Is there a proliferation of science communication?
Psychologists who write blogs, chemists who explain their research to children with Lego bricks or researchers who maintain their own active Twitter account of their own. Is this a meaningful use of time or a proliferation of science communication? “When it comes to communication, most scientists just do whatever.”
On a Friday afternoon in a room at VU University, 50 chemistry PhD students bend over the drawing program Illustrator. With any luck, most succeed that hour in getting a sphere with a bite out of it in 3D. This is the first step toward an attractive picture that will make a scientific study more likely to be read and better understood, is the idea.
“Knowing how to make a nice picture in Illustrator is something I wish I had learned as a chemistry PhD student during my studies,” says UvA PhD student Eva Meeus, organizer of an afternoon workshop on science communication together with fellow PhD students from the Holland Research School of Molecular Chemistry (HRSMC)a collaboration between chemistry research groups from the UvA, VU, Leiden University and Radboud University. In addition to the Illustrator workshop, chemistry PhD students that afternoon will also learn how to write a proper grant proposal and give a compelling presentation.
CV builder
The workshop afternoon is not an isolated event; science communication is popping up all over and around the university, from explanation threads on Twitter to children’s lectures in the Nemo science museum, to scientists at Lowlands. There is a growing awareness that science needs explanation, fueled by politicians and science funders who “force” scientists to engage in science communication by making it a condition for obtaining funding. After all, valorization—the responsibility to make scientific insights useful to society—is one of the three core tasks of the university, alongside research and education.
Meeus, a PhD candidate, has also noticed this. “You can no longer organize a congress without doing something about science communication, and to even be eligible for a research grant, you must have outreach activities on your CV nowadays. Although I really enjoy doing it, I sometimes feel like a bit of a resume-builder.”
It isn’t just scientists who are engaging in more science communication. PR and communications departments are also paying more attention to this topic. Whereas in 2009 only FNWI and FMG had a science communication adviser, now every faculty and the central team of press officers have one. According to the UvA press officer, this is not a sudden proliferation. “Much has been done in science communication for years. For example, the Nemo children’s lectures have existed for more than 10 years, although we are now seeing increasing attention to science communication in policy, such as in the Recognition & RewardsThis is a national program that aims to start judging scientists not only on research results but also on education and outreach. program.”
TikTok in 10 seconds
But what exactly is science communication? First of all, it is a catch-all term: it can be about better communication among researchers, recruitment campaigns for prospective students, or the translation of science to the general public. Researchers from Leiden University and the Athena Institute at the VU are investigating in the latter category to determine how to better bridge the gap between science and society. One of the motivating factors is that taxpayers have a right to know what is being done with their tax money, so when citizens cast their votes, they should know what they have a say in. The increasing polarization and distrust of science on issues directly affecting society such as corona and nitrogen policy are also cited as reasons to increase science communication.
Knowledge gained from that research does not always reach scientists who “must” do something about communication for their research grant. “Oftentimes researchers think for 10 seconds, come up with a TikTok video, a workshop, or a letter to the editor, and send it out into the world,’ says UvA physicist Ivo van Vulpen, who fulfills the position of extraordinary professor of science communication at Leiden University one day a week. ‘But more communication is not always better.’
No collective memory
According to Van Vulpen, there is still a serious battle to be fought. “Scientists have strict quality standards for their own research, but when it comes to science communication—very briefly—most of them just do whatever. There is often no form of evaluation, neither from the funding agency nor from the scientists themselves.”
While some things are already known about what does and doesn’t engage society, Van Vulpen remarks: “Sometimes things are thought up which the Ionica SmeetsIonica Smeets is professor of science communication at Leiden Universityens of this world know: that’s just not going to work. Other things that are effective are often not passed on. There is no collective memory through which we can learn from each other.”
There are initiatives for science communication, although the awarding of subsidies for it is often not systematic. Van Vulpen says: “The ImpactLab in Utrecht and Leiden measures the impact of scientific communication. They give scientists tools to clarify exactly what they want to achieve by ‘making an impact’ and to evaluate the projects, although the lab has since ceased operations because the grant has ended.”
Another initiative to professionalize science communication is the National Expertise Center for Science & Society that Education Minister Robbert Dijkgraaf established in April 2022, scheduled to launch this fall. The minister earmarked 10 million euros for the independent center to use to improve cooperation between science and society over the next 10 years.
Dominated by communication
Not everyone sees the point of a separate center of science communication, as literary scholar and UvA alumnus Liesje Schreuders pointed out at the time in an opinion article in the NRC. She was inspired by the philosophical pamphlet “Against Communication” by Mario Perniola at Schreuders, translated from Italian. “We live in a time dominated by communication. So there will be a center to communicate about communication. What I see is a scientific sector that wants to improve its position.”
Schreuders also sees that science is increasingly disconnected from society. “But you don’t improve that with science communication but rather with structural money for research and education.” Science can be explained, but that is the job of science journalists, according to Schreuders. Schreuders feels that science is not so much about greater understanding “because of course that is only possible to a certain extent,” but that the goal is for society to attach greater importance to science. “I understand the panic that scientists feel when they do fundamental research and it gets nowhere. However, it is important for democracy because ‘citizens’ don’t follow the results, and that in itself is spin.”
Tremendous results
Science communication, according to Schreuders, translates into scientists selling their own research, “with the best of intentions.” The fact that some science communication does indeed look suspiciously like marketing has also been observed by chief scientists Ionica Smeets and Alex Verkade in their action plan for the National Center for Science Communication. “We have spoken to scientists who proudly tell us that they have done science communication, and then show us a slick video presenting the research results in a very pompous way. Much of the communication is mainly a one-sided package of information without much input of knowledge from society,” according to the action plan.
That image can be damaging, Van Vulpen says. “News about professors winning awards or publishing in prominent publications does not tell the whole story. Research sometimes fails. Science is more than just top highlights. This sends the message that science is only for the extremely talented. But it’s also about portraying the process of science, a dialogue with society, and ensuring that more talent finds its way to the university.”
The second part of the series on science communication will be published next week.
