Science Communication Training Research Articles

ARE STUDENTS PREPARED TO COMMUNICATE? A CASE STUDY OF AN AUSTRALIAN DEGREE COURSE IN BIOTECHNOLOGY

Public concerns about biotechnology have resulted in greater attention being paid to the mechanisms by which biotechnology is communicated with non-scientists, including the provision of science communication training. As undergraduate and postgraduate courses form the foundation of the biotechnology sector by providing a pipeline of university graduates entering into the profession, it has been proposed that formal science communication training be introduced at this early stage of career development. Using an Australian biotechnology degree course as a case study, this paper examines science communication training within this course and the views of past and present students towards this training. Interviews were undertaken with 22 stakeholders in the case, including undergraduate lecturers (who also supervise postgraduate research students), doctoral candidates and biotechnologists recently graduated from the course. Few of the students felt the course provided them with any form of science communication training, let alone training in how to engage non-scientists. Many were unaware of the training available to them and few of the lecturers were able to identify where communication skills are taught within the course. A previous study of this case has also shown that biotechnology undergraduates taking this course do not value communication with non-scientists. Clearly, the current state of science communication training for these students needs to be improved if they are to enter the biotechnology workforce as able civic scientists. The findings of this study may be useful for other university biotechnology courses which have yet to integrate science communication training into their curriculum.

Undergraduate Biotechnology Students’ Views of Science Communication

Despite rapid growth of the biotechnology industry worldwide, a number of public concerns about the application of biotechnology and its regulation remain. In response to these concerns, greater emphasis has been placed on promoting biotechnologists’ public engagement. As tertiary science degree programmes form the foundation of the biotechnology sector by providing a pipeline of university graduates entering into the profession, it has been proposed that formal science communication training be introduced at this early stage of career development. The aim of the present study was to examine the views of biotechnology students towards science communication and science communication training. Using an Australian biotechnology degree programme as a case study, 69 undergraduates from all three years of the programme were administered a questionnaire that asked them to rank the importance of 12 components of a biotechnology curriculum, including two science communication items. The results were compared to the responses of 274 students enrolled in other science programmes. Additional questions were provided to the second year biotechnology undergraduates and semi‐structured interviews were undertaken with 13 of these students to further examine their views of this area. The results of this study suggest that the biotechnology students surveyed do not value communication with non‐scientists nor science communication training. The implications of these findings for the reform of undergraduate biotechnology courses yet to integrate science communication training into their science curriculum are discussed.

Lessons from Science Communication Training

Alan I. Leshner's Editorial “Outreach training needed” (12 Jan., p. 161) calls for increased communication training for science graduate students. In March, a bill was introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives (HR1453), requesting funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF) to

談話研究から見た科学技術コミュニケーションの意義と実践

Science communication is a type of communication that occurs between scientists/engineers and the general public. It has many variations ; however all of these are characterized by the fact that they take place outside of the normal social context and require an explicit form of participation if the communication is to occur. There are two categories of science communication : communication as an extension of an institutional conversation and communication as a conversation in more contingent circumstances. It is necessary to train people involved in science/engineering in both of these approaches. This paper demonstrates the latest attempt to provide science communication training at Tokyo Institute of Technology and discusses the significance of both approaches.

Scientists surveyed

A MORI survey commissioned by the Wellcome Trust (London, UK) has revealed that more than a third of scientists, especially those dealing with social or moral ethics, perceive themselves as ill-equipped to discuss the implications of their research with the public. The survey follows an increase in our awareness of the views of the general population towards science. This, along with efforts to promote the ‘public understanding of science’, has led to scientists being increasingly called upon to communicate information about their research and its implications to the public. Over 1600 randomly selected UK scientists were asked whether they felt both responsible for disseminating this information, and adequately equipped to interface with the public. The results of this survey, published on 9th February 2001, revealed that less than one in five of the surveyed scientists had been trained to communicate with the media or the public, although more than half had participated in a public-orientated event during the previous year. In general, scientists thought that the public credited them with reduced importance, possibly because of their preferential ‘trust’ of information disseminated by the media and charity or campaigning groups, over that provided by scientists. The survey also highlighted scientists’ concerns over the lack of education and interest in science, as well as over media distortion of scientific pursuits. Factors thought most likely to improve communication efforts are support and incentives by funding authorities and employers for scientists to have training in science communication, as well as time to pursue such initiatives. S de B (http://www.mori.com/polls/2000/wellcometrust.shtml)