Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 149 (2014) 461 – 466
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
1877-0428 © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of LUMEN 2014.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.08.288
LUMEN 2014
The Power of Science Communication
Mihaela Sabina Jucana
, Cornel Nicolae Jucanb,
*
a,b
”Lucian Blaga” University of Sibiu, Fratii Grachi Str. 1 A Sibiu, 550282, Romania
Abstract
The study will investigate the concepts of science communication and its benefits. Being good communicators in general will
help scientists to be better science communicators in order to:
help the public understand science as part of their real lives,
see not only the importance of the science and its source of pleasure and wonder, but also to be able to make decisions
about it as citizens, policymakers, funders, etc.
help in educating citizenry, concerned about the threats facing our planet to better shape the direction of political and
policy decisions,
because how scientists communicate this information may have measurable conservation impacts on the future of our planet.
More than ever, scientists are called upon to provide assessments, often to non-scientists, on which management policies are built
and experts should consider becoming more involved and effective in raising public awareness of these threats.
Traditional scientific training doesn’t typically prepare scientists to be effective communicators outside academic circles. For
scientists, the most important aspect might be how something fits into the given body of research, whereas, the public wants to
know how a new finding might impact their lives. By considering the needs of the public audience versus a scientific one, by
crafting an appropriate message, and communicating it clearly, more scientists will be more effective at bringing the world of
science to the general public.
The research methodology was the assessment of the information channels from the literature and the authors’ studies.
There are many interesting and innovative ways of communicating complicated concepts and the aim of the paper was to present
some rules that can be applied to assure that we (scientists and public) are talking the same language, with the purpose to help
promote a better understanding of issues facing our lives, thereby stimulating wise and timely action to save what belongs to us
all.
© 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of LUMEN 2014.
Keywords: communication; science; public; benefits.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +40 743 153646; fax: +40 269 216188.
E-mail address: jucanella@yahoo.com
© 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of LUMEN 2014.
462 Mihaela Sabina Jucan and Cornel Nicolae Jucan / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 149 (2014) 461 – 466
1. Introduction
Not long ago when scientists spoke, citizens listened to them in silence, with respect and confidence. In that
period people believed what the doctor, physicist or economist said. At the end of the Sixties, the term “scientific”
began to take on negative connotations, evoking more doubts than certainties. The scientist promise to improve life
for all began to lose ground in the collective imagination because of the negative impact that some of their findings
had. Let's remember the drug called „Talidomide”, the „DDT”, Chernobyl, and many other problems that science
does not know how to solve. Not all of the impacts of science and technology, however, are equally beneficial, nor
are they universally seen to be so. Fears have grown in recent years about the capacity of science and technology to
intervene adversely in various dimensions of human life. Pollution and physical harm continue to be among the
unintended consequences of many beneficial technologies such as electronics, pesticides and vaccines. The
increasing dependence on fossil fuel based technologies is changing the planet’s climate, with very serious
implications for future generations.
At the same time closer relations between science and industry, often actively encouraged by governments, have
called into question the presumed impartiality of science and the openness of scientific communication.
Bultitude (2011) found four key cultural factors that have influenced the separation of science from society,
resulting in an increased need for scientists to engage with public audiences:
the loss of expertise and authority of scientists
a change in the nature of knowledge production
improved communications and a proliferation of sources of information
the democratic deficit.
When science authority was questioned, the relationship between science and society underwent a crisis, even if
science and technology are among the most positive forces for change at humankind's disposal.
Founded in 1931, the International Council for Science (ICSU) is a non-governmental organization representing a
global membership that includes both national scientific bodies (over 100 members) and international scientific
unions. In its strategic review (2005) ICSU presented the most important changes that have implications for the
international science community:
1. Changes in the mobility and global flows of science and scientists, and associated challenges to universality;
2. Changes in the production of scientific knowledge and the emergence of hybrid (e.g. public-private) contexts
of practice, raising concerns about the impartiality of science;
3. Changes in the speed and scale of innovation, producing unavoidable new risks and uncertainties;
4. Changes in the governance of science and technology, especially as a consequence of globalization, creating
new demands for expert accountability and ethical conduct;
5. Changes in the nature of expertise on the relations of science and society within civil society, especially among
non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and in academia.
