-----Original Message-----

You can now download the Summary Findings of the MORI report , 'The Role of
Scientists in Public Debate' on the MORI web site http://www.mori.com
Expect a full in depth report next week on the Wellcome web site.
And readers of Science and Public Affairs can find an article 'Shackled to
Stereotypes' in the February issue currently in the mail.
Enough plugging; The report suggests that a cultural shift is needed not
just amongst science funders, the 'PUS community' and the media, but that
working scientists are stuck to a traditional top-down communications
approach. In short, most have no idea of the type of communications support
offered by their local institutions and even more so their research funders.
The recognition of a need to change seems to be there, but how are we going
to ensure a broader section of scientists are involved in the 'new' public
dialogue. Or are we happy with the status quo?
Ian Muchamore


-----End Quoted (and cut) Message-----


Interesting report. It provides the evidence that many prejudices and
assertions made here and elsewhere are correct.

Looking at the short version, I was taken by the sentence: "The vast
majority of scientists believe it is their duty to communicate their
research and its social and ethical implications to policy-makers, and to
the non-specialist public."

So PESTs are pushing at an open door. Scientists believe that it is their
job to talk.

Sadly, "Many scientists feel constrained by the day-to-day requirements of
their job, leaving them with too little time to communicate, or even to
carry out their research."

This makes it easy for them to claim business as the reason why they do not
live up to their own expectations of themselves.

The finding that "Three-quarters of scientists feel equipped to communicate
the scientific facts of their research, although only one in five feels very
well equipped" is a shocker. In many years talking to scientists, I would
say that fewer than five percent of scientists *are* equipped to communicate
the scientific facts of their research.

Then again, this begs the question of who they feel they are equipped to
communicate to. If it is other scientists, then the numbers may be okay. If
it is the general public, or even the hack journalist trying to understand
them, then they are deluding themselves.

Another statement that suggests lines of action is "relatively few
scientists are aware of any communications services provided by funders".

It has always struck me that the research councils (RCs), and the Wellcome
Trust, are in a better position to help scientists to communication than
their universities. A university may have one or two PR folk, and they have
to deal with the whole spread of intellectual academic activity, not to
mention all the fluff that attaches to any large institution. The funding
bodies, on the other hand, may have similarly minimal resources, but their
territory is much narrower.

So the RCs, and the learned societies, are in a better position than
universities to act as "gatekeepers" between the media and the scientists.

Another interesting sentence: "Around two-thirds of scientists say that
recent media coverage of scientific issues has made no difference to
communication of their research to the non-specialist public."

This is a double-edged one. It means that they haven't been scared off. But
it also means that they aren't prepared to "fight back" and to "correct" the
media.

Of course, a lot depends on the scientists they quizzed. There are some
buried hints that it wasn't just the biomedics, but that isn't enough to be
able to interpret the survey properly. Maybe the full version will help
here.


Here's another bit where the scientists send out mixed messages: "In
summary, scientists believe that they should have the main responsibility
for communicating their research and its implications as they feel they are
the best equipped to understand these."

But some scientists, Wolpert springs to mind, often defend their work, and
their freedom to do what the heck they like, by saying "I'm not the one to
decide what society does with this knowledge." With the implication that
they *cannot* foresee all the fallout that a bit of science will create. In
other words, they are *not* "the best equipped to understand these
[implications]".

Now, had they been talking to "engineers", in the broadest sense, that would
be another matter. They are, after all, the people who turn science into
technology. Which raises again the question of the people polled.

There is yet another wrinkle, the report goes on to say: "However, they are
disinclined to rate themselves as being the best equipped to communicate."

The report suggests that "This highlights the potential of training to
assist scientists develop relevant communications skills."

Yes, but is it saying that *every* scientists should have this training? And
for which aspect of communication? I suspect that no more than 5 per cent of
scientists do research that would appeal to even the most avid science
writer. So 95 per cent of the training would be wasted if that were the
goal. Of course, those 95 per cent might give public lectures on their
science, but that entails different training.

The report says that "Twenty-nine per cent have spoken to the media (on TV
or radio, with journalists from newspapers, with the popular science press,
or/and with the computer press)".

That sounds like a very high number to me and once again makes me want to
know more about the sample.

Looks like the full report will provide some fascinating reading. Do tell us
when it turns up on the web site.

MK



_______________________________________________________________________
Michael Kenward           /      Phone: +44 (0)1444 400568  Fax: 401064
                         /
Science Writer & Stuff  /           Genetically modified words for sale