Written evidence submitted by Mark Lorch (COM0094)
Summary:
1) Open access publications are still behind a comprehension wall. Lay summaries are required.
2) Acknowledge The Conversation for innovation and good practice in science communication.
3) All sciences are not equally represented by high profile science communicators and media outlets.
Open access publications are still behind a comprehension wall
Lay summaries of research outputs would have a major impact on communication with non-specialist audiences and between subject disciplines.2
The rise of open access publishing and the requirement to make all papers submitted to the Research Excellence Framework (REF) open access is to be commended. This initiative has torn down towering pay walls that previously surrounded scientists‘ outputs. Journalists, the public and decision makers alike can not access material that was previously only readable by those employed by institutions who could afford the subscription fees set by publishers.
However much of the material published in open access journals and repositories is no more accessible by a lay audience than when it was behind the pay walls. Scientific publications are too often written in dry, jargon filled prose which makes then incomprehensible by a lay person (or indeed a scientist from another discipline). This style of writing need not be the case: The Blackawton Bees2 paper, published in the respected journal Biology Letters, describes high quality research, the paper was written by primary school children and the diagrams are in crayon. It is the clearest paper I have ever read.
Some journals (e.g. Global Change Biology and the PLOS family of journals) are tackling the comprehension problem by publishing lay summaries alongside the research article. I would suggest that these lay summaries should also be mandatory for any paper submitted to the REF. This would embed the process of science communication within the publication process, allow much wider access to scientific outputs and increase the impact of the UKs research.
Acknowledge The Conversation for innovation and good practice in science communication.
The Conversation3 is a news site written entirely by researchers in academia. The academic authors are supported by professional news editors. The Conversation is funded by universities, HEFCE, RCUK and some charities and professional bodies.
The Conversation has significant benefits over traditional written media:
- All articles are written by experts in their fields.
- Academic authors have final sign off on any articles. Consequently, the academic can be confident that their words will not be used out of context and their message will be preserved.
- All material published via The Conversation is freely available for republishing under a creative commons non-derivative license. As a result, pieces that start life at The Conversation can be used by media outlets around the world. The Conversation articles have in excess of 15 million readers per month.
The Conversation’s model, which brings together journalists and science experts to work in a truly collaborative and open access fashion should be highly commended.
All sciences are not equally represented.
The benefits of science communication to all parties has been well documented in the past and covered by many other contributors to the inquiry. However not all the sciences are well represented by high profile science communicators and media outlets. The most well know science communicators, appearing regularly on broadcast media, include David Attenborough, Brian Cox, Alice Roberts, Kathy Sykes, Jim Al-Khalali, Iain Stewart, Richard Dawkins and Adam Rutherford. Between them they representing many facets of physics, geology and biology. Meanwhile chemistry has no high-profile champion.
This lack of representation of chemistry is mirrored by online media outlets. For example, The Guardian has a thriving science blogging network, hosting blogs covering the core sciences of physics and biology, as well as many other niches e.g. psychology to paleontology. But there is no dedicated chemistry blog.
The Royal Society of Chemistry’s study of Public Attitudes to Chemistry4 showed that lack of representation of chemistry in the science communication field is, in part due, to chemists fearing that the public at large have a negative view of chemistry and chemicals. However, the RSC study showed this not to be the case. Instead there was a void of understanding with the majority of the public confusing chemists with pharmacists and beyond pharmaceuticals there was no real understanding of what chemists (chemical scientists) do.
Declaration
These views are my own and do not represent those of my employer, The University of Hull.
1) Blackawton, P.S. et al., 2010. Blackawton bees. Biology Letters 7(2) pp. 168-172. Available at http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/12/18/rsbl.2010.1056 [accessed 9th May 2016].
2) Kuehne L.M. and Olden J.D. 2015. Opinion: Lay summaries needed to enhance science communication. PNAS 112(12). Available at http://www.pnas.org/content/112/12/3585.full [accessed 9th May 2016]
3) The Conversation. Available at https://theconversation.com/uk [accessed 9th May 2016]
4) The Royal Society of Chemistry, 2015. Public Attitudes to Chemistry. Available at http://www.rsc.org/campaigning-outreach/campaigning/public-attitudes-chemistry/ [accessed 9th May 2016]