And concluded that, in order to strengthen science for the benefit of society, scientists need to be responsive to
the changing needs and concerns of society; society, in turn, needs to understand and support the positive role of
science.
The relation between science and society is tremendous important: society needs science as a driver for social,
economic and political success, while science lives off the resources, talents and freedom that the society makes
available. Understanding and fairly communicating risk and uncertainty are increasingly important for science and
society. At the same time incorporating science-society insights into scientific practice and public policy has to be
developed. The fundamental objective is to establish a deeper and more solid relationship based on trust between
them. Only on this basis will the inevitable gap be bridged, even if there will always be a difference between those
who hold complex knowledge and all the rest.
It is essential to make a scientifically based voice heard loud and clear, especially in time of crisis (epidemics,
financial crisis, earthquake, new medications, etc.) and this can be done through professional communication. The
price for not communicating or communicating poorly is becoming higher every day because today those who are
not well represented in the public arena risk losing their say, resources or trust.
463Mihaela Sabina Jucan and Cornel Nicolae Jucan / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 149 (2014) 461 – 466
Communicating is considered a strategic function by the majority of organizations which interact in our social
system because it identifies and justifies them, it „allows them to gain consensus and to work to achieve the
objectives that all systems have: to survive, to protect themselves, to obtain resources, and to grow” (Carrada, 2006).
The scientific community should commit to communication as an integral part of a researcher's professional role
and training in communications has to be a key component of science education.
And, to be effective, communication has to be a two-way process: scientists should not only present their
findings, but also be prepared to take into consideration the public's needs and views.
According to ICSU statute 5 (2011) it requires also responsibility at all levels to carry out and communicate
scientific work with integrity, respect, fairness, trustworthiness, and transparency, recognizing its benefits and
possible harms.
2. Science communication concept
The 2000 report of the Office of Science and Technology and Welcome Trust, “Science and the public: A review
of science communication and public attitudes to science in Britain” defines science communication as a term that
“encompasses communication between:
groups within the scientific community, including those in academia and industry
the scientific community and the media
the scientific community and the public
the scientific community and government, or others in positions of power and/or authority
the scientific community and government, or others who influence policy
industry and the public
the media (including museums and science centres) and the public
the government and the public.”
Burns et al (2003) defined science communication as the use of appropriate skills, media, activities, and dialogue
to produce one or more of the following personal responses to science:
Awareness, including familiarity with new aspects of science
Enjoyment or other affective responses, e.g. appreciating science as entertainment or art
Interest, as evidenced by voluntary involvement with science or its communication
Opinions, the forming, reforming, or confirming of science-related attitudes
Understanding of science, its content, processes, and social factors.
According to Fischhoff and Scheufele (2012) science communication must perform four interrelated tasks:
identify the science most relevant to the decisions that people face
determine what people already know
design communication to fill the critical gaps (between what people know and need to know)
evaluate the adequacy of those communication.
The purpose of science communication was described by Burns et al (2003) with a wowel analogy (AEIOU), a
concise label that personalizes the impersonal aims of scientific awareness, understanding, literacy and culture:
Public awareness of science aims to stimulate awareness of, and positive attitudes (or opinions) towards
science.
Public understanding of science (its content, processes, and social factors).
Scientific literacy, when people are aware of, interested and involved in, form opinions about, and seek to
understand science.
Scientific culture is a society-wide environment that appreciates and supports science and scientific
literacy.
Another term, frequently used in relation with communication science is Public Engagement with Science (PES).
As outlined by McCallie et al (2009), Public Engagement with Science involves scientists and publics working
together, and allows people with varied backgrounds and scientific expertise to articulate and contribute their
perspectives, ideas, knowledge, and values in response to scientific questions or science-related controversies. It is
framed as a multi-directional dialogue among people that allows all the participants to learn.
