I recently had the pleasure of attending a discussion about the future of science communication, mainly involving early career researchers who had already slotted some communication initiatives into their busy lives. There were many insights provided into ‘what works’, but also substantial concerns about where and how to fit in this important activity into a career.
Above all, what came out was the importance of story-telling to grab the attention of the audience, but to do it in such a way that the audience feels involved and not talked down to. Everyone in the room had clearly moved on from the deficit model associated with ‘public understanding’ of science to the idea of ‘public engagement’. But neither approach is appropriate when dealing with a young audience, even a pre-school one for which picture books are likely to be the right medium. There was enthusiasm to reach into schools, which aligns with all Paul Nurse says about the importance of introducing a sense of wonder to act as inspiration in young people’s lives. However, there is no doubt that writing or talking to young children is a skill many scientists never acquire. Indeed, it has to be admitted, seeing senior scientists talking in obscure language even to their peers should remind us that not all scientists are equipped to communicate well to any audience.
Trying to imagine a world ten or twenty years hence, it is difficult to envisage how the world of science communication may change. There were several remarks about how changes in social media are introducing all kinds of issues. There was that brief moment when Twitter provided a wonderful platform for highlighting exciting developments that could then be spread widely. However, current social media seem very different and enthusiasm for TikTok, for instance was very muted amongst this particular group. Perhaps, despite being early career researchers, they are still older than the TikTok generation. Although YouTube videos have a good reach, there is no doubt that for minorities in particular that can be a double-edged sword, with vicious comments often appended. It seems easier to be an influencer in areas far from science.
But producing videos may inevitably anyhow look like ‘preaching’. Instead, should science communication in the future be about co-creation with different audiences? Where should this engagement occur and can it be shown to be as available in all communities and for all audiences? I have long worried, for instance about the Cambridge (Science) Festival, that too often may be thought to be preaching to the ‘converted’, the nice middle-class families who already probably possess a substantial amount of science and cultural capital. It is much harder to reach those children who aren’t routinely exposed to ideas about science, either through good teaching in their schools, books in their home or round-the-dinner-table conversations. If scientists – academics or industrialists – simply go into the schools near them, it is likely to mean the remote rural schools, or those in run-down urban areas, miss out. This is not equity.
To return to the aspect of communication that amounts to story-telling. Should this be taught? If so where in science education – at undergraduate or postgraduate level? How should it be taught? How should it be valued (or indeed assessed) both during the education path and as a practicing scientist? Academics being good at jumping through hoops means that they are more likely to take on something with a tangible professional reward; in other words things like promotion criteria can act as an incentive or, at the very least, should not act as a deterrent as historically they probably have. These were all topics that got a lot of air-time. Most people in the room had taken up outreach and communication work through a love of their subject and a sense of responsibility to pass that love on. However, fitting in the time to do this without support from their institutions can frequently be a challenge.
Which matters more, that children should be inspired or that they understand how to challenge misinformation, for instance about vaccinations? Of course, they are both important, but I do worry what is formally taught in schools achieves neither. Our PISA results in England may be good and above the OECD average, even improving over the years in science. Nevertheless, the lack of practical work to give children that tangible feeling for the fun and doing of science, and the ongoing focus on memory work to pass exams rather than understanding how to question ideas that are perhaps dubious, mean that skills for the modern age may be missed in our education system. A knowledge-rich curriculum is well-designed for passing exams, but is possibly less important these days now that fast access to facts readily sits in your pocket. That view does not always go down well with educators.
Science communication matters on many fronts and for and with many audiences. How to optimise this, indeed how to scale up from talking to a single class in school or a small audience in a tent, to reach a much wider audience, remains a challenge. The last wish this particular group of researchers tabled was the desire that every child in primary school has the opportunity to meet a scientist (and this need not only be an academic researcher; scientists turn up in many guises). Wherever a school is in the country that ought to be feasible, but it requires each school to know how to find such people which, for the hard-pressed profession, may be tricky. As scientists we should be conscious of this.
