Hot topics                    

POSTED: Mon 8 February 2010

RAPID ROUNDUP: Launch of National Science Communication Strategy: Inspiring Australia - Experts respond

Senator the Hon Kim Carr today launched Australia’s new National Science Communication Strategy, Inspiring Australia. The new strategy comes at a time when science underpins many of the major political and community debates and aims to build a strong, open relationship between science and society.

This report, Inspiring Australia: A National Strategy for Engagement with the Sciences, sets out why communicating science effectively is important for Australia and articulates key principles and measurable outcomes including recommendations on the media’s role in communicating science. Experts in the field of science communication offer their thoughts below. The report will shortly be available from the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research website (www.innovation.gov.au/inspiringaustralia)

This report follows on from a similar review undertaken in the UK which generated a series of recommendations to improve the way science is reported in the mass media.

Feel free to use the quotes below in your stories. Any further comments will be posted here. If you would like to speak to an expert, please don’t hesitate to contact us on (08) 7120 8666 or by email.

Professor Graham Durant is Director of Questacon in Canberra and is a lead author of the report.

“Australia needs a strong science base of institutions, infrastructure, people and resources where research is undertaken, knowledge generated and problems solved. Australia also needs a strong supply chain of future scientists, technologists, mathematicians and engineers to secure the country’s future as a knowledge economy. Public support for science cannot be taken for granted and that is why we must work hard to maintain the trust and respect of the wider community through our collective actions. That is why we are now looking at a strategy that will establish for the first time, a national approach to engaging the Australian population with the sciences. Such a strategy will require leadership by Government and coherent action from a range of national, state and community-based organisations and individuals. It will be necessary to strengthen the constituent parts of the national science communication system as well as the links between those parts.

Internationally, in the intensely competitive world of science and research, Australia must fight hard to hold its place and advance its reputation as a first class science and research performer and preferred partner in world-leading research collaboration. We need to promote and celebrate Australian science capability through effective communication of the research outputs.

The consultations that informed the Inspiring Australia Report revealed many excellent science communication initiatives from a vibrant and talented mix of participants across the country. The consultations also revealed fragmented and uncoordinated activities that were delivering uncertain outcomes as well as gaps in provision to under-served communities.

There was strong consensus on some of the key components that have been included in the strategy and a feeling that it is both timely and necessary to raise the level of activity and awareness of the contributions of the science communication sector. The next steps may not be easy because of the range of organisations, individuals and jurisdictions involved but the benefits locally and nationally will be significant if it all comes together over the next few years.”

Wilson da Silva is Editor-in-Chief of COSMOS magazine and former president of the World Federation of Science Journalists.

“Every year, we spend billions on research but very little on telling people about what scientists do and why it’s important. If science has such low visibility in public, and especially in our media, it has a direct effect on our economy: if Australians don't get science, they won't back government support of research, won’t invest in innovative companies, and won’t take science seriously as a career option for their kids.

A society that doesn't understand the value of science does not utilise it, cannot learn from it and risks not benefiting from it. You end with a nation that is not only unaware of its own scientific prowess, but unable to tap it. That’s why science communication is important, and this landmark report is a welcome first step in addressing this problem.

It’s not just about trying to excite kids into science, but to engage with society as a whole, and this report addresses this comprehensively. It’s also refreshing to see that the valuable role played by science journalists is recognised, and a number of ideas proposed to address the dearth of science coverage in our media.”

Dr Cathy Foley is a physicist and President of the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies (FASTS).

“Inspiring Australia – a national strategy for engagement with the sciences is a landmark report that has come at a critical time. A new national approach to communicating science will unite the sector and strengthen Australia’s prized and highly regarded scientists and scientific heritage. For example while it has been good that the climate change debate in Australia has elevated science into everyday conversation from the kitchen table to the boardroom, it is critical that the broader community understand the need for evidence-based outcomes that are backed-up by tested and proven research which is subject to peer review. This scientific evidence can often be a result of a lifetime of dedication and perseverance and it is integral to Australia’s future as a knowledge-rich country.

I hope that this national strategy will assist scientists in challenging and nurturing the enquiring minds of our youth by demonstrating science and science-related areas to be relevant, viable and rewarding career and will reassure parents that their son or daughter’s career decision is meaningful and important to the future of our country.”

Associate Professor Sue Stocklmayer is the Director of the Centre for the Public Awareness of Science at The Australian National University.

