MOST scientists want to see more science and technology in the media, but we鈥檙e making life hard for ourselves by forever criticising each other鈥檚 efforts or denouncing journalists and film-makers for not portraying science in ways we approve of. While healthy debate can improve science communication, I think we could all shut up a bit, and stop the more rabid criticism altogether. I include myself here.
As just one example of excessive criticism, the editor of BBC TV鈥檚 flagship science series Horizon is regularly barraged with complaints from angry scientists about 鈥渄umbing down鈥�, particularly in response to the programmes that attract people who don鈥檛 usually watch science. I think we should be grateful for the new viewers.
Similarly, New 杏吧原创 recently took flak over its cover that proclaimed 鈥淒arwin was wrong鈥�. The article inside described discoveries that are leading to modifications to the theory of evolution. A cheap trick to sell magazines while giving fodder to the enemies of evolution? Sales certainly went up that week, but if more people than usual bought the magazine and read the article, more people will have found that scientists agree that Darwin was fundamentally right.
Advertisement
As well as the thought police who castigate communicators for simplifying, selling out or making things too accessible, there are others who criticise scientists for being elitist.
I admit that I am guilty on both counts. I have ranted and railed at scientists and journalists who treat tentative results as if they are certain. I get angry with scientists who are pompous or dismissive of other ways of thinking, and even angrier at those who don鈥檛 take legitimate public concerns about their work seriously.
Does ranting do any good? In some cases it does, especially if science is being carelessly mangled or deliberately distorted. But in many cases communicators are passionate about science and are simply trying to communicate it as clearly as they can to as large an audience as possible. We risk drowning out what鈥檚 good with a stream of public bickering. We also risk discouraging a new generation of communicators.
鈥淲e risk drowning out good science communication with a stream of bickering鈥�
I am not arguing for science coverage at all costs. Much of my work is devoted to improving science鈥檚 engagement with the public. But there鈥檚 space for a range of characters, approaches and styles of communication: such diversity can appeal to a wider range of people. The public are savvier than we might think and appreciate that human beings, including scientists, are a diverse bunch.
If you鈥檙e still troubled by how others communicate, why not spend less time ranting and get out there and communicate in ways you do like? Blogging is easier than ever, for example. Or if you prefer a more hands-on approach, in the UK or Europe you could enter 鈥榮 鈥淭alking Science鈥� competition (). Alternatively, your nearest science centre, science festival or local media will welcome offers of help.