Joint written evidence submitted by

Professor Andreas Prokop and Dr Sam Illingworth (COM0001)

Communicating science: aiming for national impact

Andreas Prokop1, *, Sam Illingworth2,*

1 Faculty of Life Sciences, The University of Manchester

2School of Research, Enterprise & Innovation, Manchester Metropolitan University

* both authors are corresponding authors

Abstract

Communicating science to wider public and professional audiences is of increasing importance and is becoming an ever larger part of a scientist's remit. We argue here that, in many areas of science, attitudes, standards, individual and institutional strategies as well as resources need to improve to achieve higher impact and make science communication more effective. For this, we need nation-wide frameworks to instil cultures of good science communication practices. In our view, funding organisations could take an important lead by further improving their policies in ways that help to drive standards of science communication to higher quality, with measurable long-term impact.

1. Communicating science: importance and opportunities

In recent years, popular science seems never to have been more popular, with some scientists being as well known for their TV appearances and non-fiction books as for their scientific research. But are these celebrity scientists (or Scilebs) indicative of a growing culture of effective science communication amongst researchers, or are they simply the exception that prove another rule? A recent report led by the Wellcome Trust (TNS BMRB & PSI 2015), found that public engagement is more firmly embedded in the context of the arts, humanities and social sciences than it is among researchers in STEM subjects.

This article does not aim to explain the different modes and methods of public engagement, but rather offers a pragmatic approach to effective science communication, by comparing current practice with desirable standards, discussing barriers to improvement, and suggesting feasible solutions. To avoid the enormous complexity of nomenclature in the field (Illingworth, Redfern et al. 2015), we will use ‘science communication’ here as an umbrella term that encompasses all outreach, public engagement and widening participation activities.

Before discussing the good practices of and potential barriers to effective science communication, it is first necessary to dwell briefly on why it is important and worthwhile in the first instance. One of the most popular arguments for effective science communication is that the general public has a right to be informed about the science which is, in its majority, tax or charity funded. However, a recent Public Attitudes to Science survey in the UK, conducted by Ipsos MORI on behalf of the British Science Association (Castell, Charlton et al. 2014), reported a clear deficit amongst the public; only 45% of respondents (n=1749, age range of 16+) felt aware of science in general, and 51% felt they see and hear too little information. Accordingly, grant giving institutions worldwide are increasingly making it an obligation that researchers explain their research to general audiences (Holbrook 2005)

Science communication and science education are two sides of the same coin, as is discussed in depth elsewhere (Baram‐Tsabari and Osborne 2015). Consequently, a desirable goal of science communication is the improvement of science education which will ultimately impact positively on society and innovation (Rull 2014). Similarly, there is a moral obligation to ensure that political discussions are based on sound scientific facts, which should be promoted through active science communication, thereby effectively countering existing misconceptions in the public sphere, as well as promoting trust in science and education policies and practices (Bubela, Nisbet et al. 2009, Scheufele 2014).

Furthermore, science communication provides an opportunity to enthuse the next generation of researchers and to address a potential skills deficit. For example, a report by EngineeringUK (UK 2015) found that ~19% of employers report difficulties in finding suitable STEM recruits (up from 12% in 2013).

Apart from the greater good, science communication can also be of important personal benefit. Well designed science communication activities can become a valuable time investment; communication with lay audiences forces deeper thinking, by compelling researchers to find the phrases, terms and images that can help to convey science from the ivory tower of academia to the housing estate next door. This consideration of language and audience will have a positive impact on scientific perspectives and communication strategies towards fellow scientists, because arguments fundamental enough to convince and excite non-specialist audiences will be powerful also in scientific presentations, publications and on grant applications (Patel and Prokop 2015).

Effective science communication helps to raise the visibility of a subject, paving the way to greater acceptance and public opinion, and potentially impacting positively on political funding decisions helping to sustain the subject (Rowe, Rawsthorne et al. 2010). Such communications can also help the wider society by contributing to a scientifically literate and well informed public, capable of exerting sustained influence on policy makers.

Finally, genuine engagement in science communication improves career opportunities inside and outside of academia. For the large number of young researchers taking up careers outside scientific research (Allen 2010), science communication offers fantastic opportunities to develop important transferable skills that transcend the academic environment. Likewise, for researchers wishing to stay in academia, the additional skills in communication, project and people management can help to make candidates stand out from their contemporaries in terms of future grant and job applications (Illingworth and Roop 2015).

