We have been debating this @ ANU (Australia) recently. Some of the PhD students feel it is not our responsibility to communicate to the public, but someone elses role. Others feel we should be trained to communicate, and use resources available to us, like our Media Department for guidance and help.

We have a Grad Cert in Science Comm at ANU. I undertook it a few years ago and it dramatically increased my confidence in public scientific writing and speaking. Was a great improvement with a small time committment of 2 1/2 days. I feel every scientist should do it.

One of the problems is what media a scientist should use. Perhaps this is where getting advice from Media Departments would be helpful. I have a Blog that I write on (soilduck.com) and I also use Twitter and Facebook. TV and Newspaper are for big stories, and not general information. Using this kind of social networking and personal communication means that people can follow you on your journey of discovery – they can see you learning and they learn with you to find answers and questions.

At the end of the day it is our responsibility to get information out to the public, so they are able to make informed decisions. Whether it be about best optical fibre networks or mining in Australia, the public and policy makers need to know the facts to make decisions.

And so the public has this unfortunate misconception that science is about technology when it’s not. And since the public is only exposed to the finished product, which typically means the drug therapy or the shiny gizmo, they naturally lack both an appreciation and basic understanding of the scientific process–all the dead-ends and failed hypothesis littering the roadside are rarely if ever mentioned. We need more people who are exposed to scientific thinking at an earlier age.

We do a bad job of educating our children in science that when they’re all grown up their eyes glass over at the mere mention of the word because it’s associated with the rote learning of esoteric minutia.

I think part of being a good scientist “teacher” would involve, not only knowing how to reach out to students enrolled in your particular class, but the public and media in general.

You’ve raise a fair point, but sometimes it is necessary to do what I have suggested, and not merely for public relations or some kind of educational outreach.

How will the public react when you tell them your painting will be a Picasso, and it turns out to look like a Thomas Kinkade?

i agree completely. Having effective communication skills is necessary not only in the sciences and engineering. But it is also possible – even necessary at times – to do a fine job communicating research in progress, especially when it is often funded by government funding agencies and relevant nongovernment organizations for whom reporting is an important part of any grant application (or of a grant funding research in progress).

So when I see scienctists talking about communicating with the public in a a better way, and focussing on stuff such as “…a major hurdle in science communication: it is difficult to understand, interpret, or even be passionate about something that is incomplete…”, I think the author is missing the point. Even incomplete results can be understood, interpreted and exciting if they are presented properly.

Or to paraphrase Arthur Conan Doyle…he wrote a Sherlock Holmes story in which the story was ostensibly written by Holmes himself, rather than Watson. And the opening paragraph read something like this:

The ideas of my friend Watson are extremely pertinacious. I have often criticized his literary efforts in chronicling my work…”Try it yourself, Holmes” has been his invariable response. Now I find that, in taking up my pen to describe a case, I being to realize that the matter must be presented in such as way as will interest the reader.“ (emphasis mine)

There needs to be more emphasis on communication skills – reading and writing. Our culture is drowning in multiple different mutually exclusive jargons – the legal, the medical, the scientific, the political – and we need a “Plain Language” renaissance.