Why do people devote their lives to scientific research? Fame? Fortune? I hope not, because that means there is a plethora of disappointed people in science. While I cannot speak for others, my reasons were for understanding and to “make the world a better place” (through understanding). That by learning something new, this knowledge can then be used for something productive (like conservation). The issue that I have come across however, is the idea of the routine; whereby you collect and analyze data, spit out a paper, hopefully get it published, and move on to the next project. In the ideal world, your published results will float their way into the hands of people who get stuff done; the people who effect Change. Unfortunately, I don’t have that much faith that grass roots organizations, activists, and politicians read scientific journals. Even when the system works and research is passed through the hands of middlemen, the process of Change takes a long time. For many problems, action needs to be taken now – not in 10 years. Instead, I am of resolute belief that scientists need to take what they know directly to the people. It is our responsibility. Of course, scientists are not known for their extroverted ways, nor is public outreach part of the ethos of the academic community. For these reasons I found Restarting the conversation: challenges at the interface between ecology and society (Groffman et al. 2010) and Communicating with the public: opportunities and rewards for individual ecologists (Pace et al.2010) to be very pertinent and helpful. In these articles we are introduced to the challenges that scientists encounter when trying to communicate with society (Groffman et al.) and also different avenues through which this communication can take place (Pace et al. 2010).
I was heartened to read that most Americans trust scientists. I think that this is the highest hurdle to jump. If you don’t trust the messenger, then you won’t trust the message. How then, can scientists communicate to society? According to Groffman et al. most people learn about scientific issues indirectly: through the media (specifically local news), trips to zoos and museums, and conversing with other people. These are the avenues though which scientists must work to communicate. Luckily, as Pace et al. state, methods of communication are boundless; from writing children’s books to including the pubic in research. Scientists can communicate through letters to the newspaper and other news outlets, by attending town meetings, or even working with larger organizations. Some avenues are easy while others take considerable time and commitment. Nevertheless, there is opportunity for every scientist to engage in public communication.
The question that remains though is: Will people listen? Groffman et al. bring up the issue of “free-choice learners.” That everything we are told is filtered through our beliefs, values, and preconceptions. Luckily there are some ways we can attempt to overcome these potential barriers. The method Groffman et al propose, (and which Pace et al. reference) is the public engagement model whereby scientist “frame” research and theory in a context (economic, moral, etc) which will make people more willing to listen and engage in conversation. For example, ecosystem services: currently a hot topic in ecological research and a phase which makes society care about nutrient cycling. And, once society is engaged in a topic then action is more likely and Change has a chance.
(Of course, no method is perfect and there will always be people who say Earth is flat despite the evidence because that is their fundamental belief. In which case, we should begin brainwashing children so that the fundamental values of the next generation are pro-environment)
No comments:
Post a Comment