How science talks about science
If you don’t mind a little indulgence or navel gazing on my part, I actually want to talk about our forthcoming issue of Materials World in a little more depth.
Turns out we have a little bit of a theme in the forthcoming issue – the University of Derby’s response to the Institution of Engineering and Technology’s diversity survey, our report on the Materials Today @ New Scientist Live event, and an opinion piece from Professor Paul Coxon on the Royal Society’s paper arguing against poor scientific practices that encourage false positives.
Professor Paul Coxon, Cambridge University
I don’t know about you guys but, to me, there’s a loose theme of communication. Specifically, the difference in communication internally and externally. Subra Suresh, President of Carnegie Mellon University, opened MT@NS with a keynote speech warning that an increasing number of Americans felt that funding in the sciences was a waste of time, and that the materials science community – one that is generally in the shadows of more grandiose fields such as astrophysics or quantum mechanics, according to UCL lecturer and television presenter Mark Miodownik – needs to start reconnecting with the public to help engage and get them onboard.
Dr Alan Leshner, former CEO of AAAS
Alan Leshner, former CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, argues that public faith in the sciences has never really wavered. But he cautioned against mishandling that trust, stating, ‘Hyperbole is the enemy of credibility. Some of our colleagues have forgotten that. A previous director of the National Cancer Institute promised the American public that if they supported the institute, it would solve cancer in 15 years. That was 15 years ago, you can decide for yourself how well that went. The overlay of credibility is incredibly fragile. Even though these are rare events, every time a scientist is found for misconduct, conflict of interest or failure to replicate research, they all nick at the patina and severely interfere with the credibility of science.’
The role of the scientist is changing – how do you communicate the importance of your work when the most impactful change will come 30 years down the line? How do you fight for funding against more salacious or commercial efforts? When once there was a time that talking with the public was considered ‘heretical’ (according to Leshner), now openly engaging with the public is of vital importance. Which has its own set of problems – many scientists are not ‘media-trained’, and may not elucidate themselves properly. Especially at a time when UK politicians can, with a straight face, argue that the public 'have had enough of experts.’
I’m sorry if you were expecting a conclusion, but I’m not sure I have one. It’s certainly too big a situation to be resolved in a humble blog. But do check out the magazine if you’re curious about these issues – you can do so on the Materials World App, subscribing to the magazine, and each of the aforementioned articles will be available on the IOM3 website. And please leave us a comment on the blog, we would be very interested to know your thoughts on the matter.
