Communicating science effectively is an important channel to widen, considering that the goal of science is to expand our knowledge of the world and benefit humanity. If this is truly the goal, then it would be immoral to reserve new scientific discoveries to an elite few group of researchers. I feel like it’s a good sign that scientific journals are now focusing on how best to communicate science rather than how best to improve the scientific method. It signifies that the the scientific method and peer-review process is well-perfected.
The first step to allow communication between scientists and the public is the removal of stereotypes that the public believes about scientists. Many people view scientists as an unhuman group which has no regard for morals or religion. An effort needs to be made to educate the public about the true intentions behind scientists’ work, and portray them as a diverse group of people from various backgrounds.
Even after stereotypes are removed, scientists must be trained to translate their work for the community. As Leshner describes in his article, many scientists are stubborn about this and complain that this isn’t part of their “job description.” That is why it’s important to teach new generation of scientists that it is part of their job description. Or we should at least make an attempt to find people who are qualified to to serve as mediators between researchers and the community, such as teachers. Thankfully, much is already underway in terms of designing a scientific method for communication. Nisbet and Mooney describe how it’s imperative to make new findings appear relevant to the communities they’re revealed to in order to spark interest in the public. Especially in older populations, these articles talk about how most people don’t care for science unless they feel as if it personally impacts them.
Finally, I believe it’s imperative to establish trust between scientists and the public. Much skepticism exists against scientific work among the public. Some of it can be linked to corruption within science, but much of it can also be connected to the fact that people choose a narrow set of sources when reading their news. Nisbet and Mooney call this the narrow “framework” from which people get their information. People who only read the Wall Street Journal, for example, only obtain information that leans toward republican arguments. The public also needs to be educated on where to find proper and neutral sources to access in order to receive the most honest information. It’s only when superfluous skepticism is eradicated that scientific discoveries can make a quick impact on society’s political and moral decisions.
