges, practical understanding, and common sense: these can translate, transform, or resist scientific communication.
(Silverstone, 1991, pp. 106 − 7, emphasis in original)
The four assumptions that Silverstone outlines represent a significant challenge for communicators of science, one that should be welcomed by the scientific community in particular. To communicate effectively requires a number of skills, not least the ability to receive as well as produce information and to be able to adapt these skills to a range of different contexts. In this sense, the recent shift
18

towards dialogic approaches in debates about science and society are helpful, but only if scientists are as willing to listen to the public as much as they are happy to produce information for them. To do this effectively requires a range of communication skills, some of which may come easier to you than others.
Practice, of course, will help you to develop these over time.
Castells, M. (1997) The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture , vol. 2, The
Power of Identity , Oxford, Blackwell.
Fiske, J. (1993) Introduction to Communication Theory , London and New York,
Routledge.
Fuller, S. (1997) Science , Buckingham, Open University Press.
Gibbons, M. (1999) ‘Science’s new social contract with society’ , Nature, vol 402 (Suppl), pp. C81-4. Available from http://www.nature.com.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/doifinder/10.1038/35011576
[Accessed October 2005]
Holliman, R. (2004) ‘Media coverage of cloning: a study of media content, production and reception’, Public Understanding of Science , vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 107 − 30.
Available from http://pus.sagepub.com.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/cgi/content/abstract/13/2/107
[Accessed October 2005]
House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology (2000), Science and
Society (Third Report), London, HMSO. Available from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/38/3801.htm
[Accessed October 2005]
Irwin, A. and Michael, M. (2003) Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge ,
Buckingham, Open University Press.
Irwin, A. (1999) ‘Science and citizenship’, in Scanlon, E., Whitelegg, E. and Yates, S.
(eds) Communicating Science: Contexts and Channels , London, Routledge.
McQuail, D. (1997) Audience Analysis , London, Sage.
Medawar, P. (1999) ‘Is the scientific paper a fraud?’, in Scanlon, E. Hill, R. and Junker,
K. (eds) Communicating Science: Professional Contexts , London, Routledge.
Miller, D. (1999) ‘Mediating science — promotional strategies, media coverage, public belief, and decision making’, in Scanlon, E., Whitelegg, E. and Yates, S. (eds)
Communicating Science: Contexts and Channels , London, Routledge.
Miller, S. (2001) ‘Public understanding of science at the crossroads’, Public
Understanding of Science , vol. 10, pp. 115 − 20. Available from http://pus.sagepub.com.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/cgi/content/abstract/10/1/115
[accessed October 2005].
Montgomery, S. (1999) ‘Scientific discourse and its history’, in Scanlon, E. Hill, R. and
Junker, K. (eds) Communicating Science: Professional Contexts , London, Routledge.
Nelkin, D. (1995) Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology
(revised edition), New York, W.H. Freeman.
Rowland, F. (1999a) ‘Diffusion of information across the sciences’, in Scanlon, E. Hill,
R. and Junker, K. (eds) Communicating Science: Professional Contexts , London,
Routledge.
Rowland, F. (1999b) ‘Scientists in communication’, in Scanlon, E. Hill, R. and Junker, K.
(eds) Communicating Science: Professional Contexts . London, Routledge.
19

Rowland, F. (1999c) ‘Methods and motives for publishing original work in science’, in
Scanlon, E. Hill, R. and Junker, K. (eds) Communicating Science: Professional
Contexts , London, Routledge.
Rzepa, H. (1999) ‘The internet as a medium for science communication’, in Scanlon, E.
Hill, R. and Junker, K. (eds) Communicating Science: Professional Contexts ,
London, Routledge.
Silverstone, R. (1991) ‘Communicating science to the public’, Science Technology and
Human Values , vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 106 − 10.
Thompson, J. (1999) ‘The media and modernity’, in Mackay, H. and O’Sullivan, T. (eds)
The Media Reader: Continuity and Transformation , London, Sage.
Wilkie, T. (1996) ‘Sources in science: who can we trust?’, Lancet, vol. 347, pp. 1308-11.
Available from http://linkinghub.elsevier.com.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/retrieve/pii/S014067369690947
2 [accessed October 2005]
Wilsdon, J. and Willis, R. (2004) See-through Science — Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream , London, Demos.
Wulf, W. (1999). ‘Science and the internet’, in Scanlon, E. Hill, R. and Junker, K. (eds)
Communicating Science: Professional Contexts , London, Routledge.
20