The Science of Science Communication II.

Abstract

A puzzling world confronts scientists today. On the one hand, the fruits of science and technology are everywhere, providing health and prosperity that were unimaginable a century ago. In the United States, federal funding for science is far beyond any reasonable extrapolation of the US$120 million per year proposed by Bush (1) (for the nascent National Research Foundation). International collaboration on a grand scale can be seen in European Center for Nuclear Research, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and European Union projects that help to bind the continent. On the other hand, worrying minorities of the general public reject conclusions that are widely accepted in the scientific community, such as the advisability of childhood immunization, the foundational role of evolution in biology, and the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Whole sciences find themselves in political cross-hairs (e.g., stem cell research in some jurisdictions, social sciences periodically at the National Science Foundation, genetically modified crops in large parts of Europe). Better science communication is key to reconciling these puzzling trends. Better communication to the public and policy makers can help scientists send clearer signals regarding the accomplishments, promises, and uncertainties of their work. Better communication from the public and policy makers can provide scientists with clearer signals regarding the public’s concerns and science’s role in addressing them. The result would be a more productive dialogue about the science and the political, social, and moral implications of its application. Because communication is central to everyday life, people have intuitive theories about how to make themselves understood and how to interpret what others say. However, communications about science can take such generally useful strategies beyond their range of validity. Communications about science often involve unfamiliar audiences, intricate social dynamics, and complex topics, and lack the direct interactions (and feedback) needed to identify … [↵][1]1To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: baruch{at}cmu.edu or scheufele{at}wisc.edu. [1]: #xref-corresp-1-1