media, as this is familiar to many and is themost efficient way to reach large numbers ofpeople. Yet our survey (see footnote) revealsbarriers to such communication, such asunreasonable demands from researchersthat journalists’ reporting must be full and complete, or the lack of appropriateexpertise by journalists — ignorance of basictechnical terms, or a desire to sensationalizeor exaggerate the discovery.

Management and public-relations (PR)departments frequently block contactsbetween scientists and the media. Our surveyindicates that only one-third of researchersin the Netherlands can decide what they tell journalists. The rest have to defer to managers and PR departments, even in universities. The PR department initiatescontact with the press. Of course, PR officialshave a better understanding of the media andmore contacts than scientists. Nevertheless,many Dutch scientists do not want to helpPR departments popularize their research asthey would prefer to do it themselves.

PR officials, of course, are usually onlyinterested in good news about the research intheir institutions. Journalists are more inter-ested in bad news (such as risks associatedwith genetic modification) and would preferto publicize details before the full work is published in scientific literature. These sepa-rate, selective agendas provide further barri-ers to the communication of science.

That 90% of scientists in our surveybelieve that a journalist’s reporting should befull and complete, and the journalists shouldallow the scientists to check their story andmake requested changes before publicationbetrays an ignorance of journalistic methods.As journalists would naturally not agree tothese conditions, scientists are very reticentabout cooperating with the press. Virtuallynone of our respondents knew the names of

the science editors of the major Dutch qualitynewspapers, many of whom have been writing about science for years.

Finally, almost half of our respondents had never written an article for a wider generalreadership, while a further 40% did so onlyvery rarely. Only 10% regularly write articlesabout their own speciality for a general readership, a fraction that included a dispro-portionate number of ecologists writingabout environmental issues. Although notevery scientist can be expected to write popu-lar and/or accessible articles about their workregularly, and the media could not handle theresultant volume of material, the fact that sofew biologists take an active part in populariz-ing their work highlights, once again, theirlack of interest in public communication.

Many scientists, used to writing scientificarticles, lack the rather different writing skillsneeded to bring their work to a wider audience. In addition to this, many feel thatpopularization would reduce their statusamong their peers. Yet almost every universityoffers courses in science communication, andalthough scientists go on these courses, theyare generally regarded as being on the marginsof university education. If we truly want themedia to expand and improve its coverage ofscience and technology, more researchersneed training in public communication and must be prepared to use these skills by participating in public events, writing popular, accessible articles, and cooperatingconstructively with science journalists. ■

Jaap Willems is in the Department of ScienceCommunication, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam,1081 HV, The Netherlands. Further informationavailable in Biologen en Journalisten (Biologistsand Journalists) by Jaap Willems, Betteke vanRuler, Linda Hartman and Neil van der Veer(Enschede, Amsterdam, 2002). See alsowww.bio.vu.nl/WillemsinNature.pdf.

commentary

470 NATURE | VOL 422 | 3 APRIL 2003 | www.nature.com/nature

Jaap Willems

The public is fascinated by science, particularlyastronomy. But despite most researchers recognizing the necessity of communicatingto the public, many of them fail to do so.Although the media is the main source of scientific information for most people, scientists throw up barriers to their work beingpublicized. Scientists need to popularize theirsubject as, sooner or later, society will have todeal with the results. Not only do people needto keep up to date with rapidly changingknowledge, but ignorance often leads to fear.

Although some scientists accept that thepublic must be kept informed and interestedif they are to obtain funding, many are puz-zled by the suggestion that the populariza-tion of, for example, chemistry is importantfor creating public support. Surely scienceno longer needs to justify itself, they ask?Furthermore, many researchers would —quite wrongly — treat with derision the ideathat scientists need to popularize their workif they are to reach fellow professionals intheir own or related fields. Yet various surveys have revealed that communicationbetween fellow professionals often takesplace through the mass media.

Most public communication about scienceis channelled through daily newspapers,special-interest magazines and television. In the Netherlands, articles written byresearchers themselves are occasionally published in newspapers or in popular science magazines such as Natuur & Techniekand Greenpeace. However, about 90% ofthese articles are written by science journal-ists, most of whom do not have scientificqualifications. And according to surveys inthe Netherlands, Germany and the UnitedKingdom, the public is dissatisfied with themedia’s reporting of innovations in scienceand technology. Media reports can heightenpublic fear of certain areas, for examplebiotechnology, according to Eurobarometer(http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion).

A different approach is needed. Sciencecommunication professionals have longadvocated a shift from the one-way channelof the mass media, towards interactivity —science and discovery centres, public lecturesand company or institution open days — tobring researchers into direct contact with thegeneral public. If nothing else, the resultantdialogue is a useful addition to media report-ing in conveying accurate information andreducing fear of new technologies.

But scientists must also find ways ofimproving communication through the

Bringing down the barriersPublic communication should be part of common scientific practice.

Revolution: to capture public support, scientists must smash the obstacles between them and the media.

TH

E A

RT

AR

CH

IVE

/MU

SÉE

CA

RN

AVA

LET

PA

RIS

/DA

GLI

OR

TI.

© 2003 Nature Publishing Group