Science Communication Reconsidered - Michelle Sumovich

In recent history, science has taken a new role which would claim to have roots in social servitude (ie. medicine). Science is privately contracted to address the concerns of institutions which, in turn, are concerned with social concerns. Nonetheless, the public is often skeptical or untrusting of the motives and results of these privately funded projects. This evolution has created much chaos in the way that science is communicated among scientists, institutions, and the public. This week’s article was written by a large panel of scientists who are concerned with the way that science is communicated today, though the various disciplines and levels of expertise among the panel likely determine their personal stake in this article (perhaps concerns about society, institution, or bureaucracy). The authors note that the emergence of technology in recent decades enables the public to become involved in scientific discourse. However, these advances are not merely scientific in nature; technology has also created a void wherein the public can easily escape communication about science (and intellect) entirely.

A challenge clearly exists in the modern world involving the ability to engage the public in scientific discussion. The authors do not see this as a scientific challenge, however, but a social and journalistic one. Currently science communication initiatives are focused on educating the public about scientific controversy and “filling the deficit in knowledge,” but the authors argue that ideology, social identity, and trust are equally important factors to the public. They also note that public involvement in scientific controversy is currently downstream from institutionalized policy, and they encourage an upstream mobilization of public involvement while science is still “in-the-making.”

This mobilization of information would, of course, take place via the relationship between scientific journalism and the public. The public does not learn about science in the lab, so we rely on journalism to explain to us what is happening there. Likewise, journalism is reliant upon the public to read/watch their reports on such subjects. Therefore, framing is an inevitable occurrence which satisfies both parties. It gives the institution a bigger and broader audience, and it gives the public greater trust in the issue. This is one aspect of framing that I am convinced about. But I am still unsure about the purity and thoroughness of this approach. This article states that “communication is both an art and a science.” I am still a bit uneasy about the artistic license which some science journalists may choose to employ, and the confusion that is carelessly created through metaphor. In contrast, the authors also mention the fragility of arguments associated with authors who personally or artistically employ a negative mode of communication compared to those whose personal preference leads them to write in a positive tone of voice. It’s a tough world out there.

This article promotes a blurring of the line between the public and science in journalism in an attempt to make neither social nor scientific concerns exclusive of one another. The authors also promote the growth of active public involvement through blogs, forums, and conferences. I believe that this “active” involvement would allow the public to frame the issues for themselves. This is what all of us students do every day that we attend lecture. We listen to what the professor is saying about X and all the while we’re thinking about what X tells us about our research paper due next week which is about Y and Z. I am very comfortable with this idea, in contrast to my persistent hesitancy about journalistic framing.