View
217
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
How can Science Communication enhance
the undergraduate curriculum?
Giskin DayScience Communication Group
Department of Humanities
What do we want from our scientists?
You just have to dumb everything
down when talking to the public.
Avoid the media. They are rubbish at covering
science.
If only I could tell the public more about
science, they would be more supportive.
Is this going to be in the exam? How
much does it count?
What constitutes good science communication?
Abstract, intro, method, discussion, conclusion
Downward transmission from scientist to citizen
Science is seen as coherent, objective, and has clear boundaries from other disciplines
Science is unencumbered by social, political and institutional connections
Uptake of science is determined by intellectual ability
‘Ignorance’ on the part of the public has to be remedied
‘Scientific thinking’ is the proper yardstick with which to measure ‘everyday thinking’
Characteristics of the cognitive-deficit model
‘Cross talk’ between scientists and citizens Science is seen as contingent, with permeable
boundaries: uncertainty is an opportunity rather than a threat.
Science is inextricable from social, political and institutional connections
Uptake of science is determined by trust in sources and openness in negotiations
‘Ignorance’ can be functional ‘Everyday thinking’ is much less well
understood than ‘scientific thinking’
Characteristics of the dialogic model
What does Climategate tell us?
Communication is not an ‘app’: it’s part of the hardware of science
Science is fraught with politics Science has a history of overselling its ability
to deliver answers with certainty Science is not ‘value-free’. To acknowledge contextual factors is not to
be ‘anti-science’.
Unless we acknowledge the ‘messy’ nature of science, we risk disillusioning our
undergraduates.
But…
the possibilities for creativity, intellectualism and ‘real-world’ meaningfulness are inspiring.
Trends
Communalism: now realistic Transparency Open access Scrutiny Proliferation of social media
What you can do
Discuss context as well as content Challenge preconceptions Recognise science as primarily a persuasive
activity Resist reductionism Acknowledge subjectivity Encourage creativity
Being honest about uncertainty.
The public can handle it.
Recognising that media bashing is
unproductive.
Peer review is a means of establishing collective
responsibility rather than a guarantee of accuracy.
Not being patronising. People are very good
at finding out what they need to know, when they need to
know it.
Is this going to be in the exam? How
much does it count?
What constitutes good science communication?
Realising that data do not speak for themselves. Interpretation needs to be motivated.