Abstract

Environmental scientists regularly receive encouragement to engage with both their policy counterparts and wider society, to increase the effectiveness with which they communicate their science and to demonstrate its beneficial impact on wider society [1-3]. A significant body of literature now exists on ways in which environmental scientists might engage with non-scientists and be understood [4] and representative scientific societies and funders of science provide advice on how scientists can increase their impact (e.g. Ecological Society of America, British Ecological Society, UK Natural Environment Research Council) and, in some cases, provide funds and training for such activities. The need for good science to inform environmental policy decisions is arguably more urgent than ever before and it follows that good translation of science both for policy communities and wider society, needs encouragement, but it does also need some methodological basis. The development of mutual understanding between scientist and policy maker of the role of scientific evidence in informing policy is critical to effective environmental management. A higher profile and greater media coverage such engagement might provide are potentially good things for environmental science and scientists. The value of original research needs greater appreciation by those who might pay for it (tax payers, donors). Truly novel and groundbreaking research should be widely and accurately reported using skilled journalism to explain often complex issues to a lay readership or viewing audience. But, along with these positives there are potential negatives when scientists or vested interest groups compete for attention to promote one piece of research as more important or interesting than another. Communicating science to a wider audience is already something of an industry. Many publishers now seek to gain media coverage for individual papers and summarize the findings of key papers in dedicated

Highlights

  • Environmental scientists regularly receive encouragement to engage with both their policy counterparts and wider society, to increase the effectiveness with which they communicate their science and to demonstrate its beneficial impact on wider society [1,2,3]

  • The development of mutual understanding between scientist and policy maker of the role of scientific evidence in informing policy is critical to effective environmental management

  • Putting commercial interests to one side, there are many situations in which collective scientific evidence should be used for the collective good of society; public health and environmental management are perhaps two examples

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Environmental scientists regularly receive encouragement to engage with both their policy counterparts and wider society, to increase the effectiveness with which they communicate their science and to demonstrate its beneficial impact on wider society [1,2,3]. Examples illustrating a number of potential dangers of promoting individual studies or sectoral opinion of science, with the intention of influencing policy, have been recorded in the health sciences.

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call