COMMUNICATING SCIENCE
by David Brakke, PhD
Taking Responsibility for
Communicating Science
to the Public
This column is the first in a series of three dealing with the important topic of communicating science to broader audiences. The first outlines the
importance of communicating to the public and addresses undergraduate education, the second will focus on communicating with journalists and policy-makers and the third will be on communicating with K-12 schools and teachers.
S
cience is a human endeavor but one
whose process is little understood, as
though a gulf developed between
what the public thinks scientists do and
what scientists believe the citizenry knows
or wants to know about their work. The
impact of science and technology on society
is enormous and yet little understood. How
engineers and scientists collect and use information, design subsequent work, piece
together disparate bits of information or
discard faulty hypotheses is little understood
even as the technological impacts on society
have increased enormously. What are the
reasons for the gap in understanding or for
perhaps divergent views on the role of science in society, speaking not as a sociologist
but as a scientist trying to understand how
the public views our work? Have scientists,
broadly defined, grown apart from others
because of what they do or how they think?
Do we, as a group, forget about the connections of science and technology to the world
as a whole and the adaptations made? Or,
are we instead worrying more about describing our results to colleagues in order to gain
the next round of funding and less about
communicating to the public, resulting in a
failure for public recognition of the value of
science and technology?
Science as a process includes dissemination of results. We most often consider
presentations at scientific meetings and
publications in peer-reviewed journals as
meeting the expectations for dissemination.
26
Recruiting
g students into science and tech
hnolog
gy fields
can be enh
hanced th
hroug
gh effective communication
of th
he excitement of science.
Less frequently are other forms of communication and different audiences considered.
The move of the National Science Foundation to add a second criterion to the review
process for grant proposals in order to include not only scientific merit but also broader impact should have highlighted the importance of relevance and communication
to additional audiences beyond one’s peers.
Many investigators have struggled to meet
the new requirements, however others have
found very creative ways to broaden the
impact and communicate to larger audiences.
We can argue about the merits to an
individual taking the time to communicate
one’s work to the public, but several reasons might suggest it is worthwhile. First, at
least some segments of the public are interested enough in science and fascinated by
the findings and significance of scientific
discoveries that find their way into the
“Science Times” (in The New York Times on
Tuesdays since November 17, 1978), on
National Public Radio and reported in other
media settings. Additional groups, such as
the Howard Hughes Medical Institute
(HHMI), are producing very valuable press
releases on advances in research, while others, e.g. Sigma Xi, are doing an excellent job
AWIS Magazine, Volume 34, Number 1
in summarizing “Science in the News.”
Second, the work done by the science
and technology workforce is funded by the
public, most often through the Federal
Government’s programs, a number of key
foundations and through corporate research and development. Responsibility for
dissemination should be part of an obligation derivative from public support. Third,
communication to certain audiences, e.g. K12 students and teachers or undergraduate
students, can positively affect interest in science and retention. Recruiting students into
science and technology fields can be enhanced through effective communication of
the excitement of science.
We could develop additional reasons
why scientists should communicate to the
public and cite excellent examples of scientists taking on the responsibility effectively.
While we can refer to persons such as Jared
Diamond, Roald Hoffman, Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan and others as examples of
noted scientists being effective public communicators, we also realize that some of
their colleagues have viewed their more
public work as a waste of time and lessening the credibility of their other efforts. The
public often sees scientists who write well
Winter 2005
or speak eloquently as rarities. Again, there
appears to be a gulf in understanding ---surely many scientists are or can be strong
communicators.
Assuming at least for the purpose of
this column, that the reasons for communicating with the public are valid, the need is
real, and that scientists have work of importance to share and a valuable perspective,
we can explore some points to consider in
communicating with the public. What follows are some tips.
An essential step in communicating is
identifying the audience. We all know and
understand this intuitively and yet may not
always stop to identify the direct audience,
the form of the communication and the
secondary audiences to which it might extend. Audiences vary in composition, backgrounds, prior knowledge and many other
ways. Knowing the audience is key.