2. The current state: scope for improvement

The overarching long-term societal goal of science communication has to be to bring down barriers between scientists and the public, and to improve the general understanding and appreciation of science nationwide. In our view, this is best achieved if we, as communicating scientists, set long-term objectives for our science communication which are well aligned with our personal scientific interests (Patel and Prokop 2015). Such a strategy facilitates collaboration with other scientists in the field, ideally culminating in topic-specific science communication networks of researchers. This can then lead to synergy and momentum, the gradual development and publication of high quality activities and resources (with their own dynamics and legacy), and the implementation of good impact evaluation. Such an approach would also make possible and encourage the incorporation of wider strategies and partnerships including the arts, the media or Scilebs, or the use of citizen science projects to communicate and engage (Silvertown 2009). However, it is important to ensure that such networks encourage innovation and fluidity in the membership and do not become closed shops that stifle future creativity or lessen their potential impact through out-sourcing to professionals. 

These communication networks should ideally be interdisciplinary by nature and facilitate the involvement of social scientists and expert science communicators (Viseu 2015). Such an approach can help to achieve professional standards at all levels and to introduce scientists operating in a STEM-based discipline (hereafter referred to as simply ‘scientists’) to fundamental evaluation strategies and concepts of communication. For example, these scientists would have opportunities to learn about fundamental rules within other disciplines, such as using formative research to guide objective setting and facilitate more effective two-way communication with target audiences (Davies 2008, Nisbet and Scheufele 2009), approaches to frame-setting and media work, or simply the many pitfalls and dangers of choosing the wrong communication strategies (Bubela, Nisbet et al. 2009).

Good long-term science communication strategies have been adapted by patient interest groups and disease-specific societies who naturally have very receptive audiences (e.g. Acquadro, Berzon et al. 2003, Smith 2006). However, in STEM-based science subjects (hereafter referred to as ‘science’) there are few examples where such professional approaches are being employed with the perhaps best ones being in the area of stem cell research[1], whilst scientific topics with a clear commercial interest, such as genetically modified crops (e.g. Borch and Rasmussen 2005) and geoengineering (e.g. Luokkanen, Huttunen et al. 2013), serve as examples of where that stratagem has not been adopted.

From the authors' extensive experience with science communication it rather appears that the average engaging scientist rarely collaborates with other experts from their field and even less from the areas of social science or science communication. Furthermore, there is little tendency to publish resources or share them online in an effective manner - in spite of the relative ease to do this and the availability of no-cost platforms. Even if ideas and resources are shared, they tend to be scattered across journals, blogs and video sites and are not strategically interlinked to gain the required visibility, momentum and long-term impact. The standard of science communication activity and resource implementation often is of minor quality and, even if activities take off with great ideas and enthusiasm, the implementers quickly fatigue and find it hard to sustain their initiative.

In order to think about ways to improve on this and lift the general quality, sustainability, momentum and impact of science communication, it is important to first understand the barriers that stand in the way of this development.

3. Improving science communication: the barriers

The most obvious barriers to effective science communication are: lack of time, issues of self-perception (status, competence) and attitude (lack of interest, viewing outreach as subsidiary to research and university teaching), and a lack of measurable and externally recognised reward and recognition (Andrews, Weaver et al. 2005, Ecklund, James et al. 2012). These barriers lead to the often-heard view that public engagement is more damaging to careers than helpful (TNS BMRB & PSI 2015). From the authors' own experience, sustaining a long-term science communication initiative is impeded by important further barriers briefly summarised here.

Firstly, it is difficult to find funding for long-term projects because, in our experience, many funding organisations focus their support on creative new ideas or attractive "one-off" events rather than successful ongoing initiatives - a policy that is not well suited to drive outreach to momentum and long-lasting impact. Furthermore, even high quality applications might be turned down not because of content but simply because the proposed implementation does not align well with the current strategy of a funding organisation.

Secondly, and as briefly indicated above, communication of STEM science tends to have no natural stake holders, and substantial further effort is required to engage audiences at greater scales. This involves a second layer of communication which we refer to as meta-communication. Vertical meta-communication involves distributing developed ideas and resources to target audiences (e.g. animating teachers to use educational materials), whilst horizontal meta-communication is used to recruit fellow scientists as facilitators for a science communication initiative. Meta-communication (in both directions) becomes a barrier through the sheer additional work load and the lack of impactful dissemination means. Even though established dissemination platforms (e.g. for school resources) might be interested to publish materials, this is often only if copyright agreements are signed, which can mean that resources are limited, and unable to benefit from further development. Furthermore, established science communities often have limited capacity to communicate horizontally and many fellow scientists will never hear of and/or benefit from existing ideas and resources. This is not helped by the fact that many science journals tend to show a reduced enthusiasm to publish science communication strategies or resources.