464 Mihaela Sabina Jucan and Cornel Nicolae Jucan / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 149 (2014) 461 – 466
Science communication may involve science practitioners, mediators, and other members of the general public,
either peer-to-peer or between groups.
The main types of science communication methods were described by Rowe and Frewer (2005) as a threepronged
approach consisting of:
Communication (information flowing from the „sponsor”- scientific organization- to public
representatives);
Consultation (direction of travel of information from public representatives to the sponsor
Participation (two way communication between sponsor and public representatives)
Bucchi (2008) presented a similar multi-model framework that involves: Transfer, Consultation and Knowledge-
Co-Production.
Science for All (2010) presented a three key communication approaches: Transmit (inspire, inform, change,
educate, build capacity and involvement or influence the others decision), Receive (use the experience, views, skills,
knowledge of others to inform, inspire, educate or build your own capacity or decision), Collaborate (collaborate,
consider, create or decide something together). Any science communication activity involves a mix of this
approaches according to the needs of the audience and the scientist involved.
McCallie et al (2009) presented a three dimension model focused on the role of the public, of the experts and the
content focus of the discussion.
Science communication involves expertise from multiple disciplines (Fishhoff & Scheufele, 2012): subject matter
scientist, to get the facts right; decision scientists, to identify the right facts, so that they are not missed or buried;
social and behavioral scientists, to formulate and evaluate communications, and communication practitioners, to
create trusted channels among the parties. For the most part, though, individual scientists are on their own, forced to
make guesses about how to meet their audiences’ information needs. That's why colleges and universities need to do
a better job of training scientists to explain their work.
3. Modalities to communicate science. Benefits from online presence
There is a breadth of possibilities to communicate science through:
traditional journalism (both print and broadcast)
live or face to face events: public lectures, debates, dialogue, science centers, science museums, etc.
online interactions: online journalism, internet sites, blogs, wikis, podcasting, Facebook, Twitter, other
social media activities, etc.
In the age of the internet, social media tools offer a powerful way for scientists to boost their professional profile
and act as a public voice for science. As the benefits become more apparent and dedicated metrics are developed to
supplement scientists' portfolios, social media may soon become an integral part of the researcher's toolkit.
Researchers and students in the field of science need to be taught about social media in order to understand how it
works, how it affects science and life, to become aware of social networks and use them efficiently.
According to Bik and Goldstein (2013) public visibility and constructive conversation on social media networks
can be beneficial for scientists, impacting research in a number of key ways:
online tools improve research efficiency
online visibility helps track and improve scientific metrics
social media enhances professional networking
broadening „broader impacts”, etc.
Scientists can maximize their reach by considering the following points:
establish a professional website
locate pertinent online conversations
navigate the deluge of online information
interact with diverse participants
reach your audience.
Whatever channel of communication is chosen, effective communication suppose two important things:
rationality, that in the planning stage helps to identify the opportunities, but above all the limitations of
465Mihaela Sabina Jucan and Cornel Nicolae Jucan / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 149 (2014) 461 – 466
communication; and the ability to construct, as in any literary text, a dialogue with the public, imagining for a
moment what the reaction may be to what is said and consequently adapting it to the answer.
At the same time there are some rules that must be followed:
to respect the factual truth
to not disregard the possible negative consequences of the research (Carrada, 2006)
to not emphasize the results more than is rightful because a public that has been disappointed once, will be
skeptical forever
to not omit other options
to declare possible conflicts of interest
to be ethical, accountable and transparent (Science for all, 2010).
Scientists have to declare the values of their work, but also to divulge the social implications of their work as well
the work of others, and their own opinion, positive or negative. Nowadays there are enormous ways for scientists to
make themselves heard so as, on one hand, their work to matter and on the other hand, the public to be well
informed.