Defining the message is critical and
occurs early on in the process. Identifying
the main point and subtopics is central to
developing the message to be delivered,
which may be elaborated over time. Once
the message has been developed, it must be
tailored to the audience and the form of
communication. This step is not about distortion but rather about making sure the
message is appropriate to the form of communication and that it is effectively transmitted to the target audience. For example,
we will consider in the next column improving communication to journalists and politicians and discuss the context for communicating with these audiences and how delivery of information can be enhanced. These
audiences differ in how they might view the
role of science or scientists, but both tend
to want brief messages that clearly outline
results and significance of the work in a
particular setting.
While a main point might remain the
same across audiences, how it is expressed
will vary depending on whether the communication is verbal or written, on the characteristics of the audience and on the form
of communication. The structure of an oped piece, a letter, a review or an article depends on the requirements of the journal,
magazine or newspaper. While we recognize the differences, submitted works may
be rejected simply because they do not follow the format and structure of the publication. Much as is the case when we submit
articles for publication to journals, paying
careful attention to format and style will
Winter 2005
lead to a smoother process in communicating to a broader public.
Let me turn to one audience, namely
undergraduate students, to illustrate several
points about communication and suggest
some opportunities to expand our potential
communication of science in multiple ways.
Faculty members have many opportunities to
extend their communication of science in
working with undergraduates. Students need
to be trained for communicating to the public when they are practicing scientists and
engineers. As a first step, it is essential that
students learn the process of science. A professor might weave results of her research
into a class or seminar, but also place the
work in context. We often discuss a body of
knowledge such as what we know today and
miss an opportunity to develop that understanding in a historical context through
examples, published articles and stories.
Second, we might also focus on the
questions being asked. An important part of
the process of science is asking good questions that are grounded in a scientific context. Creating environments in which students have to grapple with the questions
being considered is a most valuable approach in teaching critical thinking skills.
The setting, as in lecture or lab or discussion
section, or method of delivery among a
range of pedagogical techniques are not as
important as identifying the question and
having students tackle it critically.
Third, providing a broader, historical
or societal context for a question is helpful.
The question underlying ongoing research
will have connections and implications, be
they societal or in technological application.
Understanding why a question might be
important requires some understanding of
context. Taking a broad approach that might
include reference to history, literature, social
setting or technological use helps place the
question in perspective. It might also avoid
the unfortunate lack of answer to a question posed to a student in a research seminar of “where does this fit?” or “what applications might there be for your work?”
This is not to say we cannot pursue work
for aesthetic reasons or with no application
in mind, but that it is hard to imagine a
question being pursued that lacks prior context.
Fourth, preparing students to communicate is essential. They must be able to
communicate orally and in written form.
Both skills require practice, and thus, our
curricula should provide opportunities for
settings in which speaking and writing skills
can be enhanced. Many faculty members
express concerns about such skills, especially about writing, and the ability to develop a
coherent, written argument. Critical thinking and writing can be improved through
more reading, and structured and more
open-ended assignments can be designed to
require integrative thinking and careful reading and analysis. Primary literature sources
can be key and they can also provide a setting for communication of results into different settings, e.g. undergraduate or graduate students making presentations to students in K-12 schools. Developing evidence
and argument to address a question are part
of the process of science, but also help
advance the ability to communicate results.
If we pay attention to the kinds of skills
required of scientists and engineers who
communicate to their peers and to other audiences, we can design academic programs
to enhance the required skills. The apparent
hesitation of scientists and engineers to
communicate to other audiences is related
to many factors, including the lack of reward or need to stretch beyond one’s immediate borders, but also some hesitation to
communicate more broadly because of
uncertainty about the process or a lack of
confidence in the skills necessary to be effective. Some scientists and engineers will recount less than ideal experiences in forays
into more public settings. Attention to the
pitfalls as well as some suggestions for ways
to improve communication with the press
and with policy-makers will be the subject of
the next column on science and society. ™
Communicating Science Editor David Brakke
can be contacted at brakkedf@jmu.edu.
AWIS Magazine, Volume 34, Number 1
27