Finally, the possibilities for scientists to obtain training and support in science communication and impact evaluation are limited (Besley and Tanner 2011), so that valuable time is lost through learning by doing and re-inventing the wheel, rather than capitalising on well established methods, strategies and infrastructure. Even where training is available, it is not always well advertised, and it is not always seen as being beneficial CPD by more senior academic staff. The urgently required collaboration with social scientists and academic science communicators mentioned above, is heavily impeded by the very different and field-specific terminologies and conventions, which may be perceived as prohibitive barriers to interdisciplinary collaboration, and which require long-term approaches to bridge the communication gaps. All this said, institutions increasingly employ public engagement officers to provide support for scientists, and funders are actively demanding such provision and are often willing to consider respective support on grants. However, whether this support is then efficiently capitalised on, still depends on the local institutional policies which might not necessarily be guided by a true understanding of the intricacies of science communication, a situation that cries out for better national frameworks (see below).  

4. Improving science communication: future directions

In order to instil a solid culture of science communication and achieve the key societal goals, i.e. a better understanding and appreciation of science, scientists need to rethink the strategies they use and focus on objective-driven long-term initiatives, ideally collaborating in multi-disciplinary networks, as explained above. However, any efforts to implement good practice need to be facilitated by a barrier-free and supportive environment. In our view, the most powerful means to achieve this lie in the hands of funding organisations.

An important step is collaboration across funding organisations. For example, the recent science communication survey already mentioned above (TNS BMRB & PSI 2015), was carried out as a collaboration of UK funders of public research and provided a valuable description of the current state of public engagement. However, too few conclusions were drawn within that survey and no recommendations were made for how to improve on the current situation as a result of these findings. Perhaps governments need play a part in setting such directions. Ideally, the involved funding organisations should take their collaboration to the next step and formulate a common strategy. This should be based on clear, long-term objectives aiming to instil a solid culture of science communication based on steadily improving and readily available, shared resources. Once momentum is achieved, it will be easier to sustain. Certainly, finding the right indicators to guide implementation and to measure the success of such objectives is a challenge that will need careful consideration. Here we will make a few suggestions that we believe would drive change towards an improved science communication culture:

First, funders should take a well balanced approach. On the one hand they should continue to fund new projects and initiatives, since these are the essential breeding grounds for creative innovation - but they also pose a danger to spread funding thin. On the other hand, funders should look out for ongoing science communication initiatives which are driven by clear, long-term vision and objectives that match the wider societal goals. We need funding policies that consider sustained funding of successful initiatives, as long as they demonstrate a creative drive and clear commitment to improve their quality, momentum and impact. Such a funding strategy would align and strengthen good practice at the levels of implementers and funders, it would also reflect sensible long-term investment into science communication, and would help to embed science communication from the outset in a meaningful and demonstrable way. We believe that aA A common fund for science communication would be an efficient tool to facilitate the development of new funding models that align with the overarching societal goals. A common fund would be easier to shield from organisation-specific objectives and policies. However, it would be imperative that such a fund be made as transparent as possible so as not to deter early career researchers, nor more seasoned researchers who are new to science communication.

Second, a close collaboration between funding organisations could be used to develop a professional framework for science communication and establish a set of protocols that guides funders, institutions and researchers to adopt best practice. The development of such a framework should be done on a national basis and would ideally involve independent bodies. For example, in the UK, the British Science Association or the National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement (NCCPE) could help with the development and implementation of such a framework, thereby building on the strong science communication that is already supported by these organisations. This framework could also be used as a basis for achieving chartered status in the field of science communication. Clear guidelines for universities and science institutes would help to implement local science communication strategies, including professional reward and recognition for public engagement, thereby offering crucial extrinsic motivation.

Third, as explained above, certain funders already provide professional support and advice, e.g. by supporting the instalment of public engagement officers that can help scientists to develop better science communication strategies and impact evaluation practices. However, to achieve the long-term societal goals, this practice needs to become the norm and be further improved strategically. Successful examples of collaborative science communication initiatives or any other good practices need to be shared at a national level and used to develop frameworks that foster efficient local policies. As another example, social scientists and professional science communicators should be sitting on all funding committees, so that content and strategies of proposed outreach projects can be judged equally. They could also give constructive feedback to applicants, thus actively helping them to develop more efficient communication strategies.

Fourth, funding organisations should use their capacity and influence to facilitate meta-communication. A first step would be to give scientists easier access to the powerful dissemination means (e.g. magazines and social media) which are nurtured by most funding organisations. Furthermore, similar to the success with open access policies (e.g. Harnad, Brody et al. 2004), funders could use their influence to change journal policies towards opening up for the publication of scientific communication articles, which would also provide an important path towards professional reward. Finally, they could use their capacity to build infrastructure. For example, dedicated search engines or databases are urgently required to make the jungle of science communication resources nation- or even worldwide more transparent and accessible. This would relieve all of us from time-consuming web searches and make it less likely that the wheel is re-invented. Such infrastructure would also promote the sharing of resources and strategies, for example if coupled to metrics and comments to demonstrate value and impact.

