The Purpose and Power of Science Communication

Until a few months ago, my 11-year old brother, the youngest member of our family, could barely keep his feet home. The same football-enthusiast is now worried about letting anybody out and has declared himself the protector. He has demonstrated a much better understanding of the importance of washing his hands regularly and maintaining surfaces like his study-table clean. Although I appreciate his improved hygiene practices, I believe that fear should not be the root of such change.

Trying times like the COVID-19 pandemic, call for an increased awareness; a strong ability to distinguish between fake news and valuable information on the internet, and a grasp of what proportion of the everyday chatter around the ongoing scenario is reliable.

How does one achieve this?

The relay of information from the scientific community to the general audience can be looked upon as a passage through multiple filters defined by the level of expertise of the “communicator”. Each filter eliminates a part of the essence to achieve focus on the perspective of the correspondent allowing room for the creation of biased opinions and the transmission of incomplete information.

The reason for the creation of such layers is that every research lab has its own theme and the work of every researcher is even more specific. The published papers and journal articles are hence, if accessible, not easily understood by every reader. The terminology used may even be unfamiliar to people from other areas of expertise not allowing direct correspondence. The pace of scientific advancements and the variety in viewpoints advocated by popular media, let alone the literature, leave many people confused. This complexity in the science of various things and phenomena is what necessitates a streamlined path of clear, effective, and audience-appropriate communication. 

As an immunologist myself, I understand how dear our exceptional results may be to us in the research community. Very often, we focus on stating the uniqueness of our observations and fail to express the significance of our findings and their relevance in the practical world. This leaves a majority unstimulated by what we find absolutely fascinating.

Relevance builds support.

If today’s world has plans to reduce the impact of climate change, or for certain vaccines to modify the disease-vulnerability charts, it is vital for those without scientific training to be sensitized. Not only will a sound communication system aid the understanding of the mass, but it will also encourage interdisciplinarity giving problems and questions a fresh perspective. 

The unparalleled health crisis that the world is facing may have explicated the need for a simple explanation of concepts, but it is not a new idea. There have always been polarized opinions about what we in the academic circles like to call “ground-breaking science” establishing the need for a more organised structure of communication. This can be dated back to the time of introduction of ideas like cloning and genetic manipulation in crops that are, even to-date, not accepted by many in the public.

How can the gap between science and the society be addressed?

Standing in the current day, we see that the world has traveled a long way on the path of science and is continually pacing ahead. Rejection of potentially revolutionary ideas can be replaced by meaningful debates in this setup given that there is excellent communication sparking interest in the society to learn more. 

A radical shift towards such a communicative culture will make science more open and accessible allowing scientific values to penetrate and integrate with the society. This will also solve issues like lack of funding for research facilitating a more thorough study of principles. Hoping for such a revolution may be ambitious at this stage, but in no way is it deemed impossible. Change is a process; it takes time. The expectation is that the post-pandemic era will mark the initiation of this change.