“I am delighted that Australia’s science communication is addressed through strong recommendations. In the past, we have not had a policy of collaboration between agencies, universities and other organizations concerned with this vital issue of communication with the public. Inspiring Australia provides an agenda for sharing best practice, more focused outreach, and serious research into communication strategies. I stress, however, that this rhetoric must be appropriately resourced. If support is not made available across the Science Communication community, we will remain fragmented and less effective.

Australia has a small population with a coherent body of science communicators. We now have an outstanding opportunity for exemplary public engagement. If environmental and other problems are to be addressed, the entire community must assist. The recommendation that scientists be trained to explain important issues in everyday terms is excellent. Research into public engagement is also recommended but Australia’s National Research Priorities do not include Science Communication. I urge the Government to add this to their list. It is critical that Australia has a leading international role in determining best practice, which will happen through evaluation, new strategies and a much deeper understanding by science communicators of the needs of our Australian Public.”

Professor Rob Morrison is a science communicator who has written numerous popular books on science and was a presenter of “the Curiosity Show” for many years.

“Whatever criticisms might be levelled at the report should be greatly tempered by the fact that the need for such an important strategy has been addressed, and comprehensively so. Nonetheless there are some areas that deserve, if not criticism, at least questions.

While correctly identifying various elements that would enhance a “scientifically engaged Australia” (p2), a pretty fundamental one is missing; that of helping people understand how science “works”. Such an understanding is crucial if we are to avoid the many confusions and misunderstandings that have bedevilled us (and the media) over issues like climate change, stem cell research, inoculation programs, GM technology, the importance of peer-review and so on.

Refreshingly, the report does not encourage re-inventing the wheel, and places great emphasis on the need to co-ordinate the activities of the many current bodies and organizations already involved in science communication, but it could be accused of overemphasizing some of these - particularly those whose personnel were involved in compiling the report - and neglecting others. For example, The Australian Science Communicators is a national society formed 16 years ago expressly to promote science communication; a need that this report now addresses. The society receives a brief mention (p18) but is omitted elsewhere (pp 14-15) and is not recommended for inclusion in the body proposed to take the national strategy further (p16).

The report identifies the value of awards and prizes in raising the profile of science and its communicators. While listing the Eureka Awards among these (p23), it is worrying in recommending only that the Prime Minister’s awards receive continued sponsorship (p25). These recognize excellent Science Research and Teaching, but it is the influential Eureka Prizes, especially those already sponsored by the Australian Government, that have science communication as their focus. It is disturbing not to see the report recommend their continued support as well.

The report correctly recognizes that universities have an important role to play in science communication, and that the government’s $8.6 billion expenditure on research is in no way matched by expenditure on communicating the results of that research (p1). The issue is far deeper than that. The career structure for academic scientists has, for many years, explicitly favoured those who undertake research reported in peer-reviewed academic journals and marginalised those who publish in the popular realm (p18). As a result, Australians have been denied field guides, text books, case studies and popular science books that are crucial aspects of science communication, and necessary elements in the cultural development that the report hopes to encourage. Profound changes to the ways in which university scientists are funded are needed if this is to change. The report wisely recommends media training for university scientists (p37), but it is more important to provide university scientists who wish to specialize in science communication with career pathways and rewards equal to those available to researchers, an essential mechanism fleetingly touched on (p19).

Consultations in the preparation of this report have been national and inclusive, and it is pleasing to see so many individual points from those consultations are listed in the appendix, and how many of them have been incorporated somewhere within the report’s deliberations. That should help ensure its ready reception by the many individuals and groups who, for a long time now, have been trying to lift the profile of science communication in Australia.”

Dr Susannah Eliott is the CEO of the Australian Science Media Centre.

“This is the first time a comprehensive government review of science communication has been done in this country, a terrible oversight given the fundamental importance of science to people’s lives and the decisions they make daily about their health, technology and the environment. Trust in science has taken a nasty blow in recent months and it is essential that we figure out how to explain science and the peer review process honestly, warts and all. Too much science communication has become focussed on profile raising rather than the public’s need to know. Scientists should be encouraged to engage with the public at the times they are needed most and not just when they have a new discovery to announce. This means jumping into debates and being upfront and honest about what they do and don’t know. This type of engagement must be rewarded and acknowledged by institutions and funding bodies and not micro managed.

This report is a valuable first step in recognising this interaction as important and in making recommendations for improvement. It does have a number of outdated assertions, such as the idea that the general mainstream media is not interested in science, a statement that appears not to be based on evidence and does not tally with the experience of the Science Media Centre. Ultimately, though, the proof will be in the pudding since it’s one thing to talk about things like helping scientists to communicate better and another to actually make it happen. Much of this will come down to money and how much of it the government is able to spend on establishing solid new programs.”