5. Final thoughts

This article is an opinion piece and we are aware that many of our claims are based on anecdotal evidence rather than scientifically researched data. However, both authors are scientists who have long-standing experience in active science communication. In spite of our very different personal histories and engagement backgrounds, we realised an astonishing congruence in our views and experiences, further confirmed through numerous in-depth discussions with other colleagues in the field. The main purpose of this article is therefore not to assure accuracy of every claim we make, but to provoke discussion and encourage those who already follow good practice to come forward and make themselves heard. We feel passionately about the need to improve standards and to instil a solid culture of science communication; this will require rethinking at all levels including scientists, local institutions and national funding organisations, all of which will have to collaborate and align their efforts. Furthermore, we think that throughout all of this, it is essential for science communicators from all backgrounds to continue to share best practices, and to develop platforms that enable this to be done efficiently. We hope that this article facilitates this development and has formulated many of the issues that will have to be considered.     

6. Acknowledgement

We would like to thank Mhairi Stewart and Sujata Kundu for helpful comments on the manuscript. Science communication activities of AP are supported by the BBSRC (BB/M007553/1, BB/L000717/1).

7. References

Acquadro, C., et al. (2003). "Incorporating the Patient's Perspective into Drug Development and Communication: An Ad Hoc Task Force Report of the Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Harmonization Group Meeting at the Food and Drug Administration, February 16, 2001." Value in Health 6(5): 522-531.

Allen, H. L. (2010). "Lessons from the United Kingdom’s Royal Society.”." Thought and Action 26: 115-120.

Andrews, E., et al. (2005). "Scientists and public outreach: Participation, motivations, and impediments." Journal of Geoscience Education 53(3): 281.

Baram‐Tsabari, A. and J. Osborne (2015). "Bridging science education and science communication research." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 52(2): 135-144.

Besley, J. C. and A. H. Tanner (2011). "What science communication scholars think about training scientists to communicate." Science Communication 33(2): 239-263.

Borch, K. and B. Rasmussen (2005). "Refining the debate on GM crops using technological foresight—the Danish experience." Technological Forecasting and Social Change 72(5): 549-566.

Bubela, T., et al. (2009). "Science communication reconsidered." Nature Biotechnology 27(6): 514-518.

Castell, S., et al. (2014). "Public attitudes to science 2014." London, Ipsos MORI Social Research Institute. 194p.

Davies, S. R. (2008). "Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public." Science Communication.

Ecklund, E. H., et al. (2012). "How academic biologists and physicists view science outreach." PloS one 7(5): e36240.

Harnad, S., et al. (2004). "The access/impact problem and the green and gold roads to open access." Serials review 30(4): 310-314.

Holbrook, J. B. (2005). "Assessing the science-society relation: The case of the US National Science Foundation's second merit review criterion." Technology in Society 27(4): 437-451.

Illingworth, S., et al. (2015). What's in a Name? Exploring the Nomenclature of Science Communication in the UK [version 2; referees: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations].

Illingworth, S. and H. Roop (2015). "Developing Key Skills as a Science Communicator: Case Studies of Two Scientist-Led Outreach Programmes." Geosciences 5(1): 2-14.

Luokkanen, M., et al. (2013). "Geoengineering, news media and metaphors: Framing the controversial." Public Understanding of Science: 0963662513475966.

Nisbet, M. C. and D. A. Scheufele (2009). "What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions." American Journal of Botany 96(10): 1767-1778.

Patel, S. and A. Prokop (2015). "How to develop objective-driven comprehensive science outreach initiatives aiming at multiple audiences." bioRxiv: 023838.

Rowe, G., et al. (2010). "Public engagement in research funding: A study of public capabilities and engagement methodology." Public Understanding of Science 19(2): 225-239.

Rull, V. (2014). "The most important application of science." EMBO reports 15(9): 919-922.

Scheufele, D. A. (2014). "Science communication as political communication." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(Supplement 4): 13585-13592.

Silvertown, J. (2009). "A new dawn for citizen science." Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24(9): 467-471.

Smith, R. D. (2006). "Responding to global infectious disease outbreaks: lessons from SARS on the role of risk perception, communication and management." Social science & medicine 63(12): 3113-3123.

TNS BMRB & PSI (2015). Factors Affecting Public Engagement By Researchers: A study on behalf of a Consortium of UK public research funders, Wellcome Trust.

UK, E. (2015). Engineering UK 2015: The state of engineering. London, EngineeringUK.

Viseu, A. (2015). "Integration of social science into research is crucial." Nature 525(7569): 291-291.

March 2016