Science Communication

Posted bybonash2300Posted inUncategorized

An understanding of how scientists convey their works to the public

By: Derik Verkest and Bo Nash

Communication between scientists and the public is an essential part of the work that scientists do. Without informing the public on scientific discoveries the public will remain ignorant that there have been fascinating and even groundbreaking ideas and experiments that change the way we see the world. This is where science communication comes in, which is what this page is about. We will explore the definition of science communication and show you some of the mediums scientists can use to relay their information to the public.

bill nye science is real GIF by Look Human
“Please Listen to Science” GIF
Credit: https://giphy.com/gifs/neil-degrasse-tyson-bill-nye-xTiN0NZZsYXkGwbcJ2

Throughout this blog post we will provide examples and of science communication and even the essence of what science communication is and does. In order to more directly address these needs this post will be in a Q&A format in order to hopefully provide clarity on the questions being asked and the answers being provided.

What is Science Communication?

  1. What is science communication according to the presenters? How does it differ from Monica Feliu-Mojer’s definition of science communication?
  2. Why is science communication important to researchers and the general public?
  3. How does science communication differ from scientific dissemination? Why is each important?
  1. According to Rhonda Smith science communication “is about communicating to non-experts”. She enhances this definition by saying that scientists cannot stay in their “ivory towers” and just talk to other experts, they need to communicate with experts from other fields and non-science experts as well. This differs from Monica’s definition because Rhonda says science communication is a middle ground between experts and non-experts while Monica defines it as “any activity that involves one person transmitting science-related information to another”.
  2. Scientists must communicate to the public because, as Alexandra Ruete says, “you need to sell what you’re doing”. This means that the scientists need to show the public, who paid for their equipment and labs through taxes, that their payoff is worth it and working.
  3. “Dissemination is their day job…It’s about the production of papers that can be presented to peer-reviewed journals so they can get published”. This differs from communication because instead of disseminating the information communication is “to inform and reach out to society”.

Alan Alda: Science Communication

  1. According to Alda, “Everyone is too ignorant about science. That is what science is about: Science is about satisfying the ignorance we all naturally possess.” What do you think Alda is trying to convey in this statement about the role of the scientist and the general public? What challenges do you see with this type of engagement?
  2. How might you design your blog to reflect the aims of science communication?
  1. I believe that Alda is trying to convey that scientists should put the communication of their findings to the public as their top priority because that is what science is about, it’s about discovering new things and changing society with that discovery. This engagement faces the problem of common ground. This means that scientists have to “translate” their very complicated and sophisticated wording that is needed in the science community to terms that the population as a whole can understand.
  2. This blog will aim to do just that. To provide as a translation from the scientific results that we will find in this lab to terms that the public can understand. This communication will also aim to educate the public on the matters of ecology and how it is affecting everyday lives not only in humans but in plants and animals too.

Reflection on Monica Feliu-Mojer’s ‘Effective Communication, Better Science’
By Derik Verkest

Monica Feliu-Mojer defines science communication as communicating scientific language in a simplified and more effective manner in order to get what’s being learned in research across multiple fields of study, as well as making it understandable for whatever audience you happen to be targeting. I’ve used scientific communication while visiting my in-law’s farm when I noticed that they had a pond that was severely eutrified. I felt that the eutrophication process would be too much to explain for the audience I was addressing, as they were multi-generational farmers with no education. Therefore, I simply explained that the runoff from the cattle barn was carrying their fecal matter into the pond, making it too rich in nutrients, and that it inevitably killed off all the fish and wildlife that may have been present before. They understood the implications immediately and ended up cleaning the pond up and redirecting the manure runoff. Scientific information alone isn’t sufficient enough to benefit rural farmers unless it is further processed, simplified and effectively communicated to reach a wide audience (Heong & Escalada, 2005).

Effective communication is important to science because it helps the communication process between multiple disciplines of work, which in turn helps both scientists and non-scientists because information can be shared more proactively between the two, allowing new innovation and collaboration to occur. For example, if a scientist can effectively communicate a scientific concept to an entrepreneur it could spark an idea within that individual for a new invention that may solve a global or local issue.

As a science student, the most challenging part about science communication is simply learning the scientific language. However, once I become proficient in the language of science, I could see myself benefiting from science communication through some of my future
aspirations. For instance, I’m going to start a homestead in a rural area growing organic food, and one of my major goals is to spread the knowledge of sustainable agriculture to the rest of the farming community around me and start a farmers market. This will help keep the land clean and sustainable, as well as help to combat the food deserts that often plague rural communities. All of this, however, balances on whether or not I can effectively communicate the science.

Review of ‘It’s Okay to be Smart’
By Derik Verkest

After going through the ‘It’s Okay to be Smart’ blog it’s apparent that this is a very strong blog in effectively
communicating science to a general audience. Using videos is probably its biggest strength, as listening to someone talk and having visuals is a much better way to learn about a scientific topic. Joe also does a good job at using animations as visual representations of complex ideas and information. One weakness I noticed is that there is very little context outside of the videos. The videos are great for the quick, to-the-point type of audience, but there should be more in-depth text for the more scientifically inclined audience.

Some video titles that were the most visually appealing to me were the ones with the night sky as a thumbnail along with the title of the video being in big letters across the thumbnail, because I love space and it’s easy to see the title when it’s in big bold letters that pop out at you. I watched the ‘What’s in a 20,000 Year-Old Cube of Ice’ and ‘Is This Why We Haven’t Found Alien Civilizations?’ videos. In these videos Joe does a great job in starting the conversation with a little background, and the further use of animations to show how a Mass Spectrometer separated isotopes and how scientists use light to measure the atmosphere on other planets was a really great example of effective science communication.

With my blog I want to do something similar to Joe’s animations of explanation. Even though I probably won’t use video, I plan on using GIFs and visually appealing graphs and pictures as a similar tactic in communicating the science in my blog. Also, just like Joe, I want to have good background explanations of the science being done prior to diving into the actual research and data.

For further inquiry in science communication and how it works, see the peer review citation below of an article that discusses and explains how science communication works.

Peer Review Citation: The science of science communication II : summary of a colloquium : held on September 23-25, 2013 at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, D. C. (2014). Washington, District of Columbia: National Academies Press.

Works Cited

Leave a Reply

Create your own website, free on WordPress.com.Create your own website.
Start free