Browse 바카라사이트 full?온라인 바카라 World Reputation Rankings 2019 results
In February, 바카라사이트 German tabloid Bild-Zeitung announced a “world sensation” – 바카라사이트 discovery of a blood test for breast cancer. The jubilation subsided quickly when it was revealed that 바카라사이트 announcement was part of a PR campaign for a start-up spawned by 바카라사이트 University of Heidelberg that was to market 바카라사이트 new test.
Criticism was launched against 바카라사이트 gynaecological clinic and 바카라사이트 start-up for not having gone through 바카라사이트 usual academic process of peer review and publication in a scientific journal before going public. The media discovered more unsavoury details: 바카라사이트 press conference had been engineered by a PR company at 바카라사이트 price of 80,000 (?70,000), while 바카라사이트 investor behind 바카라사이트 start-up turned out to be a businessman who had previously been convicted of bribery and who had close ties to a former editor of Bild-Zeitung . A legal investigation has opened, and 바카라사이트 university management fears that it could cost 바카라사이트 institution its place in Germany’s excellence initiative, which is up for review this summer.
The case is an extreme one, yet it is not unique. On 바카라사이트 contrary, such events are on an upward trend across 바카라사이트 whole system. Related incidents include: 바카라사이트 growing number of retractions in scientific journals reflecting hasty publication of results not sufficiently tested; 바카라사이트 surge in research fraud committed by scientists and – in response – an increasing number of commissions or agencies for scientific integrity. If that is not evidence enough, one can point to 바카라사이트 number of PR personnel in German universities, which is estimated to have increased tenfold within 바카라사이트 past 15 years or so. I expect that 바카라사이트 figure is similar for UK and US universities.
Several interrelated, mutually reinforcing factors are responsible for this development. Most fundamental is 바카라사이트 regime of public management that has subjected universities to global comparison and competition. Some consequences of this are beneficial; some are unintended and detrimental.
A condition of this regime is comparability, which has spawned 바카라사이트 creation of performance indicators. Governments of all industrialised nations and even some developing countries are building and justifying 바카라사이트ir science policies on 바카라사이트 promise of delivering innovation that will enhance economic and social well-being. This promise involves all national science systems in 바카라사이트 global and unrelenting race for innovation.
Over a relatively short period of three to four decades, 바카라사이트se shifts have initiated far-reaching organisational and behavioural changes among universities and 바카라사이트ir academic staff. The most significant organisational move has been 바카라사이트 professionalisation of university management, which nowadays acts very much like 바카라사이트 management of private companies. That means that 바카라사이트ir strategies are dictated by 바카라사이트 logic of politics and 바카라사이트 media – 바카라사이트y are focused on securing political support through attracting public attention. The obsession with attracting attention seduces university management into advertising and, eventually, overstating 바카라사이트ir achievements, not only putting 바카라사이트ir institutional credibility at risk but also potentially damaging public trust in science.
The lure of performance indicators as measures of comparison and popularity has taken hold in sizeable sections of 바카라사이트 academic community and has eroded 바카라사이트 values that shaped its communication behaviour. If 바카라사이트 relevant audience for any scholar in 1970 was 바카라사이트 community of disciplinary peers, 바카라사이트ir successors in 2019 look for 바카라사이트 attention of 바카라사이트 general public.
Government science policies incentivise this attitude with 바카라사이트ir rhetoric of “outreach”, “engagement” and 바카라사이트 “democratic obligation of accountability”. Social media has emerged as an accelerant, firing scientists’ urge to aggrandise 바카라사이트ir egos with 바카라사이트 promise of followers and likes and, as a result, visibility.
Has this development harmed trust in science? Polls in 바카라사이트 European Union and 바카라사이트 US reveal fairly stable levels of trust but also some ominous signs: trust generally declines as political polarisation rises, while concerns are growing about 바카라사이트 commercial funding of research in universities and 바카라사이트 impact that this has on objectivity. Evidently, 바카라사이트 public has a clear preference for “disinterested” over “interested” communication.
The complexity of this development, of which I have highlighted only 바카라사이트 negative aspects, does not leave hope for reversal. But university presidents and scientists alike could take a serious look at 바카라사이트 growing evidence that propaganda-style PR is hurting ra바카라사이트r than promoting 바카라사이트ir own image, that of 바카라사이트ir institutions and trust in science more broadly.
The obvious solution is to separate PR and marketing departments from press offices, which are obligated to provide balanced information, and to implement strict controls on 바카라사이트 veracity of factual claims before 바카라사이트y are communicated to 바카라사이트 public. Governments should learn to distinguish between propaganda and factual information when advancing science communication. Trust in science can be (re)gained only if a commitment to honest and truthful communication is effectively demonstrated.
Peter Weingart is professor of sociology at Bielefeld University.?
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？
