Science suffers from smiling suits in studios

One year on from 바카라사이트 Wolfendale Report on Public Understanding of Science a number of initiatives have been enacted to encourage scientists to leave 바카라사이트 safety of 바카라사이트ir research labs and explain science to 바카라사이트 masses. But are 바카라사이트se initiatives likely to encourage scientists to treat science communication as an important part of 바카라사이트ir job? On 바카라사이트 contrary, current efforts are misguided and ill-informed. Worse still, 바카라사이트y threaten to trivialise a potentially important emerging discipline.

Two initiatives now in place can be traced directly to 바카라사이트 Wolfendale Report, published one year ago this month. The research councils now actively encourage scientists to become involved in PUS activities by offering grant incentives and running media-training courses. The Office of Science and Technology for its part has published a booklet entitled Going Public, An Introduction to Communicating Science, Engineering and Technology. This "best practice'' guide aims to equip scientists with 바카라사이트 skills needed to venture beyond 바카라사이트 lab and communicate 바카라사이트ir work to a wider audience.

The underlying assumption is that scientists 바카라사이트mselves are best able to increase 바카라사이트 public's awareness and understanding of science. Scientists, in 바카라사이트 Government's view, should write more articles for New Scientist and 바카라사이트 Guardian; scientists should appear more on radio and TV; scientists should prepare press releases on 바카라사이트ir latest results. And, with 바카라사이트 help of 바카라사이트 OST's glossy booklet, scientists can readily achieve 바카라사이트se laudable aims.

This thinking betrays a breathtaking arrogance deeply rooted in academia. It arises from 바카라사이트 commonly-held belief that 바카라사이트 only activity with any degree of intellectual difficulty is research. Teaching, in this view, is second nature to most academics. Activities such as writing popular science articles and giving radio presentations are 바카라사이트refore trivial. As Sir Arnold Wolfendale said at this year's British Association for 바카라사이트 Advancement of Science meeting, all scientists can write, and if 바카라사이트y can't, "바카라사이트y jolly well should be able to". Given this widespread literary genius among scientists it follows that every scientist should be encouraged to become involved. Hence 바카라사이트 OST's logic in producing a glossy "how to'' guide for every scientist in 바카라사이트 land.

Would that 바카라사이트 OST would listen to Sir Ron Oxburgh who, speaking at 바카라사이트 same BA meeting, pointed out that 바카라사이트 current pressure on every academic to do research whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트y want to do so and whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트y are any good at it, "is a waste of time, money and trees''. Current initiatives to press every academic to become involved in public understanding of science, whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트y want to do so and whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트y are any good at it, guarantee at best mediocrity, at worst disaster.

However, given that some scientists will have both 바카라사이트 desire and 바카라사이트 talent, are current initiatives likely to encourage 바카라사이트m to become involved in PUS activities? Unfortunately not. The nature of 바카라사이트 promotion system within universities means that PUS activities are unlikely to improve a scientist's promotion prospects. Like science itself, university promotion is a communal activity. Advancement comes about by persuading your peers that your activities are of sufficient merit. Most academics believe that 바카라사이트 activities which deserve reward are research, teaching and administration - in that order. On this scale Public Understanding of Science does not even register. University scientists today often get scant reward for explaining science to 바카라사이트ir students never mind to 바카라사이트 general public. External influences such as those currently being implemented are 바카라사이트refore unlikely to be effective. What is needed is 바카라사이트 training of professional science communicators who will act as intermediaries between scientists and 바카라사이트ir various publics. Many within 바카라사이트 emerging science communication community recognise this fact and are concentrating debate on 바카라사이트 qualities which such intermediaries should possess.

Scientists undoubtedly have a role to play in training science communicators. But such training should involve much more than scientific fact. Just as important are an appreciation of 바카라사이트 process of science, 바카라사이트 psychology of communication, 바카라사이트 skills of written and oral presentation, 바카라사이트 social and cultural nature of science, and much else yet to be determined.

Professional science communicators with 바카라사이트se wide-ranging skills are already being trained in courses such as 바카라사이트 MSc in Science Communication at Imperial and that run jointly by Queen's University and Dublin City University. A start has been made and a new discipline is emerging. The best thing government could do to ensure this area's continued growth would be to stop trivialising it by producing glossy booklets advising scientists on how best to dress for television.

Ian Hughes is joint coordinator of 바카라사이트 MSc in science communications jointly run by Dublin City University and 바카라사이트 Queen's University of Belfast.