4. Conclusions and discussions
The current multiple revolutions in science and technology have an immense impact on society today and affect
the future of humanity and of the Earth. Science and society look for and need each other. Scientists have an ethical
obligation to the public to produce factual, intelligible, timely information and to account for their stewardship of
the public funds used to support their work. As much of the ongoing research is funded with public money, it is
evident the need to inform the public about the main research results, so as to allow interested people to follow the
ongoing developments and to form their own opinion on the basis of sound, science-based facts and data.
Communications are adequate if they reach people with the information that they need in a form that they can use.
To realize this we consider that colleges and universities need to do a better job of training scientists to explain
their work. Students who are majoring in science should be required to take courses in how to communicate
scientific research to the public. As we have noted, most of the science faculties in Romania don’t offer courses in
communication nor in science communication. This may lead to the problem of not being able to get grants and
funds for the research, a widely spread problem in Romania. Romanian scientists lack in presence in the world
scientific elite also because of inefficient communication skills, this being also one of the reasons of choosing this
research topic.
More than this, as Fischhoff & Scheufele (2012) pointed, the nature of emerging technologies, the ongoing
transformation of our communication infrastructures, and - most importantly - the insights from social science about
nonexpert audiences and their interfaces with other societal stakeholders make also students from social sciences
important in this demarche. In addition, universities should offer more workshops to train scientists who have
already begun their research careers to communicate with the media more effectively.
Scientists, policy makers, and academics have to think creatively about new directions for rebuilding science–
society interfaces and for participating in the ongoing debates surrounding emerging technologies. It is necessary to
build a collaborative infrastructure between science and society, as issues like global warming, nanotechnology, all
kinds of biotechnologies, etc., increasingly blurs the boundaries between science, society and politics.
References
Bik, H. M., Goldstein, M. C. (2013). An Introduction to Social Media for Scientists, PloS Biol 11(4),
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001535.
Bucchi, M. (2008). Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: Theories of public communication of science. In Bucchi and Trench (Eds) Handbook of
Public Communication of Science and Technology. London and New York.
Bultitude, K. (2011). The Why and How of Science Communication, in Rosulek, P, ed. „Science Communication”. Pilsen: European Commission,
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/staff/bultitude/KB_TB/Karen_Bultitude_-_Science_Communication_Why_and_How.pdf.
Burns, T. W., O'Çonnor, D. J. Stocklmeyer, S. M. (2003). Science Communication: a Contemporary Definition, Public Understanding of Science
2003; 12; 183.
466 Mihaela Sabina Jucan and Cornel Nicolae Jucan / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 149 (2014) 461 – 466
Carrada, G. (2006). Communicating Science. „A Scientist's Survival Kit”. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European
Communities.
Fischhoff, B., Scheufele, D. A. (2012). The Science of Science Communication, The National Academy of Science USA,
http://d27vj430nutdmd.cloudfront.net/25371/174803/a3a79decf6f68469190794a8444d04126c92a032.1.pdf.
ICSU (2005). Science and Society: Rights and Responsabilities. ICSU Strategic Review.
ICSU (2011). Statute 5, http://www.icsu.org/about-icsu/structure/committees/freedom-responsibility/statute-5.
McCallie, E., Bell, L., Lohwater, T., Falk, J. H., Lehr, J. L., Lewenstein, B. V., Needham, C., Wiehe, B. (2009). Many experts, many audiences:
public engagement with science and information science education. Washington: Centre for Advancement of Informal Science Education.
Office of Science and Technology and Wellcome Trust (2000). Science and the public: A review of science communication and public attitudes
to science in Britain, http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@msh_peda/documents/web_document/wtd003419.pdf.
Rowe, G., Frewer, L. (2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms, Science Technology Human Values 30, 251-290.
Science for All (2010). Public Engagement with Science and Society – a conversational tool. London: Department for Business, Innovation and
Skills, http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/all/2010/09/23/public-engagement-for-science-and-society-a-conversational-tool/.