John Warren is increasingly frustrated

Scientists are being pressurised to engage the public in dialogue.

We are expected to engage fully in discussions with the public about our research and its wider environmental, health or ethical implications. Unlike our predecessors who were simply encouraged to go forth and educate the masses, or more politely ‘enhance the public's understanding of science’, we are told to be involved in a democratic two-way process.
Encouraging scientists to converse with the public raises a number of interesting issues.

First, are the two skills compatible? During my time in various British universities I have been fortunate enough to have worked in the same departments as a number of brilliant scientists of the highest international standing. However, some of these appeared to live on a different planet from the rest of us. Expecting them to communicate with the unwashed public in any meaningful way is like asking Gordon Ramsey for a plate of beans on toast.

But let’s be generous and assume that the majority of scientists are talented enough to unravel the mysteries of the universe and have the communication skills to purvey this understanding to non-specialists.

The public must understand
The next problem is that for a meaningful two-way discussion to occur between scientists and the public there must be at least some understanding on the part of the non-specialist. But this appears to be a politically unfashionable view, which is easy to dismiss as arrogance on the part of ivory-towered scientists.

I am currently involved in research in the controversial area of assessing the potential ecological impacts of the escape of genes from cultivation into the wild. I could use the debate about genetically modified organisms (GMO) to illustrate the problems that can occur when the scientific community tries to communicate with the public. But unfortunately the arguments here are so entrenched and the scientific facts so little understood that they have long since become irrelevant. Instead let me illustrate the problem with a project that was designed to find out how much the public value biodiversity.

Flawed democracy
The problem here is that, unlike the GMO example, the public are happy to confess their ignorance and admit to having virtually no understanding of what biodiversity is. So before we could ask them how much they valued biodiversity, we had to tell them what we meant by the term.

This is true focus-group democracy and it is fundamentally flawed. As with the GMO example, letting the public be involved in decision making in the absence of any real understanding does not work because the value that they ascribed to biodiversity in these discussions was simply a reflection of how important we told them it was the minute before. Would you apply such a system of consultation the next time your car needs fixing? Will you ask one qualified mechanic or take the average opinion of 100 members of the public?

Somewhere between these two extremes lies a workable mechanism for scientists to have a meaningful discussion about their research, its implications, risks and benefits with the public.  But it involves investing a great deal of time by both parties, grappling with the complex science before the ethical aspects can be addressed.

Efforts not rewarded
The demand for dialogue is one example of the way academics are being pulled in multiple directions by unequal forces. While the Research Assessment Exercise requires us to carry out research of the highest international standard, does it recognise our efforts to be involved in dialogue with the public? Will it help bring desperately needed funding into our department? Hardly at all.

Many British scientists are becoming increasingly frustrated with their lot. We are expected to do several very different challenging jobs all at the same time. Many of us are more than delighted to talk with the public about our science, but it has to be appreciated that this takes time and effort, and distracts from our research and teaching for which we are primarily paid.

To find time to write this article I am in the office late at night after the end of term, so is it any wonder that scientists are often ineffective at communicating with the general public? They have much more sense than to be worrying about science at this time of night and have long since gone down the pub to relax.

Dr John Warren is based at the Institute of Rural Sciences at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth