Scientists never used to have to be great communicators because the public trusted that they were working in the public interest. And they still are, for the most part. But now we have this huge, highly sophisticated industry that manufactures deceit. Corporate legal firms, lobbyists, and pr and marketing firms know how to use cognitive dissonance against us. And they have the money to work the media. Scientists don’t. Scientists can be the best communicators in the world and they still won’t stand a chance against corporate-funded PR. One pr expert famously said, (something to the effect of) “When we create doubt, we win.” And because every honest scientist admits doubt, he or she can never counter the “certainty” that these professional liers espouse. Scientists can’t counter the accusation from corporate flaks that because they can never promise absolute certainty, they have no right to advocate for action or issue warnings.

These particular examples may not show just poor communication by scientists; they may also reflect active attacks on scientific evidence by interested parties, who do so for non-scientific reasons. In such cases, even if scientists are excellent communicators, large chunks of the public may not be convinced, particularly if they have non-scientific interests that lead them to be… unappreciative of the scientific evidence.

I am a grad student as John’s Hopkins University program in biotech and I can contest to the poor level of communications that exists between science and the public. Even from scientist to scientist at times.

Although it is clear that scientists must improve their communications with the public, I do not see too many institutions taking action. Requiring students to take a course in communications is a start, but it will not force them as professionals to generate reader-friendly articles and create communications that engage the public. It seems that voicing your research to the public remains an elective, not a requirement of being a scientist. This elective communication standard is outrageous considering most of the money going into science comes from the public. My point- communicating directly to the public should not be optional.

As far as creating a “culture of explanation,” I interpret this more directly. Scientists need to be intensely aware of how their research fits into public view. We should ask, how does my research fit into modern culture and belief systems? Stem cell research got a bad rap, mainly because scientist were not sensitive to public opinion and obviously where not intensely conscious of public perceptions. The result hurt both researchers (less funding) and the public’s understanding of stem cell therapy.

We need a solution that not only educates scientists in communication, but also keeps them in tune with public perceptions and values. So I propose something a bit more radical. Connect scientists with artists. Artists can provide a channel for new research to be communicated in ways that engage the public, and are more sensitive to diverse public values and beliefs. Artists are fantastic communicators that can combine emotions with rational thought-exactly what is needed to show the public that science is sensitive to their concerns.

Institutions are slow to move on this problem, let’s consider some more inventive solutions. Check http://www.dreamingscientist.com to find out more.

You probably already know this, but on the flip side: St. Thomas University in Minnesota used to require their journalism students to minor, double major, or concentrate in the area in which they wanted to write. So intended science journalists also became educated in biology; financial journalists studied finance or economics; etc. The program has since changed that requirement, but students often still do the dual focus.

My partner has had recent (good) experience working with the Associated Press, Reader’s Digest, NPR, and National Geographic, among others. He understands the importance of the public as one important driving force behind the dissemination of his important research. And more precise: the importance of that dissemination to begin with.

We attended a conference earlier this year, a first-of-its-kind scientist and media gathering in Louisville, Ky., to discuss how the two groups can work better together. If you’re interested in reading it, I wrote an article on the results of the conference: I think it’d be right up your alley!

In addition, we recently had published on Ragan.com an article titled “PR pros and scientists: A 10-tip formula for collaborating.” It’s a much watered down version of our original article (gotta keep those audiences in mind!): http://tinyurl.com/2blexh7

Thanks for writing such an inclusive article for the Chronicle. Perhaps we’ll end up at the same conference some day and we can discuss all of this. Thanks!