Nowhere is the disconnect between needing to better communicate science and technology and the skills and techniques used for that communication more evident than in the Federal research enterprise. As Federal research budgets stagnate or decline, and despite public clamor for more and better scientific information, communication of basic research results continues to rank among the lowest agency priorities, mortgaged against traditional public-relations activities to polish an agencys image or control negative information flow to the press and public.
Doing half the job
Alone among the Federal agencies, NASA articulates in its strategic plan the need "...to advance and communicate scientific knowledge and understanding" These words emphasize the reality that if new knowledge is generated but not communicated, only half the job has been done. This is a reflection of the transition of NASA from primarily an engineering organization used to help win the Cold War to a producer of new knowledge and technology in the National interest for the 21st century.
While there are still significant associations between technological advancement and National defense, and while some Federal dollars support development of proprietary intellectual properties, the scope of positive outcomes that the public expects from its investment in science and technology now far outstrips NASAs commitment of resources and traditional means of bringing information to the public. As the scope of expected positive social, economic, educational, and quality-of-life outcomes from research and technology has grown, so has the responsibility of scientists themselves to communicate meaningfully what they have learned from publicly-funded research.
We believe that the initiation of high-quality science and technology communication must begin at the laboratory bench, with the scientists who are doing the research. It is not acceptable for scientists to simply "throw it over the wall" and hope that someone else will do the job. Scientists must make substantive efforts to initiate the communication that gives their work value. But they cannot do the job alone.
Historically in the federal research area, science communication has been handled primarily or exclusively through an institutional Media Relations or Public Affairs function, a system created more than 50 years ago. While this model may have been appropriate for managing information flow in a defense enterprise, control of information and a single conduit for communication were consistent with the National interest, and while Media Relations and Public Affairs will always be critical elements in the portfolio of science communications, these functions cannot be expected to handle the demand for science and technology information or provide the return on taxpayer investment alone.
Large numbers of people consume science and technology information for many different reasons, and require that information in many different formats and levels of translation.
In other words, positive outcomes from science come from everywhere. To meet the increased demand for information, and the requirement that it lead to positive outcomes in society, a higher-order science communications process must be matured. Modern science communications must be more than just an "add-on" to the scientific research process, but instead an integral part of what it means to "do science." Science must be redefined as the integral of generating and communicating new knowledge and technology.
Developing new, comprehensive communications processes promote broad dissemination of research results and remain rooted in the agenda of research does not come without challenges. Nor is the research public relations culture, which historically manages its portfolio for institutional enhancement rather than public understanding, eager to embrace change. And not all scientists meet the communications portion of their 21st-century job description with open arms.
Situation not hopeless
However, the situation is not without hope. The Research/Roadmap Working Group for the Communication of Science and Technology in the 21st Century (colloquially known as "R2", with info at
) is a national panel of scientists, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists, academic deans, and public information officials that has been engaged in benchmarking some of the best practices in science communications for the past 18 months. There are some very encouraging preliminary results, ranging from identifying innovative scientist-driven communications processes, to embedding the more traditional communication process closer to the lab bench, to setting an academic research agenda for science communications that provides better guidance for practitioners.In this latter area, especially, the R2 group has found that at those "best-practice" institutions where science communication is managed for public-understanding outcomes, there is also a sharp focus on more than simply the "practice" of science communication. The "doing" of science communication building web-pages, educational products, press releases, video files, etc. is strongly informed by a focus on academic research in science communications. This research helps those institutions answer questions such as "How are people consuming science information?", "What do people do with it?", and "Can I effectively measure my process?" The insight gained from academic research informs the practice, improving it in the process.
More problematic is the role of Federal communications efforts vis-a-vis private-sector communications activities. NASA, for example, is chartered to disseminate its results "to the widest extent practical." And while practicality is something that changes with time, this mandate probably does not imply competition with private-sector enterprises that can also do this job and add further value to the research. Where a NASA web-site leaves off and Scientific American picks up is not clear. This interface must be defined in a mutually beneficial way that provides maximal return on the taxpayer investment in the research.
To satisfy public expectations of taxpayer-supported research, the communication of science, health, and technology at the Federal level must be managed for different outcomes than are possible in the historical public-information-office approach. Scientists must be actively engaged in the process of communicating, and must receive the training and support to do it themselves rather than handing off their research to a series of writers and editors disconnected from the research bench. Science communicators working in research institutions need to redefine their role as enabling and empowering broad communication of research results rather than as restricting access to science and technology information. And both groups need to recognize the value of new communications technologies such as the World Wide Web in transforming not just how we provide material to the public but indeed the very nature of the information we provide.
advertisement
